which naturally arifes from the different nature of the means whereby Levitical and extra-levitical atonements were made. And it is the only inference, I think, that can be fairly drawn from it.-Again, the texts of this clafs, fpeak only of extralevitical atonements, their effect, and the feveral means by which they were made: But they fay nothing about Levitical facrifices or atonements; nor fupply us with any hint, or fuggeftion, from which any conclufion can be drawn about the nature of them, unless it should be fuppofed, that there is fome fpell or myftery in the word atonement. And, therefore, from these texts we can learn nothing about the nature of Levitical facrifices or atonements.-Finally, the means by which the extra-levitical atonements, mentioned in these texts, were made, were literal and unfigurative: and, therefore, if they do fupply us with any inference or conclufion about the nature of Levitical atonements, it is this, that the means, by which thefe atonements were made, were not fymbolical or emblematical, but literal and unfigurative; a conclufion, which is the very reverse of that which the Dr's notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices requires to be drawn from them.

§. 20. BUT, because the pardon of fin is mentioned in fcripture, as being the effect of atonements, both Levitical and extra

levis

levitical; the Dr. perhaps may think, that this is a fufficient ground for this conclufion, "That these two kinds of atonements were, " in fome fenfe or other, of a fimilar na"ture;" and confequently," that these "Levitical facrifices, by which atonement "was made for fin, must have been fym"bols of prayer, repentance, and of the "other means by which extra-levitical

atonements were made for fin." These two conclufions, I must confefs, are exactly calculated for the Dr's purpose. But then, before they are admitted, their connection with, and dependence on, what is faid in the texts of this class, must be cleared up; which is not yet done; nor, as far as I can. fee, ever will be done. And if this really were done, the Dr. would find, that his work was but half done; because the hypothefis of the emblematical nature of these piacular facrifices which were offered to make atonement for fin, will not explain, nor account for, the nature of these piacular facrifices which were offered with another view, and to fubferve different ends. But as the Dr. himfelf draws neither of thefe two inferences from the texts mentioned, nor any other, in order to fupport his notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, 'tis needlefs to fay any thing further about this affair.

§. 21.

S. 21. I HAVE now taken a particular and accurate view of the Dr's arrangement of the 37 texts of fcripture, which treat of extra-levitical atonements; and have fhewn, I think, that no one of thofe texts, nor any particular clafs or affortment of them, gives any countenance or fupport to his notion of the fymbolical nature of Jewish sacrifices; yea, that he himself, no where applies any of those texts for the fupport either of that, or of any other notion, about the nature of thefe facrifices.

§. 22. BUT tho' the Dr. draws no conclufion, for the fupport of his main point, either from any one of thofe texts, or from any particular affortment of them; yet he draws feveral conclufions from the whole. And though I cannot well tell, what he means by this whole; yet it will be proper, to examine thofe conclufions which he draws from it, in order to fee, whether they are right drawn, and whether they have any tendency to confirm his fentiments about the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices.

S. 23. THE Dr's firft inference from the whole, is, "That forgiveness of fin is ex"emption from punishment "."-This inference is an undoubted fcripture-truth. But it doth not follow, from the whole of what either the Dr. fays, or the fcriptures

See Scrip. doc. of Aton. ex. Chap. VI. §. 111.

do

do fay, concerning extra-levitical atonements; nor yet from any of the beforementioned 37 texts of fcripture, excepting thofe which are found in the laft clafs of the Dr's arrangement of them. And, even in this clafs, there are two texts, from which no fuch inference can be drawn. But what I am, here, chiefly concerned to take notice of, is, that this inference has no tendency to confirm or fupport the Dr's notion about the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices.

§. 24. The Dr's next inference from the whole, is, "That the means of making "atonement for fin are not uniform; but "that any mean whereby finners are re"formed, and the judgments of God a"verted, is atoning, or making atonement, "for their fins, as, the fole goodness of God, "the prayers of good men, repentance,

difciplinary vifitation, fignal acts of juf"tice and virtue "This, likewife, is a good inference from feveral of the texts in the laft clafs, but not from the whole of them; much lefs from all the 37 texts which treat of extra-levitical atonements. But the thing which demands our chief notice here, is, that this inference makes nothing for the Dr's main purpofe, which is, to prove, "That piacular facrifices were

See Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap. VI. §. 112.

fymbols

fymbols of prayer, repentance, and good difpofitions of mind:" for, from the difformity of those means, by which extralevitical atonements were made, no good argument can be taken, whereby to prove any thing concerning the nature of Levitical atonements, or of the means by which they were made, Yea, the different nature of the means, by which extra-levitical atonements were made, gives us ground to think, that these very atonements were made in a different and diffimilar manner: confequently, that, in the feveral texts relating to them, the Hebrew word, which either is, or ought to be, rendered atonement, or making atonement, is to be understood not in one uniform fenfe, but in feveral different fenfes, according to the different nature and efficacy of the different means by which these atonements were made. If fo; it will be extremely difficult, to determine, in what fenfe we are to understand this Hebrew word, when it is used to denote the efficacy or effect of Jewish facrifices, even fuppofing that fenfe to be one or other of those fenfes in which it is used in these texts which relate to extra-levitical atonements: for fince this word is ufed in a variety of fenfes in those texts, it will be very difficult to determine, with any degree of evidence, in which of these different fenfes it is to be understood in

thefe