« AnteriorContinuar »
enjoy in his Paradifaical State. And that this . Rite, with all its Circumstances, was enjoin’d by God himself, and explain'd to our first Parent, is more than probable, even from the short account we have of those Times; fince we find his two Sons bringing their Offerings to a certain place, * and well apprised (by fome visible tokens no doubt ) when they were accepted; as that of Punishment. - [Taylor Script. Doct. of Attonement, p. 20. Forbes Thoughts on Religion, p. 124. Esay on the Nature and Design, &c. p. 32, &c.] Some as a Federal Rite between God and him, or a Form of entering into Friendship with his Maker : [ib. passun) and obtaining future Favours from him: yet there were others that seem to have had a higher view, for such view might be joined with some of those others abovementioned] denoting somewhat properly vicarious, at least in Suffering, though not in Punishment, and in a more special manner describing the Terms of that great Covenant, original Grant, or Promise, whereby Man was to be delivered from the effects of the first breach; which, as such, was in each Dispensation thought proper to be particularly distinguished. All which Appointments, Grants or Covenants, may likewise be understood (not in their literal, strict Sense, or as in themselves absolutely necessary, but) as so many gracious Schemes of Government, or convenient Methods of Divine Oeconomy ; treating Mankind, (not like Philosophers, but) as the generality of them always were to be treated ; and leading them gradually to as just and worthy Notions of God and themselves, as they became capable of receiving. — But to ascribe such an Institution, as this of facrificing Animals, wholly to the invention of Men, especially the Men of those times, seems very unnatural: of which more in the following Notes.
That this had actually such an effect upon the Jews, as we last mentioned; that they were led to expect an expiatory Sacrifice from the Messiah, and commonly thought and spoke of him in that capacity, seems probable from John's account of Christ at his very first appearance. Job.1. 29. [See Le Clerc or Lightfoot Harm: 529.] and again v. 36. from Isaiah 53.7. Comp. Aets 8.32. and Rev.5.12.
* See A Bp King's Note 81. p.466,&c. 3d Edit, or Mr. Bate on the Fall.
* Gen.4. 3, 4.
animal Sacrifice was rather than the other : and most likely accepted for that very reason, because it had been appointed by God himself, and was perform'd agreeably to his Command.
The Time of their Worship, seems likewise to have had the same Origin ; as well from God's blessing, and fanctifying the Seventh day; p and the ancient method of reckoning by Weeks ; || [a
| Heb. 11. 4. v. Interp. et Grot. in Gen. 4. Comp. Judg. 6. 21. 13. 23. and Lev.7.21.
a See Bp. Sherlock's Use and Intent of Prophesy, p.73, &c. or Rymer's Represent. p. 30. Ridley's Christian Pallover, &c. This one Article of the Distinction made between Abel's Offering, and that of Cain, which according to the Hiliory, was so notorious as to deject and irritate the latter, and which cannot, I think, be accounted for otherwise than by the Interposition of God; nor that remarkable Interposition solved on other Principles, than Cain's presuming to omit the prescribed Viktim, through his want of Faith, Heb. 11.4. (otherwise his Portion of the Fruits of the Ground, might well appear to be as just and natural a Tribute of Devotion from one in his province, as some part of the Flock was from his Brother; as we have not the least intimation of any
other difference in the sincerity of their Dispositions, whereon to ground the above Distinction between them) this, I say, feems a sufficient proof, that Sacrifice was of Divine Institution, and is but ill resolved by Spencer L. 3. c.4. S.2.
The same thing is inferred, with a good deal of probability, from the mention of those Coats of Skins which the Lord made for Adam and his Wife, Gen. 3.21. which seem most likely to have been of those Beasts that were offered in facrifice, and might perhaps be in some measure of the same intendment with that Sacrifice ; for the discovery of which, rather difficult and disagreeable way of Worship, one would think they thould stand in need of God's particular direction, as much, at least, as for that other, more easy and obvious one, of cloathing themselves.
Concerning the use and propriety of this kind of clothing at that time, fee Leland's Answ. to Chriftianity as old, &c,
P. 503, &c.
† Gen. 2. 3. Exod. 16.25, 26.
Gen. 8. 10, 12. 39. 27. Ecclu 22. 12.
method much more ancient than the observation of the seven Planets, to which Le Clerc ascribes it. Not. ad Grot. de Ver.1, 16. p.42.] As from the earliest observance of that Sabbath, in all Nations of the world;' without any ground in nature for such practice, or the least hint, or probability of its arising from soine Human Invention.
• Yoseph. contra Ap. L. 2. Exod. 16. Philo de Op. Mund. Selden de Jur. N. L.3. c. 10.11.&c. Eufeb. Evang. Præp. 13. 12. Grot. de Ver. L.1.c. 16. and Allix's Reflections, B.1.c.7.
c See Rymer's Represent. of Rev. Rel. c. 2. or Ridley's Chriftian Pafsover. And the fame may be said of Tithes. Jenkin, V.1.p.102. Authors on each of these points may be seen in Dr. Waterland's first Charge, p. 41. &c. On Sacrifices in parricular, Carpzov. Introd. p. 118. and Budde Hist. Eccl. Part 1. 5.1. 30.**.p.115. The Distinction that we meet with afterwards (Gen.7. 2. 8. &c.] between clean and unclean Beasts, which manifestly relates to Sacrifice, [v. Patrick, ib.] shew's likewise the continuance of that kind of Worship; and seems to prove that it was not owing to any human eitablishment, any more than this direction itself could be. And that the Men of these, as well as after Ages, had both fufficient authority, and instruction to use the Flesh of the former fort of Beasts for Food, as well as clothe or thelter themselves with their Skins, appears to me as plain, as that the tending and taking care of fuch was their chief business, and occupation. Nor can I comprehend what merit there could be at any time in their making Offerings unto the Lord their God of that which cost them nothing, of that which they could not eat; or how they came to distinguish (which they did very early] between Fat and Lean ; between the good choice pieces, and others; unless they had tasted them themselves : [v. Cleric. in Lev. 1. 2. 3. 3. and 4. 17.) though 'tis upon this chimerical fupposition, that the use of Animal Food was not included in the original Grant of absolute Dominion, given to Man, kind over all the Creatures, some of which could be of no other service to them] that the great Grotius, and others, founded their attempt to explain away all Animal Sacrifice, before the Deluge. Eædem pecudes, quæ ad efum, etiam (ad sacrificia a Noacho adhibitze ; scil. mundæ quotquot erant • Gen. 8. 20. Hic facrificiorum ufus cüm Diluvio sit antiquior, idem de pecudum esu nobis perfuafum, contra quam multi
And that in those days they had frequent intercourse with the Deity, and were made sensible of his peculiar presence in some places, appears farther, from his Discourse with Cain, both before and after the Murther of his Brother *; as also from Cain's. Complaint of being hid from his Facet; and his going out from the presence of • sentiunt. Neque enim Abel in sacrificium id obtuliffet Deo, quo vesci nefas credidiffet, et fruftra pavillet agnos quibus non licuisset uti. Quin ipsa distinctio animalium in munda . et immunda docet alia permiffa fuisse, alia prohibita. Ne
que enim in animalibus naturâ fuâ quicquam immundum. Sed immundum id cft ex lege, cujus efus interdicitur. Itaque illud, Gen. I. 29. Vobis erit in cibum, non solum ad plantas referimus, sed etiam ad Animalia, de quibus præcedenti versu actum fuerat.' Bochart. Hieroz. p. II. edit.4. Comp. Heidegger. Dissert. 15. de Cibo Antediluviano. Bp. Clayton's Answ. to Dr. Delaney, in the blood-eating Controversy ; or Effay on Sacrifices, p. 165, &C.
I am sorry to find here, that I have been differing from the ingenious Author of Philemon to Hydaspes, who in his fifth Part, is so far from allowing any kind of Sacrifices to be a Divine Institution, that he declares the general Notion of
the thing itfelf to be in every view of it so glaring an Ab• furdity, that he is amazed that it should ever enter into the
head of any Rational Creature.' p.10. I shall therefore add a few words more, in considering some of the Reasons offered to support this Declaration. First, • The very Idea of a Di• vine Being implies in it such a superior Excellency of Nature as to be wholly out of the reach of our good Offices.
He neither wants nor can receive Benefit from them' ib. Nor, Secondly, can we fuppose that the Gods should ever
be pleased with the mere waste of their own Productions, p. 13. Thirdly, · It gives one a very degrading Idea of their
Goodness to consider them as entering into a kind of Merchandize with Mankind, in the matter of their Favours,' p. 14. And p. 20, The Demand of the Life of a perfectly * innocent Creature, to be offered up in Sacrifice to God,
could give but small encouragement to hope that God in• tended to favour a guilty one.' • Gen.4.6,9. f 0.14. D
the Lord. I Nor is it at all likely that Adam, who seemed to be so well acquainted with the Voice of God in the Garden, * upon his Fall, should never have heard it there before, on other occasions.
In these times therefore God was pleas'd to manifest himself to the Senses of men, and visibly
But I cannot apprehend that such an Intercourse as was kept up between God and Mankind, by the forementioned Offerings, muit necessarily be taken in either the First, or Third of these Views; since the like Intercourse is not always so understood, even among Men ; some of whom are foo far exalted above others to receive any advantage from them, yet nevertheless expect fome dutiful Acknowledgement of the Benefits which they confer on others, and require frequent Testimonies of their Love: and why thould not we imagine a fincerely devout Sacrificer to the Deity, able to ine terpret liis Devotion in the same sense? or if led to a more grofs interpretation of it, why may we not even fuppofe the Deity condescending in that cafe to set him right, by some such kind expoftulation as the following? Will I eat the Flesh of Bulls, or drink the Blood of Goats? If I were hungry I would not tell thee; for the World is mine and the fulness thereof. Offer unto God Thanksgiving, and pay thy Vows unto the most High. And call upon me in the day of trouble ; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. Nor does there seem to be any more Merchandize in any sort of Sacrifical Offerings, than in those other of Vows, Prayers, Praises, and Thanksgivings, which still make up an essential part of our Religion ; froin their relation to which, the former always derived all their value, (v. Esay, p. 19, &c.] and were perhaps only a strong, lively manner of expressing them; [Qui facrificat id idem fignificat actione & gestu, quod qui precatur ore suo profitetur. Vitringe Dist
. V. 1. p. 289. Comp. Patrick on 1 Sam. 13.12.] nor probably more strong, and explicit, than might be necessary for the times; nor likely to convey any more degrad
ing 1 Gen. 4. 16. * Gen. 3.8.10. The curious Reader may be entertain'd with some ingenious conjectures concerning a full System of Religion and Morality communicated to Adam about this time, which Mr. Peters grounds on Job 28. 26. &c, and which he terms a Record of something Spoken by God to the firft Man, not to be met with in the Book of Genejis. V. Crit. Diir. Sect. 16. p.456.