Exercitation 24

Sacrifices the principal worship of God. Three sorts of them. 1. Of the Brazen Altar. 2. Of the Sanctuary. 3. Of the most Holy place. Respected by the Apostle. All sacrifices of the Altar. [illegible] Every Corban, either Isha, or Terumah. [illegible] of six sorts. 1. Hola. 2. Mincha. 3. Chataath. 4. Asham. 5. Milluim. 6. Shelamim. A second distinction of fire offerings. Either Zebach or Mincha. These distinctions and differences explained at large. The matter of all sacrifices. [illegible] the first particular sacrifice. The rise, use and direction of it. Use of it among the Heathen. What of ancient tradition, what of their own invention. The manner of their sacrifice. The end of it. To make expiation or atonement, what. Seasons and occasions of this sacrifice. [illegible] A meat-offering. The use of that name; general, particular. The matter of this offering. [illegible] the drink offering. The matter of it. [illegible] Peace offerings. Reason of the name. Things peculiar to this kind of sacrifice. The use of it among the Heathen. [illegible] The sin-offering. The name and causes of it. Sins [illegible] what. The persons to offer this sacrifice. The anointed priest, who, (Leviticus 4:3). The whole congregation. The ruler. A private person. The time and manner of this sacrifice. The sprinkling of blood in it. [illegible] The trespass-offering. Its difference from the sin-offering. [illegible] Consecration offerings. 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 all the worship thereof; namely, the sacrifice of the Son of God: and he is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29), because he fulfilled and perfectly accomplished what was prefigured by the sacrifice of Lambs, and other creatures, from the foundation of the world. Neither were these offerings and sacrifices any thing, but means of God's institution, for men to express by them their faith in the first promise. Nor were sacrifices in general now first instituted, nor the kinds of them first appointed; but the most of them were observed upon Divine Revelation and command from the entrance of sin, and giving of the Promise; only they were rescued in the repetition of them to Moses, from the superstition that was grown in their observance, and directed to a right object, and attended with suitable instructive ceremonies in the manner of their performance.

§ 2 Now these offerings were of 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 of 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 sacrifice on the Cross: the second his intercession in Heaven: and the third, the [illegible], or effects of both, in atonement and reconciliation. And these our Apostle mentions (chapter 8, verses 3–4): Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: and there are priests that offer gifts according to the Law. Chapter 9, verse 7: Into the second went the high priest alone once every year; not without blood, which he offered for himself and the errors of the people. Verse 12: By the blood of bulls and calves. Verse 13: The blood of bulls and calves, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkled. Verse 22: Almost all things are by the Law purged with blood. Chapter 10: 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 goats should take away sins. Therefore when he cometh into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering you would not. Verse 11: And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin. Chapter 13, verse 11: For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burnt without the camp.

Evident it is, that these and the like passages, wherein our Apostle refers to the institution, § 3 nature, use, end and manner of the observation of sacrifices, cannot be rightly understood, without some distinct notion of them, as 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.

Sacrifices of the Altar in general were [illegible] Corbanim. The name it may § 4 be of [illegible] is not distinctly applied to every sort of them; but whereas every thing that any man [illegible] brought nigh to dedicate or offer to God, was from there [illegible], 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 [illegible], their Corbans, that is, offerings or sacrifices of all sorts.

Now every [illegible] was either [illegible] Isha, a Firing, or [illegible] Terumah, an heave-offering, § 5 or [illegible] Tenupha, a wave-offering; the [illegible] Ishim were [illegible] kodesh kodashim; holiness of holiness, or most holy; all but one; the other were [illegible] kodesh hi[illegible]ulim, holiness of praises (Leviticus 19:24).

The [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Fireings, Fire offerings, were expresly of six sorts, as they are distinctly set down (Leviticus 7:37): 1. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]hola, the Burnt offering; 2. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Mincha, the Meat offering: 3. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Chataath, the Sin-offering; 4. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Ascham the Trespass-offering; 5. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Milluim, Consecration; 6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Zebach Shelamim, Peace-offerings; so are they rendred by ours, how rightly, we shall see afterwards. Besides, the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Mincha contained that, properly so called, the Meat-offering; and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Nesek, the Drink-offering. The LXX render the verse, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]: This is the Law of whole Burnt offerings, and of sacrifices, and for sin, and trespass, and of perfection, or consummation, and of the sacrifice of salvation. The particulars shall be examined as they occur. The Vulgar Latine reads the words, Lex holocausti, & sacrificii pro peccato, & delicto, & pro consecrasione, & pacificorum victimis; This is the Law of the whole-burnt-offering, and of the sacrifice for sin, and trespass; and for consecration, and for the sacrifices of peace-makers. And herein either the Mincha is wholly left out, or the words should be read, & sacrificii, & pro peccato; and so answer to the Greek, expressing [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]sacrificium, though improperly.

These [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Fire offerings are moreover distinguished into [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Zebach, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Mincha in a large sense. For it is evident that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Mincha is used very variously. For, 1. Sometimes it is of as large a signification as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Corban it self; and is frequently applied to offerings of blood, as well as of meat and drink (Genesis 4:4). 2. Sometimes it is contra-distinguished to [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and denotes all sacrifices by fire, not of beasts and blood (Psalms 40:6; Daniel 9:27; Leviticus 7:34). 3. Sometimes it signifies that peculiar offering, which being made of flower or meal with oil, we call the Meat-offering (Leviticus 2:1). Therefore in this distribution, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], victima, sacrificium mactatum, a slain sacrifice; compriseth, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]hola, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]chataath, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Ascham, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Shelamim; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that which was peculiarly so, Mincha; and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Nesek, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Milluim partook of both. And these things must be a little further explained.

First, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Corban, the general name of all sacrifices, taken from the general nature, in that they were all brought nigh to God, is usually rendred by the vulgar Latine, Oblatio, and by us suitably an Offering; is properly appropinquatio, a drawing nigh, from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to approach, to draw near. The LXX render it constantly by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a gift; unless it be (Nehemiah 10:34; chapter 13:30): [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is munus, donum. And so is it rendred by the Evangelist (Matthew 5:23, 24; and chapter 15:5). Usually it is such a gift, as is presented to appease, reconcile, or obtain favor; which among men the Hebrews call [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]shocad. So Plato, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; which the Poet translates.

Munera (crede mihi) placant hominesque deosque Placatur donis Jupiter ipse datis.

And this Joash in his Parable seems to allude to (Judges 9:13), where he brings in the Vine saying, Shall I leave my Wine, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Ishim. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is first mentioned (Exodus 29:18): You shall burn the whole Ram upon the altar, it is a burnt-offering to the Lord, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]a savour of rest, a firing to the Lord; ignitio. Thus all sacrifices were called that were burned on the Altar, either wholly or any part of them. The Greeks thought they had no proper word to express this by, (as frequently in all their abundance they are streightned in expressing the signal emphasis of the divine Hebrew) have variously rendred it; not once properly, or with any intimation of the native importance of the word. Sometimes they translate it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Exodus 29:18); sometimes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to the same purpose (Leviticus 11:13; chapter 2:2): a Sacrifice; sometimes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Leviticus 2:9), that is, an Oblation, an Offering; thus most frequently. But whereas that word signifies primarily the seed of fruit, or the profit made by it, and is but tralatitiously accommodated to Oblations, it does most improperly express [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which principally intended 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or fire offering, was either [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Sebach the Greeks render constantly by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and words of the same original; that is, a sacrifice of slain beasts: Victima, Hostia Mactata. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is to sacrifice by killing; though I know that Eustathius thinks that Homer useth [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] only for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; but its constant use in all Authors is to kill in sacrifice. And [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is properly a slain sacrifice; though it be often used in the Scripture metaphorically. So does [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signifie, properly the same with [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Teth and Zain being easily and often changed; that is, to kill and slay. And Elias Levita observes, that it is but twice used when it does not directly denote killing. And from this kind of sacrifices had the Altar its name: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]misbeach; and so in the Greek [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Now of the sacrifices that were [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] there were four sorts; 1. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Burnt-offering; 2. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Sin-offering; 3. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Trespass-offering; 4. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Peace-offerings; and in part also the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Consecration-offerings, &c. as was before observed.

§ 11 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the second species of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; the word is of an uncertain original, 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that mem may be esteemed a radical letter, from where in the plural number it is read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the misna; which yet is but a feigned radix, no where used in the original, or the Targum: and it is read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the Scripture, as Psalm 20:3. Hence some deduce it from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to lead or bring to, making it agree in its general signification with [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]cor[•]an. Some think it may rather be deduced from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to refresh, recreate, give rest; and that because it is called emphatically a savour of rest to the Lord (Leviticus 2:2). The LXX sometimes render it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], manifesting that they knew not the precise importance of the word, and therefore left it untranslated. It comprised, as was said, the mincha properly so called, and the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] most holy to the Lord.

§ 12 Of the other sort of offerings, which were only [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] holiness of praises, there was no general name; but they were either [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Terumah, the Heave-offering, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Tenuphah, the Wave-offering, whereof we shall speak afterwards.

§ 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 the singular case of the sacrifice for the cleansing of the Leper (Leviticus 14:4). In all 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, 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 attonement for sins; or, 2. Euctical, to impetrate mercies from God; or, 3. Eucharistical, to return praises to him.

§ 14 The first particular sacrifice instituted in the Church of Israel, regulated and directed (Leviticus 1), was the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Burnt-offering. I say it was then first prescribed to 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 (Genesis 4:4). For whereas it is expresly 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], his gift, that is, his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or free-will-offering, as all were before the Law; and his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Hebrews 11:4), the sacrifice that he slew to the Lord. But the name is first expressed (Genesis 8:20), 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) (this God had instructed him in) [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and offered burnt offerings on the altar. So did Job, before the giving of the Law (chap. 1:5), which God also prescribed to his friends (chap. 42:8), as did Jethro also in the Wilderness (Exodus 18:12). For from that sacrifice of Noah, was this rite of whole-burnt-offerings derived by tradition to all nations of his posterity: but the end and use of it being lost, it was in process of time, by the craft of Satan, turned into the chiefest way of exercising their idolatry.

The matter therefore of this sacrifice was preserved among the Heathen; although § 15 they made use of other creatures also, than what were allowed in the Law of Moses, or applied to that purpose by any who were guided by divine direction. Their principal solemn sacrifices were of the herd, which therefore they called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or buthysia, the sacrifice of Oxen, and that of all sorts of Kine.

Taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi pulcher Appolo, as Virgil. And he also expresseth the way of offering these Bulls or Oxen to Neptune, Apollo, and of their feigned Deities.

Et solida imponit taurorum viscera flammis. They committed their whole inwards to flames on the Altar; which expresseth this Holocaust. And they offered Kine of all sorts. So Homer tells us, that Nestor sacrificed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that is, an Heifer or a Bullock of one year old, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], says Eustathius; as in many cases the Law directed. And the Poet adds, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Which none had brought to the yoke, as the same was required in the sacrifices 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 Proserpina. And Plutarch tells us, that some of the old Aegyptians offered a Red Heifer in sacrifice, which I much doubt; and suppose rather the report to have risen from the ceremonies of the Red Cow instituted in the Wilderness, when the people came out of Egypt. But whereas an Ox was an 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. 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.

Sheep also they sacrificed, especially Lambs, to Jupiter, Minerva, and Diana; and Goats or Kids to Bacchus. From where is that of the Poet.

Rode caper vites, tamen hinc 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 bitterly reflected on Nero Caesar upon his foolish Edict for the cutting down of Vines in Italy. Birds or Fowls also they offered or sacrificed, but without distinction; Cocks, Geese, Turtles, and the like.

But besides these things that were of antient 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; neither ever were they in use among the first Fathers of the world, until after the Babylonian dispersion. Of the first sort was their sacrificing of men, which I have elsewhere shewed 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. [in non-Latin alphabet], the offerings of Swine, was the principal, and as the most of them judged the most antient kind of sacrifice among 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,

[in non-Latin alphabet], [in non-Latin alphabet]. Money I want, a sacred Swine to buy; I would be consecrate, before I dye.

And in case of Lustration or Expiation, Plautus speaks to the same purpose in his Maenechmi,

Adolescens quibus hic pretiis porci voeneunt sacres sinceri? Nummum unum en à me accipe; jube te piari mea pecunia; Nam ego quidem insanum esse te certe scio.

Young man, what is here the price of Swine fit for sacrifice? take a piece of Silver of me, and get your self expiated, (or freed from your malady by Sacrifice) with my money; for I [illegible] certainly that you are mad.

And another concerning Covenants.

Caesâ jungebant foedera porâ.

They ratified their Covenants by the sacrifice of a Female Swine. But this by the way; we return.

The nature, and manner of it in the Church of Israel, is directed (Leviticus 1). In general, as was said, it was [in non-Latin alphabet], Corban, a gift brought nigh to God: ver. 3. [in non-Latin alphabet]; if his Corban be Hola. From [in non-Latin alphabet], Hala, ascendit, to go upward, it was so called. The LXX. render it for the most part by [in non-Latin alphabet], or [in non-Latin alphabet], as does our Apostle, Chap. 10.6. That which is wholly consumed or burnt, as this was all but the skin. For the [in non-Latin alphabet] mentioned, v. 8. and Chap. 8. v. 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 Cawl, as we render it. And it is not unlike, but they might make use of the word [in non-Latin alphabet], because the beginning of it answers in sound to the Hebrew [in non-Latin alphabet], for that they were at a loss in expressing the names of the particular sacrifices, has been declared. But [in non-Latin alphabet] 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.

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. [in non-Latin alphabet], and put his hands 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 right hand, or both. Chap. 16. v. 21. Where the High Priest was to perform this duty in the name of the people, it is said expresly, that he shall put [in non-Latin alphabet], both his hands on the head of it: from where 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. And this ceremony was observed only when the offering was of Beasts; not so 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 impose 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 to God.

Secondly, The Beast, now a Corban, by being brought to the Altar, was to be slain. [in non-Latin alphabet], v. 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 Chronicles 29:22). 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 (Numbers 8:19), and who in all greater sacrifices, did the outward work of killing, and slaying. See 2 Chronicles 35:10, 11. As also it is said expresly, that they slew the Paschal Lamb (2 Chronicles 30). 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 expresly said to be done by the Priest, v. 15. And of him that kills the Offering, v. 5. it is said, he shall flay it, and cut it into its pieces, v. 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, v. 11. And when it was killed, the blood was taken, or wrung out and sprinkled about the Altar, v. 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 (Hebrews 9:14; Chap. 12:24).

The beast being killed, was slayed and opened; made [in non-Latin alphabet], naked, and opened, which our Apostle alludes to, Chap. 4:13. Afterwards it was cut into pieces, v. 6, which pieces were salted (Chap. 2:13), and then laid in order on the wood upon the Altar, v. 8, as also were the legs and inwards, after they were washed, v. 9. As our bodies in our approach to God are said to be washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22). The everlasting fire, typing out the eternal Spirit, through which Christ offered himself to God (Hebrews 9:14), being applied by the Priest to the wood, the whole was incinerated (Psalm 20:3), continuing to burn it may be all night long; though no sacrifice was to be offered but by day, which made them watch for the morning (Psalm 130:6). The differing ceremonies in killing and offering of the fowls are clearly expressed in the same chapter.

The end of this offering was always to make atonement. So the text; [in non-Latin alphabet], v. 4, it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him: [in non-Latin alphabet], says one, Quod latinè 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: [in non-Latin alphabet] is always, to be accepted; and for what end shall the sacrifice be accepted? [in non-Latin alphabet], to appease, atone, to make atonement for him, as we shall show elsewhere; not absolutely; this it could not do (Hebrews 10:1, 2, 3), but in a representation, as they were a shadow of good things to come, v. 11.

There are reckoned up eighteen times wherein this kind of offering was to be made by express institution; the annumeration whereof belongs not to us in this place. Nine of them refer to particular occasions and emergencies, the other nine had their fixed seasons, occurring daily, monthly, or annually. Only we may observe that of this kind of offering was the [in non-Latin alphabet], the juge sacrificium, or continual sacrifice which was offered morning and evening, with whose final removal, or taking away, the church and worship of the Jews utterly ceased (Daniel 9:27). And as it had a precise command, for its being offered morning and evening continually, so in the constant acknowledgement 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; witness that of Hesiod,

[in non-Latin alphabet] [in non-Latin alphabet]. Let offerings and sacrifices burn, at evening, and at sacred lights 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 among men, was common with the Jews to the Gentiles. Thus when Jethro, Moses his father in law, offered a burnt-offering and sacrifices, Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with him before God (Exodus 18:12). And so also in the sacrifices that Agamemnon offered in Homer Iliad B., he called the ancients and princes of the Graecians to a banquet at it with him; as did Nestor likewise with those about him, at his great sacrifice, Od[illegible]ss. G.

The next sort of offerings that was regulated in the law, was the [in non-Latin alphabet], which as it denoted an especial kind of sacrifice we have from the matter of it, rendered a meat-offering (Leviticus 2:1). 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 [in non-Latin alphabet] Mincha of the fruits of the earth to offer to God (Genesis 4:3). And there is no doubt but that as to the kind of it, it was acceptable to God, as of his own institution, though the person that offered it, for want of faith was not approved (Hebrews 11:3).

§ 25 The name, as was in part before observed, is, as of an uncertain original, so variously used and applied. Sometimes it is used for a civil gift of men one to another; or a present (1 Samuel 10:27). Sometimes for any offering or sacrifice. So Abel's sacrifice which was in especial a burnt-offering, is called his Mincha (Genesis 3). Hence it is sometimes rendered in the New Testament by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a sacrifice, a bloody sacrifice (Matthew 9:49; Acts 7:42). And our Apostle from Psalm 40:6 renders [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Sebach and Mincha, by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Hebrews 10:5), sacrifice and offering; by both of which terms sacrifices only of atonement and propitiation were intended, and not the especial 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 Samuel 3:14): The sin of the house of Eli shall not be expiated, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], neither by Sebach, 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 Samuel 26:19). But as it denotes the especial 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 flower and oil, the matter of the Mincha, instead of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Ascham, or trespass-offering (Leviticus 5:11, 12). And yet atonement properly was not made thereby; only in it, or the appointment of it, there was a testification of God's acceptance of the person with a non obstante for his trespass. And hence does our Apostle use his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], his almost in this business (Hebrews 9:22): 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 (Numbers 5:15). Whereas every sacrifice of atonement, was for the covering of sin, and the casting of it out of remembrance.

§ 26 As the Mincha denotes a peculiar offering, whose laws and ordinances are recorded (Leviticus 2:1, 2, &c.), the matter of it was 1. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Soleth, simila, v. 7, that is, the flower of wheat. So it is expressed (Ezekiel 45:13, 15). In one case [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], farina hordacea, barley meal (so we render the word) was used (Numbers 5:15). But [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Kemach is properly, bran, barley 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. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], biccurim, primae fruges, frugum primitiae, first fruits; that is, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], corn newly ripened in the ear. 3. Oil. 4. Frankincense. 5. Salt, v. 1, 2, 3, &c. And the use of two things are expressly forbidden, namely leaven and honey, v. 11. Hereunto also belongs the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Nesec, or drink-offering, which was an addition of wine to some sacrifices, never used separately. And the Psalmist shows how this degenerated among idolaters, who in their superstitious rage, made use of the blood of living creatures, it may be of men, in their libamina. They had [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], drink-offering of blood, which he abhorred (Psalm 16:3).

Now this offering was sometimes offered alone by itself, and then it was of the § 27 number of free-will offerings, whose law and manner is prescribed (Leviticus 2). 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 (Leviticus 23:10, 11). 2. The two wave loaves, v. 17. 3. The daily shewbread (Leviticus 24:5). But whereas we have showed that the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Mincha was one of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or a fire-offering, and also it was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] most holy (Leviticus 2:10), these being neither of them, they belonged to 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 to God, consisting of two tenth deals of Soleth, or wheat-flower mingled with oil, and the fourth part of an Hin of wine for a drink-offering, which were burned in the fire (Leviticus 23:13); but 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 (Leviticus 5:11). 2. The jealousy-offering (Numbers 5:15). 3. The offering of the priests at their consecration (Leviticus 8:26, 28). 4. The high priest's daily meat-offering (Leviticus 6:20). 5. The leper's offering (Leviticus 14:10). 6. The dedication offering mentioned (Numbers 8). 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 (Isaiah 66:20) compared with (Romans 15:16); (Malachi 1:10, 11) compared with (1 Timothy 2:8). 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.

Hereunto, as we have said, belongs the [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], nesek, which as directed in the Law, was § 28 but one part of the Mincha, and is not reckoned among the distinct species of offerings, as they are summed up (Leviticus 7:37). And the reason is, because under the Law it was never offered alone by its self, but as an appendix to burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and peace-offerings, to compleat the Mincha, or meat-offering that accompanied them. But of old before the Reformation of Sacrifices by Moses, it was a distinct offering by its self (Genesis 35:14). Jacob offered a drink-offering, that is of wine, which was its primitive institution and practice. And it was always to be of wine (Numbers 15). This, chapter 28, verse 7, is called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 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 to the Mincha, a meat-offering, that is, offerings whose matter was of things to be eat and drunk. It may be otherwise called a pouring, an offering poured out; Libamen, a sacred effusion. And these offerings were most holy also (Leviticus 2:10).

These offerings of the fruits of the earth as they were in use among the Heathen, so § 29 the most learned of them did contend, that they were far the most antient kind of sacrifices among men, as Plato expressly, book 6 de Legib. But we know the contrary from Genesis 4, where the first sacrifices in the world are recorded. The latter Pythagoreans also condemned all other offerings, all that were [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], of living creatures; as I have elsewhere shewed out of Porphyrie; though Cicero testifie 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, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], that is flower of wheat, or barley mingled with water and salt, is of most frequent mention among their sacred things. So also were their placentae and Liba adorea, their cakes made with flower, oyle, and honey. What was their use to the same purpose of wine and frankincense, the reader may see at large in the seventh book of Arnobius advers. Gentes.

The next solemn sacrifice in the order of their appointment under the Law is, § 30 that which is called [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Sebach Shelamin, which we render peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:1). It is by translators rendered with more variety than any other word used in this matter. By the Greeks [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], a sacrifice of salvation, of expiation, of praise, of perfection. And the Latins have yet more varied in their expression of it; Sacrificium pacium, perfectionum, gratulationum, salutis, retributionum, integrorum, mundorum, sanctisicatorum, 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], from where most suppose that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] was taken. But others think that it comes from [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] Peace, which of late is almost generally received. In general this sacrifice was Corban, a gift or offering brought nigh and dedicated to God; and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], a firing, or an offering by fire; and in specie [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], a sacrifice from the slaying and killing of the beast that was offered. But it is no where said to be [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], or most holy, as being merely expressive of moral duties, in a way accommodated to the present economy of divine worship; see Hebrews 13:15. But it is usually reckoned among them that were so.

§ 31 Peace-offerings, as was observed, is the name that has prevailed, though it respected vows of thanksgiving, or for the impetration of mercies: see chapter 7, verses 12, 17. The reason given by Jarchi for this appellation, namely, because it brought peace to 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], says he, or burnt-offering was all of it burned, only the skin was the priests. The [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], the fat ascended on the altar, the breast and shoulder were the priests, the residue of the flesh belonged to the offerers, or them that brought it, to eat themselves; 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 to.

§ 32 The matter of this sacrifice was the same with that of the burnt-offering; namely, as to beasts of the heard, bullocks or heifers; of the flock, goats, rams, lambs or kids: of fowls the same with the former, verses 6, 7. In the causes of it; it was either a free-will-offering for impetration, or from a vow for thanksgiving or retribution. The appointed seasons and occasions of it were; 1. At the consecration of a priest (Exodus 29:2). 2. At the purification of a leper (Leviticus 14). 3. At the expiration of a Nazaretical vow (Numbers 6:14). 4. At the solemn dedication of the Tabernacle and Temple. The manner of its offering is peculiarly described (Leviticus 3), and the Jews' observations 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 [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], verse 5. And Aaron's sons shall burn it on the altar, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]; that is, says the Vulgar Latin in holocaustum, for a burnt-offering; as though its self were so, or substituted in the room of the whole burnt-offering. The LXX. [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], upon the burnt-offerings. So we, upon the burnt-sacrifice. But what is the intendment of that expression 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 while it was yet burning, the peace-offering was to be added thereunto. It is not indeed declared whether the Hola 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 to God; see Hebrews 13:15, 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 kidneys 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, v.16. And it is called a perpetual statute for all their generations through all their dwellings, that they should eat no fat, v. 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 (Leviticus 7:25). Of the fat of other clean beasts they might eat. And this offering of the fat, seems to denote our serving of 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 burnt-offering, 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], in a way of vow, or upon any success. So Cyrus Minor, Xenophon, and Arianus 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 opima spolia capiuntur, Jovi feretrito darier oportet, & bovem caedito qui caepit aeris ducenta. Secunda spolia in Martis aram in Campo, solitaurilia utra voluerit caedito. Tertia spolia Jano Quirino agnum Marem caedito centum, qui caeperit ex aere dato.

The next sort of sacrifice was the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Chataath or sin-offering, whose laws and § 36 rites are described (Leviticus 4). 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 to God, it partook in general of the nature of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Corbanim. It was of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], firings, or fire-offerings, expressly, v. 12. because of the burning of the fat on the altar; and of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or slain sacrifices. And also it was of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or most holy things from its institution and signification. The name of it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Chataath, that is, sin. He shall do to the bullock, as he did, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to the bullock of the sin; that is, of the sin-offering (Leviticus 4:20). So Ezekiel 45:1. The priest shall take [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], of the blood of the sin; that is, the sin-offering. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Chata in kal is to sin, to offend, to err from the way, to contract the guilt of sin. Hence [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Chataim, are men given up to, and wandering in the ways of sin (Psalm 1:1). In Pihel it has a contrary signification; namely, to purge, to expiate, to cleanse, to make atonement, to undergo penalty, to make satisfaction (Genesis 31:39). That which was torn, says Jacob to Laban, I brought it not to you, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], achatennah, I answered for it; I paid for it, I went by the loss of it. See Exodus 29:36; Numbers 19:19; Leviticus 6:26. According to this signification of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is used to denote an offering for sin; that whereby sin is expiated, pardon of it is procured, atonement is made: so prays David (Psalm 51), [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], you shall purge me, with hyssop, as Numbers 19, that is, clear me, free me, as by an offering for sin. And this kind of expression, our Apostle retains, not only where he reports a testimony of the Old Testament, as Hebrews 10:6, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], burnt-offerings, and for sin, that is, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], sin-offering; but also where he makes application of it to the Lord Christ and his sacrifice which was typified thereby (Romans 8:3), God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that is, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], an offering for sin, a sin-offering, as the word should have been translated. And 2 Corinthians 5:21, him who knew no sin; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he made sin, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a sin-offering for us.

The general cause of this Sacrifice was sin committed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (Leviticus 4:2), through ignorance. So the LXX [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; and the Vulgar Latin, per ignorantiam; through ignorance. Some old Copies of the Greek have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; not voluntarily; not wilfully; for it had respect to all sins, as were not committed so [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], willingly, wilfully, presumptuously, as that there was no Sacrifice appointed for them, the Covenant being disannulled by them (Hebrews 10:26). And there is no sort of sins, no sin whatever, that is between this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], this sin of ignorance, or error, and sin committed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], with an high hand, or presumptuously. See expressly, Numbers 15:28, 29, 30. Hence this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], this Sin-offering was the great Sacrifice of the solemn Day of Expiation (Leviticus 16), whereby atonement was made, for all the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins, v. 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, v. 27. That is all iniquities not disannulling the Covenant, which had [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a revenging recompense allotted to them (Hebrews 2:2). And accordingly are those words to be interpreted where the cause of this Sacrifice is expressed (Leviticus 4:2): If a soul sin [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 neighbor without propense malice (Deuteronomy 9:4). Any sin is there intended whereinto men fall by error, ignorance, imprudence, incogitancy, temptation, violence of affections, and the like. For such was this Sacrifice instituted. And the end which it typically represented is expressed (1 John 2:1, 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 cut off, there was in such cases no Sacrifices appointed, nor admitted; but in the Sacrifice of Christ there is no exception made to any sin, in those that repent, believe and forsake their sins; not to those in particular which were excepted in the Law of Moses (Acts 13:39). So that as the Sin-offering was provided for all sin that disannulled not the Covenant made at Horeb, which allowed no life or interest 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 Heaven hereafter.

Of the matter of this Offering, see Leviticus 4:2, which because 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 offer it, there is a general distribution of them in the text comprehensive of all sorts of persons whatever. For it is applied, to 1. The Priest: 2. The whole Congregation jointly: 3. The Ruler: 4. Any of the People of the Land; so that none were excluded from the privilege and benefit of this Sacrifice.

The first person mentioned, is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Anointed Priest (Chap. 4:3), that is, say the Jews generally, and our Expositors also, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 so; 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 member of the distribution before mentioned, particularly not in that wherein with any color they might be looked after, namely, the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], v. 27, the people of the Land, that is, the common people, from whom the Priests were always distinguished. Any Priest therefore is intended; and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], anointed, is no more but dedicated, separated to the office of the Priesthood, or it respects that original anointing which they had all in their fore-fathers the Sons of Aaron, when they were first set apart to God (Exodus 24).

The case of the Priest wherein this Sacrifice was allowed him, is expressed in the same place, with words somewhat ambiguous: if [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; 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 to 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] take [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and render it 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 (Hebrews 5:2, 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], according to the sin of the people. But it is otherwise now says he, with the people of God (Chap. 7, v. 26, 27): our High Priest being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, that is, not sinning according 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, v. 13. For the observation of the law being committed in an especial manner to the whole congregation, there were many transgressions in the guilt whereof the whole body of it might be involved. Thirdly, the ruler or rulers had this privilege also, v. 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 among the people, when called thereunto. Fourthly, any one of the common people had the same liberty, and were obliged to the same duty, v. 27. And this distribution of the people, as to their interest in this sin-offering, comprising them all, even all that belonged to the congregation of Israel, of all sorts and ranks, had its accomplishment in the sacrifice of Christ, from which none is excluded that come to God by him, for he will in no wise cast them out.

For the time and season of this sacrifice, it may be briefly observed, that there were § 41 solemn and set occasions, some monthly, some annual, wherein it was to be offered for the whole congregation by especial 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.

The principal ceremony in the manner of its oblation, was the disposal of the § 42 blood. For the blood of this sacrifice had a triple disposal. The main of the blood was poured out at the bottom of the Altar of Burnt-offerings, in the court before the door of the Tabernacle, v. 7. 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, v. 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 (Leviticus 16). But because it was not lawful for him to enter in there 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, v. 6. So that every place of the Tabernacle, and all the concernments of it, were sanctified with this blood; even as Jesus Christ who was represented in all this, was dedicated to God in his own blood, the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 10:29). 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 (Hebrews 9:13, 14), and therefore in allusion hereunto, it is called the blood of sprinkling (Hebrews 12:24), even that which was prefigured by all the blood of the sacrifices, that was sprinkled towards the Most Holy Place, and the mercy seat therein. § 43

The next sort of fire-offerings, was the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Asham, whose laws and ordinances are directed (Leviticus 5), and the particular occasion of it, Chap. 7. We call it, the trespass-offering. And it differed very little from that next before described. For it is not only said concerning them; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; as is the Chataath, or sin-offering, so is the Asham, or trespass-offering, there is one law for them, Chap. 7, v. 7; but also that he who had sinned or trespassed, should bring his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], his trespass-offering to the Lord, for his sin which he had sinned, a female from the flock, or a kid of the goats, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 to ignorance, that that in the Chataath, was Juris, of the right or law, that in the Asham was Facti, 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 of Jesus Christ, that he should give [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], 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 (Isaiah 53:10). And this kind of offering also was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], most holy (Leviticus 6:20). § 44

The last sort of Fire-Offerings were the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], which are reckoned as a distinct species of Sacrifices (Leviticus 7:36), 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 in their setting apart to Office. And from there was the expression of him that came to be consecrated a Priest; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (2 Chronicles 13:9), He that came to fill his hand with a bullock. The rise of this expression we have marked before, on Exodus 28:41. The Lord giving directions to Moses for the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons, he tells him, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], you shall 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 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or fillings. And this may suffice as a brief account of the fire Offerings of the Law of Moses, whose use and end we are fully instructed in, in this Epistle to the Hebrews.

§ 45 There was yet a second sort of Corbans, or offerings to God, under the Law, which were of things, or parts of things not burned on the Altar, but one way or other devoted or consecrated to God and his service. These were the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], Terumoth, which we have rendered sometimes offerings in general, and sometimes Heave-offerings, under which kind the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or Wave-offerings also were comprised. Concerning these, because the handling of them is not without its difficulties, being diffused in their use throughout the whole Worship of God, and that some things not vulgarly known might have been declared concerning them, I thought to have treated at large; but whereas they are not directly referred to by our Apostle in this Epistle, and these discourses being increased much beyond my first design, I shall here wholly omit all farther disquisition about them.

FINIS.