ANSW. I will not difpute with the learned Author about the propriety and juftness of his tranflation of this paffage. I freely grant, that the Hebrew will bear it. But then I must obferve, that, thus rendered, it conduces nothing either to the illustration or confirmation of his opinion about the fymbolical nature and defign of facrifices: for it fays nothing about the gods of Egypt and the Jews drinking together; much lefs about their drinking together, as being a fymbol of friendship, and a foederal rite, by which they engaged in friendship or covenant together; but only mentions the pouring out a libation to the gods of Egypt as an act of idolatry, of which the Jews had been guilty.

To fupport and ftrengthen his opinion. further, the Author next endeavours to prove, that the Heathen confidered facrifices as being fymbols of friendship, and fœderal rites. But as I am not here enquiring after Heathen opinions, but fcripture-doctrines, I fhall pafs over this part of his performance without examining it.

The Author proceeds thus, "Suppofing now that eating and drinking together were the known ordinary fymbols of friendship, and were the ufual rites of engaging in covenants and leagues, and

Page 66-73

" of

"of renewing and ratifying friendships, it " will not be difficult to account from hence "for the origin of facrifices. The fact is certain, that to eat and drink together was the ancient manner of men's engag

ing in friendship with one another; and "therefore it is natural to conceive that they "fhould take the fame method, and ob"ferve the fame rite, in engaging in friendship with God: and if they imagined "that the gods did eat with them, as well

as they did eat with the gods, they would "make the fame rites ferve for amity and friendship with them, as they did with one "another "

ANSW. This way of accounting for the origin of facrifices cannot, in reafon, be admitted, till it be first proved, that eating and drinking together were, among men, the known ordinary fymbols of friendship, and the ufual rites of engaging in covenants and leagues, and of renewing and ratifying friendships, at the time when the oblation of facrifices was first introduced as a mode of worship. And this is what still remains undone; for all the tranfactions and allufions, which the Author has produced as proofs of this point, are, as I have before fhewed, too late for his purpose, by the space of two thousand years and upwards. And, which R 4

* Page 73, 74.

is

is ftill more unlucky for him, thofe tranfactions and allufions, upon which he grounds his proof, do not even prove, that eating and drinking together was used as a symbol of friendship, or a foederal rite, in those very ages when they happened, and were made; as is manifeft from the foregoing examination of them: and, therefore, the Author affirms too much, much more than he has proved, or, I think, than can be proved, when he fays, "The fact is cer

tain, that to eat and drink together was "the ancient manner of men's engaging in "friendship with one another." Moreover, although eating and drinking together had really been the ancient manner of men's engaging in covenants and friendships with one another; "Yet it is not natural to conceive, "that they would take the fame method, "and obferve the fame rite, in engaging in "friendfhip and entering into covenant with "God," fo long as they retained any just and true notion of his fpiritual and all-perfect nature. Men may eat and drink; and, by eating and drinking, their bodys are nourished, their life preferved, and their frame ftrengthened and exhilarated; for which reafons, it is not unnatural to conceive, that eating and drinking together might have been a fymbol of friendship between man and man, or men and men, and a rite by which they entered into covenants,

and

and engaged in friendships with one another. But then, God is a pure and all-perfect fpirit, and, as fuch, incapable of eating and drinking, or of receiving any refreshment or benefit from fuch actions. And, therefore, though the men of old had really made ufe of eating and drinking together as a fymbol of friendship, and as a foederal rite, in engaging in covenants and friendships with one another; yet it is altogether unnatural to conceive, that they would take the fame method, and obferve the fame rite, in engaging in, renewing, and keeping up friendfhip with God. Before they did this, they muft, according to the Author's own confeffion, have imagined, that the gods did eat with them, as well as they did eat with the gods; which, as far as it relates to the one true God, is a moft grofs and abfurd imagination, deftitute of all truth, inconfiftent with the fpirituality of the divine nature, and calculated to promote in men's minds a grofs and wrong conception of it: and withal, fuch an imagination as the Jews were particularly cautioned against by God himself. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Pfal. 1. 13.

To fupport this notion of the fymbolical nature and defign of facrifices, the Author next endeavours to prove, "that it was the "opinion of the Heathen world, that their

" gods

gods did eat of the facrifices which were of fered to them.

ANSW. I fhall not contend with the learned Author about this point, fince the opinion of Heathens, in an affair of this nature, after they had loft the knowledge of the unity of God, and had imbibed grofs and abfurd notions of the nature of deity, particularly, that of the God's eating and drinking after the manner of men, deferves little regard, and cannot rationally be thought to be decifive in this point: efpecially, confidering that the oldeft voucher, which the Author produces of this opinion among the Heathen, is Homer, who wrote after the deftruction of Troy, and confequently, above three thousand years after facrifices had begun to be offered. But, if I may speak my mind freely, about this notion of eating and drinking gods, which was received in the heathen world; I am apt to think, that it owed its being and origin to the policy and artifice of their priests, who, to fqueeze from the people a handfome and plentiful maintenance for themselves, infused the notion into their minds, that the gods were great eaters and drinkers. If the apocryphal story of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, or the opinion of those who forged it, deferve any regard, 'tis plain, that it was with a view

* Page 76, 77.

to