« AnteriorContinuar »
as a mistaken representation of them1 and he says exprefly, ,c it is neither a just nor "a full representation of the fact. Sacri"sices were always accompanied with -*c prayers or thanksgivings, and therefore r* were not external rites by which prayer tc or thanks were intended to be signified,' "or the desires of the people were intended
*c to be expressed m." And yet we find
the Author, about eleven or twelve pages below, adopting and defending this very notion of the meaning and use of sacrifices which he here rejects, and confutes as a mistaken and unjust representation of them: for he says exprefly, ** that sacrifices were ** the external visible mode by which the 4* internal acts of the mind were expressed; "—external visible signs of solemn prayer tC and a purified heart;—visible external ** expressions of repentance, and renoun** cing whatever was inconsistent with that "temper of mind that is necessary to a *c state of friendship with God"; that is, P 2 external
i Page 298. m p. 300, 301.
"" Sacrifice was the—external visible mode by "which the internal acts of the mind were expressed. "Hence that (viz. making atonement) was imputed "to sacrifice which was owing to what sacrifice sig"nisied." page 312. And a little below, "No "wonder then that that was imputed commonly to "the blood of the victim which was the real effect 44 of solemn prayer, and a purified heart, since the.
external signs, or symbols, of repentance, prayer, and a purified heart.—Here, therefore, the Author contradicts himself, by adopting and defending a notion of the meaning and use of sacrifices, which he himself censures and condemns as a mistaken and unjust representation of them. And into this self-contradiction he was driven by the impossibility of accounting, by his real idea of the use and design of sacrifice, for an effect which is, every where, in the levitical-law, ascribed to piacular sacrifices, viz. the making atonement for sin. —The cafe was this: atonement for sin signifies, with our Author, the means by which the pardon of sin is obtained °. Now atonement for sin being commonly mentioned in the law of Moses as the effect of piacular sacrifices; and the Author thinking it absurd to affirm, that .atonement was made for sin, or the pardon of it obtained,, by sacrifice in his fense of sacrifice, that is, by the Japes of a table, or by God and the
"one was the external and visible sign of the other." p. 313. And a little farther below, "the shedding ** of blood was the usual and general, the ordinary ** and common means of atonement, or of express"ing a right mind." p. 316. Agreeably to all which he fays, ** Sacrifices were the visible external expref** sions—of repentance, and of renouncing whatever "is inconsistent with that temper of mind that was "necessary to a state of friendlhip with God." p. 350, • Page 306.
owners eating and drinking together, as a symbol of friendship, or federal rite; he begins, like a man in distress, to look about him for relief; and finding, that his own fixed and settled idea of the use and design of sacrifices could yield none, he deserts it as a thing that could do nothing for him, and adopts another, which, though he had, before hand, rejected and confuted, yet was better adapted to his present purpose, and calculated to remove the otherwise insuperable difficulty out of his way. Accordingly, he tells us, "that pardon was never ct obtained by sacrifice alone, but as it was "attended with a right disposition of mind; "that pardon may be, and has been, ob"tained by such a disposition of mind, "without the concurrence of a sacrifice; ,c and that sacrifices, considered as modes "of engaging in friendship, could, of "themselves, contribute nothing towards "the making atonement for sin, or the ob"taining of the pardon of itp." And then, to preserve some appearance of harmony between this language and that of the scriptures, which speaks of atonement for sin as being the effect of piacular sacrifices, he is led to affirm, " that sacrifices were the ex"ternal and visible mode by which the in"ternal acts of the mind were expressed;
P 3 "the
P Page 306, 307.
"the external and visible signs of solemn "prayer and a purified heart; and the vi"sible external expressions of repentance, "and of renouncing whatever was incon"sistent with that temper of mind that is "necessary to a state of friendship with "God;" which is that very notion of the meaning, use, and design of sacrifice, which he himself had, before, censured and confuted, as a mistaken and unjust representation of them.
One would have thought, that the perception of the impossibility of accounting, upon his scheme, for atonement for sin, as an effect of sacrifice, would have led the Author to resign it as indefensible; and to have looked out for some other notion of the meaning and design of sacrifice, which would have fairly and satisfactorily accounted for it, as such. But, instead of this, he adheres tenaciously to his favourite system; and, in order to extricate himself from an insuperable difficulty, which did attend it, runs into plain and palpable selfcontradiction.'—This is a glaring instance of the ill effect which bigotry in opinion, and unreasonable attachment to any favourite hypothesis, which has been adopted without due examination, have upon the minds of men, even of good fense and great learning. Human frailty !-—But what I would chiefly remark here, is, that this specimen of our
Author's Author's inability to account for atonement, as an effect of sacrifice, without deserting his own notion of the use and design of sacrifice, and having recourse to another which he had disclaimed and confuted, gives us room and ground to suspect, that his notion of the use and design of sacrifice may neither be true nor scriptural.
I now proceed to the consideration os what appears to me to have been the Author's fixed and settled notion of the meaning, use, and design of sacrifices.
He tells us, "that sacrifices were fœderal *c rites, and implied men's entering into ** friendship with God; or if they had vio** lated friendship with God, by violating "the stipulation entered into, then sacri"fices implied a renewal of friendship-— "with him V And agreeably to this, he fays, "that sacrifice was intended as a mode "off engaging in friendshipr."
If we want to know in what respect, or sense, the Author considered sacrifices as being fœderal rites, and a mode of engaging in friendship, he explains himself on this head, by telling us, that sacrifices were symbols, external signs, and expressions of friendship3..
P 4 But ,
1 Page 59. 1 p. 306.
'" Sacrifices were the visible external expressions "of friendship with God." p. 350. « Sacrifices