Selected quad for the lemma: peace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
peace_n	burn_a	offer_v	offering_n	2,152	5	11.4315	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36244	A discourse concerning the one altar and the one priesthood insisted on by the ancients in their disputes against schism wherein the ground and solidity of that way of reasoning is explained, as also its applicableness to the case of our modern schismaticks, with particular regard to some late treatises of Mr. Richard Baxter ... / by H. Dodwell.	Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.	1683 (1683)	Wing D1808; ESTC R24298	200,473	497

constituted place of their Assemblies because he had seen the ill consequences of the contrary Practices in Aegypt and was withal desirous to make Religion which is indeed of it self the firmest bond of Union the most effectual remedy to prevent any dissentions among them in pursuance to which design it was very Prudent and extremely well fitted to their Circumstances to take away all private Solemnities of worship which made the differences among the Nomi and to ascertain times and a place for Publick Assemblies of the whole Nation which had been wanting among the Aegyptians for making Religion a more effectual bond of Union to their whole Nation Sect. 12 NOR can this conjecture seem incredible to any one who will seriously reflect on the Circumstances of Moses at the time of his Legislation That the Positive Injunctions were particularly fitted to the Cases of his contemporary Idolaters is generally confessed Maimonides himself insists on it as a thing that would give great light to many of those Injunctions if the particular customes of those Idolaters were better known and gives some not unlikely instances from some Arabian Books concerning the customs of the Tabii whom he supposes to have preserved the Succession of those customes And undoubtedly it was very agreeable to Moses's design to keep his People at a distance from Idolatry to which they were then so extremly prone and which was likely to prove withal so mischievous to them by the calamities it was likely to bring upon them But it was yet much more for his purpose to use such customs as were only designed for Union than those which were only in opposition to their otherwise indifferent usages And there must needs follow a great difference in the nature of those two sorts of Constitutions Those Constitutions which were only designed for opposition had no more lasting need than the avoiding of those Customes When they should either remove their own dwellings to the neighbourhood of Nations who had never used those customes or that their Neighbouring Nations themselves had changed their customes in such Particulars there could then be no further need of such Customes as were only designed for Opposition when they ceased to be opposite But for such Laws as were designed for Uniting them tho the occasion of them were a particular Case of that Age yet the reason of such Constitutions holds for ever as long as it is requisite that their Religion should Unite them and therefore still holds proportionably under the Gospel as it did during the whole state of the Jewish Dispensation And if any Nations were regarded by Moses in the making of his Laws there were none more likely to be so than the Aegyptians Their customes both good and bad were freshest in his Peoples memory And there are some Laws which cannot be any way else so probably accounted for as by an Egyptian Original To them and to their Country they had the greatest inclination In their murmurings they mention the Onyons and Garlick and the flesh-pots of Aegypt and motion the makeing of a Captain to return into Aegypt when they were not yet acquainted with the customes of the Canaanites or any of their bordering Nations much less had entertained such favor to them as to be in danger of them And it is probable that the Aegyptians had even then taken up the same Idolatries which they are known to have had afterwards That pretence of the Israelites that if they should Sacrifice in Aegypt they should Sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their faces implys plainly that the things Sacrificed by the Israelites their Sheep and Oxen were even at that time worshiped by the Aegyptians so that in killing them they must incur an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Piaculum in the sense of those Superstitious Zealots which must needs exasperate them against them The same thing also seems implyed in that a keeper of Cattle was counted so unholy a profession and that the Israelites themselves in the first Idolatry they were guilty of after their coming out of Egypt chose rather the resemblance of a calf than any other for their Deity So that at that time there seems to have been a full occasion for this constitution of Moses 4. Therefore As these solemn Panegyres Sect. 13 were to be at one certain place so were the Sacrifices to be offered on that occasion to be received from one Altar Tho the Multitudes Assembling on such occasions were more than could partake of one Sacrifice and tho the number of Sacrifices requisite for Feasting so great Multitudes were more than could ordinarily be offered on one Altar yet no more than one Altar was designed for them that at least their bloud might be sprinkled there when it was impossible that they could all be offered there and that so they might be said to partake of one Altar when yet the Sacrifices on which they feasted could not all of them be offered at one Altar This is expresly taken notice of to have been the case of Solomon in the Dedication of his temple The same day did the King hallow the middle of the Court that was before the house of the Lord for there he offered burnt offerings and meat offerings and the fat of the Peace offerings because the brazen Altar that was before the Lord was too little to receive the burnt offerings and meat offerings and the fat of the Peace offerings The number then offered of Twenty two thousand Oxen and one hundred and twenty thousand Sheep was indeed no greater than what might often be expected at the Anniversaries of the Nation and the Provision therefore was not extraordinary but such as it was intended should be constantly made use of on such occasions as often as they returned So that consecration made a Perpetual Right that Sacrifices might for ever be burnt in that place whenever they should again prove so numerous as that the Altar could not receive them Yet did he not think fit to erect any more Altars but that brazen one Why not but because he found it not agreeable to the customes and significations of those times to receive their Sacrifices on such solemn occasions from any more than one Altar tho they were more than could be received by one Altar And I believe there cannot be given an Example where-ever one Temple had more than one Altar dedicated to the same Deity how numerous soever the Sacrificers or Sacrifices were that might on such publick Occasions be expected to partake of it Which also makes it very probable that their partaking at one Altar was indeed designed as an Emblem and an Obligation of them all to Unity And this might possibly be the reason why when it was lawful to worship the same Deity in distant places they notwithstanding copyed out the principal Altar Perhaps it was mystically to signifie that it was still the same Altar that they still intended to partake of that