« AnteriorContinuar »
it is not possible that sacrifice should be an emblem of prayer; for to conceive of it as such, would be to make it an emblem of itself. And how far it may be proper to admit such an absurd supposition as this, I shall leave to the determination of common fense. Moreover, if sacrifice and prayer are equipollent terms, I cannot fee, how it h possible to make any common fense of the Dr's definition of sacrifice: for, upon this supposition, to say, that sacrifices were a a symbolical address to God, is the fame thing as to fay, that prayer is a symbolical address or prayer to him; which, I think, will not be a good definition, either of sacrifice or prayer.-——The inconsistency between these two ideas, which the Dr. gives us of sacrifice, is so glaring and evident, that one or other of them must be given up as indefensible. Let the Dr. consider which of them it will be most proper for him, to deliver up to this hard fate. Only it may not be amiss to take notice here, that, if he gives up the one of them, a great part of the scripture-evidence, which he has produced in support of his notion of sacrifice, 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.
§•6. §. 6. However, the Dr. insists on it, that the scripture itself considers sacrifice and prayer as being equipollent terms; and, as a proof of this, he refers us to Isai. lvi. 7. All the sons of the firanger, that join themselves to the Lord to serve him,—even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burntofferings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. And, as a farther proof - of this notion of sacrifice, the Dr. takes notice, "that the temple, "which is called an house of prayer in "Isaiah, is called an house of sacrifice, "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 sacrifice and prayer are "equipollent terms." So far am I from' being able to find any thing of this nature in it, that I cannot conjecture, what the Dr. has grounded this inference upon.— The temple was God's house, where he was worshipped both by prayer and the oblation of sacrifices: and, for this reason, it is sometimes called, God's house of prayer, and, at other times, his house of sacrifice. From this way of speaking one may fairly and justly infer, that God's house of prayer, and his house of sacrifice, was one house, or
temple. But should any person take it into his head to infer from it, that prayer and sacrifice are equipollent terms, or words of the fame signification, his reasoning, I think, would not be solid and convincing, but extremely weak and ridiculous. The weakness of this way of reasoning may, perhaps, be clearly exhibited by an example of it in a similar case; e. g. In the academy at Warrington are taught divinity, philosophy, mathematics, and languages. Now, if this academy, on account of these different sciences which are taught in it, should happen to be called by some, an house of divinity; by others, an house of philosophy; by others, an house of mathematics; and by others, an house of languages; these different ways of speaking of the same house would be very well understood: but if any person, upon hearing this academy, or house, called by these different names, should take it into hjs head to infer, that divinity, philosophy, mathematics, and languages, are equipollent terms, or words of the fame signification, he would reason in the same way as the Dr. doth in the cafe before us; but his reasoning, I think, would not be much regarded.
§. 7. But the Dr.fays, that " the temple "is called (Isa. lvi. 7.) the house of prayer, "in relation to, (I suppose, he means, on "account of) the sacrifices and burnt-of"ferings there offered.'' The Dr's reasoning from this passage in Isaiah, seems to me, to have been this, viz. In that passage, it is foretold, that the temple was to become an house of prayer for all people, for this reason, because God would there accept of their sacrifices and burnt-offerings upon his altar-, which is a plain intimation that the temple was an house of prayer, as being an house of sacrifices; consequently, prayer and sacrifice must be terms equipollent, or words of the fame signification. This, I think, is the way in which the Dr. must have reasoned from this passage, in order to come at his conclusion. But, in my opinion, 'tis a very wrong way of reasoning; and has nothing to support it, but a wrong construction of the last words of that passage, viz. For my house Jhall be called an house of prayer for all people; which words he connects, contrary to all reason, with those which go immediately before them, and which mould be read in a parenthesis; and not with the more remote antecedent, with which alone they have a true and natural connection, as will be evident to any person who reads the whole passage thus, All the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord to serve him,—even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; (their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on mi?ie altar -,) C z fr
for mine house jhall be called an house of prayer for all people. According to this construction, the words, in the last clause, are connected with those which are placed before the parenthesis; and the fense is easy and natural. But, according to the Drs way of reasoning, they must be connected with those which are included in the parenthesis; by which means, indeed, the Drs conclusion turns out, but the fense is forced and unnatural: for whatever Dr. Taylor may fay, or an angel from heaven can fay, to the contrary, sacrifice and prayer are two terms which stand for two very different ideas. And, methinks, the Dr. should not be over-fond of making sacrifice and prayer equipollent terms; since, if they are, his notion of sacrifices, as being symbolical addresses to God, must be directly and effectually destroyed: for if sacrifice and prayer be equipollent terms, sacrifice must be a literal, and not a symbolical, address to God. And, therefore, the Dr. mould have suppressed this notion for his own fake.
§. 8. The last thing, the Dr. affirms, in the foregoing paragraph, is, that sacrifice was an emblem of prayer. And, indeed, this comes up to his purpose, and will effectually do his business, provided the proof, which he brings of the truth of it, be found tr> be good. Let us then hear his scripture