Imágenes de páginas

mer, but cannot prove the latter, his notion of the symbolical nature of sacrifices, will have no support from these texts, but what is imaginary and conjectural. And every body knows that fancy and conjecture are no proof of any thing.—I now go on with the Dr.

Scripture-evidence produced by Dr. Taylor, continued.

§. 25. " Moreover, expences, labours, *c pains, sufferings for God, kindness to the "poor, are by the sacred writers figuratively "called sacrifices, pleasing and acceptable « to God. Which plainly shews, they un"derstood proper sacrifices were acceptable "to him in the fame manner, viz. as at"tended with a pious and well-disposed *c mind. Phil. iv. 18. Having received the "things which you sent, an odour of a sweet "smell, a sacrifice well-pleasing to God. "Heb. xiii. 16. But to do good and com"muni cat e forget not;for with such sacrifices "r God is well-pleased. A pure and chaste "body is also called a sacrifice, Rom. xii. "1. Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy "and acceptable to God. The conversion of *-* the Gentiles is also considered as a facri"sice, Rom. xv. 16. That 1 Paul should be "the minisier, or priest, of Jesus Christ to t* the Gentiles, minifiring the gospel of God, fc that the offering up, or sacrificing, of the

Gentiles "Gentiles might be acceptable to God, &c. "Hence it appears, that Jewish offerings. "and sacrifices had a respect to self-dedica*e tion; otherwise the apostle could not. ** have used them to signify his present€* ing the Gentiles to God. See Isaiah. "lxvi. 20. Thou shalt bring all your brethren "for an offering unto the Lord." (If, by self-dedication, the Dr. means the solemn dedication either of single persons, or of bodies of people, to God; he might have said, not only that Jewish sacrifices had respect to self-dedication, but that they were the very rites made use of on such occasions, and the principal external means by which self-dedication was performed; and he would have said nothing but truth; though I cannot say, that this would have made any thing for his main purpose.) ** Blood spilt "in God's service is also called sacrifice, "Phil. ii. 17. Tea, and if I be offered upon "the sacrifice and service of your faith. "Where, likewise, the service of faith, "or faithful service, comes under the fame u 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 soul of the sacrifice was poured "out, Lev. iv. 7, 18, 25, 30 d."

<! See Script, doc. of aton. Chap. II. § 22.


§. 26. In this paragraph of the Z>'s book, we have an enumeration of several other things which, in scripture, are called sacrifices, such as, expences, labours, pains, sufferings for God, kindness to the poor. This fact is so well supported by the Dr's vouchers, that it cannot be denied. For my own part, I am fully satisfied of the

truth of it -Well, since the truth of this

fact is acknowledged, must not the inference, which the Dr. would draw from it, {-viz. that sacrifices were symbols of expences, labours, pains, sufferings for God, and kindness to the poor,) be admitted likewise ? I think, this inference ought not to be admitted, for this plain reason, because the th ings men tioned,might rather have been called sacrifices on another account, than because sacrifices were symbols or emblems of them. The oblation of sacrifices was an expensive and burthensome service: and when it was performed with the proper and requisite dispositions of mind, it was a service that was pleasing and acceptable to God. Between sacrifices, therefore, considered in both these views, and expences, labours, pains, sufferings for God, and kindness to the poor, there was a remarkable similitude or resemblance. Both of them were expensive and burthensome some services: both of them were pleasing and acceptable to God, when performed in obedience to his will, and with right and proper dispositions of mind. Why then might not expences, labours, pains, sufferings for God, and kindness to the poor, be called sacrifices, on account of this similitude between them, and on no other account? the similitude, for certain, is very obvious; and, at the fame time, natural, ejegant and sinking. What reason, or occasion, then, can there be for having recourse, for the sense of these figurative expressions, to a rhetorical figure so high and lofty, as that of allusion to symbol, when the lower and more common one os allusion to a similitude in the thing, is sufficient to give them a good sense, yea and even an elegant one? especially, when it is considered, that this very similitude, upon which the allusion is grounded, is plainly implied in all the texts referred to by the Dr. and is clearly expressed in some of them. Now the very possibility of giving a good and elegant fense to these expressions, without offering any violence to them, or having recourse to any symbolical notion of sacrifice, plainly ssiews us, that the Dr. can never prove that his interpretation of the fense of them, by the help of such a notion of sacrifice, is the true and right one; consequently, that he can bring no good argument,

ment, from these expressions, in support of his notion of the symbolical nature of sacrifices.—But what puts it beyond all doubt with me, that the Dr's interpretation of these figurative expressions is a wrong one, is, that it is chargeable with the fame objections, or rather demonstrations of falshood, which are mentioned and set forth in my examination of the texts in the foregoing article; as giving a fense to these expressions, which is either absurd, or low and trifling; and as adopting a way of speaking, about such things as are represented by symbols, as is false in itself, and not found to be used in any language.

§. 27. The Dr. indeed, doth not draw any express inference from these figurative expressions in support of his notion of the symbolical nature of Jewish sacrifices. However, when the end, for which he produces them, is considered, one cannot help thinking, that he meant to fay something, that might induce his reader to conceive, that they gave some ground for thinking that Jewish sacrifices were of a symbolical nature; for unless he meant this, to what purpose doth he mention them at all? well, what is it that the Dr. doth fay? truly nothing that is a sufficient ground for the inference which he would have us to draw from these figurative expressions. He fays, "Expences, labours, pains, sufferings for


« AnteriorContinuar »