it is not poffible that facrifice should be an emblem of prayer; for to conceive of it as fuch, would be to make it an emblem of itself. And how far it may be proper to admit fuch an abfurd fuppofition as this, I fhall leave to the determination of common fenfe. Moreover, if facrifice and prayer are equipollent terms, I cannot fee, how it is poffible to make any common fenfe of the Dr's definition of facrifice: for, upon this fuppofition, to fay, that facrifices were a a fymbolical addrefs to God, is the fame thing as to fay, that prayer is a fymbolical address or prayer to him; which, I think, will not be a good definition, either of facrifice or prayer.The inconfiftency between these two ideas, which the Dr. gives us of facrifice, is fo glaring and evident, that one or other of them must be given up as indefenfible. Let the Dr. confider which of them it will be moft proper for him, to deliver up to this hard fate. Only it may not be amifs to take notice here, that, if he gives up the one of them, a great part of the fcripture-evidence, which he has produced in fupport of his notion of facrifice, will be foreign to his purpose, and quite useless to him; and that, if he gives up the other, a great part of that evidence will be directly against him. And how he can extricate himself from this dilemma, I cannot comprehend.

1

§. 6.

§. 6. HOWEVER, the Dr. infifts on it, that the scripture itself confiders facrifice and prayer as being equipollent terms; and, as a proof of this, he refers us to Ifai. Ivi. 7. All the fons of the franger, that join themselves to the Lord to ferve him,-even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burntofferings and their facrifices fhall be accepted on mine altar; for mine house shall be called an houfe of prayer for all people. And, as a farther proof of this notion of facrifice, the Dr. takes notice," that the temple, "which is called an houfe of prayer in Ifaiah, is called an houfe of facrifice,

2 Chron. vii. 12."-But, truly, when I have read over, and over again, all that the Dr. here advances, I can fee nothing in it that can be any ground for his inference, viz. " that facrifice and prayer are equipollent terms." So far am I from' being able to find any thing of this na ture in it, that I cannot conjecture, what the Dr. has grounded this inference upon.The temple was God's houfe, where he was worshipped both by prayer and the oblation of facrifices: and, for this reafon, it is fometimes called, God's house of prayer, and, at other times, his houfe of facrifice. From this way of speaking one may fairly and justly infer, that God's houfe of prayer, and his boufe of facrifice, was one house, or

C

temple,

temple. But should any person take it into his head to infer from it, that prayer and facrifice are equipollent terms, or words of the fame fignification, his reasoning, I think, would not be folid and convincing, but extremely weak and ridiculous. The weaknefs of this way of reafoning may, perhaps, be clearly exhibited by an example of it in a fimilar cafe; e. g. In the academy at Warrington are taught divinity, philofophy, mathematics, and languages. Now, if this academy, on account of thefe different fciences which are taught in it, should happen to be called by fome, an houfe of divinity; by others, an house of philosophy; by others, an house of mathematics; and by others, an house of languages; thefe different ways of fpeaking of the fame houfe would be very well understood: but if any perfon, upon hearing this academy, or houfe, called by these different names, fhould take it into his head to infer, that divinity, philofophy, mathematics, and languages, are equipollent terms, or words of the fame fignification, he would reafon in the fame way as the Dr. doth in the cafe before us; but his reafoning, I think, would not be much regarded.

§. 7. BUT the Dr. fays, that "the temple is called (Ifa. lvi. 7.) the house of prayer, " in relation to, (I fuppofe, he means, on account of) the facrifices and burnt-offerings there offered." The Dr's reafon

cr

ing from this paffage in Isaiah, feems to me, to have been this, vix. In that paffage, it is foretold, that the temple was to become an boufe of prayer for all people, for this reafon, becaufe God would there accept of their facrifices and burnt-offerings upon his altar; which is a plain intimation that the temple was an houfe of prayer, as being an house of facrifices; confequently, prayer and facrifice must be terms equipollent, or words of the fame fignification. This, I think, is the way in which the Dr. must have reafoned from this paffage, in order to come at his conclufion. But, in my opinion, 'tis a very wrong way of reasoning; and has nothing to fupport it, but a wrong conftruction of the laft words of that paffage, viz. For my house shall be called an house of prayer for all people; which words he connects, contrary to all reafon, with those which go immediately before them, and which should be read in a parenthefis; and not with the more remote antecedent, with which alone they have a true and natural connection, as will be evident to any perfon who reads the whole paffage thus, All the fons of the franger, that join themselves to the Lord to ferve him,—even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; (their burnt-offerings and their facrifices fhall be accepted on mine altar ;) С 2

for

for mine houfe fhall be called an houfe of prayer for all people. According to this conftruction, the words, in the laft claufe, are connected with those which are placed before the parenthesis; and the fenfe is eafy and natural. But, according to the Dr's way of reasoning, they must be connected with those which are included in the parenthesis; by which means, indeed, the Dr's conclufion turns out, but the fenfe is forced and unnatural: for whatever Dr. Taylor may fay, or an angel from heaven can fay, to the contrary, facrifice and prayer are two terms which stand for two very different ideas. And, methinks, the Dr. should not be over-fond of making facrifice and prayer equipollent terms; fince, if they are, his notion of facrifices, as being fymbolical addreffes to God, must be directly and effectually deftroyed: for if facrifice and prayer be equipollent terms, facrifice must be a literal, and not a fymbolical, address to God. And, therefore, the Dr. fhould have fuppreffed this notion for his own fake.

§. 8. THE last thing, the Dr. affirms, in the foregoing paragraph, is, that facrifice was an emblem of prayer. And, indeed, this comes up to his purpofe, and will effectually do his bufinefs, provided the proof, which he brings of the truth of it, be found to be good. Let us then hear his fcripture

evi,