Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

prieft nor the owners had any fhare at all: or, if he means, that there were fome facrifices of which the priest had a share, but not the owners; and other facrifices, of which both the priest and the owners had their proper and respective shares to eat; this is very true: but then it comes not up to the Author's purpose, because, in all these facrifices of which the owners had no fhare to eat, (and these were many,) the owners and God could not eat together, nor, confequently engage in, or renew friendship by this rite. Laftly, fince there were facrifices (particularly, those which the high-priest offered for the fins of himself and family, and for the fins of the congregation, and all burntofferings without exception) of which neither prieft nor owner had any share to eat ; fince there were other facrifices (all those that were offered for particular fins committed by persons who were not priests) of which the owners had no fhare to eat ; fince there were no facrifices, but the peace-offerings only, of which both the priest and the owners had a fhare to eat; and, withal, fince God neither did, nor could, eat any part of any facrifice; with what propriety or truth could 'the Author fay, thus they all (God, prieft, and owners) did (in the affair of facrifices) eat at the fame table? But fome grains of allowance must be made to him for

this

this round and unguarded affertion, since his hypothefis required him to say so much, and the faying lefs would not have answered his purpose.

The Author now comes to his general conclufion from the foregoing premises, which he endeavours to ftrengthen by fome new matter. Eating then, fays he, of a fa"crifice implied a state of friendship betwixt "the offerer and God: and agreeably to the "fame manner or cuftom, the temple or "tabernacle was God's house, the palace of "the great king: the priests, that miniftred

to him, were his fervants, who went be. "tween him and his people; the altar is "called the table of the Lord, Mal. i. 12. "And the offerings are called the bread of "God. To eat, therefore, of the facrifi"fices offered to God, was to eat at his ta

[ocr errors]

ble, and of his bread. Now the owners "of all peace-offerings, having a certain "fhare for themselves to eat, at the fame "time that other parts were consumed on "God's table, as it were by him,-Hence "those who offered thofe facrifices were "looked upon as in a ftate of friendship "with God, and as partaking of the known fymbols of friendship, and thus in peace " with him,"

L

ANSW. If, by eating of a facrifice, the Author means, as he must do, eating of a facrifice

S

* Page 79, 80.

facrifice with God; eating of a facrifice never did, never could, imply a ftate of friendship betwixt God and the offerer: the reafons are obvious, viz. because there were many facrifices of which the offerers had no fhare to eat, and because God never did, in any cafe, or in any fenfe, eat of any facrifice for if the offerers, in many cafes, did not eat of those facrifices which they offered, and if God did, in no cafe, eat of any facrifice with them; 'tis plain, that God and the offerers of facrifice did, in no cafe, eat to gether; confequently that his and their eat ing of a facrifice together never did, never could, imply a state of friendship betwixt them, or any thing else.The Author, fays, Agreeably to the fame manner "or cuftom, (i. e. of engaging in friendship "by eating and drinking together,) the tem"ple or tabernacle was God's house, the "palace of the great king: the priests, that "miniftred to him, were his fervants, who

[ocr errors]

went between him and his people: the

altar is called the table of the Lord; and "the offerings are called the bread of God. "To eat, therefore, of the facrifices offered "to God, was, to eat at his table, and of "his bread."--Now all this (both the premifes and the conclufion) is true: and yet, what the Author aims at, and, indeed, the only thing that can answer his purpose, will not follow, viz. That the temple or tabernacle

tabernacle was called God's house, or the priests his fervants, or the altar his table, or the offerings his bread; or that the eating of facrifices was to be confidered as eating at his table, and of his bread, agreeably to the manner and cuftom of men's engaging in friendships and entering into covenants by eating together. For in all this language, there can be no allufion to fuch a custom among men, because there never was any fuch cuftom in being; also because there were many facrifices of which the offerers had no fhare to eat; and because God did never eat of

any facrifice with the offerer. The owners, indeed, of peace-offerings, had a certain fhare of those facrifices to eat, while other parts of them were burnt to afhes upon the altar. But then the parts, which were burnt upon the altar, were not eaten by God and, therefore, although the offerers did eat their own share, and might be faid to eat at God's table, and of his bread; yet God and they did not eat together; confequently, no covenant was entered into, nor friendship engaged in, by their eating together; of course, the offerers eating their fhare was no fymbol of friendship with God; in the Author's fenfe. The Author's affertion, that the parts, which were consumed by fire upon the altar, were confumed (or eaten) as it were by God; is a pure conceit of his own, and fuch a conceit as is scarcely S 2 confiftent

confiftent with common fense: for how that which was reduced to afhes by the fire of the altar, fhould in any fenfe, be confumed or eaten by God, is what I cannot comprehend; efpecially, confidering that that fire was not the fhechinah, or fymbol of the divine presence

Thus I have carefully examined whatever the Author has advanced to prove, upon the fuppofition, that eating and drinking together were cuftomary fymbols of friendship and fœderal rites among men; it is natural to conceive, that they would take the fame method, and obferve the same rites, in engaging in, and renewing friendship with God, and make the fame rites ferve for amity and friendship with him, as they did with one another; and that, in fact, they did fo. And, I think, that upon a careful review of the anfwers which have been made to every part of his reasoning upon these two points, it will appear to every judicious and unprejudiced person, that he has utterly failed in his proof of both. I now proceed to

SEC

« AnteriorContinuar »