9. Yet all that hath been spoken, or that may further be pleaded to the same purpose, doth not necessarily conclude that the right unto sacrificing by way of office was enclosed to the first-born before the giving of the law; and afterwards we-know how it was disposed of by divine institution. There was, therefore, in that state of the church, no office of priesthood, but every one performed this duty and worship of sacrifice, “ex communi jure,” with respect unto himself, As all were obliged to attend unto this worship of God, and express their faith in the promise thereby, so every one who was “ sui juris,”
1 Justin,—Ep.
es
SECT. 8-10.] AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 245
or had the free disposal of himself in all his moral actions, did in his own person attend unto his own duty herein. As persons were united into families, and made up one body naturally-political by God’s appointment, the “ pater familias” had the duty of sacrificing for the whole committed unto him. Herein it is probable he had the especial assistance of the first-born of the family, whereby he might be initiated into his future duty. Yet was it not afterwards confined to him; for Abel, who was the youngest son of his father, offered sacrifices for himself in his own person, his father and elder brother being yet alive. Ino way doubt but that all the persons on the patriarchal line before the flood offered sacrifices to God; yet is it most uncertain whether they were all of them the first-born of their respective parents. Abraham after the flood offered sacrifice whilst the eldest son of Noah was yet alive, neither was he himself the first-born of his immediate parents. Afterwards it is probable that the order and solemnity of public sacrificing went along in a peculiar manner with the birthright; not that it was a privilege thereof, but that the privilege of the birthright made what they did more extensive and illustrious. But this was continued only whilst a family continued by consent. When it divided, all things returned to their primitive right and practice. So was it when the younger sons of Noah were separated from the elder; they lost not the right of solemnizing the worship of God thereby. And in case the first- born was incapable, through sin, idolatry, or apostasy from God, the right of the remainder was not prejudiced thereby, but every one might personally attend unto the discharge of his duty herein; which after the giving of the law was not provided for. But this respected men only. Women were afterwards, among the heathen, admitted into the office of the priesthood, especially in the idolatries of Juno. But there was no induction towards any such practice in the light of nature or original tradition; for “the head of the woman is the man.” And the whole sex generally being supposed under the power of their parents or husbands, nothing remains on record of their solem- nizing sacred worship in their own persons, though some conjectures have been made about Rebekah’s inquiry of God upon her concep- tion of twins.
10. When greater political societies, being the products of the light, of nature acting by choice, and on necessity, were established, it was judged needful, or at least useful, not only that every one should offer sacrifice for himself that would, nor only that the head of each family should discharge that duty in the name of the whole family,—which expresses the first two directions of the law of na- ture,—but also that some one or more should offer sacrifice for the whole community, which had the solemn representation of a sacer-
246 PREFIGURATIONS OF THE PRIESTHOOD [EXERC. XXXIY.
dotal office. How these persons came originally in the world to be designed unto this work and office is a matter left much in the dark and obscure. The ways whereby God erected this office, and constituted any in the possession and enjoyment of it, are plain and evident: for he did it either by an immediate call from himself, as it was with Melchizedek in one manner, and Aaron in another, or by the constitution of a legal succession of priests, as it was with all the posterity of Aaron; concerning both which we shall treat after- wards distinctly. Our present: inquiry is, how this order of things came to pass in the world, or when,—that some certain persons, under the name of priests, should have the administration of things sacred in the behalf of political communities committed unto them. And these are the ways that may be pleaded with good probability to this purpose: The first is, that the people or communities judging the duty of public sacrificing and religious administrations to be their duty, and necessary for them as a community, did choose out from among themselves, either by lot or suffrage,—the two original ways of all elections,—such as they judged meet for that purpose. So Virgil would have Laocoon designed to be a priest to Neptune by lot:—
“ Laocoon, ductus Neptuno sorte sacerdos.”’ En. ii. 201.
And in Statius it was by the choice of the people that Theodamas was made the priest of Apollo in the room of Amphiaraus. So he speaks to them, Thebaid. lib. x. 189:—
‘« Non hee nostro de pectore voces : Ille canit, cui me famulari, et sumere vittas Vestra fides, ipso non discordante, subegit.”’