the gratitude of the heart? this interpretation is fo far from being improbable, that it seems to be very natural. And if it should happen to prove the true one, it implies an allufion to facrifices of thanksgiving, not as fymbols of thanksgiving, or praise, but as having fomething in their defign and use, that was fimilar to them.-After all; I can fee no reason or neceffity for having recourse to allufion of any kind, for the interpretation of this phrafe, fince the words, understood according to their obvious, literal fignification, will afford a very good fenfe, by the help of a very common and familiar ellipfis only. In other paffages of fcripture, we find, that the words of the lips, the pleading of the lips, the commandment of the lips, and the request of the lips, fignify the words, the pleading, the commandment, and requeft, which are uttered or pronounced by the lips. (See Job xiii. 6.--xxiii. 12. Pfal. xvii. 4.-xxi. 2.-l. 12.) And if we should supply the ellipfis in the fame manner here, and, by bullocks of the lips, underftand these bullocks which had been uttered, vowed, or promised to God, by the lips; then the fenfe of the expreffion, we will offer up the bullocks of our lips, will be the fame with that which we have expreffed, Pfalm lxvi. 13-15. I will pay thee my vows which my lips have uttered, and my mouth bath spoken, when I was in trouble;

I

I will offer unto thee burnt-facrifice of fatlings, with the incenfe of rams; I will offer bullocks and goats. This interpretation is perfectly fuitable to the scope and design of the difcourfe, eafy and natural, and withal, fimple and literal, which cannot be faid of any other; for which reafon, I take it to be the best interpretation of this paffage. But whether this, or the foregoing, be admitted for the true interpretation, the expreffion is really capable of both. And, therefore, there can be no reafon for admitting the Dr's interpretation of it, which is fo highly figurative, and fcarce confiftent with common sense.

§. 4. THE other texts in this paragraph of the Dr's book are the following, viz. Pfalm iv. 5. Offer unto God the facrifices of righteousness. Pfalm 1. 14. Sacrifice unto God thanksgiving, ver. 23. Whofo facrificeth praise, glorifieth me. Pfalm li. 17. The facrifices of God are a broken fpirit. 1 Pet. ii. 5. Ye are an holy priesthood to offer up fpiritual facrifices, acceptable unto God. Heb. xiii. 15. By him let us offer up the facrifices of praife to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. Thefe texts I am now to examine conjunctly, and to confider what evidence they afford of the truth of the Dr's notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices.

§. 15.

8.15. In fome of these texts, righteousness, a broken fpirit, prayer, and praife, are called facrifices; and, in others of them, they who exercifed or practifed thefe, are faid to facrifice them, which implies that they were facrifices. And in these modes of expreffion must that inference, which the Dr. would draw in fupport of his notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, have it's fole and whole foundation. Now in order to difcover whether thefe modes of expreffion are favourable, or not favourable, to this notion of his, I fhall lay the following critical remarks or obfervations before the reader.

§. 16. THESE modes of expreffion cannot be supposed to intimate, that righteousnefs, a broken fpirit, prayer, praise, and facrifice, are equipollent terms, or words of the fame fignification: for if we should fuppofe this, the sense of the text would be low and trifling, as any perfon, who will be at the pains of making the experiment, will readily perceive. Withal, the fenfe affigned to the expreffions, would be false as well as trifling for, upon all schemes, even upon the Dr's, the term facrifice really doth, and muft, ftand for an idea different from those of righteousness, a broken heart, prayer, or praise. The Dr's very definitions of facrifices furnish us with an idea of them, that is quite different from thofe here mentioned,

D

tioned. And, therefore, 'tis to be hoped, that for his own fake, he will no longer infift, that the terms, righteousness, a broken fpirit, prayer, praife, and facrifice, are to be understood as equipollent or fynonymous, either in the texts under confideration, any others.

or in

§. 17. WHEREFORE, fince the equipollent fenfe cannot be admitted in the interpretation of these texts; let us next fee whether the fymbolical fenfe can.-This is the fenfe which is exhibited in the Dr's definitions of facrifice. And, therefore, if the terms facrifice and facrificing can be rationally thought to bear this fenfe in the texts mentioned, thefe texts will be to the Dr's purpose, as being proofs of this, that "facrifices were fymbolical addreffes to "God; expreffing by emblematical actions, "what is expreffed in prayer and praise "by words, or in the courfe of life by "deeds." This, therefore, must be carefully examined.

t

S. 18. FOR this end, I obferve, that the fymbol of a thing is often called, or faid to be the thing of which it is the fymbol. Thus we fay of the picture or statue of any particular perfon, this is fuch a perfon; and of the map of any particular country, this is fuch a country. There is nothing more common and familiar in all languages than fuch expreffions as these,

and

.

and they are perfectly well understood by every body. Thefe modes of expreffion are of the elliptical kind; and the ellipfis is thus fupplied, this picture or ftatue is the picture or ftatue of fuch a perfon; this map is the map or reprefentation of fuch a country. Wherefore, if facrifices were fymbols of righteoufnefs, a broken fpirit, prayer, and praise; their being called righteousness, a broken fpirit, prayer, or praise, would be agreeable to a mode of expreffion, which is common and familiar in all languages. But before this way of interpreting thefe expreffions, in the texts under confideration, or in any other writing, can, in reason, be admitted, it must be first proved, that facrifices were fymbols of righteoufness, a broken fpirit, prayer, and praife; for till this is done, the interpretation will be only imaginary. And, therefore, before the Dr. can reasonably claim the privilege of interpreting the expreffions in these texts, after this manner, he must not take it for granted, but prove, that facrifices were fymbols of righteoufnefs, a broken heart, prayer and praife, otherwife his interpretation will be only conjectural, and, confequently, of no use to him.

§. 19. BUT what feems to me to be most unfavourable to the Dr's interpretation, is, that, in these texts, facrifices are not called righteousness, a broken fpirit, prayer, and praise :

D 2