« AnteriorContinuar »
tc crifice, which was owing to what sacri"fice signified. The customs of the world "had made sacrifice the ordinary way of "addrefling God: it put the offerer in "mind of confessing his sins; and upon ** desiring reconciliation with God, and "being restored to his favour; or of being "admitted into friendship with him. No ,c wonder then, that that was imputed "commonly to the blood of the victim, "which was the real effect of solemn "prayer and a purified heart, since the one was the external and visible sign of the "other'".—Here then, we learn, from the ct Author's own words, in what fense he understood piacular sacrifices to be an application to be restored to favour, and the beginning of reconciliation. They were external, visible signs, or symbols, of a purified heart, of penitence, confession of sins, prayer for pardon, and a desire of reconciliation; and, as such, they were, when accompanied with the things which they signified, an application to be restored to favour, and the beginning of reconciliation. Very well! but then the Author ought to have considered, that this is not his notion of the symbolical nature and design of sacrifices; but a notion which he himself has expressly condemned, as an unjust and mistaken
r Page 312, 313.
taken representation of them. He ought to have remembred his own words, "Sa"crifices were always accompanied with *c prayers, or thanksgivings; and therefore M were not external rites by which prayer
or thanks were intended to be signified, "or the desires of the people were intended ** to be expressed3." Thus it appears, that the Author plays his game with two different notions of the symbolical nature and design of sacrifices, making use of the one or the other, just as the cafe and his own distress required1. But truly, this shuffling and doubling to get rid of difficultys, and to avoid the force of objections, odly demonstrates, that he was incapable of defending his notion of the symbolical nature and design of sacrifices, and to bring it to any agreement with piacular sacrifices', in particular.
The Author faith, the offender laid his hands upon the sacrifice; he confessed his fin; he promised and professed repentance; (to which he might have added; he prayed for pardon, and desired to be restored to favour ;) but till all this was done and over, he was an improper person to partake of the table of God, who was justly conceived to be displeased. And this he gives as the reason why the offerer did not eat any
"Page 300, 301.'
share of his sacrifice. Now all, that th« Author here says, is true; and yet, it is not a sufficient reason, why the offender sliould not have had a share of the sacrifice which he offered for his sin, for his own use; or the comfort of, what the Author calls, the symbol of friendship with God, viz. the eating with him at his table. The reason is obvious and evident, viz. because all, that the Author speaks of, was done and over, before the sacrifical animal was either slain or offered in sacrifice} and therefore, being done and over, its not being done and over could be no reason why the penitent offender should not have a share of the sacrifice, which he offered for his sin, to eat. On the contrary, since reconciliation and favour' were actually obtained by the means aforesaid, before the sacrifice was stain or offered, this was a good reason why the offerer should have had a share of his sacrifice to eat; provided his eating of it was a symbol of friendship with God, or a fœderal rite by which he renewed friendship with him. The reason therefore, which the Author gives for the owners of piacular sacrifices having no share of these sacrifices to eat, is no reason at all for it ; so far from it, that it is, upon the Author's own principles, a good reason why they should have had a share of them to eat..—This shews us again, how much the Author is puzzled with the difficulties
which attend his notion of the symbolical use and design of sacrifices, when he attempts to accommodate and apply it to piacular sacrifices.
Again., the Author fays, that the offender, who offered a piacular sacrifice, looked upon himself as in a state of offence —considered himself as guilty; and, therefore, could not presume to eat as a friend with God, but acted as under a fense of guilt, viz. by forbearing to eat. And ftill to the seme purpose, he was too much a criminal in his own opinion, to be admitted to God's table immediately.—In these words, the Author seems to make the offender's own opinion or fense of his guilt, the reason why he had no share of the piacular sacrifice, which he offered for his sin, for his own use. But this, I think, is both unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the declarations of holy scripture. In the law of Moses, we find, that God ordered all piacular sacrifices, either to be wholly burnt and consumed with fire; or some parts' of them to be thus consumed, and the whole remainder to be applied towards the maintenance of the priests; by which injunctions it was determined, that the owners or offerers of these sacrifices should have no share of them to eat. The offerers therefore of them, whether they had, or had not, a fense of their guilr, could have no share for their own use.
Their not eating, did not depend on their opinion or sense of their guilt, but on the command and appointment of God, who had ordered those sacrifices to be disposed of another way. Perhaps, I cannot express my sentiments, on this head, better, than in the Author's own words, who faith "What could not be vowed to God, nor w was the effect of free-will in the giver, "but was a demand upon him for some "offence, or for some impropriety, could "not any ways, in part or in whole, be "taken back, as if the owner had any pro"perty in it; nor could it be any way M with-held. It was all due to another, "and, therefore, the person that offered, *c or presented it, could have no share or "portion in it. In fin and trespass-offer"ings, therefore, the offerer could have "no pretence to any share in them; for *c that would have been, in effect, a drawc* back upon what was, by law, given for c* particular services'." This language of the Author is perfectly agreeable to that of the Levitical-law; but the reverse of that which we find in those passages of his book which I have been considering, though found in their near neighbourhood.
Secondly. The Author fays, "When a "man offered a burnt-offering, or a peace
, Page 283.