§ 9. At the four corners, on the outside, were annexed to it four rings of gold, on each side two., Through these rings went two staves or bars, wherewith the ark was to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites, Exod. xxv. 11, 12, for the neglect of which service strictly enjomed them, Num. vil. 9, God made a breach on Uzza in the days of David, 2 Sam. vi. 7.
§ 10. The end for which God appointed the making of this ark, was to put therein n1y7, ‘the testimony, Exod. xxv. 16, that is the two tables of stone, on which were engraved by the finger of God the ten commandments which had been pronounced by the ministry of angels. Besides this, there was nothing in it, as is expressly affirmed, 1 Kings viii. 9. 2 Chron. v. 10; Deut. x. 2,5. The different idea which appears to be suggested by an expression of the apostle, Heb. ix. shall be considered in its proper
: § 11. This ark made at Horeb, 1 Kings viii. 9, that is, at the foot of the mountain where the people encamped, was finished with the rest of the tabernacle on the first day of the first month of the second year from the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, Exod. xl. 13. Wehave shown that it was the visible pledge of the presence of God amongst them; as such, it was placed with its tabernacle in the midst of the people, whilst they were encamped in the wilderness, they being distributed into four hosts to the four quarters of heaven, Numb. ii, that a blessing from thence might be equally communicated to them all, and that all might have an alike access to the worship of God. For the same purpose, it was carried in the midst of their armies when on their march, and a solemn benediction was _ pronounced when it began to set forward, and when it returned to its repository in the most holy place, Numb. x. 35, 36. This was the ordinary course in the removals of the ark. In an extraordinary manner, God appointed it to be carried before all the people, when the waters of Jordan were divided by his power, of which the ark was a pledge, Josh. 1. 15. But when the people, without the appointment of God, afterwards attempted to imitate this, carrying the ark with them in their wars with the Philistines, they received a sad reward of their temerity, 1 Sam. iv.
From the wilderness, the ark was carried to Gilgal, Josh. v. 10, from thence it was removed with the tabernacle to Shiloh, Josh. xviii. 2. Some suppose, that after this it was occasionally removed to Mizpeh, as Judges xi. 11, xx. 1, 27, xxi. 1, 2, because it is said in those places, that such things were done before the Lord in Mizpeh; but that expression doth not necessarily infer the presence of the ark and sanctuary in that place. Yea the context seems to intimate, that it was at another place distant from thence, as ver. 26. ‘They went up from the place of the assembly in Mizpeh to the house of God, where the ark was.’ In Shechem also it is supposed to have been, from the assembly that Joshua made there, ch. xxiv. 1, upon the close whereof he fixed a stone of memorial before the sanctuary, ver. 26. But yet neither doth this evince the removal of the ark or sanctuary. For Shechem being not far from Shiloh, the people might meet in the town for convenience, and then go some of them with Joshua to Shiloh, as it is most probable that they did. From Shiloh, it was carried into the field of Aphek against the Philistines, 1 Sam. iv. 2, and being taken by them, was carried first to Ashdod, then to Ekron, then to Gath, 1 Sam. v. It was then brought to Kirjath-jearim, ] Sam. vi. to the house of Abinadab, 1 Sam. vi., thence to the house of Obed-Edom, 2 Sam. vi., thence to mount Sion in Jerusalem, 2 Sam. vi. into a place prepared for it by David. And from thence was solemnly introduced into, and enthroned in the most holy place of the temple built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 6, 7. In the meantime, whether occasionally, or by advice, the tabernacle was removed from Shiloh, and that first place of the solemn worship of God altogether deserted, and made an example of what God would afterwards do unto the temple, when his worship was there also neglected and defiled, Jer. vii. 12, 14, xxvi. 6,9. In the temple of Solomon, it continued either until the captivity of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar took away all the goodly vessels of the bouse of the Lord, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, or until the captivity of Zedekiah, when he carried away all the remaining vessels, great and small, ver. 18. Of the Talmudical fable concerning the hiding of it by Josiah or Jeremiah, with the addition of its supposed restoration at the last day, in _ the second book of Maccabees, I have spoken elsewhere. Whether it was restored again with the vessels of the house of the Lord by Cyrus, is uncertain. If it was not, it was an intimation that the covenant made with that people was waxing old, and hasting to an expiration.
§ 12. The things that accompanied this ark in the most holy place, were the mercy-seat upon it, and on the ends of it the two cherubim. The mercy-seat, as to its making, form, use, and disposition, is declared, Exod. xxv. 17. Itis called M52, Cipporeth. “D2 signifies to hide, to cover, to plaster over, to shut, to plaster with Bitumen or pitch: im Pihel, to expiate sin, Exod. xxx. 10; Ley. iv. 10. If the name of the mercy-seat be taken from the word in Kal, it signifies only ‘ operimentum, tegumentum, tegmen,’ a covering, and so ought to be rendered. If it be taken from the sense of the word in Pihel, it retains the signification of expiation, and consequently of pardon and mercy. So it is by our translators rendered a mercy-seat, and that with respect to the rendering of it by the apostle, ἱλαστηριον, Heb. ix. as by the LXX. in this place, ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθετον, the propitiatory placed on the ark, The reference which this had to the Lord Christ, the apostle declares, Rom. iii. 29, and largely in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. ix.
§ 13. The mercy-seat was made of pure gold, and for its dimensions as to breadth and length, were the same as those of the ark on which it was laid, Exod. xxv. 17. And this mercy-seat, or covering of gold, seems to have been laid upon the ark within the verge of gold, or crown,’ that encompassed it, being itself plain without any such verge or crown; for it was placed mynd JINT dy, upon the ark, just over it, ver. 21, and so was encompassed with its crown, the glory both of justice and mercy, of law and gospel, being the same in Christ Jesus.
§ 14. At the two ends of this mercy-seat, were placed two cherubim, one at the one end, the other at the other, both of gold, and, as it should seem, of one continued work with the covering itself. The name of cherubim hath prevailed for these figures or images from the Hebrews; partly because it is retained by our apostle, who calls them cherubim of glory, χερουβειμ δοξης, Heb. ix. 5, and partly because the signification of the word being not well known, it cannot properly be otherwise expressed; for which reason it was retained also by the LXX. They were of those things which our apostle, ch. ix. 23, terms ὑποδειγματα των ev τοις ουρανοις; examples, expressions, or similitudes of things in heaven, the framing and erection of which in reference to the worship of God, is forbidden under the name of pow AWN min 55, Exod. xx. 3, ‘the likeness of any thing in the heavens above. The first mention of cherubim is in Gen. 11. 24. ‘God placed cherubim, which seems to intimate, that the proto-types of these figures were heavenly ministers or angels, though Aben Ezra supposes that the word denotes any erected figures or appearances whatever. Others of the Jews, as Kinrchi, think that the word is compounded of 5 caph, a note of similitude, and ΝΞ, a Chaldee word for @ child, and that it thus signifies like a child, this name being given to them from their form and shape. But this answers not to the description given afterwards of them in Ezekiel, much less will it answer to the same appellation given to the winds and clouds, Psal. xviii. 10. The word hath a great affinity with 3135, a chariot; accordingly the angels of God are called his chariots, Psal. Ixviii. 17. Thus also David calls expressly the cherubim that were to be made in Solomon’s temple, 1 Chron. xxvui. 16, gold for the pattern, Danan wasn, hammercheba hacherubim, ‘ chariot of the cherubim.’ Here the allusion is evident, and Ezekiel describes his cherubim as a triumphant chariot, ch. x. It is not therefore unlikely that their name is derived from 1535, which signifies to ride, or to be carried, to pass on swiftly, thus to express the angelical ministry of the blessed spirits above. Or perhaps they were rather mere emblems of the power and speed of God in his works of grace and providence.
δ 15. These Cherubims are said to be Mp, that is, not molten, but beaten, even and smooth, and seem to have been one continued piece with the mercy-seat, beat out with it and from it. There is no more mention of their form but only that they had faces and wings. Of what sort those faces were, or how many in number were their, wings, is not expressed.
§ 16. In Ezekiel’s vision of the living creatures, which he also calleth Cherubim, ch. x. 2, there is the shape of a man ascribed unto them, they had the likeness of a man, ch. i. 5, faces, ver. 6, feet, ver. 7, hands, ver. 8, sides, or body, ver. 8, 11, each of them also had four faces, of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, ver. 10, and each had four wings, ver. 23. In John’s vision in the revelation, which seems to correspond with this of Ezekiel’s Cherubim, from the eyes that his living creatures were full of, and from the appearance of their faces, they had each of them six wings, answering to those of the Seraphim in the vision of Isaiah, ch. vi. 2.
§ 17. The Jews generally affirm, that these visions of the glory of God granted to Isaiah and Ezekiel were the same, and that Ezekiel saw nothing but what Isaiah saw also; only they say, that Ezekiel saw the glory of God and his majesty, as a countryman who admires all the splendour of the court of the king, Isaiah as a courtier, who took notice only of the person of the king himself. But there are many evident differences in their visions. Isaiah calls the glorious ministers of God D°D1D, Seraphim, from their nature, compared to fire and light; Ezekiel D‘2192 Cherubim, from their speed in the accomplishment of their duty. Isaiah saw his vision as in the temple. For although from those words, ‘I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple,’ Aben Ezra and Kimchi suppose, that he saw the throne of God in heaven, and only his train of glory descending into the temple, yet it 1s more probable that he saw the throne itself in the temple, his train spreading abroad to the filling of the whole house. For the temple is called the throne of his glory, Jer. xiv. 21, and a glorious high throne, ch. xvii. 12, that is, a throne high and lifted up, as in this place. Ezekiel saw his vision abroad in the open field, by the river of Chebar, ch. 1,3. Isaiah first saw the Lord himself, and then his glorious attendants: Ezekiel saw first the chariot of his glory, and then God above it. Isaiah’s seraphim had six wings, with two whereof they covered their faces, which Ezekiel’s cherubim had not; and that because Isaiah’s vision represented Christ, John xu. 41, with the mystery of the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, which the angels were not able to look imto, Eph. ii. 9, 10, and were therefore said to cover their faces with their wings, as not being able to look into the depths of those mysteries; but in Ezekiel’s vision, when they attended the will of God in the works of his providence, they looked upon them with open face. Wherefore from the diversity in all these visions, it appears that nothing certain concerning the form or wings of the cherubim made by Moses, can be collected. Most probably they had each of them only one face, directly looking one towards the other, and each two wings, which being stretched out forward over the mercy-seat, met each other, and were mere emblems of the divine presence and care over his covenant, people, and worship.
§ 18. And this was the whole furniture of the most holy place in the tabernacle of Moses. In the most holy place of the temple of Solomon, which was more august and spacious, there was by God's direction two other cherubim added. These were great and large, made of the wood of the olive tree, overlaid with gold, and they stood on their feet behind the ark, westward, with their backs towards the end of the oracle, their faces over the ark and mercy-seat eastward towards the sanctuary, their wings extended twenty cubits long, even the whole breadth of the house, and met in the midst, their ward wings were over the ark, 1 Kings vi. 23, 28; 2 Chron. ii. 11—13.
§ 19. And this was that appearance of his glory which the Lord God of Israel granted to his church of old. It was beautiful and excellent, as appointed by himself, yet was it but carnal and worldly, in comparison of the heavenly and glorious mysteries of the gospel; especially of him, who being obscurely shadowed out by all this preparation of glory, was in himself the real brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, as shall further be declared on chap. i. 3.
δ᾽ 1. Of the office of the priesthood; the high-priest in particular, the most illustrious type of Christ. § 2. The call of Aaron to the priesthood. § 3. Things concurring to his call, and separation to his office. § 4, 5. The garments prescribed to him. Ordinary. ~ § 6. Extraordinary. § 7. The nature of the office of the high priest. What he performed himself alone. What with the assistance of other priests) What with the assistance of priests and Levites. § 8. His blessing the people. His judging of them. § 9. The succession of these priests. § 10. How many served under the tabernacle. § 11. How many under the first temple. § 12. How many under the second temple. The disturbance of the succession. Fatal end of the Aaronical priesthood.
δ 1. Tue principal glory of all the Mosaic worship consisted in the person and office of the high priest. The Scripture calls him, 5:27 ym, the great priest, ἱερεὺς ὁ peyac, or ἀρχίερευς, This priest, with his attendants of the same family, was the, foundation on which the whole worship of the Jewish church depended. And, therefore, our apostle undeniably proves, that the law of commandments contained in ordinances was to be changed, because there was a promise of raising up a priest that was not of the house of Aaron, nor of the tribe of Levi; for the observance of the law in the worship of God, could not consist with such a change of priesthood, Heb. vii. 11, 19, Now, the high priest being in his person and his office, the most illustrious type of the Messiah and of his office, and the principal means whereby God instructed his church of old in the mystery of the reconciliation and salvation of sinners, most things concerning him are handled expressly and at large by our apostle. As, therefore, these must (God assisting) come under our consideration in the several places in which they are insisted on by him; I shall, in these previous discourses, only give a brief account of such things relating to the person and office of the Jewish high priest, as will not directly occur to us again.
§ 2. I have elsewhere considered the state of the priesthood in the church
, from the foundation of the world, tiil the time of which we now treat; also, by whom that office was executed, how they obtained it, and wherein it did consist. The foundation of an especial priesthood in the church of Israel, is laid, Exod. xxviii. 1.. Provision of holy things being made, God proceeds to supply the church with holy or dedicated persons for the administration of these. The first thing expressed is, the call of the high priest. Of this there are two parts. First. God’s revelation and authoritative constitution concerning it. Secondly. His actual consecration. The former is expressed, Exod. xxviii. 1, ‘And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.’ Aaron was the elder brother of Moses, born three years before him, Exod. vii. 7, and was now eighty-four or eighty-five years of age, when God thus calls and appoints him to the office of the priesthood. With him, all his sons, all the males of his family were dedicated to the service of God in their successive generations. And in this call to his office, he was a type of Christ, who entered not on his priesthood, but by the designation and authority of the Father, Heb. v. 4, 5.
§ 3. Secondly. Unto the completing of his call, there concurred his consecration or separation to God, at large described, Exod. xxix. In general it is expressed, ver. 1, by wp, which we render to hallow, that is, to sanctify, to separate unto God in the work of the priesthood. This is the general expression of his consecration, for what we afterwards translate to consecrate, ver. 9, 29, respects only one particular act of the whole work or duty. Now, the parts hereof were many, which may briefly be enumerated.
First. There was their manuduction, or the bringing them to the door of the tabernacle, chap. xxix. 4, 27pn, ‘ thou shalt bring them nigh,’ the word used in all sacred approaches and dedications to God. The priests themselves were made a Corban.
Secondly. They were washed with water, ver. 4, ‘Thou shalt wash them with water.’ After this the priests on all occasions were to wash themselves; at present, this being a sacred action, and they being not as yet consecrated, - it was performed towards them by Moses, who at this and other times discharged the office of an extraordinary priest.
Thirdly. Being washed, they were clothed with the holy garments, ver. 5, 6, of which afterwards.
Fourthly. The high priest being clothed, was anointed with the holy oil poured on his head, and running down over all his garments, ver. 7; Psal. exxxili. 2, The making and use of this oimtment, which are enjoined, Exod. xxx. 25—33, prefigured the unction of the Lord Christ, with all the graces of the Spirit, Heb. i. 6.
Fifthly. Sacrifices of all sorts were offered unto God. 1. The Mincha, or meat-offering. 2. The Chataath, or sin-offering, Exod. xxix. 13, 14. 3. The Hola, or whole burnt offerings, ver. 18, 25. 4. The Shelamin, or peace-offerings, ver. 25. 5. The Tenumoth and Tenuphoth, heave and waye-offerings, ver. 25, 26. 6. The Nesek, or the drink-offerings, ver. 40. So that in the consecration of the priest, all sacrifices also were as it were anew consecrated unto God.
Sixthly. In the use of this sacrifice, there were five ceremonies used, belonging in a peculiar manner unto their consecration. 1. The filling of their hand, ver. 9, D7’ ΠΝ ΟῚ. - This we have rendered, ‘ Thou shalt consecrate them,’ as though their consecration was some peculiar act distinct from these prescribed ceremonies. But that which is thus expressed, is only one of the ceremonies, or the putting of some parts of the sacrifice into or upon their hands to bear to the altar; which being their first action belonging to the sacerdotal office, (for in all that is mentioned before, they were merely passive,) is sometimes by a synecdoche used for consecration itself. 2. The putting of blood upon the tips of their right ears, and upon the thumbs of their right hands, and the great toes of their right feet, ver. 20, intimating their readiness to hear and perform the will of God. And this blood was taken from one of the rams that was offered for a burnt-offering. 3. The sprinkling of blood from the altar, and the anointing oil together, upon Aaron and his sons, and upon all their garments, ver. 21. 4. The imposition, or laying of their hands on the head of the beast to be sacrificed for a sin-offering, ver. 10, 15, denoting the passing away of their sin from them, that they might be fit to minister before the Lord. 5. The delivering of the waye-offering into their hands, as a pledge of their future portion, ver. 24, 28.
Seventhly. The continuance of all this ceremony is observed, wer. 30. By the repetition of the sacrifices mentioned, it was continued seven days. During this time, Aaron and his sons abode night and day at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation; after all which, they were admitted into it, and ministered in their office. Now, all this solemnity was used by the appointment of God, partly, to beget a reverence in the priests themselves for his worship, and in the administration of it; partly, to instruct the whole church in the mysteries of their redemption by the true high priest, whose person and office was shadowed out hereby, as afterwards will more fully appear.
§ 4. Immediately upon the revelation of the mind of God, for the setting apart of Aaron to the priesthood, he prescribes the garments that he was to use in the discharge of the duties of his office. For the worship now instituted, being outward and carnal, that which made an appearance of glory and beauty, as these vestments did, was of principal consideration
These garments of the high priest were of two sorts. First. Those of his ordinary and constant ministration in the sanctuary: Secondly. Those of his annual and extraordinary ministry in the most holy place. The first are appointed, Exod. xxviii. consisting of eight parts.
First. ΠῚ» Wa mosd 72 “0327: breeches of linen for to cover the flesh of his nakedness, Exod. xxviii. 42, 43, that is, to wear next unto him on his loins. 4
Secondly. 238 My WwW manos, Exod. xxxix. 27. A coat of fine linen, or silk, which was next them over the breeches, from the shoulders to the ancles.
Thirdly. WANT, Exod. xxxix. 29. A girdle of silk, or twined linen, with purple, blue, and scarlet, wherewith they girt the coat under the paps or breast.
Fourthly. 5, Exod. xxviii. 4. A robe, all of blue, with bells of gold, and pomegranates, hanging interchangeably at the fringes of it, in number, as the Jews say, seventy-two of each sort; this robe covered the coat and girdle.
Fifthly. Upon the robe was 758, the ephod, which name we have retained, as not finding any garment in use elsewhere that should answer to it. It was a covering for the shoulders, made of gold, purple, scarlet, and fine linen, curiously wrought. In the top of it, on the shoulders of the priest, were two precious stones, onyx say some, beryl say others, with the names of the tribes of the children of Israel engraven on them, six on one stone, and six on the other, Exod. xxviii. 6—11.
Sixthly. jm, which we render a breastplate, wrought as the ephod, and of the same materials. In it were fastened, in ouches of gold, twelve precious stones, with the names of the tribes engraven on them; which jewel, because of its use in judgment, was called, as I suppose, Urim and Thummim, Exod. xxviii. 15—18, 30.
Seventhly. M2873, or a mitre for the head, made of fine linen, after the fashion of an eastern turban, sixteen cubits long, wreathed about his head, Exod. xxviii. 37, 39.
Eighthly. 277 8-8, a plate, a flowering of gold, fastened with a lace of blue on the fore-front of the mitre, wherein was engraved, mim Wp, “ Holiness to the Lord, Exod. xxviii. 36.
§ 5. I have only named these things, without farther consideration ‘of them; partly, because they have been inquired into, and controverted by many already; and partly, because I cannot myself come to any certainty about sundry things relating to them. The colours which we render, blue, purple, and scarlet, with the substance of that which we translate fine linen, cannot be clearly ascertained. The stones of the breastplate and ephod for the most part are unknown, and their names are applied only by conjecture, to stones known to us. Concerning these things, the Jews themselves are at a loss, and give us only various rumours and surmises; and J shall not add to the heap of conjectures which have already been cast into this treasury.
§ 6. The extraordinary garments of the high priest, were those which he wore only on the day of atonement. And these he used not in the whole service of that day, but only when he entered into the most holy place. Now these, though for the kind of them they were the same with the linen garments before mentioned, yet they were made particularly for that day; for after the service of that day, they were laid up in some of the chambers belonging to the sanctuary. There were four of these garments: linen breeches, a linen coat, a linen girdle, and a linen mitre, Ley. xvi. 4, 25. These the Jews call the 12> ‘2a, ‘white garments, and the other his amt "722, ‘garments of gold.’
§ 7. The high priest being thus arrayed, was prepared for the work of his office, which was threefold: 1. To offer sacrifices to God for the people 2. To bless the people in the name of God. 3. To judge them. As tothe first, our apostle declares it, and insists upon it frequently in this Epistle, chap. viii. 3, ix. 3, 4, vil. 2, x. 1. And his work in the business of sacrifices was threefold.
First. That which he performed himself alone, none being admitted to assist him, or to be present with him, or so much as to look upon him. This was that which he performed when he carried the blood into the most holy place on the day of atonement, Ley. xvi.; Heb. ix. 7. The sacrifice before the ark, mercy-seat, and cherubim, was peculiar to himself alone. And in case of any occasional hindrance or impediment that might befal him, there was always a second priest who was substituted in his room, that the great service of that day might not be omitted.
Secondly. That which he performed, assisted by other priests. Such was the whole service of the sanctuary, Heb. ix. 6, about the daily incense, the shew-bread, the candlesticks and lamps, even all the service of the holy place.
Thirdly. That wherein he had the assistance of the other priests, and the service of the Levites. Such were all the services of the court at the brazen altar, where the Levites assisted in the killing, flaying, and remoyal of the bodies of the beasts that were sacrificed.
The especial season of these services, diurnal, sabbatical, monthly, and annual, are of too great variety and extent to be here insisted on.
Thirdly. It was his work also to judge the people. 1. In things concerning the house and worship of God, Zech. iii. 7. 2. In hard and diffcult cases, he joined with the judge or ruler, in judging between men according to the law, Deut. xvii. 12. 3. He was always a member of the Sanhedrim. This, I know is denied by some of the Jews, but it seems to be warranted from Deut. xvii. 6 —13.
§ 9. The office of high priest being thus appointed, a succession of priests was instituted in the first-born male of the eldest branch of the posterity οὗ Aaron. But the tracing of this succession is greatly perplexed, as it is nowhere directly given us in the Scripture, for that space of time wherein the story of the church is recorded. Different names are also in several places given to the same persons, as seems most probable. Besides, Josephus, who is the only approved writer of the Jews in things of this nature, is either corrupted in some passages on this subject, or doth palpably contradict himself. The post-talmudical masters are so far from yielding any relief in this matter, that by their jarrings and wranglings they render it more perplexed. Neither have those amongst our writers, who of old or of late have laboured to trace this succession, been able to agree in their computations. I could give four or five differing catalogues, that are contended for with some earnestness.* I shall not therefore hope, in this brief account of things to which I am confined, to throw light upon a matter of such intricacy. I shall content myself with giving the account, which is most recived among the Jews, of this succession in general, with some few observations upon it, and so close this discourse.
§ 10. It is generally agreed after Josephus, that the whole number of high priests, from Aaron inclusively to the destruction of the second temple, was eighty-three. For though in the Babylonian Talmud, some of them reckon up above eighty high priests under the second temple alone, yet the more learned of the later Jews, as the author of Tzemach Dayid ad Millen. 4. An. 829, expressly prefer the authority of Josephus above them all.
Of these eighty-three, thirteen administered before the Lord under the tabernacle, or whilst the tabernacle built by Moses in the wilderness was the sacred seat of divine worship. Of these, the first was Aaron, the last Abiathar, who was thrust out from the priesthood by Solomon, a little before the building of the temple. And in this succession there was but one interruption; namely, when Eli of the house of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, was preferred to the priesthood. [015 probable that he had been second priest in the days of his predecessor, and he was doubtless admitted to the office upon the reputation of his holiness and wisdom. And it may be that he of the house of Phinehas, whose right it was to succeed, was either incapable or judged unworthy.
§ 11. In the temple built by Solomon, there administered eighteen highpriests, whose names are recounted by Josephus, lib. 11, cap. 4.; lib. 20, cap. 4. Of these, the first was Zadok, the last Jehozadak, who was carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, 1 Chron. vi. 14, though I question whether ever he ministered as high-priest, only he was left at the destruction of the city and temple, after the death of his father Seraiah. Nour was there any known interruption in this series, the succession being carried down in a right line from the house of Phinehas by Zadok.
§ 12. The remainder of the number before mentioned, served under the second temple, being multiplied by the tumults and disorders which the people then fell into. The first of them was Joshua the son of Josedech; the last one Phinehas, or Phananias, made high, priest by the seditious villains, a little before the last siege and destruction of the city.
And this succession, or that during this season, had interruptions many and great. The first mentioned by Josephus was after the death of Onias, the fourteenth high priest from the building of the temple, when Antiochus first put in Joshua, who was called Jason, the brother of Onias, and afterwards displacing him, thrust Menelaus into his room. After a while he put out this Menelaus, and placed one Alcimus, of another family in his stead.
After this Alcimus, the family of the Maccabees, or Hasmonzans, took on them the office of the high priesthood. Their race being i by co
Herod, Ananus a private priest, was by force and power put into the place. And from this time forward, to the destruction of the temple, there was no order observed in the succession of the high priest, but?persons were put in and out at the pleasure of those who ruled, whether the Romans or the Herodians. For Hyrcanus being taken prisoner by the Parthians, and Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus his brother, being taken by Herod and Sosia, and crucified at Antioch by Marc. Antony, in him the race of the Hasmonzeans ended. After this, vile persons were put in and out at pleasure, some for a year, some for a month, one for a day, some for a longer season. At last the whole nation, church and state, rushed to its final ruin, and in their rebellion at Jerusalem they thrust out Matthias, who had been put in by Agrippa, and chose one by lot to succeed him. God, to manifest his disapprobation of them, caused the lot to fall upon one Phananias, a mere idiot, who knew nothing of the place or office which they called him to, with whom ended the church and priesthood of the Jews.
§ 1. Sacrifices the principal worship of God. § 2. Three sorts of them. 1. Of the brazen altar. 2. Of the sanctury. 3. Of the most holy place. § 3. Referred to by the apostle. § 4. All sacrifices of the altar were 323». §5. Every Corban either Isha or Terumah, §6. Dwr of six sorts. 1. Hola. 2. Mincha. 3. Chataath. 4, Asham. 5. Milluim. 6. Shelamim. § 7. A second distinction of fire offerings, Either Zebach or Mincha. §8—12. These distinctions and differences explained at large. § 15. The matter of all sacrifices. § 14. πον, the first particular sacrifice. The rise, use, and direction of it. § 15. Use of it among the heathen. § 15,17. What of ancient tradition, what of their own invention, §18—21. The manner of this sacrifice. § 22. The end of it. To make expiation or atonement, what. § 23. Seasons and occasions of this sacrifice, § 24. mm ἃ meat-offering. § 25. The use of that name; general, particular. § 26. 27. The matter of this offering. § 28,29. 4p, the drink-offering. The matter of it. § 30. mndw mart, peace-offerings. § 31. Reason of the name. § 32. matter of this offering. § 33, 34, Things peculiar to this kind of Sacrifice. ὃ 35. The use of it among the heathen.;*§ 36. nxn, the sin-offering. The name and causes of 11. § 37. Sins, ΤΣ, what. § 38. The persons to offer this sacrifice. 39. The anointed priest, who, Lev. iv. 3. §40. The whole congregation. The ruler, A private person. § 41. The time and manner of this sacrifice. § 42. The sprinkling of blood in it. § 43. tow, the trespassoffering. Its difference from the sin-offering. § 44. 3" Ν 2), consecration-offerings, § 45 Second sort of Corbans. Terumoth.
§ 1. The principal worship and service of God, both in the tabernacle and temple, consisted in*offerings and sacrifices. For these did directly represent, and in their general nature answered that which was the foundation of the church, and of all its worship; namely, the sacrifice of the Son of God. Accordingly he is called, ‘the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, John i. 29, because he fulfilled and perfectly accomplished what was prefigured by the: sacrifice of lambs and other creatures, from the foundation of the world. These offerings and sacrifices were nothing but means of God's institution, that men might express by them their faith in the first promise. Nor were sacrifices in general now first instituted, nor the kinds of them first appointed; for the most of them had been observed upon divine revelation and command from the entrance of sin, and the giving of the promise. But they were now rescued, in the repetition of them to Moses, from the superstition that had connected itself with the observance of them, and were directed to a right object, and attended with suitable instructive ceremonies in the manner of the performance of them.
§ 2. Now these offerings were three sorts. First, those of the court, or brazen altar, by blood and fire. Secondly, those of the sanctuary at the altar of incense, and table and shew-bread. Thirdly, those of the most holy place before the ark, mercy-seat, and oracle. The first of these represented the bloody death of Christ, and his sacrifice on the cross; the second. his intercession in heaven; and the third the azoreXecpara, or effects of both in atonement and reconciliation. And these our apostle mentions, chap. viii. 3,4. He says, ‘ Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: and there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.’ Chap. ix. 7, ‘Into the second went the high priest alone once every year; not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people.’ Ver. 12, ‘ By the blood of bulls and calves.’ Ver. 13, ‘The blood of bulls and calves, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkled. Ver. 22, ‘ Almost all things are by the law purged with blood.’ Chap. x. 1, ‘ For the law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very. image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered; because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not. Ver. 11, ‘ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Chap. xiii. 11, ‘For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priests for sin, are burnt without the camp.’
§ 3. It is evident that these and the like passages, in which our apostle refers to the institution, nature, use, end, and manner of the observance of sacrifices, cannot be rightly understood, without some distinct notion of these as they were prescribed by God to Moses, and observed by the people under the Old Testament. I shall therefore here give a brief system of them, and account concerning them.
ὃ 4. Sacrifices of the altar in general were D’IANpP ‘Corbanim.’ The name it may be of j27p is not distinctly applied unto every sort of them; but whereas every thing that any man 27 ‘brought nigh’ to dedicate or offer unto God, was thence ΞΡ, we may allow it to be the general name of all sacrifices. And therefore on the close of the enumeration of all fire offerings, it is added, ‘This is the law which the Lord commanded Moses in mount Sinai, in the day that he commanded the children of Israel to offer, or bring nigh ὉΠ; 0 nx, ‘ their corbans,’ that is, offerings or sacrifices of all sorts.’ Lev. vii. 38.
The DDN or firings, fire-offerings, were expressly of six sorts, as they are distinctly set down in Ley. vii. 37. 1. ΠΡῚΝ ‘hola’ the burnt-offering;
§ 7. These D°WN, fire- offerings are moreover distinguished into 131 ‘zebach and 77279 ‘mincha’ in a large sense. For it is evident that 7779 ‘mincha’ is used very variously. For 1. Sometimes it is of as large a signification as ἹΞῚΡ ‘corban, itself; and is frequently applied to offerings of blood, as well as of meat and drink, Gen. iv. 4. 2. Sometimes it is contra-distinguished from T133, and denotes all sacrifices by fire, not of beasts and blood; Ps. xl. 6; Dan. ix. 27; Lev. vil. 34. 3. Sometimes it signifies that peculiar offering, which being made with flour or meal with oil, we call the meat offering, Lev. ii. 1. Wherefore in this distribution, May Svea, « victima, sacrificium mactatum,’ a slain sacrifice, compriseth, ΤῚΝ ‘hola,’ nsw ‘chataath, DWN ‘asham, and Daw ‘shelamim;’ M7273, that which was peculiarly so, ‘mincha,’ and JO: ‘nesek; ὈΣΝῚΣ2 ‘milluim,’ partook of both. And these things must be a little further explained.
§ 8. First, }29P ‘corban,’ the general name of all sacrifices, taken from their general nature, in that they were brought nigh to God. This is usually rendered by the vulgar Latin, oblatio, and after it by us an offering; but it is properly appropinquatio, a drawing nigh, from 25) to approach, to draw near. The LXX. render it constantly by δωρον, ‘munus,’ a gift; unless it bein Neh. x, 34. xii. 30. And so ‘donum’ is rendered by the Evangelist, Matt. v. 23, 24, xv.5. Usually it is such a gift, as is presented to appease, reconcile, or obtain favour; which amongst men the Hebrews eall 77 shochad.’ So Plato, δωρα Seoug weer, kat αἰδοιους βασιληας; which the poet translates,
Munera (crede mihi) placant hominesque deosque, Placatur donis Jupiter ipse datis.
And to this Joash in his parable seems to allude, Judges ix: 13, where he brings in the vine saying, ‘Shall I leave my wine, DW2N) DTN Mawnan delighting God and man, namely, in sacrifices and gifts; which are a great propitiation, which always ariseth from a savour of rest: Corban then is any -gift brought nigh and offered to God in any sort.
Of these offerings or gifts, some were ΟΝ ishim. ΤῊΝ is first mentioned, Exod. xxix. 18. ‘Thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar, it is a burnt-offering unto the Lord, mr ΤΩΝ mm 1M a savour of rest, a firing unto the Lord; zgnitio. Thus all sacrifices were called that were burned on the altar, either wholly or any part:of them. The Greeks, who thought that they had no proper word to express this, as frequently in all their abundance, they are straitened in expressing the signal emphasis of the divine Hebrew, have rendered it in various ways, but none of them are proper, or convey any intimation of the native import of the word. Some- _ times they translate it, ϑυσιασμα, Exod. xxix. 18, sometimes to the same purpose Sve, Ley. xi. 13, 1. 2, a sacrifice. Sometimes they translate it κάρπωμα Ley. 11. 9, that is, an oblation, an offering; thus they render it most frequently; but that word signifies primarily the seed of fruit, or the profit made by it, and is applied to oblations only by accommodation; it cannot properly express TWN, which principally means the sacrifices of beasts, as burnt in the fire. It is then the general name of all sacrifices or gifts burnt on the altar, in part or in whole.
Every Mx or fire offering, was either Mat or MMT. Mat zebach the Greeks render constantly by Svova, and words from the same root, that is, a sacrifice of slain beasts. ‘ Victima, hostia, mactata.’ ©vw is to sacrifice by killing; though I know that Eustathius thinks that Homer useth Svev only for ϑυμίαζειν; but its constant use in all authors is to kill in sacrifice. And Svova is properly a slain sacrifice; though it be often used in the Scripture metaphorically. M2 properly means the same with Maw, teth and zain being easily and often changed, and signifies to kill or to slay. And Elias Levita observes, that it is but twice used, when it doth not directly denote killing. And from this kind of sacrifices had the altar its name, 2372 ‘misbeach,’ and so in the Greek ϑυσιαστηριον, Now of the sacrifices that were ΤΙ there were four sorts; 1. m>1y the burnt-offering; 2. nNur the sin-offering; 3. DWN the trespass-offering; 4. ὉΔῚ peace-offerings; and in part also the Dd” or consecration-offerings, &c. as was before observed.
§ 11. mm was the second species of the DYN; the word is of an uncertain origin, and various signification. Those who suppose that it respected only offerings of the fruits of the earth, are greatly mistaken. Instances have been given already to the contrary, and more shall be added. Generally learned men deduce the word from 1274, that Mem may be esteemed a radical letter, whence in the plural number it is read M7273 in the misna; which yet is but a feigned radix, no where used in the original, or the Targum: and it is read nim in the Scripture, as Ps. xx. 3. Hence some deduce it from 773, to lead or bring to, making it to agree in its general signification with ΞΡ corban. Some think it may rather be deduced from ΤΣ to refresh, recreate, give rest; because it is called emphatically a savour of rest unto the Lord, Lev. ii. 2. The LXX. sometimes render it pavaa, manifesting that they knew not the precise import of the word, and that therefore they left it untranslated. It comprised, as was said, the mincha properly so called, and the 702 or drink-offering, and had a place also in the offerings of consecration. And these were the corbanim or oblations, that were ishim, or fire-offerings, and D°Y7P WIP most holy to the Lord.
§ 12. OF the other sort of offerings, which were only pdb wp “ holiness of praises,’ there was no general name; but they were either ΤΥ ‘terumah, the heave-oftering, or 112N ‘tenuphah,’ the wave-offering, whereof we shall speak afterwards.
3 13. The matter of all these sacrifices was of three sorts. 1. Beasts. 2. Fowls, or birds. 3. Fruits of the earth, all accompanied with salt and incense. Of beasts there were also three sorts designed to this use and service; one of the herds, namely, bullocks; and two of the flocks, 1. sheep, 2. goats. Of fowls or birds, two sorts were used; 1. turtles, 2. pigeons, and it may be sparrows in one case, namely the sacrifice for the cleansing of the leper, Lev. xiv. 4. Inall of these, that is, of the beasts, it was required that they should be, 1. Males, unless in the sin and trespass-offering. 2. Without blemish. The fruits of the earth were of all sorts of fruit useful to the life of man. And all these sacrifices from their general ends may be reduced to three heads. For they were all of them either, 1. Propitiatory, as designed to make atonement for sins; or, 2. Huctical, to impetrate mercies from God; or, 3. Eucharistical, to return praises to him for mercies received.
§ 14. The first particular sacrifice instituted in the church of Israel, was the Toy, the burnt-offering, Lev. i. I say it was then first prescribed unto _ that church, after the rearing of the tabernacle, and regulated as to the times, occasions, and seasons of its celebration; for as to the nature of it, it was instituted and observed from the foundation of the world. And it seems to have been the first acceptable sacrifice, namely, that which Abel offered, Gen. iv. 4. For whereas it is expressly said of the offering of Cain, not only that it was mincha, but that it was of the fruits of the earth, that Is, a meat-offering; it is said only of Abel, that he brought ΝΣ n7927 jradmay ‘of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof; that is, either with their fat, or the fat firstlings, the proper matter of this sacrifice. Our apostle calls it his δωρον, his gift, that is, his JAP, or free will offering, as all were before the law; and his Svova, Heb. xi. 4, the ‘ sacrifice that he slew to the Lord’ But the name is first expressed, Gen. viii. 20, where both the matter and nature also of it is set down; ‘ Noah builded an altar, and took of every clean beast, (bullocks, sheep, and goats) ‘and of every clean fowl (turtles and pigeons, as God had instructed him) n>y dys), ‘and offered burnt offerings on the altar. So did Job, before the giving of the law, ch. i. 5, which God also prescribed unto his friends, ch. xli. 8, as did Jethro also in the wilderness, Exod. xviii. 12. And from this. sacrifice of Noah, was the rite of whole burnt-offerings derived by tradition to all nations of his posterity; but the end and use of it being lost, in process of time, by the craft of Satan, it became the principal rite of idolatry.
§ 15. The matter therefore of this sacrifice was preserved among the heathen; although they made use of other creatures also, besides those which were allowed in the law of Moses, or were used in sacrifice by any who were guided by divine direction. Their principal solemn sacrifices were of the herd, which therefore they called βουϑυσια, or buthysia, the sacrifice of oxen, and that of all sorts of kine. Thus Virgil,
Taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Apollo.
And he also speaks of the way of offering these bulls or oxen to Neptune, Apollo, and to others of their feigned deities.
Et solida imponit taurorum viscera flammis.
They committed their whole inwards to the flames on the altar; which expresses this Holocaust. And they offered kine of all sorts. So Homer tells us, that Nestor sacrificed nv, that is an heifer or a bullock of one
Which none had brought to the yoke, as the same was required in the sa crifices of the law. ‘To the moon they sacrificed a bullock, whose horns turned into the likeness of her first appearance:.
sterilemque tibi Proserpina vaccam.
‘And a barren heifer to Proserpine.’ And Plutarch tells us, that some of the old Egyptians offered a red heifer in sacrifice: this I much doubt; and suppose rather the report to have arisen from the ceremonies of the red cow instituted in the wilderness, when the people came out of Egypt. But whereas an ox was a harmless and useful creature, some of them began at length to suppose that it was not meet to use them in sacrifice. But to keep up the old tradition of this kind of offering, they made a cake, which they called papanon, and fashioned it into the similitude of an ox, and termed it an ox, as Hesychius in zazavoy, So the images of idolatrous groves, placed by idolaters in the temple of old are called groves in the Scripture; and the small shrines made for Diana, are called temples.
They sacrificed also sheep, especially lambs, to Jupiter, Minerva, and Diana; and goats or kids to Bacchus. Hence the words of the poet.
Rode caper vites, tamen hine cum stabis ad aras, In tua quod spargi cornua possit, erit.
‘The vines, cropt by the goat, yet wine suffice ‘To sprinkle him when made a sacrifice.’
Which, as Suetonius testifies, was sarcastically applied to Nero Cesar, upon his foolish edict for the cutting down of vines in Italy. Birds or fowls also they sacrificed without distinction; cocks, geese, turtles, and the like.
§ 17. But besides these things that were of ancient tradition, they added as the matter of their sacrifices, all sorts of living creatures, even such as the law of nature refused, and such as among the Jews were in an especial manner forbidden; and which were never in use among the first fathers of the world, or till after the Babylonian dispersion. Of the first sort was their sacrificing of men, which 1 have elsewhere shown to have been catholic in the world. Of the latter, to omit horses, dogs, and the like, we may take an instance in that of swine: vo@vora, the offerings of swine, was the principal, and as the most of them judged the most ancient kind of sacrifice amongst them. This they constantly used, whether in consecrations, or lustrations, or confirmations of covenants, the most solemn occasions of their sacrifices. So in the first way he speaks in Aristophanes,
Money I want a sacred swine to buy; I would be consecrate before I die.
And in case of lustration or expiation, Plautus speaks to the same purpose in his Menzechmi,
Adolescens quibus hic pretiis porei veneunt sacres sinceri? Nummum unum en a me accipe; jube te piari mea pecunia; Nam ego quidem insanum esse te certe 5010.
‘ Young man, what is here the price of swine fit for sacrifice? take a piece of silver of me, and get thyself expiated, (or freed from thy malady by sacrifice) with my money; for I know certainly that thou art mad.’
And another concerning covenants:
Czsa jungebant foedera porca.
‘They ratified their covenants by the sacrifice of a female swine.’ But this by the way; we return.
§ 18. The nature and manner of it in the church of Israel, is directed, Ley. i. In general as was said, it was JA7p, ‘corban,’ a gift brought nigh to God; ver. 3. 2270p my oN; if his ‘corban be hola.’ It was so called from wy, ‘hala, ascendit, to go upward. The LXX. render it for the most part by ὁλοκαυστον, or ὁλοκαύτωμα, as doth our apostle ch. x. 6, that which is wholly consumed or burnt, as all such sacrifices were except the skin. For the 77D mentioned, vy. 8, and ch. viii. 20, and no where else in the Scripture, rather signifies the whole trunk of the body after the head was cut off, than the fat of the caul, as we render it. And it is not unlikely that they might make use of the word ὁλοκαύτωμα, because the beginning of it answers in sound to the Hebrew ΓΤ», for that they were at a loss in expressing the names of the particular sacrifices, hath been declared. But my signifies to ascend; and because things that do so, do disappear, and seem not to be, it denotes also to consume, or to be consumed; and from either of these significations, this sacrifice, which was wholly burnt, may take its name.
§ 19. In the manner of this sacrifice, it is observable; that he who brought it was to put his hand on the head of it, v. 4. by IT. 77D, yr WNT, ‘and put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; lay them on, that the beast might seem to bear and sustain them; so we, after the vulgar Latin, manus suas, his hands, in the original his hand. And the Hebrews are divided, whether he laid on only one hand, his nght hand, or both. In Chap. xvi. 21, where the high priest was to perform this duty in the name of the people, it is said expressly, that he shall put 11 “nw, both his hands on the head of it: whence most conclude, that both the hands are here also intended. But this seems rather to be an argument to the contrary. For in saying that the high priest, who was to offer for himself as well as the people, in his performance of this work, shall lay both his hands, and when a private person did it, he shall lay on his hand; the Holy Ghost seems to intimate a difference between them in this action. This ceremony was observed only when the offering was of beasts; not when it was of fowls or birds. And when the season of the sacrifice was stated by God's prescription for the use of the people, the priest was to perform this duty. The meaning of the ceremony was, ‘quod illorum capiti sit;’ typically and representatively to lay the sin of the offerer on the head of the offering; to instruct us in the bearing of our sin by Christ, when through the eternal Spirit he offered himself unto God. |
§ 20. Secondly. The beast, now a Corban, by being brought unto the altar, was to be slain. “PAT ja ΓΝ wm), ver. 5. ‘He shall kill the bullock; that is, say some, he that brought the offering, was to kill it. For, say they, those that killed the offering, are distinguished from them that took the blood of it, and sprinkled it on the altar, 2. Chron. xxix. 22. ‘So they killed the bullocks, and the priests received the blood, and sprinkled it on the altar.’ But those slayers seem not to have been the people, but the Levites, who were to assist the priests in their service, Numb. viii. 19, and who in all greater sacrifices did the outward work of killing and slaying, see 2 Chron. xxxy. 10, 11. It is also said expressly, that they slew the Pascal lamb, 2 Chron. xxx. And to this killing of the bullock, or kid, or lamb, answered the wringing off of the head of the bird, if the burnt-offering were of fowls, which is expressly said to be done by the priest, ver. 15. And of him that kills the offering, ver. 5, it is‘said, he shall ‘flay it and cut it into its pieces,’ ver. 6, which was the work of the priests and their assistants.
The place where it was to be killed, was on the north side of the altar, ver. 1]. And when it was killed, the blood was taken, or wrung out and sprinkled about the altar, ver. 5, which sprinkling of blood was used in all sacrifices of living creatures, as eminently prefiguring our sanctification, or purifying of our hearts from an evil conscience by the ‘sprinkling of the blood of Christ,’ Heb. ix. 14, xii. 24.
δ 21. The beast being killed, was flayed and opened; made γυμνον και τετραχηλισμενον, naked and opened, to which our apostle alludes, Heb. iv. 15. Afterwards it was cut into pieces, Lev. i. 6, which pieces were salted, chap. 11. 13, and then laid in order on the wood upon the altar, 1. 8, as also were the legs and inwards, after they were washed, ver. 9. As our bodies in our approach unto God are said to be washed with pure water, Heb. x. 22. The everlasting fire typical of the eternal Spirit through which Christ offered himself unto God, Heb. ix. 14, being applied by the priest to the wood, the whole was set on fire, Psal. xx. 3, and continued to burn till all was reduced to ashes. The fire might then sometimes burn all night long, though no sacrifice was to be offered but by day, which made them watch for the morning, Psal. cxxx. 6. The different eeremonies used in killing and offering of the fowls, are clearly expressed in the same chapter.
§ 22. The end of this offering was always to make atonement. So the text; »dy ἼΞΞΣ 15 mB, Lev. i. 4. ‘It shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him: “D> says one, ‘Quod latine vertitur expiare, hoc est, Deo aliquem commendare;’ it is to commend any one to God. A sense which neither will the word bear, nor the nature of the thing admit: 787) is always, to be accepted; and for what end shall the sacrifice be accepted ¢ “p25, to appease, atone, to make atonement for him, as we shall show elsewhere; not indeed absolutely, this it could not do, but in a representation, as they were a shadow of good things to come, Heb. x. 1— peak.
§ 23. There are reckoned up eighteen times wherein this kind of offering was to be made by express institution; the enumeration of these does not belong to this place. Nine of them refer to particular occasions, the other nine had their fixed seasons, occurring daily, monthly, or annually. Only we may observe that of this kind of offering was the 1~an, the juge sacrificium, or continual sacrifice which was offered morning and evening, with the final taking away of which, the church and worship of the Jews utterly ceased, Dan. ix. 27. And as there was a precise command for its being offered morning and evening continually, so in the constant acknowledgment of God therein, in the vicissitudes of night and day, there was such a suitableness to the light and law of nature in it, that it prevailed among the heathen themselves in their idolatrous services; as appears from these words of Hesiod,
‘ Let offerings and sacrifices burn At evening and at sacred light’s return.’
And so at Rome, the Pinarii and Potitii sacrificed to Hercules, in Ara Maxima, morning and evening, as Livy, Plutarch, and Dionysius testify. The custom, also, of feasts at this sacrifice, to testify mutual love and peace amongst men, was common with Jews and Gentiles. Thus when Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, offered a burnt-offering and sacrifices, Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with him before God, Exod. xviii. 12. And in the sacrifices that Agamemnon offered, he called the ancients and princes of the Grecians to a banquet with him, Homer. Iliad, B., as did Nestor likewise with those about him, at his great sacrifice, Odyss. G.
§ 24. The next sort of offerings that was regulated in the law, was the 72, which as it denoted an especial kind of sacrifice, we have from the matter of it rendered a meat-offering, Ley. ii. 1. And this, as was said of the whole burnt-offering before, was not then first instituted and appointed, but only regulated and solemnly approved. For it had been observed from the beginning, and consisting in the fruits of the earth, had a great foundation in the law of nature. Thus Cain brought his 77273 ‘ Mincha’ of the fruits of the earth to offer unto God, Gen. iv. 3. And there is no doubt but that as to the kind of it, it was acceptable unto God, as of his own institution, though the person that offered it, for want of faith, was not approved, Heb. al. 9.
§ 25. The name, as was in part before observed, is of an uncertain origin, and is variously used and applied. Sometimes it is used for a civil gift of men one to another; or a present, 1 Sam. x. 27. Sometimes for any offering or sacrifice. So Abel’s sacrifice which was a burnt-offering, is called his Mincha, Gen. iv. 4. Hence it is sometimes rendered in the New Testament by θυσια, ‘a sacrifice, a bloody sacrifice, Mark ix. 49; Acts vii. 42. And our apostle from Ps. xl. 6, renders ΓΙ͵Τ))ΔῚ 1733, ‘Zebach and Mincha, by θυσια και προσφορα, Heb. x. 5, ‘sacrifice and offering; by both which terms, sacrifices only of atonement and propitiation were intended, and not the special. meat-offering, which was properly eucharistical, and not propitiatory. And the expression in that of the Psalmist, answers directly to what God speaks concerning the house of Eli, 1 Sam. iii. 14. The sin of the house of Eli shall not be expiated, m12722) M312, ‘neither by Zebach, nor by Mincha; that is, by no sort of sacrifices appointed to make atonement, or to expiate sin. So also is the word used, 1 Sam. xxvi. 19. But as it denotes the special offering now under consideration, it was not ordinarily appointed to make atonement. I say not ordinarily, because there was an especial dispensation in the case of the poor man, who was allowed to bring flour and oil, the matter of the Mincha, instead of the DWN Asham, or trespass-offering, Lev. y. 11,12. And yet atonement properly was not made thereby; only in it, or the appointment of it, God testified his acceptance of the person with a non obstante for his trespass. And hence doth our apostle use his σχεδὸν, his almost, in this business, Heb. ix. 22,‘Almost all things are purged with blood.’ The like allowance was in the offering of the jealous person. It was to consist of barley meal, the matter of the meat-offering; but it made no atonement, for it is expressly said, ‘that it was to bring sin to remembrance, Numb. v. 15. Whereas, every sacrifice of atonement was for the covering of sin, and the casting of it out of remembrance.
bran.’ This was the offering in the case of jealousy, God appointing therein the use of barley, the worst of bread corn, and the bran of it, the worst of that grain, prohibiting the addition of oil and frankincense, to testify his dislike of the matter either in the sin of the woman, or the causeless jealousy of the man. 2. D122 Biccurim, prime fruges, frugum primitie, Jirst-fruits; that is, DAN, corn newly ripened in the ear. 3. Oil. 4. Frankincense. 9. Salt, ver. 1—3, &c. And the use of two things are expressly forbidden, namely, leaven and honey, ver. 11. Hereunto also belongeth the 702, Nesek, or drink-offering, which was never used separately, but was an addition of wine to some sacrifices. And the Psalmist shows how this degenerated amongst idolaters, who in their superstitious rage made use of the blood of living creatures, it may be of men, in their ‘libamina.’ They had 077 ODD, “ drink-offerings of blood,’ which he abhorred, Ps. xvi. 3.
§ 27. Now this offering was sometimes offered alone, and then it was of the number of free-will offerings, whose law and manner is prescribed, Ley. ἢ. For the most part it was annexed to other sacrifices; and it was either stated and general, or occasional and particular. The stated meat-offerings, say some, concerned the whole congregation, and they reckon up three of them. 1. The wave sheaf, Lev. xxiii. 10,11. 2. The two wave loaves, ver. 17. 3. The daily shew-bread, Lev. xxiv. 5. But whereas we have showed that the mm, Mincha, was one of the Ὁ ὯΝ, or ‘ fire-offerings,’ and also that it was DIP WIP, ‘most holy,’ Lev. ii. 10, as none of these three were fire-offerings, they belonged unto the Terumah, of which afterwards, and were none of them Mincha, or the meat-offering properly so called. It is true, at the offering of the wave sheaf, and the wave loaf, there was a meat-offering offered unto God, consisting of two tenth deals of Soleth, or wheat-flour mingled with oil, and the fourth part of an hin of wine fora drink-offering, which were burned in the fire, Lev. xxiii. 13; but the wave sheaf and the wave loaf themselves were a Terumah, and not a Mincha. The particular and occasional offerings of this nature are reckoned to be, 1. The poor'man’s offering, Lev. v. 11. 2. The jealousy-offering, Num. v. 15. 3. The offering of the priests at their consecration, Ley. viii. 26—28. 4. The high priest’s daily meat-offering, Ley. vi. 20. 5. The leper’s offering, Ley. xiv. 10. 6. The dedication offering mentioned, Num. viii. But some of these have a participation in the matter, but not in the nature of the especial Mincha. The principal signification of this offering is expressed, Isa. Ixvi. 20, compared with Rom. xv. 16, and Mal. i. 10, 11, compared with 1 Tim. ii. 8. And two things in it express the grace of the covenant: First, The handful that was for a memorial; that is, to bring to memory the covenant of God; and secondly, The salt, which declared it firm and stable.
§ 28. To this, as we have said, belongs the 73, ‘nesek,’ which, as directed in the law, was but one part of the Mincha, and is not reckoned among the distinct species of offerings, as they are summed up, Lev. vii. 37. And the
‘reason is, because under the law it was never offered by itself, but in connexion with burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and peace-offerings, to complete the Mincha, or meat-offermg that accompanied them. But of old, before the reformation of sacrifices by Moses, it was a distinct offering by itself, Gen. xxxy. 14, ‘Jacob offered a drink-offering, that is of wine, which was its primitive institution and practice. And it was always to be of wine, Num. xv. This, ch. xxviii. 7, is called 12>, Shechar, which although we generally translate ‘strong drink, yet it appears from hence to have been a strong inebriating wine; and so the most learned of the Jews suppose. We call this Nesek, a drink-offering, in answer to the name we give unto the Mincha, a meat-offering, that is, offerings whose matter was of things to be eaten and drunk. It may be otherwise called a pouring, an offering poured out: Libamen, a sacred effusion. And these offerings were most holy also, Ley. ii. 10.:
§ 29. As these offerings of the fruits of the earth were in use among the heathen, the most learned of them did contend, that they were far the most ancient kind of sacrifices amongst men, as Plato says expressly, lib. 6, de Legib.; but we know the contrary from Gen. iv. where the first sacrifices in the world are recorded. The latter Pythagoreeans also condemned all other offerings, all that were εκ των ἐμψυχων, of living creatures, as I have elsewhere showed out of Porphyry; though Cicero testifies of Pythagoras himself, that he sacrificed an ox. And whatever was appointed in this meat-offering, they also made use of. Their Far, Mola salsa, ουλοχυτα, that is, flour of wheat, or barley mingled with water and salt, is of most frequent mention amongst their sacred things. So also were their placentw and Liba adorea, their cakes made with flour, oil, and honey. What was the use of these in their sacred rites, and also of wine and frankincense, the reader may see at large in the seventh book of Arnobius advers. Gentes.
§ 30. The next solemn sacrifice in the order of their appointment under the law, is that which is called v*mdw 233, Zebach Shelamim, which we render peace-offerings Lev. iii. 1. It is by translators rendered with more variety than any other word used in this matter. By the Greeks θυσια owrnptac, and TyerereTne, and αἰνέσεως, and τελειώσεως, ‘a sacrifice of salvation, of expiation, of praise, of perfection.’ And the Latins have yet more varied their expression of it: ‘Sacrificium pacium, perfectionum, gratulationum, salutis, retributionum, integrorum, mundorum, sanctificatorum, immaculatorum;—‘A sacrifice of peace, of perfection, of thanksgiving, of safety or salvation, of retribution, of them that are clean, or sanctified, or unspotted.’ Most of these various expressions also arise from the different signification of the word >, whence most suppose that Di>W was taken. But others think that it comes from 01>, ‘peace,’ which of late is almost generally received. In general, this sacrifice was corban, a gift or offering brought nigh and dedicated unto God; and Mx, ‘a firing, or an offering by fire; and in specie M3, ‘a sacrifice’ from the slaying and killing of the beast that was offered. But it is nowhere said to be ΠΡ WIP, or ‘most holy, as being merely expressive of moral duties, in a way accommodated to the present economy of divine worship; see Heb. xiii. 15, but it is usually reckoned amongst them that were so.
§ 31. Peace-offerings, as was observed, is the name that hath prevailed, though it respected vows of thanksgiving, or for the impetration of mercies: see Lev. vii. 12—17. The reason given by Jarchi for this appellation, namely, because it brought peace unto the world, is like much of what they say in such cases, a sound of words without any meaning. ‘Kimchi gives a more sober and rational account of it. The ΤΙΣῚΝ, saith he, or burnt-offering, was all of it burned, only the skin was the priests.’ The NXom and DWs, ‘sin and trespass-offering, were burned in part; the breast and shoulder were the priests, and all the flesh that was not burned, as also the skin. But in this sacrifice, D°>w), ‘the fat,’ ascended on the altar, the breast and shoulder were the priests, and the residue of the flesh belonged to the offerers, that they and their friends might eat it; and so it was a sacrifice of peace among all parties. If this reason please not, we may choose one of the other significations of the word, as of perfections or retributions, which latter the nature of it inclines unto. ἱ
§ 32. The matter of this sacrifice was the same with that of the burntoffering; namely, as to beasts of the herd, bullocks or heifers; of the flock, goats, rams, lambs, or kids; of fowls, the same with the former, Lev. iii. 6,7. In the causes of it, it was either a free-will offermg for impetration, or after a vow for thanksgiving or retribution. The appointed seasons and occasions of it were, 1. At the consecration of a priest, Exod. xxix. ὦ, At the purification of a leper, Ley. xiv. 5. At the expiration of a Nazaretical vow, Num. vi. 14. 4. At the solemn dedication of the tabernacle and temple. The manner of its offering is peculiarly described, Ley. ui., and the observations of the Jews about it, the reader may see in the annotations of Ainsworth on the place.
§ 33. Two things were peculiar to this sacrifice. First, that it is appointed to be offered mayn dy, Lev. ui. 5, ‘And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar; Tayi ὃν, that is, saith the vulgar Latin in holocaustum, for a burnt offering: as though it were so itself, or substituted in the room of the whole burnt offering. The LXX. ἐπὶ τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα, upon the burnt-offering. So we, upon the burnt-sacrifice. But what the meaning of that expression is, is not so evident. The Jews say, that the daily burnt-offering is intended, which was always first to be offered, and then immediately upon it, or whilst it was yet burning, the peace-offering was to be added thereunto. It is not, indeed, declared whether the /ola mentioned, were the daily burnt-offering or no. Most probably it was so, and that being a sacrifice of atonement rendered this of thankfulness acceptable unto God; see Heb. xii. 15, 16.
§ 34. Secondly. The peculiar parts of the beast in this sacrifice that were to be burned on the altar, are enumerated; namely, the suet and fat of the inwards, ‘the kidnies and their fat, the fat on the flanks, and the caul of the liver, or the midriff. Hence it is laid down as a general rule, that all ‘ the fat is the Lord’s,’ Lev. iii. 14—16, And it is called a perpetual statute for all ‘their generations through all their dwellings, that they should eat no fat, ver. 17. But yet this general precept had a double limitation. First, that only that fat which was to be offered, was excepted from eating, Of the other fat diffused through the rest of the flesh, they might eat. Secondly, it was only the fat of beasts appointed to be offered in sacrifice that was forbidden, as it is directly expressed, Lev. vii. 25. Of the fat of other clean beasts they might eat. And this offering of the fat, seems to denote our serving God with the best that we have; which yet is not acceptable, but by virtue of the blood of Christ, as the fat was to be burned in the burntoffering, or sacrifice of atonement.
§ 35. Of the kind of these ‘shelamim’ were the offerings among the heathen, which they sacrificed either upon any great undertaking which they called εξοδια, ina way of vow, or upon any success. So Cyrus Minor, Xenophon, and Arrianus in their expeditions sacrificed, ‘sacrificia votiva;’ and the latter sort were in an especial manner provided for in the Pontifical law, as it is reported by Festus. ‘Cujus auspicio classe procincta optima spolia capiuntur, Jovi feretrio darier oportet, et bovem ceedito qui cxpit xris ducenta. Secunda spolia in Martis aram in campo, solitaurilia utra voluerit cedito. Tertia spolia Jano Quirino agnum marem cedito, centum qui caperit ex «re dato.’
§ 36. The next sort of sacrifice was the MNUM, ‘ chataath’ or sin-offering, whose laws and rites are described, Ley. iv. This sacrifice is not expressly called a corban, or a gift, it being wholly a debt, to be paid for expiation and atonement; but being brought nigh unto God, it partook in general of the nature of the D227p, Corbanim. It was of the ΟΝ, firings, or fire-offerings expressly, ver. 12, because of the burning of the fat on the altar; and of course it belonged to the 0°33, or slain sacrifices. And also it was of the DWP WIP, or most holy things from its institution and signification. The name of it is M8wn, Chataath, that is, sin. ‘He shall do to the bullock, as he did, nNumm 15>, ‘to the bullock of the sin; that is, of the sin-offering Lev. iv. 20. So Ezek. xlv. 1, ‘The priest shall take nNwmm D1, of the blood of the sin; that is, the sin-offering. Nwm Chata in kal is to sin, to offend, to err from the way, to contract the guilt of sin. Hence D’Num, Chataim, are men given up to sin, and wandering in its ways, Psalm i. 1. In Pihel it hath a contrary signification; namely, to purge, to expiate, to cleanse, to make atonement, to undergo penalty, to make satisfaction, Gen. xxx1. 39. ‘That which was torn,’ saith Jacob to Laban, ‘I brought it not to thee, MOM, ‘achatennah,’ I answered for it; I paid for it, I suffered the loss of it. See Exod. xxix. 36; Num. xix. 19; Lev. vi. 26. According to this signification of NUM, NNuM is used to denote an offering for sin; that whereby sin is expiated, pardon of it is procured, atonement is made: so David prays, Ps. li. 7, *28umn, ‘thou shalt purge me’ with hyssop, as Num. xix. 19, that is clear me, free me, as by an offering for sin. And this kind of expression, our apostle retains, not only when he cites from the Old Testament, as Heb. x. 6, ὑλοκαυτωματα και περι ἁμαρτιας, burnt-offerings, and for sin, that is, NNwM, sin-offering; but also where he makes application of it to the Lord Christ and his sacrifice, which was typified thereby, Rom. viii. 3, ‘God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and περι ἁμαρτιας, that 15 NNO, ‘an offering for sin,’ a sin-offering, as the word should have been translated. And 2 Cor. y. 21. Him who knew no sin, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν exoujoe, he made sin, NNT, a sin offering for us.
§ 37. The general cause of this sacrifice was sin committed ΤΙΣΙ, Lev. iy. 2, say we through ignorance. So the LXX. ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ; and the vulgar Latin, per ignorantiam; through ignorance. Some old copies of the Greek have axovowe; not voluntarily; not wilfully; for it had respect to all such sins, as were not committed so ἑκουσίως, willingly, wilfully, presumptuously, as that there was no sacrifice appointed for them, the covenant being disannulled by them, Heb. x. 26. And there is no sin whatever, that is between this 722, this sin of ignorance, or error, and sin committed 7727 2, with an high hand, or presumptuétsly. See expressly, Num. xv. 28—30. Hence this nkun, this sin-offering was the great sacrifice cf the solemn day of expiation, Lev. xvi. whereby atonement was made, ‘For all the uncleanness of the children of Isracl, and because of their transgressions in all their sins, ver. 16. And upon the head of the live goat, which was a part of the sin-offering, on that day, there was confessed and laid, all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, in all their sins, ver. 27. That is all iniquities not disannulling the covenant, which had ἐνδικον μισθαπαδοσιαν, areyenging recompence allotted unto them, Heb. ii. 2, And accordingly those words are to be interpreted where the cause of this sacrifice is expressed, Ley. iv. 2, ‘If a soul sin 222, by error, ignorance, imprudently, against any of the commandments of the Lord, as it ought not to do, and shall do against any of them.’ And an instance is given in him who killed his neighbour without prepense malice, Deut. ix. 4. Any sin is there intended into which men fall by error, ignorance, imprudence, incogitancy, temptation, violence of affections, and the like. For such was this sacrifice instituted. And that which it typically represented is expres. sed, 1 John ii. 1, 2, ‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins;' namely, in the room of, and as represented by the sin-offering of old, whereby atonement and propitiation was typically made for sin. Only there was this difference, that whereas the law of Moses was appointed to be the rule of the political government of the people, wherein many sins, such as adultery and murder were to be punished with death, and the sinner was to be cut off, there were in such cases no sacrifices appointed, nor admitted; but in the sacrifice of Christ there is no exception made of any sin, in those that repent, believe, and forsake their sins; particularly not of those which were excepted in the law of Moses, Acts xii. 39. So that as the sin-offering was provided for all sin that disannulled not the covenant made at Horeb, which allowed no lifenor interest in its blessings to murderers, adulterers, blasphemers, and the like,in the typical land; so the sacrifice of Christ is extended to all sinners who transgress not the terms and tenor of the new covenant, for whom no place is allowed, either in the church here, or in heaven, hereafter. (
§ 38. Of the matter of this offering, see Lev. iv. 2. As it differed very little from the matter of the burnt-offering, I shall not particularly insist upon it.
As to the persons that were to bring this offering, there is a general distribution of them in the text comprehensive of all sorts of persons whatever. For it is applied to Ist. The priest; 2nd. The whole congregation jointly; 3rd. The ruler; and 4th. To any of the people of the land; so that none were excluded from the privilege and benefit of this sacrifice.
δ 39. The first person mentioned, is TY j797, the anointed priest, Chap. iv. 3, thatis, say the Jews generally and our expositors also, }713 yaa, the high priest, Aaron and his sons that ministered in his room in their succession; for those only, say they, were anointed. But this seems not to be the truth. For if the high priest alone be intended, there is no provision made for any other priest to have an interest in this sin-offering. For the priests are not comprised in any other class of the distribution of characters before mentioned, particularly not in that in which with any colour they might be looked for, namely, the pan7 Dy, ver. 27, ‘ The people of the land,’ that is, the common people, from whom the priests were always distinguished. Any priest therefore is intended; and T™w%, anointed, is no more but dedicated, separated to the office of the priesthood, or it respects that original anointing which they all had in their fore-fathers the sons of Aaron, when they were first set apart to God; Exod. xxiv.
The case of the priest wherein this sacrifice was allowed him, is expressed in the same place, with words somewhat ambiguous; if Dy ΓΝ Ὁ Norm; ‘if he sin according to the sin of the people,’ so we; Castalio renders the passage, ‘ si Sacerdos inunctus deliquerit in noxiam populi, ‘if the anointed priest so sin, as to bring guilt upon, or damage unto the people.’ As Achan did, and David also. Vulg. Lat. ‘delinquere faciens populum;’ ‘ causing the people to sin; which is another sense of the words. And this sense the Jews generally embrace. For they apply this sinning of the anointed priest, to his teaching the people amiss, causing them to err thereby; so Aben Ezra, and others on the place, who are followed by many of ours. But if this be so, the priest was not allowed the benefit of this sacrifice of the sin-offering for any sin of his own, but only when he caused the people to sin also, which would render his condition worse than theirs, and is contrary to that of our apostle; that the priest was ‘ to offer for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. I would there, in mawnd take > for D and renderit with our translators, ‘according to; when he sinned as another man of the people; their place and office, not freeing them from the common sins of other men. And so our apostle seems to expound this place; Heb. v.2,3. The priests of the law were compassed with infirmities, and by reason thereof, had need to offer sin-offerings for their own sin, as well as for the sins of the people; seeing he also sinned, oy mown>, ‘according to the sin of the people.’ But it is otherwise now, saith he, with the people of God, ch. vii. 26,27. Our High Priest being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, that is, not sinning aceording to the sins of the people, as the priests did of old.
§ 40. Secondly. The whole congregation jointly had an interest in this sacrifice, when any such sin was committed as might reflect guilt upon it, Ley. iv. 13. For the observance of the law being committed in an especial manner to the whole congregation, there were many transgressions in the guilt of which the whole body of it might be involved.
Thirdly. The ruler (or rulers) had this privilege also, Lev. iv. 22, with respect, as appears by this peculiar institution, to his miscarriages in his office, God graciously providing a relief against the sins of men in their several conditions, that they might not through a consciousness of their infirmities be deterred from engaging in any necessary employment am ng the people, when called to it.
Fourthly. Any one of the common people had the same liberty, and were obliged to the same duty, Lev. iv. 27. And this distribution of the people, as to their interest in this sin-offermg, comprising them all of all ranks, even all that belonged to the congregation of Israel, had its accomplishment in the sacrifice of Christ, from which none are excluded that come to God by hin, for ‘he will in no wise cast them out.’
§ 41. For the time and season of this sacrifice, it may be briefly observed, that there were solemn and set occasions, some monthly, some annual, wherein it was to be offered for the whole congregation by special command and institution. As, 1. On every new moon. 2. On the fifteenth day of the first month, and seven days together during the feast of unleavened bread. 3. At the feast of first-fruits. 4. At the feast of trumpets. 5. On the day of expiation. 6. On the fifteenth day of the seventh month, and for eight days together during the feast of tabernacles. And the frequent repetition of this sacrifice was to intimate that nothing was accepted with God, but on the account of what was prefigured thereby, namely, that perfect sacrifice which ‘took away the sin of the world.’ There were also especial occasions of it, with reference to the persons before enumerated, which have been collected by others.
§ 42. The principal ceremony in the manner of its oblation, was the disposal of the blood. For the blood of this sacrifice was disposed of in three ways. ‘The greater part of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offerings, in the court before the door of the tabernacle. A part of it was taken and carried by the high priest into the sanctuary, and put upon the horns of the altar of incense, that was therein, Lev. iv. 7. The third part (which was first disposed of) was to be carried into the most holy place, as it was done accordingly on the day of expiation, Ley. xvi. But because it was not lawful for him to enter in thither but once in the year, namely, on that day, at all other times he dipped his finger in the blood, and sprinkled it seven times towards the veil that parted the most holy place from the sanctuary, Ley. iv. 7. So that every place of the tabernacle, and all that pertained to it, were sanctified with this blood; even as Jesus Christ, who was represented in all this, was dedicated unto God in his own blood, the blood of the covenant, Heb. x. 29. That seven is the number of perfection, greatly used and variously applied in the Scriptures, many have observed. And the perfect cleansing of sin by the blood of Jesus, was evidently represented by this sevenfold sprinkling, Heb. ix. 13, 14; and therefore, in allusion hereunto, it is called the blood of sprinkling, Heb. xii. 24, even that which was prefigured by all the blood of the sacrifices, that was sprinkled towards the most holy place, and the mercy seat there. |
§ 43. The next sort of fire-offerings was the DWs, ‘Asham,’ whose laws and ordinances are directed, Lev. v., and the particular occasion of it, ch. vii. We call it the trespass-offering. And it differed very little from that which we have just described. For it is not only said concerning them, om> nos ΤΠ DwWND MNuID, as is the < Chataath,’ or sin-offering, so is the ‘ Asham,’ or trespass-offering, there is one law for them, Lev. vii. 7, but also that he who had §Sinned or trespassed should bring his ὌΝ, ‘his trespass-offering unto the Lord, for his sim which he had sinned, a female from the flock, or a kid of the goats, mxum, for a sin-offering. Some think that there was a difference between them, and that it lay in this, that the ‘Chataath’ respected sins of omission, and the ‘ Asham’ sins of commission. But that this will not hold is openly evident in the text. Some think that whereas in both these offerings there was respect unto ignorance, that the ignorance in the ‘Chataath’ was Juris, of the right or law, that in the ‘Asham’ was Factt, of the particular fact. But this opinion also may be easily disproved from the context. This to me seems to be the principal, if not the only difference between them; that the ‘ Asham’ provided a sacrifice in some particular instances, which seem not to be comprised under the general rules of the sin-offering. And hence in a peculiar manner it is said cf Jesus Christ, that he should give WD) DWK, ‘his soul, an ‘ Asham,’ or ‘ piacular sacrifice,’ as for all, so for such delinquencies and sins as seem to bring a destroying guilt on the soul, Isa. lili. 10, And this kind of offering also was Ὁ ΤΡ Wp, ‘most holy,’ Lev. vi. 20.
§ 44. The last sort of fire-offerings were the oid, which are reckoned as a distinct species of sacrifices, Ley. vii. 36, that is, ‘ plenitudinum, impletionum, consecrationum,’ sacrifices of consecration, or that were instituted to be observed at the consecration of priests. Its name it seems to have taken from the filling their hands, or their bringing their offering in their hands, when they approached to the Lord when set apart to their office. And thence was the expression of him that came to be consecrated a priest: "D2 YT Ndiad Nan, 2 Chron. xiii. 9: ‘He that came to fill his hand with a bullock.’ The rise of this expression we have marked before, on Exod. xxviii. 41. The Lord giving directions to Moses for the consecration of Aaron and his sons, he tells him, D7* ΠΣ ΠΝ 5, ‘thou shalt fill their hand,’ that is, put the flesh of the sacrifice, with the bread and its appurtenances, into their hands, which, being the initiating ceremony of their investiture with office, gave name afterwards to the whole. And hence the sacrifices appointed then to be offered, although they differed not in kind from those foregoing, yet are accounted to be a distinct offering, and are called ox, or fillings. And this may suffice as a es account of the fire-offerings of the law of Moses, in the use of which we are tully instructed in this Epistle to the Hebrews.
§ 45. There was also under the law a second sort of Corbans, or offerings to God, which were of things, or parts of things, not burned on the altar, but one way or other consecrated to God and his service. These were the nvann, ‘Terumoth, which we have rendered sometimes offerings in general, and sometimes heave-offerings, under which kind the n1503n, or ‘wave-offerings’ also were comprised. The consideration of these involves some difficulties, and some things not generally known might have been advanced respecting them; they are also important, as they entered into all the parts of the Old Testament worship. I therefore intended to have discussed this subject at large; but as it is not directly referred to by our apostle in this Epistle, and as these discourses have increased much beyond. my first design, I shall here wholly omit all farther disquisition about
§ 1. Excellence and usefulness of this Epistle; doctrine of the priesthood of Christ fully revealed and taught therein alone. § 2. This doctrine abstruse and mysterious. § 3. The manner of the handling of it by the apostle; that now proposed. § 4. Doctrine of the priesthood of Christ variously opposed and depraved by Papists, Socinians, and others. § 5. Other reasons of handling it in these exercitations. Prefigurations of it. § 6. 773 A priest. Signification of the word, Ps. 1xi.10. § 7. 93 to divine. Divination and prognostication by priests. § 8. Of the priests of Egypt. § 9. Rulers called Cohanim, and why. Cohen properly a sacrificer. § 10. Melchisedec the first priest, a sacrificer; corruption of the Targum. Of his bringing forth bread and wine. The tenth of the spoils offered to God. § 11. Institution of a priesthood under the law to offer sacrifice. A priest and a sacrificer the same.
§ 1. Amonast the many excellencies which render this Epistle to the Hebrews as useful to the church as the sun is to the world, the revelation which it contains concerning the nature, the singular preeminence, and use of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, deserves the first and principal place. For as the whole matter of the sacrifice which he offered, and the atonement which by it he made, and all the inestimable benefits which thus redound to them that do believe, depend solely on the priesthood of our Lord; the excellency of this doctrine must be acknowledged by all who take any interest in these things. It is, indeed, in substance, delivered in some other passages of the books of the New Testament; but yet more sparingly and obscurely than any other truth of similar importance. The Holy Ghost reserved the full statement of it to this Epistle, as to its proper place. And here, when considering the institutions of the Old Testament, and their removal out of the church, he is led most naturally to consider our Lord as the great High Priest, who put an end to all those institutions, by accomplishing that which they typified; and who gives life to all those ordinances of evangelical worship, which were to succeed in their room. When our Lord Jesus said that he came to give his life a ransom for many, Matt. xx. 28, he had respect to the sacrifice which he was to offer as a priest. The same also is intimated, where he is called the Lamb of God, John i. 29. For he was himself both priest and sacrifice. Our apostle also mentions his sacrifice and his offering of himself unto God, Eph. v. 2; and on the account of this he calls him a propitiation, Rom. iii. 25; and mentions also his intercession, with the benefits thereof, Rom. vii. 34. But the clearest testimony to this purpose is that of the apostle John, who puts together both the general acts of his sacerdotal office, and also intimates their mutual relation, 1 John 11. 2; for his intercession as our advocate with his Father has respect to his oblation, as he was a propitiation for our sins. So the same apostle tells us to the same purpose, that ‘he washed us in his own blood, Rey. i. 5, when he expiated our sins by the sacrifice of himself. These are, if not all, yet the principal places in the New Testament in which immediate respect is had to the priesthood or sacrifice of Christ. But in none of them is he called a priest, or a high priest; nor is he said in any of them to have taken any such office upon him. Neither is the nature of his oblation or intercession explained in them, nor are the benefits which accrue’to us from his discharge of this office stated in a particular manner. In the ensuing exposition we shall, with the assistance of God, declare of what concern these things are to our faith, obedience, and consolation; of what use to us in the whole course of our profession, in all our duties and temptations, sins and sufferings. Now for all the knowledge which we have of these and of sundry other evangelical mysteries connected with them, or depending on them; and for all the light which we have into the nature and use of Mosaic institutions, and of the types of the Old Testament, which make so great a part of the Scripture given and continued for our instruction; we are entirely indebted to the revelation made in this Epistle.
§ 2. This doctrine concerning the priesthood of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered, is on many accounts deep and mysterious. This our apostle plainly intimates in sundry passages of this Epistle. With respect hereunto he saith, the discourse he intended was δυσερμηνευτος λέγειν, “ hard to be uttered, or rather hard to be understood when uttered, ch. vy. 11. As another apostle also says, in reference to this doctrine, that there are in this Epistle δυσνοητα τινα, 2 Pet. ii. 16, ‘some things hard to be understood.’ Hence he requires that those who attend to this doctrine should be past the condition of living on milk only, or being contented with the first rudiments and principles of religion, and that they should be able to digest strong meat, by having their senses exercised to discern good and evil, ch. ν. 12—14. And when he is about to proceed in the explication of it, he declares that he is leading them on to perfection, ch. vi. 1, or to the highest and most perfect doctrines in the mystery of the Christian religion. And in several other ways he manifests his judgment both of the importance of this truth, and of the necessity of knowing it, and also of the difficulty there is in coming to a right and full understanding of it. All these things justify a special and peculiar inquiry into this doctrine of the priesthood of Christ.
§ 3. Now although our apostle, in the excellent method which he has adopted, delivers to us all the material concerns of this sacred office of Christ, yet he has not done it in an entire discourse, but in such a way as his subject-matter and principal design would admit of, and indeed as it required. He does not in any one place, nor upon any one occasion, express and teach the whole of the doctrine concerning it; but, as himself speaks in another case, πολυμερὼς καὶ πολυτρόπως, by various parts or degrees, and in sundry ways, he declares the several concerns of it. For this he did partly as the Hebrews could bear it; partly as the series of his discourse led him to the mention of it, having another general end in view; and partly, as was requisite, for the explanation of the old Aaronical institutions and ordinances, which for the benefit of those who still adhered unto them he aimed at. To have undertaken the consideration of the whole subject, in the exposition of any particular passage, would have interrupted the reader’s attention to the scope of the apostle, by the length of the digression. And had I insisted on the several parts of it as they occur, I should have been necessitated to a frequent repetition of the same things; and in neither way could I have given an entire representation of it, by which the beauty and the symmetry of the whole might be made evident. This, therefore, inclined me in the first place to comprise a summary of the entire doctrine concerning it, in these previous exercitations. From hence, as the reader may take a prospect of it singly by itself, so he may, if he please, carry much insight with him from it, into the most abstruse passages in the whole Epistle. And this, added to what we have discoursed on ch. i. 2, concerning the kingly nght and power of Christ, will give a more full and complete account of these his two offices than, it may be, hath as yet been attempted by any.
§ 4. Moreover, the doctrine concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of the Lord Christ hath in all ages, by the craft and malice of Satan, been either directly opposed or variously corrupted. For it contains the principal foundation of the faith and consolation of the church, which are by him chiefly maligned. In how many things, and by how many ways, it hath been obscured and depraved in the papacy, is generally known. Some of these corruptions we have occasion to consider in our exposition of many passages of the Epistle. For they have not so much directly opposed the truth of the doctrine, as disbelieving the use and benefit of the thing itself to the church; they have substituted various false and superstitious observances, to effect the end for which this priesthood of Christ alone is designed of God. These, therefore, I shall no otherwise consider, but as their opinions and practices occasionally occur to us, either in these exercitations, or in the exposition ensuing. But there is a generation of men, whom the craft of Satan hath stirred up in this and the foregoing age, who have made it a great part of their preposterous and pernicious endeayours about religion, to overthrow this whole office of the Lord Christ, and the efficacy of the sacrifice of himself depending thereon, This they have attempted with much subtilty and diligence, by introducing a metaphorical or imaginary priesthood and sacrifice in their room. ‘Thus they would rob the church of its principal treasure, and pretend to supply the use of it from their own fancies. The Socinians are the persons to whom I refer. And there are more reasons than one, why I could not omit a strict examination of their reasonings and objections against this great part of the mystery of the gospel. The reputation of parts, industry, and learning, which the bold curiosity of some hath given to them, makes it necessary, at least upon proper occasions, to obviate the insinuation of the poison of their religious tenets, the circulation of which 15 promoted by their reputation for learning. Besides, there are not few, even among ourselves, who embrace and do endeayour to propagate their opinions. And the same course, though their faces seem to look another way, is steered by the Quakers, who have at last openly espoused almost all their pernicious tenets: in some things, indeed, they as yet obscure their sentiments in cloudy expressions, through want either of will or skill to make a more perspicuous declaration of them. And there are others, also, pretending to more sobriety than those before mentioned, who do yet think that these doctrines concerning the offices and mediation of Christ are, if not unintelligible by us, yet not of any great necessity to be insisted on. Such is the esteem in which the mysteries of the gospel are held by: some, yea, by many among us. With respect to all these, and for the edification of those that are sober and godly, I esteemed it necessary to handle this whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ, distinctly and previously to our exposition of the uses of it, as they occur in the Epistle.
§ 5. There are also various things which may illustrate this doctrine, and be useful in the explication of the terms, notions, and expressions which are used in the declaration of it, that cannot directly and orderly be reduced under any single text in the Epistle. Many dawnings there were in the world, before the rising of this Sun of righteousness. Many preparations for the actual exhibition of this high priest for the discharge of his office. And some of these tend greatly to instruct us in the nature of this priesthood, as being appointed of God for that purpose. Such was the use of sacrifices, ordained from the foundation of the world, or from the first entrance of sin; and the designation of persons in the church to the office of a figurative priesthood, for the offering of these sacrifices. By these God intended to instruct the church in the nature and benefit of what he would after accomplish in and by his Son Jesus Christ. What belonged then to the rite of sacrificing, and to the Mosaic priesthood, must be taken into consideration, as retaining yet that light in them which God had designed them to communicate. And indeed our apostle himself refers many of the instructions which he gives us in the nature of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, to those institutions which were designed ‘of old to typify and represent them. Besides all these, in the common usages of mankind there may be found traces of this office, and of the discharge of it in general, which deserve our consideration. or although all who were left out of the church’s enclosure, through their own blindness, and the eraft of him who originally seduced them into an apostasy from God, had, as to their own interest and practice, miserably depraved every thing that belonged to the worship or service of a divine being; yet they still carried along with them something which had its origin in divine revelation, and which had a congruity to the inbred principles of nature. In these, also, where we can separate the wheat from the chaff, what was from divine revelation, or the light of nature, from what was of diabolical delusion or vain superstition, we may discover what is useful and helpful unto us in our design. By these means we may be enabled to reduce all sacred truth in this matter to its proper principles, and direct it to its proper end. For these reasons, though we shall have frequent occasion to insist on this office of Christ, with the proper acts and effects of it, in our ensuing exposition 5. yet I thought meet to handle the whole doctrine of it apart in preliminary discourses. And let not the reader suppose that he shall be imposed on with the same things, handled in several ways, twice over. For as the design of the exposition is to open the words of the text, to give their sense, with the purpose and arguings of the apostle, applying all to the improvement of our faith and obedience, whereof nothing will here fall under our consideration; so what may be here discoursed historically, philologically, dogmatically, or eristically, will admit of no repetition or rehearsal in the expository part of our endeavours. These things being premised, as was necessary, we now proceed to the work betore us.