« AnteriorContinuar »
** to perform the service or to lead his ** whole life, with the utmost sincerity and ** sanctity of heart."—Here I heartily wish, that the Dr. for the help and assistance of such a weak mind as mine, had reduced his reasoning, in these words, to the form of a syllogism. For my part, I have viewed, and reviewed them, over and over again, with all the care and attention I am master of; and yet can find no premises in them, that will either supply or support such a conclusion as the Dr. fays they suggest. The only syllogism thatI can make out of them, is the following, which is a very bad one.
The sacrifice, which Christ offered of himself, is called a lamb without spot and blemijh. The lambs, offered in sacrifice, under the Mosaic law, were, likewise, lambs without spot and blemish. So that, jn both cases, lambs without spot and blemiso were offered in sacrifice.
But the sacrifice, which Christ offered of himself, was called a lamb without spot and blemifi not literally, but only figuratively, to denote his perfect purity and holiness. .
Therefore, the lambs, which were offered in sacrifice, under the Mosaic law, must be understood to be lambs without spot and blemifi, not in a literal, E 2 but but in a figurative sense, as denoting (not the perfect purity and holiness of these animals, as in the other case, but) that the sacrificer was to perform the service, or to lead his whole life with the utmost sincerity and sanctity of heart.
This is the only syllogism which I can make out of the Dr's words. And it is a mere sophism. For, ist. In the first proposition, the middle term (viz. lambs without spot and blemijh) is used in a double sense, viz. for moral excellence, and for natural perfection of body. But in the second proposition, it is used in one of these senses only, viz. for moral excellence. By this means, there come to be two middle terms in the syllogism; which quite spoils the reasoning.—But, 2dly. Supposing there was no fault in the syllogism, with regard to the middle term, the conclusion is wrong drawn: for the only conclusion that would, in this cafe, follow from the premises, (as every body must sec,) is this, that the lambs, which were offered in sacrifice, under the law of Moses, must be understood to be Lambs without spot and blemish, not in a literal, but in a figurative fense, as denoting that these animals ought to be perfectly pure and holy: whereas, the conclusion, which the Dr's way of reasoning requires to be drawn from them, is, that these lambs
were were so denominated, to denote, " That ** the sacrifices ought to perform the seru vice, or to lead his whole' life, with the "utmost sincerity and sanctity of heart:" a conclusion, which, every body must fee, doth not follow from them.
§. 32. The Dr. goes on; "Other ritual "actions, as washing the inwards and feet, "&c. I doubt not, had their spiritual mean** ing; which would not be difficult to "be understood by a people that were so "much versed in moral figures and em
** blems." To which I answer. The
Jews, without doubt, were a people who, in process of time, came to be exceedingly versed in moral figures and emblems; for they made such improvements in this noble science, that at last, they converted the most part of their sacred writings into figure, emblem, and allegory. But I suppose the Dr. has not so high or favourable an opinion of their wisdom and skill in this surprising and admirable art, or of the truth and usefulness of their cabalistical jargon about moral figures and emblems, as to recommend them, and their great judgment in things of this kind, to the regards of mankind.—. How far this people were versed in moral figures and emblems in the days of Moses; or by what means they might be enabled to discover figures and emblems in their law, or the meaning of them, any E 3 farther farther than that law gave them instructions about them; or by what helps either they, or the Dr. himself, could find out, that "the wastihig the inwards and feet, and "other ritual actions of the like nature, "had a spiritual or figurative meaning;" these are things of which I am entirely ignorant; and, therefore, shall determine nothing, one way or other, about them. However, I cannot but congratulate the Dr. here, in that he has got. above doubt, in an affair which was not difficult to be understood by the Jews; though I, and the bulk of mankind, have not yet found out the means of getting above doubt, or even of knowing any thing at all, about it. And, if no inconveniency may attend the communication of this secret, I could wish that the Dr. would be so good as to publish it.—But, after all, the Dr. tells us, "that he is confined to scripture-evidence; "and must insist upon nothing, but what "is there particularly explained." A plain confession this, that he had no scriptureevidence, whereby he could clear up the spiritual meaning of these ritual actions; and, consequently, that the mentioning of them, was nothing to his purpose.. '-.
Tbe general conclusion drawn from the foregoing evidence.
§. 33. But then the Dr. adds, what he thought was greatly to his purpose, viz. "What (evidence) we have found there *c (in the scriptures) is sufficient to the cc present purpose. For laying all this to** gether, it can, I think, be no question, ** but sacrifices were a symbolical address "to God; intended to express before him ** the devotion, affections, dispositions, and "desires of the heart, by significative and ** emblematical actionsf."
§. 34. All that I think needful to be said, in answer to this general conclusion, is, that every text of scripture, produced by the Dr. in support of this notion of the symbolical nature of Jewish sacrifices, has been particularly considered; and, upon the strictest scrutiny, it has been found, that none of these texts contain any truths, or supply any consequences, which give any manner of countenance to this notion of sacrifices. Wherefore, I conclude, that when all these texts, and all the truths
f See Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap. II. §. 23, 24.
E 4 really