« AnteriorContinuar »
"vitiating of a bond-maid, Levit. xix. 20. ct In the rules for the day of atonement mention is made of all the iniquities of the "children of Israel, and all their trans"grefpons in all their fins, Levit. xvi. 2r. *c But those sins must be excepted which tc were threatened with excision or cutting "off*." And to the fame purpose, " The *f. sins for which sacrifices were generally "offered, were sins of ignorance, and cef* remonial uncleannefs, which were not "capital by lawV'
Rem Ar K S.
In these two passages, the Dr. seems to me, to speak inconsistently with himself* He allows that on the day of atonement, piacular sacrifices were offered for all sins that were not capital by law, wilful sins as well as others; and that, on all proper occasions, they were offered, likewise, for wilful sins of fraud; to which he might have added, for wilful sins of violence; since the place, to which he refers, mentions these, as well as the other, as sins for which trespass-offerings were appointed to be offered. And yet after all this, he tells us, " that the sins and trespasses for which
1 See Scppture-doctrine of Atonement examines Chap. I. §. 6.
*> Ibidem, Chap. IV. §. 54.
*c these sacrifices were offered, were gene'* rally fins of ignorance, or ceremonial *.* pollutions; and that no sacrifices were to ff be offered for him that did ought know"ingly and wilfully, unless it was in three "cases which he mentions as exceptions <c from a general rule." The Dr. I think, has been led into this mistake, and inconsistency with himself, by considering fins of ignorance, or error, as being, in scripture, opposed to these sins which are knowingly and wilfully committed: Whereas they are not opposed to these sins which are knowingly and wilfully committed, provided they proceed from human frailty only, or from natural appetites and passions unduly raised; but only to such sins as proceed from a direct and deliberate contempt of authority: which sins are called, in scripture, sins of presumption; and they who commit them, are said, (with a peculiar emphasis) to sin with a high hand, and to reproach the Lord. All the sins of presumption, which are mentioned in the scriptures, were of this kind. And they, who were guilty of them, were very justly and deservedly ordered to be cut off from their people, or to be put to death, under the Jewish theocracy. But the persons, who were guilty of wilful sins of a less heinous nature, neither deserved, nor had, such a hard fate under that theocracy: for they were permitted to offer trespass-offerings
for for these sins, by which atonement was made for them. If any person will take the pains, to inspect all those places of the Hebrew bible, where the root UV, and its conjugates and nouns, occur in their several forms, and to examine the fense which they bear in them, he will be satisfied of the truth of this observation: for he will find these as commonly and frequently used, to denote wilful sins proceeding from human frailty, or the commission of such sins, as sins of ignorance properly so called, or the commission of them. I (hall only select one place from among many, where the Hebrew-root mentioned, evidently bears this fense, viz. Isai. xxviii. 7. But they also have erred ()wschagu) through wine, and through firong drink are out os the way: the priest and the prophet have erred (WDschagu) through
firong drink; they err (w>) in vision, they
stumble in judgment.
The Dr. says, " Indeed the victim might, "and, I suppose, did, represent the person \ v who offered it, in the symbolical, inter"pretative sense; namely, as whatever was "done to that, was to be applied to himself, w to shew him the demerit of sin in gene"ral, how he ought to slay the brute in
"himself, and devote his life and soul to * God K"
AU that the Dr. fays here, is pure kncy and imagination, without any manner of support from scripture-evidence, or from any thing that is any where said in the icriptures. And, indeed, it is hard to tell, what a luxuriant imagination, set loose from all rule, whether reason or scripture, may not carry a man to suppose. The Dr. has before supposed, that Jewish sacrifices were symbolical addresses to God. And here he supposes that these sacrifices were symbolical persons. And, since no bounds can be set to fancy and imagination, who can tell what they may not, hereafter, be supposed to be? There is one thing which, I hope, I may be allowed to fay, viz. That this volatile and roving faculty of imagination, as far as it has been employed in the interpretation of scripture, has made dreadful havock of the true and genuine fense of it: for which reason, I mail never be willing to admit the supposition of any emblem, symbol, allegory, or any figurative expression, in any passage of the icriptures, before I fee a good reason for doing
e See Script, doc. of aton. Chap. IV. § 56.'
it. And, therefore, if the Dr. would have me to receive his supposition, or fancy, in the passage now quoted, he must first take the trouble of proving the truth of it.-—» The expression, " a man ought to slay the "brute in himself," is very striking, and tolerably popular. But for the truth and good fense of the moral couched in it, I ihall leave them to be considered by others. I mould think, that the offerer of a sacrifice would have discharged his duty pretty well, had he only tamed the brute in himself and brought it under proper government, though he had not flain it, as he did his sacrifice.
The Dr. fays, " To pitch, to smear with "pitch, seems to be the natural and ori"ginal fense of the word, (/, e. -Ian caphar,) "though it is so used but once, namely, cc Gen. vi. 14. mam and thou Jhalt pitch it ,* within and without ism with pitch. The "fense, when it signifieth the mercy-seat, "and atonement, seems to be transferred "from covering or securing with pitch, to f things of a different nature J." And to the fame purpose, " In all the 37 places,
* See Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap. IV. §. 63.