Page images
PDF
EPUB

the reader from the great celebrity of that writer, will natu rally be desirous to see.

"First, Every sacrifice, saith our Saviour, Mark ix. 49. is. salted with salt. This salt is called, Levit. ii. 13, the salt of the covenant of God; that is, a symbol of the perpetuity thereof. Now if the salt which seasoned the sacrifice were sal fœderis Dei, the salt of the covenant of God, what was the sacrament itself but epulum fœderis, the feast of the cove nant?Secondly, Moses calls the blood of the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, wherewith he sprinkled the children of Israel when they received the law, The blood of the covenant which the Lord had made with them: this is, saith be, the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, Exod. xxiv. 8.-Thirdly, But above all, this may most evidently be evinced out of the 50th psalm, the whole argument whereof is concerning sacrifices: there God saith, verse 5. Gather my saints together unto me, which make covenant with me by sacrifice: and verse 16, of the sacrifices of the wicked, Unto the wicked, God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, and take my covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, &c.-Fourthly, I add in this last place, for a further confirmation, that when God was to make a covenant with Abram, Gen. xv. he commanded him to offer a sacrifice, verse 9, Offer unto me (so it should be turned) a heifer, a she goat, and a ram, each of three years old, a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. All which he offered accordingly, and divided them in the midst, laying each piece or moiety one against the other; and when the sun went down, God, in the likeness of a smoking furnace and burning lamp, passed between the pieces, and so (as the text says) made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land, &c. By which rite of passing between the parts, God condescended to the manner of men." The author then proceeds to show, that this custom of dividing the sacrifice and passing between the parts was usual with the Gentiles, and not unknown among the Jews: and upon the whole concludes, as a matter decisively established, that sacrifices were in their nature and essence federal feasts, wherein God deigneth to entertain man to eat and drink with or before him, in token of favour and reconcilement." (Works of Joseph Mede, p. 170-172.)

The opinions and arguments of a divine so learned, and a reasoner so profound as Joseph Mede, should not be approached but with reverence: yet upon close examination it must be evident that this great man has here arrived at a conclusion not warranted by his premises. For, as to his first argument, it manifestly proves no more than this, that the

Jewish sacrifices, which were all offered under and in refer ence to the covenant which God had originally made with the Jews, (Lev. ii. 13. and Ex. xxiv.) were always accompanied with that which was considered to be a symbol of the perpetuity of that covenant. In this there was evidently nothing federal, nothing which marked the entering into a present covenant, or even the renewing of an old one, but simply a significant and forcible assurance of the faithfulness of that great Being with whom the national covenant of the Jews had been originally entered into.

If this reasoning be just, and I apprehend it cannot be con troverted, the whole strength of the cause is gone: for the remaining arguments, although they undoubtedly establish this, that some sacrifices were of the nature of federal rites, yet they establish no more: so that the general nature of sa crifice remains altogether unaffected. In those cases also, where the sacrifice appears to have had a federal aspect, the true state of the matter is probably this, that where there was a covenant, there was a sacrifice also to give solemnity and obligation to the covenant, sacrifice being the most solemn act of devotion, and therefore naturally to be called in for the enforcement of the religious observance of any compact engaged in. Thus, the sacrifice being but the accompaniment of the covenant, does not necessarily partake of its nature. In other words, although it be admitted, that where there was a covenant there was also a sacrifice; it by no means follows that wherever there was a sacrifice there was also a cove nant. That some sacrifices therefore had a federal relation, proves nothing as to the nature of sacrifice in general: and the conclusion which we had before arrived at remains, consequently, unshaken by the reasons which have been adduced by Mede.-Bishop Pearce's Two Letters to Dr. Waterland may be read with advantage upon this subject, although they contain many particulars in which the reflecting reader will probably not concur.

No. L-BISHOP WARBURTON'S THEORY OF THE ORIGIN

OF SACRIFICE.

PAGE 40. (c)-Bishop Warburton (Div. Leg. B. ix. ch. 2.) represents the whole of sacrifice as symbolical. The offerings of first-fruits he holds to be an action expressive of gratitude and homage: and in this way he accounts for the origin of such sacrifices as were eucharistic. But aware of the insufficiency of the theory, which places the entire system of sacrifice on the ground of gifts, he proceeds to explain the na

ture of expiatory sacrifice in the manner described in the to which this Number refers.

page

It is to be lamented, that an ingenious writer, of whom I have had occasion in another place to speak in terms of commendation, should, in his view of the Bishop's opinions upon this subject, have permitted himself to give support to that which is certainly not among the most tenable of his lordship's notions; namely, the idea of the human origin of sacrifice. This too (though probably not so intended by the au thor,) has been done in a way which has a powerful tendency to mislead the unwary reader: the professed object being to exhibit an impartial enumeration of the arguments on both sides of the question, whilst in truth a preponderating weight has been studiously cast in favour of one. I allude to Mr. Pearson's Critical Essay; in the ivth section of which, the reasoning of Spencer and Warburton, in defence of the heathenish origin' and subsequent divine adoption of the rite of sacrifice, are treated with a complacency which they but ill deserve. The reasonings themselves, as they are elsewhere in this work largely considered, I shall not here stop to consider.

No. LI. THE SUPPOSITION THAT SACRIFICES ORIGINATED IN THE IDEA OF GIFTS ERRONEOUS.

PAGE 40. (d)--Dr. Rutherforth, in a communication to Dr. Kennicot, collects from Gen. iv. 20. that the introduction of property, or exclusive right, amongst mankind, is not to be fixed higher than the time of Jabal, the eighth from Adam. He is there said to have been the father, or first inventer of p: that is, says Rutherforth, not as we translate it, the father of such as have cattle, (for he was clearly not the first of such, Abel having been a keeper of sheep long before,) but of private property; the word np signifying strictly possession of any sort, and being so rendered in the Syriac version. (Kennic. Two Dissert. App. p. 252-254.) In addition to this it may be remarked, that the word л seems to have been applied to cattle, merely because cattle were, in the earliest ages, the only kind of possession; and that, when there is nothing in the context to determine the word to that application, it can be considered only in its original and proper sense, namely possession.

But whether this idea be right or not, it is obvious that a community of goods must have for some time prevailed in the world; and that consequently the very notion of a gift, and all experience of its effect upon men, must have been for a length of time unknown. And if the opinion be right, that

LL

sacrifice existed before Abel, and was coeval with the fall; it becomes yet more manifest, that observation of the efficacy of gifts could not have given birth to the practice, there being no subjects in the world upon which Adam could make such observation. Besides, as Kennicot remarks, (Two Diss. p. 207.) "no being has a right to the lives of other beings, but the Creator or those on whom he confers that right;" if then God had not given Abel such a right, (and that he did not confer it even for the purposes of necessary food, will appear from the succeeding Number,) even the existence of the notion of property, and the familiar use and experience of gifts, could not have led him to take away the life of the animal as a gift to the Almighty; nor, if they could have done so, can we conceive, that such an offering would have been graciously accepted.

No. LII.-ON THE DATE OF THE PERMISSION OF ANIMAL FOOD TO MAN.

PAGE 40. (e)-The permission of animal food evidently appears from scripture to take its date from the age of Noah: the express grant of animal food then made, clearly evincing that it was not in use before. This opinion is not only founded in the obvious sense of the passage, Gen. ix. 3. but has the support of Commentators, the most distinguished for their learning, and candid investigation of the sacred text.* But, as ingenious refinements have been employed to torture away the plain and direct sense of scripture upon this head, it becomes necessary to take a brief review of the arguments upon the question.

Two grants were made; one to Adam, and one to Noah. To Adam it was said, Gen. i. 29, 30. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth; and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree, bearing seed, to you it shall be for meat; and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. Again, to Noah it is said, Gen. ix. 3. Every moving thing that liveth, shall be meat for you; EVEN AS THE GREEN HERB HAVE I GIVEN YOU ALL THINGS. Now, whilst the obvious inference from the former of these passages is, that God's original grant of the use of his creatures for food, was confined to the vegetable creation; the conclusion to be drawn from the latter is found to

* See Munst. Vatab. Clar. Grot. and Le Clerc, on Gen. ix. 3. also Shuckf Cannex. vol. i. p. 81. and Kennic. Two Diss. p. 70.

be precisely similar, inasmuch as, had animal food been before permitted for the use of man, there had been no occasion for the specific grant to that purpose now made to Noah. And, in perfect agreement with this reasoning, we find the scripture history of the period antecedent to the flood, entirely silent concerning the use of animal food.

Dr. Sykes, however, can see nothing in the first grant to Adam, "but a general declaration of a sufficient provision for all creatures;" nor in the second to Noah, "but a command to slay before they ate flesh:" flesh having from the first been used for food. (Essay, &c. pp. 177, 178.) In support of these extraordinary positions, he employs arguments not less extraordinary.

. 1. He contends that the former grant is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations; for that, as some creatures were not formed for living on herbs, and some herbs were of a poisonous quality, the grant cannot be supposed to extend to every green herb; and hence he infers, that the grant cannot be interpreted as enjoining or prohibiting any particular species of food; and that consequently animal food may be included. (p. 169-171.) But it seems rather a strange inference, even admitting the existence of noxious vegetables at the time of the grant, that because it must in propriety be limited to a certain description of the things generally permitted, it might therefore be extended to a class of things never once named; or that, because a full power was given to man over all herbs, to take of them as he pleased for food, whilst some would not answer for that purpose, the dominion given was not therefore to relate to herbs, but generally to all things that might serve for human sustenance.

But 2. He maintains, that, at all events, this grant of herb and tree for the food of man, does not exclude any other sort of food, which might be proper for him. And to establish this, he endeavours to show, (p. 171-177.) that the declaration to Noah did not contain a grant to eat animal food in general, but only some particular sorts of it, such as are included in the word w, by which he understands creeping things, or such animals, as are not comprehended under the denominations of beast and fowl; so that, admitting this to be a grant of something new, it was yet by no means inconsistent with the supposition, that sheep, oxen, goats, and such like animals had been eaten from the first. Now, this directly contradicts his former argument. For if, as that maintains, the grant to Adam was but a general declaration of abundant provision, and consequently leaving man at full liberty to use all creatures for food, why introduce a permission at this time respecting a particular species of creatures?

« PreviousContinue »