to fuch a maintenance, that the priests of Bel made the people believe, that that god was fuch a voracious eater and drinker, as to confume every day twelve great measures of fine flower, forty fheep, and fix veffels of wine. See the hiftory itself, ver. 3-22. And, in fact, it is reported, that, in later ages, the Indian Bramins, with the fame view, infufe into the minds of the people the fame notion, that their gods are great eaters and drinkers.

But to fupport his fentiments, the Author advances fomething which is more to his purpose, if there was any truth in it. He fays," This language fo common among

the

Compluribus e plebe, idola admodum edacia, "perfuadent (fciz. Brachmanes :) ideoque pecuniam "ipfis, et varia efculentorum genera adferenda, perfuadent. Hoc nimirum commento fibi, fuifque, vic"tum largè procurant. Hinc bis quotidie nimis credulum vulgus, per domefticos, nummum diis offert. Illi verò furioforum more faltantes, fiftratique, epulantur. Tunc idola cibum capere, miferis perfua"dentes. Et ne quid fibi fuifve defit, idola effe vehc"menter irata, populo denunciant, quod imperata non "fiant; et nifi deos placet muneribus, fore confirmant, σε ut aut occidantur ab illis, aut calamitatibus affici"antur, aut in ipforum ædes immittantur dæmonia. "His eos technis in errore metuque detinent. Quod "quidem interdum etiam eorum aliqui non diffimu"lant; fed egeftate fe purgare conantur, quod, præ"ter faxea ifta idola, nihil in bonis habent." Vide Joannis Metelli præfationem in hiftoriam Hieronymi Oforii, Epifcopi fluenfis, de rebus ab Emmanuele, Lufitania rege, geftis, ad Antonium Auguftinum Archiepifcopum Tarraconenfem; Coloniæ Edit, Ann. 1586. Fel, 31.

"the Heathen, of the gods eating of the "facrifices offered to them, is very fimilar "to that of the facred writings, where fa"crifices are called the bread or the food of "God. Thus Levit. xxi. 6, 8. The priests "are to be holy unto their God, and not to profane the name of their God, for the of

ferings of the Lord made by fire, and the "bread of their God, they do offer.-Thou fhalt fanctify him, for he offereth the

"

bread of thy God. And in the same chap"ter, 'tis exprefly ordered, that no man that "bath a blemish of the feed of Aaron the priest, "Shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the "Lord made by fire ;-He fhall not come nigh "to offer the bread of his God, v. 21. He might eat the bread of God, v. 22. though " he might not come nigh to offer it. "What is called, in this chapter, the bread " of God, is not to be confined to the Min"cha, or what is called the meat-offering; "but it fignifies whatever was burnt upon "the altar. Thus the peace-offering of the "flock made by fire, confifting of a lamb, "the fat and inwards and rump of which "was burnt upon the altar, is called, The "food of the offering made by fire unto the ἐσ Lord, Levit. iii. 11. The prophet Ezekiel interprets the bread of God to be the fat " and the blood, Chap. xliv. 7. And the

prophet Malachi understood it in the fame "manner,-re offer polluted bread upon mine “altar, Chap. i. 7. by which he means

"offer

-

offerings that were torn, and lame, and fick, ver. 13. offerings highly improper to "be put upon the Lord's table. Vide Levit. " xxii. 24, 25. God himself, likewise, "fpeaks in the fame manner,-Command the

children of Ifrael, and fay unto them, my "offering, my bread for my facrifices made by fire for a fweet favour to me, fhall ye obferve to offer unto me in their due feafon, " Numb. xxviii. 2. All eatables are called " in fcripture, bread; and as all facrifices "made by fire are deemed the bread or the "food of God, what was confumed upon "the Altar, was God's fhare, or portion; " and the reft was the priest's or the own"er's fhare; and thus they all did eat at the fame table '.

ANSW. It is no where faid, that the peaceoffering is the food of the offering made by fire, as our Author affirms. We find indeed, Levit. iii. 11-16. that the rump of the peace-offering, the caul above the liver, the kidneys, the fat upon the caul, and upon

the illia and inwards, are called the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord. And probably they are fo called because, being fat and combuftible, they were the chief means by which the fire was fed and nourished whereby this oblation was burnt and confumed. But, whatever becomes of this conjecture, it is certain, that, in the places referred

£ Page 77-79.

referred to, neither the peace-offering itself, nor thofe parts of it which were burnt upon the altar, are called the food of God. And, therefore, these texts make nothing for the Author's purpose.

I muft, indeed, acknowledge, that, in the other texts, mentioned by the Author, in fome of them at leaft, facrifices are called the bread or meat of God. Nevertheless, I can fee no reafon for thinking, that this language of the fcripture is fimilar to that among the heathen, who fpake of their gods as eating of the facrifices which were offered unto them for God is no where faid to eat of any facrifice that was offered to him. And fay, that facrifices are called the bread or food of God, yet this doth not come up to the Author's purpofe, becaufe facrifices might very properly be called the bread of God, not because he did eat of them, or was to be conceived of as eating of them, but only because they were eatables which had become his property, either by the gift of the offerers, or as forfeits for their fins. The truth is, facrifices were eatables which in the ftrictest fenfe, were God's property. He had, therefore the fole and entire difpofal of them. No perfon could appropriate any of them, or any part of any of them, to his own private use without a special grant from him. On these accounts, facrifices are very juftly called the bread or meat of God: and they, who had

any

any fhare of them granted to them for food, are, with great propriety, faid to eat the bread of God, the bread which was his property, and which no person might eat without a fpecial grant from him. There is, therefore, no reafon at all for admitting the Author's horrid hypothefis, viz. That facrifices are called the bread or food of God, because he did eat of them.

There is one thing farther which deferves remark here; and that is, that the general conclufion, which the Author draws from the texts of this clafs, is fo unguarded that one knows not how to understand it, or what to make of it. He fays, "As all facrifices "made by fire are deemed the bread or food "of God, what was confumed on the altar "was God's fhare or portion; and the reft

was the priest's or the owner's fhare: and "thus they all did eat at the fame table." Now if, by the part confumed on the altar's being God's fhare or portion, the Author means, as he must do, that it was the part of the facrifice which God did eat: this is false in itself, and there is nothing in the fcriptures that gives any countenance to fuch a grofs conceit, as we have feen already. Again, if, by the reft's being the priest's or the owner's fhare, he means, as his hypothefis requires he fhould, that this was the cafe in all facrifices; this is not true; because there were facrifices of which neither the

priest