4

the Flock, the Sheep and the Goat From among the Fowls, the Turtle-Dove, and the le or younger Pigeon. More than these were not allowed by the Law. For the Birds (rendred Sparrows in the Marginal reading, Levit. 14.) they belong not at all to this matter. For I am fpeaking here of bloudy Sacrifices: For thofe Birds, one of them was not killed, and neither of them had any relation to God's Altar. These living Creatures, admitted for Sacrifices, were fuch as were common and easy to be procured: Befides, they were tame and gen tle, very innocent, and ufefull and harmleß: No ravenous Beafts are admitted, no Birds of prey. What more usefull than a Bullock, more profitable than a Sheep and Goat, more fimple and harmless than a Dove or Pigeon? And if the Obfervation of Philo be true, That the Offerer was to be like his Oblation, then are innocence and industry, ufefulness and fimplicity recommended here to the Worshipper of God. Secondly, What things were admitted where the Oblation was of things that were inanimate. And fuch things there were in the Meatoffering, (of which Offering I fhall fpeak more particularly afterwards,) viz. Fine Flour, Oil, Frankincenfe, Salt, and, in one cafe, green Ears of Corn, (Levit. 2. I, 14.) and Wine Numb. 15.28.

II. The bloudy Sacrifices were of four forts; and they were thefe: The Holocaufts or whole Burnt-offerings, the Sin-offerings, the TrefpafsA 3 offerings,

offerings, and the Peace offerings. A fhort account of which, the Reader may take as follows.

The Holocauft or Burnt-offering deserves to be confidered firft; For fo it is by Mofes in this Book of Leviticus. Befides, it hath been thought to be the most ancient kind of Sacrifice; and certain it is, that it is in it felf the moft perfect, and comprehenfive, and speaks the greateft devotion and generofity (2 Chron. 29. 31.) in the Offerer. For this Sacrifice was intirely burnt and confumed, it was all God's ; nothing of the Flesh remained to the Priest or to the Offerer, Levit. 1.9, 13. It must be a Male that is offered in this principal Sacrifice, (Levit. 1. 3, 10. with ch.22.19.) And though it were expiatory, (Levit. 1.3.) yet it does not always fuppofe a particular Sin or Tref pass that obliged the Offerer to bring this kind of Sacrifice. But was as freely offered, and very often as voluntary in all refpects as any other Offering whatsoever, (Levit. 22. 18, 19.) Some of these were offered for private Persons, others for the whole Congregation.

For the whole Congregation there were a certain number fixed and stated, and continually offered up year by year. Two were offered up daily, befides the Additionals on every Sabbath, New Moon, and Festival, the number of which (reckoning 365 days in a year) comes to no less than 1243 Head of the Herd and Flock, as may foon be collected from Numb. cb. 28. and cb. 29.

Some

Some were for private perfons, and upon par ticular occafions and emergencies; the number of which cannot therefore be precisely taken, as may be done in those above-named. There were many Occafions which when they happened (and that they frequently did) required an Holocauft by the Letter of the Law of Mofes, and there were many alfo that were voluntarily offered; and I leave the Reader to collect thefe Occafions from the Books of Mofes. For I fhou'd be too large, if I fhould in this place very particularly infift upon all those matters which would fall under this Head. I proceed therefore to

The Sin-offering: This fuppofeth a Sin antecedent, and that of the Congregation or of a private Person. For there are of them alfo as hath been obferved of the Holocaufts before) fome that were offered up for the Sins of the Congregation, and others for the Sins of private Perfons, as appears abundantly from Leviticus, ch.4. But there is another divifion of Sin-offerings which is very much to be heeded: For whereas, generally speaking, the Priest did partake of the Sin-offering, (though the Offerer never did) as appears Levit. 6. 26, 29. and ch. 10. 17. Yet there were fome Sin-offerings in which the Priest did not partake, v. g. when he offered a Sin-offering for himself, or for the whole Congregation, (Levit. 4.) Here (as in the whole Burnt-offering) all was burnt, and befides that, without the Camp alfo. We

A 4

4

have

have a general Rule in this cafe in the words which follow: No Sin-offering whereof any of the bloud is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withall in the holy place, hall be eaten it fhall be burnt in the fire, Levit 6.30. There is ftill a third divifion of the Sin-offerings, and it is this; viz. That fome of them were fixed and determined; i. e. The Offerer knew what certain Offering he must in that cafe bring: Some of them were unde, termined, and, as occafion was, might admit of more or less. E. g. Thus the Sin-offering for the Priest was determined; it must be a young Bullock, Levit. 4. 3. The whole Congregation is obliged to the fame, 14. The Ruler in that cafe was obliged to offer a Kid of the Goats, and that a Male alfo, v. 23. One of the common people was obliged to bring a female Kid of the Goats, v. 28. But in other cafes, and where the Offerer was poor, He was allowed a cheaper Offering inftead of a more coftly one; where he was directed to a Lamb or a Kid, (Levit. 5. 6.) yet in cafe of poverty God would accept of two Turtle-Doves or two young Pigeons, (v. 7.) And when his poverty was very great, God allowed of the tenth part of an Epbah of fine Flour for his Sin-offering, and that without the expence of either Oil or Frankincenfe mingled with it, (v.11.) I proceed to the

Trespass-offering, strictly fo called. We find this Offering different from the Sin-offering in feveral particulars, For, (1) The Sin-offering

was

was fometime offered for the whole Congregation, as well as for private Perfons; but we find no Trefpafs offering required for the Congregation. (2.) A Female was allowed for a Sin-offering, but a Male was always required in a Trefpals-offering, ftrictly fo called. [See the Notes on Levit. 5. 6.] (3.) The Bloud of the Sin-offering was to be put upon the Horns, that of the Trespass-offering on the fides of the Altar, Levit. 4. 7. with ch. 7.2. In this indeed they both agreed that they were not to be offered voluntarily and at pleafure, as Holocaufts and Reace-offerings might. And in this they agreed alfo, that both the one and the other were moft Holy, and the remainder of them to be eaten by the Priests onely in the Holy place: And in this refpect they differed much from the Holocaufts and Peace-offerings; the firft whereof had no remainders to be eaten either by Priest or Offerer; the latter might be eaten by Priest and Offerer, or other persons that were legally clean, and that in a clean place, There are two forts of these Trespass-offerings mentioned by the Jewish Writers. (1.) There is one which they commonly call Afham Talui, i. e. an Offering for a doubtfull Trefpafs. E g. When a Man was not abfolutely fure that he had trefpaffed, but yet fufpected he might be guilty of a Trespass that required an Offering,. in fuch a cafe of fufpenfe he was obliged to this kind of Trefpafs offering. For this the Jews are faid to ground themselves upon, Levit. 5. 17, 18.