It might be further objected, that it is inadmissible to understand here, that in the gender and color of the animal sin is signified, while in other sin-offerings, the quality common to them with this is not symbolized in this way. But this objection is entirely without force, since the feminine gender and red color are peculiar to this case. But only in accordance with our view can an appropriate explanation of the peculiarity of this case be given. Since sin was here made so specially prominent a thing, and was even symbolized by gender and color, as is done in no other case, it is clear that this uncleanness was the greatest of all, that the lawgiver aimed at awakening a just abhorrence of death, and accordingly of sin whose type and penalty it is. In it is also shown, in the most striking manner, that we are dead through trespasses and sins, νεκροὶ τοῖς παραπτώμασι καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις.*

If it be now established, that the red heifer was a type of sin, we have a remarkable parallel from Egyptian antiquity. "In the symbolic colors, as arranged by the Egyptians," says Drumann, in the passage before quoted, “black was the color of death and mourning, for slaughter and its author the red color was chosen." Herodotust says, the animals designated for sacrifice were among the Egyptians accurately

aqua ad manus a sordibus purgandas usurpata lavanti quidem munditiem affert, dum interim puritatis propriae jacturam patitur. Ille, cui hircum piacularem dimittendi provincia demandata est et sacerdos qui juvencum pro expiatione combussit, immundi facti sunt, nec iis ad sanctuarium aditus concessus, donec vestes et corpora abluissent; eo quod populi immunditiae in animalia illa, prout corporis sordes in aquam purgatricem transire atque adhaerere crederentur." Pfeiffer expresses himself still more definitely, Dubia Vex. p. 290: "Polluebat mundos, quia imputative erat piaculum sive catharma, praefigurans Christum, pro nobis factum xarápav. Gal. 3: 13. 2 Cor. 5: 21. Mundabat vero gavτiouós aquae, ejus cinere et quasi pulverisato sanguine mistae pollutos, designans avtiquòv sanguinis Christi nos ab omnibus peccatis mundantis et expiantis.

*

Eph. 2: 1, 5. Col. 2: 13.

† B. 2. c. 38.

examined beforehand, and if only one black hair was found on the bullock, it was proved unsuitable for offering. What Plutarch says in his book on Isis and Osiris, performs the office of a commentary on this passage. We see from it, that the animals offered must be throughout entirely red: "The Egyptians, since they suppose that Typhon is of a red complexion, devote to him red bullocks, and they institute so close an inspection of them, that they consider the animal unfit for sacrifice if a single black or white hair is found on him." Besides, says Plutarch, the Egyptians celebrated certain feast days, on which they, in order to revile and disgrace Typhon, abused men who had red hair. Diodorus,t of Sicily, says, in ancient times the Egyptians offered men, who like Typhon had red hair, at the tomb of Osiris.

Now the choice of red color to designate the evil and the base is not certainly arbitrary. It depends in all probability among the Egyptians, as among the Hebrews, upon the fact that red is the color of blood. Thence it might be supposed that both of these nations came independently of one another to one and the same symbolic designation. With reference to this, it is proper to remark further, that these two are the only nations among whom red is found as a fixed and nationally recognized designation of evil, and that the connection of the color with the thing designated is a looser one,

According to Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2. S. 234, Typhon has the red color, "as the personified burning heat, which dries up the fertilizing Nile, and scorches everything." But no proof for this derivation of the red color is adduced., We could quote in our favor Goulianof, who, in the Archéologie Eg., Leipz. 1839. t. 3. p, 89 seq., has a separate section entitled: Étude des allegories de la couleur rouge, in which it is attempted to show, that red as the color of blood is the color of impiety. Compare the section, p. 422 seq.: Étude des allég. attaches a la couleur pourpre ou éccarlate. But we do not consider him as good authority.

than, for example, in the case of white as the color of innocence, and black as the color of mourning, then also, it may be added, that among both these nations this symbolic view obtains influence directly upon the offering of sacrifices, among the Israelites only in particular cases, but among the Egyptians generally. If we take this into consideration, a dependence of one of these nations upon the other will appear very probable, and then we can decide for ourselves whether the origin of the symbolic designation was not among the Egyptians.

Finally, it is evident from the foregoing remarks, that the Egyptian reference in Num. chap. xix, by no means respects the whole rite, but is a very partial one; it is limited to the identity of the symbolic import of the red color, to which may perhaps also be added, that the color has an influence in the choice of the victim. There is no direct authority, for finding, with Spencer,t who has followed Thomas Aquinas and Du Voisin, in the choice of the heifer instead of the bullock, which on other occasions was taken,

* Witsius, Aeg. p. 115, seeks to destroy the connection between the red bullock which was sacrificed by the Egyptians and the red heifer, by the following remarks: Aegyptii rufos boves immolabant non quod pretiosiores eos aut diis suis gratiores esse existimarent, sed ex odio et contemptu. Dictabant enim θύσιμον οὐ φίλον εἶναι θεοῖς. (Compare Schmidt, De Sacerdotibus et Sacrif. Aeg. Bähr, Symbol. Th. 2. S. 235.) But if the significance of the red color of the heifer is correctly determined, this remark serves rather to bring both nearer each other.

This author, p. 486, after he has referred to passages by which it is proved that the cow is considered sacred among the Egyptians, says: Cum itaque eo dementiae et impietatis prolapsi essent Aeg., ut vaccam tanto cultu studioque honorarent: deus vaccam multa cum cerimonia mactari voluit et lixivium ex illius ceneribus ad populi immunditias expurgandas confici; ut Aeg. vanitatem sugillaret et per hanc disciplinam, cum Aegypti more sensuque pugnantem, Israelite ad cultus illius vaccini contemptum atque odium sensim perducerentur.

a reference, and indeed a hostile one, to an Egyptian custom, he supposes the designation of the heifer for an offering of purification is a practical derision of the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow,-since the choice of the heifer is sufficiently explained by the reasons already given, without such a reference. Yet it may be remarked, that the position taken by us, by no means excludes the reference claimed by Spencer, but on the other hand, both may very easily be reconciled. If the heifer was chosen instead of the bullock commonly offered, in order to designate it as impersonated sin, there would even in this be found the strongest opposition to the Egyptian notion of the sacredness of the cow.

LAWS WITH REFERENCE TO FOOD.

The Egyptians and the Israelites stand alone among the nations of antiquity, in reference to the great care which they bestowed upon the selection of food. Among both, regulations of this kind had extensive influence. Through these laws, some of the most important means of subsistence were either withdrawn, or at least made odious, as, for example, fish, which could not be eaten by the priests,* and the leguminous fruits. How much the regulations which had reference to food influenced them in life, is best shown by the passages collected by Spencer.‡

This fact indeed leads us to conjecture, that the Israelitish laws respecting food, were not without an allusion to Egyptian customs. If no such thing is supposed, the coincidence perceived between the two nations appears very remarkable.

* See Herod. 2. 37. Plut. De Isid, et Os. p. 363.

+ Larcher zu Herod. 2. S. 252 ff.

Page 130. See also the wonderful passage of Porphyry, De Abstinentia, B. 4. c. 7.

That the admission of such a reference detracts from the dignity of the Israelitish law, no one should affirm. This depends wholly upon the manner in which the reference is understood. That a distinction of food originated very anciently, is indeed certain without argument, since the different nature of animals, in very many respects, speaks a language of signs, clear without reasoning to the allegorizing mind of antiquity. Thus, we find, even in the time of the flood,* the distinction made between the clean and unclean beasts and birds. But that a beginning merely was made so anciently, these same passages show, since there is not a trace of a distinction between the clean and unclean wild beasts found in them. Now in Egypt from these first elements a complete system was formed. The Mosaic code of laws found a people which was accustomed to a distinction of food of extensive application. In these circumstances it was natural,-which, in case the Israelites yet occupied the position of the patriarchs, would have been entirely unnatural, that the laws of diet had reference, not merely to individual things, but that they extended into the whole province concerned, even to its furthest limits, and arranged all its parts with respect to the fundamental idea of the Israelitish religion. The fear of too great minuteness could not here have had any place, since the laws were made for a people accustomed to law, and its advantages and blessings would not be allowed to remain unenjoyed. Besides, if the ground had been left unoccupied, it would have been immediately seized upon, or rather retained in possession by the opposer, whom it was important to expel from the borders of the Israelitish jurisdiction in which he had already so strongly intrenched himself.

Not the existence alone of certain dietetic rules is common to the Egyptians and Israelites, but they also both agree

* Gen. 7: 2, 3. 8: 20.