§. 12. The second text which the Dr. produceth as a proof of his point, is, Prov. xv. 8. The facrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight.-In thefe words, there is an antithefis between what is affirmed of the facrifice of the wicked, and what is affirmed of the prayer of the righteous. And this antithefis feems to me, to have occafioned the Dr. to conceive, that facrifice is mentioned as a fymbol of prayer: for I can find nothing else in the words, that can be thought a ground for fuch an inference. But the Dr. ought to confider, that, if these antithefes, which occur in any writing, were to be interpreted after this manner, the interpretation would be very abfurd and ridiculous. Let us only try this new way of interpretation upon fo me of the antithefes which occur in the fame chapter, of which the text quoted is a part; and we fhall presently perceive that the fenfe is rendered abfurd and ridiculous by it. It is faid, ver. 1. A foft anfwer turneth away wrath; but grievous words ftir up anger. ver. 2. The tongue of the wife ufeth knowledge aright; but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness. ver. 7. The lips of the wife dif perfe knowledge; but the heart of the foolish doth not fo. ver. 15. The heart of him that bath understanding feeketh knowledge; but the mouth of fools feedeth on folly. ver. 18. A

wrath

wrathful man ftirreth up ftrife; but he that is flow to anger appeafeth ftrife; &c. &c. The antithefes, in each of these texts, is as clear and evident, as it is in that quoted by the Dr. Now should any perfon take it into his head to affirm, that the antitheses, in these several texts, are an intimation, that a foft anfwer is a fymbol of grievous words; the tongue of the wife, of the mouth of fools; the lips of the wife, of the heart of the foolish; the heart of him that underftandeth, of the mouth of fools; a wrathful man, of him that is flow to wrath; this perfon would think and reason in the fame manner as the Dr. must be supposed to do here; but I need not fay, how abfurd and ridiculous his interpretation of these texts would appear to men of common fenfe: and yet he would have as much to fay, in fupport of that interpretation, as the Dr. can be fuppofed to have to fay, in fupport of his interpretation of the text under confideration.-But we need not go fo far abroad for a confutation of the Dr's interpretation, fince there is that in the text itself which fairly fubverts it. The antithefis in the text, is not an antithefis between fomething that is said of facrifice, and fomething that is faid of prayer; but an antithefis between fomething that is faid of the facrifice of the wicked, and fomething that is faid of the prayer of the righteous: and, therefore, if any thing can be inferred

from

3

from this antithefis about the symbolical nature of facrifice, it must be this, that the facrifice of the wicked is a symbol of the prayer of the righteous; which is an abfurdity fo grofs that it cannot be admitted nor could it any way fubferve the Dr's purpofe, if it was admitted. The fense of this text appears to me to be this, viz. All the external dutys of religion which wicked men perform, even the most expensive, such as their facrifices, are abominable and offenfive to God: but all the external dutys of religion which good and righteous men perform, even those which are attended with no expence, fuch as prayer, are pleasing and acceptable to him. This interpretation is natural and unforced, and gives a fenfe to the words which is not only good but elegant. But it is fo far from giving any countenance to the Dr's notion of Jewish facrifices, that it supposes a very different notion of them. Upon the whole, I cannot fee, how this text can be thought to serve the Dr's purpose in any respect.

§. 13. THE third text the Dr. mentions as a proof of his notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, is Hof. xiv. 2. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord, and fay unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously; fo will we offer up the bullocks of our lips. Here, the Dr. fays, "Bullocks offered in facrifice are elegantly

"put

<< put for verbal prayer, or addrefs to God:" But in this, I think, he is mistaken; for if we substitute the words, verbal prayer, in place of the words, bullocks of the lips, the fense will not be good, at least, it will be very frivolous and uncommon. When this fubftitution is made, the paffage will run thus,-Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously; fo will we offer up to thee verbal prayer.-According to this reading, they promise to do for the future what they were doing at prefent, viz. to offer up verbal prayer to God; and with this promife, they enforce their prayer. This interpretation, to say the very beft of it, gives us a very jejune and frivolous fenfe of the prophet's words and how confiftent foever it may be thought to enforce prayer by a promife to pray on for the future, yet this doth not appear to be a very natural way of enforcing prayer; nor do I remember any inftance we have of this way of proceeding in prayer, in holy fcripture. Again, if, in this paffage, the bullocks of the lips muft be fuppofed to be fymbolical of fomething, one would think that they fhould be fymbolical rather of praife or thanksgiving, than of prayer; and that the bullocks, to which the allufion is made in this text, were those bullocks which were offered as facrifices of thanksgiving, and not thofe which were offered for fin: for thus understood, the

paf

fage will have a good fenfe; take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously; fo will we offer unto thee the praises or thanksgivings of our lips.-But the truth is, if it were any way neceffary, to understand the phrase, bullocks of the lips, in a figurative fenfe, there is no need for understanding it in a sense so highly figurative as the Dr's, because a lower figurative fenfe will do as well, if not much better. Bullocks were ordered, by the law of Mofes, to be offered as facrifices of praise or thanksgiving. These facrifices were not, as the Dr. imagines, fymbols of praise or thanksgiving; but they were real, genuine, and fubftantial teftimonys or expreffions of the gratitude of the offerers. Wherefore, fince the bullocks which were offered as facrifices of thanksgiving, were intended to be proper teftimonys or expreffions of the gratitude of the offerers; and fince it is a thing so common and familiar in scripture, and in all other writings, to express one thing by the name of another thing, which has fomething in it that is fimilar ; is it not natural to think, that this may be all that is done in the text before us; and that the praises or thanksgivings of the lips, which are expreffions of the inward gratitude of the heart, are called the bullocks of the lips, in allufion to those bullocks which were offered as facrifices of thanksgiving, which were also expreffions of

the