6

comport sorrow for sin and abstinence from all feasts, especially from those which were furnished by their own expiatory sacrifices. The same observation has been made by Grotius, who, speaking of the peace offerings, says: On these, after the pouring out of the blood, the individuals who had offered them, and their wives and children, were permitted to feast, in ✓ token of friendship with God. This was not allowed in the meat offering, because that was among the priveleges of the priests; nor in the sin offerings or trespass offerings, lest there should be a rejoicing ' in guilt.'

VII. Having seen what victims were to be eaten, and by what persons and in what places; let us now inquire what space of time was allowed for eating them. This was not the same in all cases. The votive and voluntary sacrifices might be eaten on the same day on which they were offered, and on the next day. The same time has been fixed by the rabbies for the consumption of the tithe cattle and the firstlings. But they are of opinion that the paschal victim, the ram of the Nazarite, and eucharistic sacrifices, with the sin offerings and peace offerings of the whole congregation, were to be eaten only on the day on which they were slain, or at least before the following morning: and they consider the remains of the meat offerings as having been subject to the same regulation. Here I apply the term eucharistic -only to those victims, which were the spontaneous oblations of individuals on account of prosperity enjoyed, and which are designated in the law as sacrifices of thanksgiving.** I make this observation,

*In Levit. iii. + Levit. vii. 16. Exod xii. 8.10. || Levit. vii. 15.

Maimon. in Maase Korban. c. 10. Maimon. ubi supra. **Levit. rii. 12.

because the paschal victims, the firstlings, and the tithes, with peace offerings which used to be immolated at the solemn feasts, may in some sense be numbered among the eucharistic sacrifices, as we have already remarked.

VIII. The short space of time within which the victims might be eaten, seems to have been designed to prevent any corruption of the sacrifices, and to guard against covetousness in any of the offerers or priests. This is the opinion of Philo:* Only two days are allowed for eating the peace offerings; no part of them is to be left to the third day, and that " for several reasons. One is, that every thing ought 'to be laid on the sacred table in season, and care 'should be taken that nothing is spoiled by length of time; for the nature of animal food, even though 'it has been seasoned, is liable to putrefaction, An' other is, that the sacrifices are not to be hoarded up, and afterwards dispensed to those who need them for they belong not to the offerer, but to him 'to whom they have been offered; who, being bene'ficent and bountiful, admits the offerers of the 'sacrifice to a participation of the altar and a feast ' with him at one common table, which he forbids them 'to call theirs for they are ministers, and not founders, of the banquet. He is the founder of the feast, 'to whom the provision belongs, and whose bounty it 'is unjust to conceal by a preference of vile and sor'did covetousness to the noble virtue of humanity.' Whatever remained of the sacrifices after the time appointed was to be wholly consumed by fire.†

IX. But short as was the time allowed for eating the votive or voluntary sacrifices, the time allotted for

the eucharistic victims was still less. These, being offered for good already received, were on that account to be used with more liberality, and to be prepared for immediate banquets for the offerers and their pious friends. This was the reason why the eucharistic sacrifices were to be accompanied by bread of every sort;* that being one of the requisites for a feast. Philo says:†The law commands this victim 'to be all eaten, not as the former peace offering in 'two days, but in one; that those who have enjoyed speedy and timely benefits, may readily and without delay impart to others.' The same opinion is given on this subject by Abarbinel.+

★ Levit. vii, 12, 13,

+ De Victimis.

Ad Levit, vii,

215

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Nature and Design of a Sacred Type. Which of the Jewish Sacrifices the Principal Types of the Sacrifice of Christ.

THE preceding explication of the Jewish Sacrifices, as considered in themselves without reference to the Sacrifice of Christ, brings us to the remaining part of our subject, which divides itself into two branches. We have to inquire,-first, which of the sacrifices as types, in a more eminent degree than the rest, prefigured the sacrifice of Christ as the antitype:secondly, what there was in all the Jewish Sacrifices, especially in those which more peculiarly typified the Sacrifice of Christ, from which we may learn the proper efficacy, and the true nature and design, of his Sacrifice.

To facilitate our investigation of the first of these topics, we shall make some preliminary remarks,— shewing the nature of a type; explaining how a type differs from a simile, and from symbols in general; and comparing the type and the antitype with each other.

A Type, in the theological sense of the term, may be defined as a symbol of something future, or an example prepared and evidently designed by God to prefigure that future thing. What is thus prefigured, is called the Antitype.

The first characteristic of a type is its adumbration of the thing typified. One thing may adumbrate another,—either in something which it has in common with the other; as the Jewish victims by their death represented Christ who in the fullness of time was to die for mankind-or in a symbol of some property

possessed by the other; as the images of the cherubim placed in the inner sanctuary of the temple beautifully represented the celerity of the angels of heaven, not indeed by any celerity of their own, but by wings of curious contrivance, which exhibited an appropriate symbol of swiftness :-or in any other way in which the thing representing can be compared with the thing represented; as Melchizedec the priest of the most high God represented Jesus Christ our priest. For though Melchizedec was not actually an eternal priest, yet the sacred writers have attributed to him a slender and shadowy appearance of eternity, by not mentioning the genealogy or the parents, the birth or death, of so illustrious a man, as they commonly do in the case of other eminent persons, but, under the divine direction, concealing all these particulars.

The next requisite to constitute a type, is, that it be prepared and designed by God to represent its antitype. This forms the distinction between a type and a simile. For many things are compared to others, which they were not made to resemble for the purpose of representing them. For though it is said that "all "flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the "flower of grass, ""* no one can consider the tenderness of grass as a type of human weakness, or the flower of grass as a type of human glory. The same remark must be applied to a metaphor, or that species of simile in which one thing is called by the name of another. For though Herod from his cunning is called a for, and Judah for his courage a lion's whelp, yet no one supposes foxes to be types of Herod, or young lions types of Judah. The reason of the difference is, that these resemblances were not + Gen. xlix. 9.

* I Pet. i. 24,

+ Luke xiii. 32.