« AnteriorContinuar »
newisftrtrffliip by eating and drinking together.
But to get rid of this difficulty, the Author fays, "that peace-offerings were regu"farly and constantly joined to burnt-offer*c ings, sin-offerings, and trespass-offerings, cc in all private sacrifices;" and that, in these peace-offerings, God and the owners did eat together, which eating together was a symbol of friendship betwixt them, or a federal rite by which he and they engaged in and renewed friendship with one another. Now if all, that the Author here contends for*, should be granted to him, yet it is still manifest, that God and the owners did not eat together of any of the piacular sacrifices mentioned; and that the peace-offerings, which were joined to these, were the only sacrifices of which he and they did eat together: consequently, these peace-offerings -were the only sacrifices wrfich could, in the Author's fense, be symbols of friendship, or fœderal rites by which he and they did engage in, and renew friendship by eating together: for, as to the piacular sacrifices, to which these peace-offerings were joined, it is, in the nature oi the thing, impossible, that they should have been symbols or federal rites of this kind, because the owners had no share of them to eat.
U 2 But,
But, what is still worse for the Author, is, that though he affirms roundly that peaceofferings were regularly and constantly joined to all private sacrifices of the piacular kind, under the Mosaic dispensation; yet, in truth, there was no piacular sacrifice of a private nature, under that dispensation, (excepting those which were offered by the Nazarite, when the days of his purification were fulfilled, Numb. vi. 14.) which had peaceofferings joined to them. This appears from Levit. iv. 22—35.—Chap. v.—Chap. vi. 1—7. Chap. ix. 2, 8—14. and Chapters xii. xiv. xv. and Chap. xv. 3, 6, 11-—14, 24, 27. Yea, even in some of the public piacular sacrifices, it doth not appear, that any peace-offering was joined to them. Vide Levit. iv. 13—21.—xvi. 5, 7—9, 15, 24, 27. Now since the owners of piacular sacrifices had no share of them to eat; and since the piacular sacrifices, just now mentioned, both private and public, had no peace-offerings joined to them; the shift, which the Author uses to get rid of the difficulty, can avail him nothing: nor enable him to shew, that the many piacular sacrifices, which had no peace-offerings joined to them, were in his fense, symbols of friendship betwixt God and the offerers, or fœderal rites by which, he and they engaged in, or renewed friendship, by eating together.
But that which bears hardest of all upon the Author, is, that, even in peace-offerings themsclves, as I have shewed before, God and the owners did not eat or drink together. And, therefore, if it were true, as it is not, that peace-offerings had, in all cafes, been joined to piacular sacrifices, this would not have relieved the Author from the difficulty with which he is pressed, nor have enabled him to prove that any kind of sacrifice, whether piacular or eucharistical, was a symbol of friendship in his fense, or a fœderal rite by which God and the offerer engaged in, renewed, or kept up friendship with one another, by eating or drinking together.
I have now considered and examined all those passages, in which the Author endeavours to shew, that his notion of the symbolical nature and design of sacrifices is applicable to piacular sacrifices, of which the owners had no share to eat or drink: and have, I think, made it abundantly evident, that all that he has advanced in those passages, as a proof of this point, only serves to exhibit the confusion and distress into which he is brought by his attempt to prove it.
s •• • i : r ;-w..ul -bne
T H E C O N C L ;U S I O.fcU
In the foregoing sheets, I have, ,1 think, proved, that the Author's notions or the nature and design of sacrifices are neither uniform nor consistent: that he has failed in th^ proof of the grand fact, which is the of his whole system, viz. That eating and drinking together, was, at the time when Us* crifices first began to be offered, a foederal rite, or a known, customary rite by which men engaged in, renewed, and kept us* friendships with one another: that, supposing it to have been, at that time, a rite which was used among men for ^hese purposes, yet it is not natural to conceive, that they would have taken the fame method, and observed the same rite, in engaging in, and renewing friendship with God; and that the pretended evidence, by which the Author endeavours to prove that they actually did this, is, in all its parts, faulty, weak, and fallacious: and, finally, that his notion of the symbolical nature and design of sacrifices is such as can be brought to no consistency or agreement either with the nature of God, or with real fact, that is, with the way and manner in which, the scripture informs us, the things which were offered in sacrifice were disposed
of.— of.—These premises will, I think, warrant and support this conclusion, viz. That the Author's system, in all its -parts, is not only unsupported by evidence, but absurd and unscriptural.
Having now finished my design, I shall not encroach any further upon the time and patience of the ingenious reader; but conclude this appendix with my sincere desire, that it may answer my end in writing it, by being a mean of guarding men against a chimerical and unscriptural notion of the use and design of sacrifices, and of putting those of learning and capacity upon inquiries after the true scripture-doctrine about the nature and end of these institutions, which are the only things I aim at.
it'.' '• '» '. • r' .i
. r ,' . . " .' • • i.