« AnteriorContinuar »
Upon the whole, it appears, I think, that God could not eat with the offerers of sacrifice in a literal sense, and that, in fact, he did not eat with them in a figurative or symbolical sense; consequently, that his and their eating together of sacrifices, as the dapes or furniture of a table, neither was, nor could be, a symbol of friendship betwixt them, or a federal rite whereby they engaged in, renewed, and kept up friendship with one another.
Secondly, As to the offerers of sacrifice; we are now to enquire, how far they were permitted to eat or drink, or did actually eat or drink, any part of those things which they offered in sacrifice. And, in examining this point, we shall find, that there was a long tract of time, in which it doth not appear that they had any share of the things, which they thus offered, to eat or drink; and that when they came, at last, to have a share of one species of sacrifice to eat, there were other species of sacrifices instituted, of which they were not permitted to eat any share; and these, such sacrifices as were of the piacular kind, and intended to be the means of engaging in, and renewing friendship with God.
First, There was a long tract of time, in which it doth not appear that the offerers of sacrifices had any share of the sacrifices which they offered, to eat or drink, viz.
from from the time in which Cain and Abel offered their respective oblations to God, down to the days of Jacob, if not much lower. For during this whole period of time, which comprehends above two thousand years, we have, in sacred history, no account of any person who did eat any share of any sacrifice which was offered by him; nor, indeed, is there any mention made of peace-offerings as being then in use, the only species of sacrifice of which the owners were ever allowed a share of for their own use. Wherefore it doth not appear, that the offerers of sacrifice, through this whole period of time, did eat or drink with God; or that the sacrifices which they offered were the dopes of a table, at which he and they eat and drank together, and, as such, symbols of friendship and federal rites.
The Author, to extricate himself from this difficulty, faith, "Though it be true "that we meet with no express mention of "peace-offerings before the law, and it "may seem strange that we have no ac*c count of them, when holocausts are so cc often mentioned; yet this is no argument "to prove that there were no such things "in practice. In an history of two thou'* sand two hundred years, or more, there "is no notice taken of any sacrifice at all, ** above five or six times: and in so short
. ** and ** and concise an account of facts, one must "not wonder if no mention is made of the "several sorts of sacrifices, or the various "rites used on such occasionsb." And agreeably to this hypothesis, he tells us in another place, "that both Cain and Abel "did eat of their oblations ——To all which I answer, that, in these passages, the Author doth not produce history, or evi* dence, but only supposes and forges facts without any history or evidence. This manner of arguing clearly shews us, what silly and wretched mists men, even of fense and genius, are, sometimes, driven to make use of, to support a favourite hypothesis, which tbey have adopted.
Secondly, When we come lower down to the days of Moses, we find, a law was given to the children of Israel, in which we have an account given of the divine institution of several species of sacrifices, viz. burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings: which are all the forts of sacrifices which are mentioned in that law. To these I shall add meat-offerings and drink-offerings, because, according to the Author's definition, they are true and proper sacrifices; though, indeed, they were no more than appendages of the burntofferings and peace-offerings. Here then
b Page 251, 252. * p. 179.
we are to consider, what share of these several sorts of sacrifices the offerers had to eat or drink.
(i.) As to burnt-offerings: this species of sacrifices had meat-offerings and drinkofferings annexed to it, Lev. xxiii, 12, 13, 18. Numb, xv. 1—12, 24. and Chapters xxviii. and xxix. Here then, there was, in our Author's phrase, the full apparatus of a table, flesh, bread, and wine: but then the owner of the sacrifice was nothing the better for it; for he was not permitted to eat or drink any part of these provisions. The whole apparatus was disposed of in the following manner, viz. The blood of the sacrifical animal was sprinkled round about upon the altar, and all the other parts of its body were consumed to ashes upon it by fire, Levit. chap. i. and chap. viii. 18—21. ix. 12—24.—The meat-offering annexed to this sacrifice, if the priest was the owner of it, was wholly burnt upon the altar, Levit. vi. 23. And if any other person was the owner of it, a memorial of it was burnt upon the altar, and the remainder was the priest's and his sons, Levit. ii. 2, 3, 9, 10. vii. 9, 10. And as to the drink-offerings, which were appendages of this species of sacrifice, the Author tells us, that they were poured out about the altar, particularly, at the south-west corner of it; for which he quotes Ecclus. 1.15. and Joscphus's Anti
quit. lib. iii. chap. x. where that Author lays, they poured the wine (wept lav Gapov) about the altar*. (to which he might have added Numb. xxviii. 7. In the holy place jhall thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the Lordfor a drink-offering.) and to the fame purpose, he says, "the wine, "among the Jews, was poured out about "the altar,—and the offerer did not taste cc of it in the temple, any more than the "priests did'." Here then was a species of sacrifice, which, with its appendages, furnished out the full apparatus of a table, flesh, bread, and wine: and yet, from the way and manner in which the whole apparatus was disposed of, 'tis manifest, that it was not intended to be an entertainment of which God and the offerers were to eat and drink together. God did not eat or drink any part of it; and the offerers were not permitted to have any, even the smallest, mare of it for their own use. Wherefore, the sacrifices of this species could not be, in the Author's sense, symbols of friendship betwixt God and the offerers, or fcederal rites by which he and they engaged in, renewed, or kept up friendship by eating and drinking together.
(2.) Sin-offerings and trespass-offerings were other two species' of sacrifices, which
* Page 102, 105. F p. 104.