Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

mer, but cannot prove the latter, his notion of the fymbolical nature of facrifices, will have no fupport from thefe texts, but what is imaginary and conjectural. And every body knows that fancy and conjecture are no proof of proof of any thing.-I now go

on with the Dr.

[ocr errors]

Scripture-evidence produced by Dr. Taylor,

§. 25.

continued.

"MOREOVER, expences, labours, pains, fufferings for God, kindness to the poor, are by the facred writers figuratively "called facrifices, pleafing and acceptable "to God. Which plainly fhews, they un"derstood proper facrifices were acceptable "to him in the fame manner, viz. as at"tended with a pious and well-difpofed "mind. Phil. iv. 18. Having received the things which you fent, an odour of a fweet

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Smell, a facrifice well-pleafing to God. "Heb. xiii. 16. But to do good and com"municate forget not; for with fuch facrifices "God is well-pleafed. A pure and chaste "body is alfo called a facrifice, Rom. xii. "1. Prefent your bodies a living facrifice, boly " and acceptable to God. The converfion of "the Gentiles is alfo confidered as a facri"fice, Rom. xv. 16. That 1 Paul should be "the minifter, or priest, of Jefus Chrift to "the Gentiles, miniftring the gospel of God,

that the offering up, or facrificing, of the

Gentiles

"Gentiles might be acceptable to God, &c, "Hence it appears, that Jewish offerings. "and facrifices had a respect to felf-dedica"tion; otherwise the apoftle could not "have used them to fignify his prefent

ing the Gentiles to God. See Ifaiah "lxvi. 20. Thou shalt bring all your brethren. for an offering unto the Lord." (If, by felf-dedication, the Dr. means the folemn dedication either of fingle perfons, or of bodies of people, to God; he might have faid, not only that Jewish facrifices had refpect to felf-dedication, but that they were the very rites made ufe of on fuch occafions, and the principal external means by which felf-dedication was performed; and he would have faid nothing but truth; though I cannot fay, that this would have made any thing for his main purpose.) "Blood spilt "in God's fervice is alfo called facrifice, "Phil. ii. 17. Yea, and if I be offered upon "the facrifice and fervice of your faith. "Where, likewife, the fervice of faith, "or faithful fervice, comes under the fame "notion. Agreeably to this, the fouls of

them, who were flain for the word of "God, are represented to be under the altar, "Rev. vi. 9, 10. the very place where the "blood or foul of the facrifice was poured out, Lev. iv. 7, 18, 25, 30 1."

See Script. doc. of aton. Chap. II. § 22.

ΕΧΑΜΙΝΑΤΙΟΝ.

§. 26. In this paragraph of the Dr's book, we have an enumeration of feveral other things which, in fcripture, are called facrifices, fuch as, expences, labours, pains, fufferings for God, kindness to the poor. This fact is fo well fupported by the Dr's vouchers, that it cannot be denied. For my own part, I am fully fatisfied of the truth of it-Well, fince the truth of this fact is acknowledged, muft not the inference, which the Dr. would draw from it, (viz. that facrifices were fymbols of expences, labours, pains, fufferings for God, and kindness to the poor,) be admitted likewife? I think, this inference ought not to be admitted, for this plain reafon, because the things mentioned,might rather have been called facrifices on another account, than because facrifices were fymbols or emblems of them. The oblation of facrifices was an expenfive and burthenfome fervice: and when it was performed with the proper and requifite difpofitions of mind, it was a fervice that was pleafing and acceptable to God. Between facrifices, therefore, confidered in both these views, and expences, labours, pains, fufferings for God, and kindness to the poor, there was a remarkable fimilitude or resemblance. Both of them were expenfive and burthen

fome

fome fervices: both of them were pleafing and acceptable to God, when performed in obedience to his will, and with right and proper difpofitions of mind. Why then might not expences, labours, pains, fufferings for God, and kindness to the poor, be called facrifices, on account of this fimilitude between them, and on no other account? the fimilitude, for certain, is very obvious; and, at the fame time, natural, elegant and striking. What reason, or occafion, then, can there be for having recourse, for the sense of these figurative expreffions, to a rhetorical figure fo high and lofty, as that of allufion to fymbol, when the lower and more common one of allufion to a fimilitude in the thing, is fufficient to give them a good fenfe, yea and even an elegant one? efpecially, when it is confidered, that this very fimilitude, upon which the allufion is grounded, is plainly implied in all the texts referred to by the Dr. and is clearly expreffed in fome of them. Now the very poffibility of giving a good and elegant fenfe to thefe expreffions, without offering any violence to them, or having recourse to any fymbolical notion of facrifice, plainly fhews us, that the Dr. can never prove that his interpretation of the fenfe of them, by the help of fuch a notion of facrifice, is the true and right one; confequently, that he can bring no good argu

ment,

ment, from these expreffions, in fupport of his notion of the fymbolical nature of facrifices. But what puts it beyond all doubt with me, that the Dr's interpretation of these figurative expreffions is a wrong one, is, that it is chargeable with the fame objections, or rather demonftrations of falfhood, which are mentioned and fet forth in my examination of the texts in the foregoing article; as giving a fenfe to thefe expreffions, which is either abfurd, or low and trifling; and as adopting a way of speaking, about fuch things as are reprefented by fymbols, as is falfe in itself, and not found to be used in any language.

§. 27. THE Dr. indeed, doth not draw any express inference from these figurative expreffions in fupport of his notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices. However, when the end, for which he produces them, is confidered, one cannot help thinking, that he meant to fay fomething, that might induce his reader to conceive, that they gave fome ground for thinking that Jewish facrifices were of a fymbolical nature; for unless he meant this, to what purpofe doth he mention them at all? well, what is it that the Dr. doth fay? truly nothing that is a fufficient ground for the inference which he would have us to draw from these figurative expreffions. He fays,

Expences, labours, pains, fufferings for

"God,

« AnteriorContinuar »