Imágenes de páginas

priest nor the owners had any share at all: or, if he means, that there were some sacrifices of which the priest had a share, but not the owners; and other sacrifices, 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 sacrifices of which the owners had no share to eat, (and these were many,) the owners and God could not eat together, nor, consequently engage in, or renew friendship by this rite. Lastly, since there were sacrifices (particularly, those which the high-priest offered for the sins of himself and family, and for the sins of the congregation, and all burntofferings without exception) of which neither priest nor owner had any share to eat; since there were other sacrifices (all those that were offered for particular sins committed by persons who were not priests) of which the owners had no share to eat; since there were no sacrifices, but the peace-offerings only, of which both the priest and the owners had a share to eat; and, withal, since God neither did, nor could, eat any part of any sacrifice; with what propriety or truth could 'the Author say, thus they all (God, priest, and owners) did (in the affair of sacrifices) eat at the fame table? But some grains of allowance must be made to him for

this this round and unguarded assertion, since his hypothesis required him to fay so much, and the saying less would not have answered his purpose.

The Author now comes to his general conclusion from the foregoing premises, which he endeavours to strengthen by some new matter. "Eating then, fays he, of a fa"crifice implied a state of friendship betwixt "the offerer and God: and agreeably to the *c same manner or custom, the temple or "tabernacle was.God's house, the palace of fi the great king: the priests, that ministred '* to him, were his servants, who went be"tween him and his people: the altar is "called the table of the Lord', Mai. i. 12. '* And the offerings are called the bread of "God. To eat, therefore, of the sacrifi"sices offered to God, was to eat at his tat( ble, and of his bread. Now the owners ** of all peace-offerings, having a certain "share for themselves to eat, at the fame *( time that other parts were consumed on

"those who offered those sacrifices were ** looked upon as in a state of friendship ■? with God, and as partaking of the known "symbols of friendship, and thus in peace ** with him K"

Answ. If, by eating of a sacrifice, the Author means, as he must do, eating of a

f God's table, as it were

[blocks in formation]

sacrifice with God; eating of a sacrifice never did, never could, imply a state of friendship betwixt God and the offerer: the reasons are obvious, viz. because there were many sacrifices of which the offerers had no {hare to eat, and because God never did, in any case, or in any sense, eat of any sacrifice: for if the offerers, in many cases, did not eat of those sacrifices which they offered, and if God did, in no cafe, eat of any sacrifice with them; 'tis plain, that God and the offerers of sacrifice did, in no case, eat together; consequently that his and their eat* ing of a sacrifice together never did, never could, imply a state of friendship betwixt

them, or any thing else.- -The Author,

says, "Agreeably to the fame manner "or custom, (i. e. of engaging in friendship ** by eating and drinking together,) the tem'* pie or tabernacle was God's house, the f palace of the great king: the priests, that "ministred to him, were his servants, who "went between him and his people: the ** altar is called the table of the Lord; and *c the offerings are called the bread of God. "To eat, therefore, of the sacrifices offered *c to God, was, to eat at his table, and of M his bread."—Now all this (both the premises and the conclusion) 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 servants, or the altar his table, or the offerings his bread; or that the eating of sacrifices was to be considered as eating at his table, and of his bread, agreeably to the manner and custom of men's engaging in friendships and entering into covenants by eating together. For in all this language, there can be no allusion to such a custom among men, because there never was any such custom in being; also because there were many sacrifices of which the offerers had no share to eat; and because God did never eat of any sacrifice with the offerer. The owners, indeed, of peace-offerings, had a certain ihare of those sacrifices to eat, while other parts of them were burnt to ashes 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 said to -eat at God's table, and of his bread; yet God and they did not eat together; consequently, no covenant was entered into, nor friendship engaged in, by their eating together; of course, the offerers eating their share was no symbol of friendship with God; in the Author's fense. The Author's assertion, that the parts, which were consumed by fire upon the altar, were consumed (or eaten) as it were by God; is a pure conceit of his own, and such a conceit as is scarcely S 2 consistent

consistent with common sense: for how that which was reduced to ashes by the fire of the altar, should in any sense, be consumed or eaten by God, is what I cannot comprehend; especially, considering that that fire was not the shechinah, or symbol of the divine presence

Thus I have carefully examined whatever the Author has advanced to prove, upon the supposition, that eating and drinking together were customary symbols of friendship and federal rites among men; it is natural to conceive, that they would take the fame method, and observe the same rites, in engaging in, and renewing friendship with God, and make the fame rites serve for amity and friendship with hirri, as they did with one another; and that, in fact, they did so. And, I think, that upon a careful review of the answers 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


« AnteriorContinuar »