« AnteriorContinuar »
these places, which relate to Levitical atonements or sacrifice?. Besides, this ambiguous word's being used in such a variety of senses in those texts which relate to extra-levitical atonements, gives one ground to think, that it may bear a fense different from all these, in those texts which relate to Levitical atonements: and this suspicion will be greatly strengthened, and even converted into an high degree of probability, when it is considered, that, among all the means whereby extra-levitical atonements were made, there is not one to be found, that was of a symbolical nature, or, of the same nature with those by which the Dr. supposes Levitical atonements to have been made.—This inference, therefore, which the Dr. draws, instead of being, in any manner, conducive to confirm or support his notion about the symbolical nature of Jewish sacrifices, has, in all the respects mentioned, a direct tendency, if not to confute and subvert, yet to render it, in the highest degree, improbable.
§. 25. The Dr's third inference from the whole, is, " That the giving an equivalent cc to God is no ways included in the no"tion of atonement." And the fourth if, "That the transferring of guilt doth not
"belong to the fense of atonementp."
These two are good inferences from the whole of the Dr's 37 texts of scripture, and G from
» See Scrip, doc. of Aton. Chap. VI. §. 113, 114.
from the whole matter contained in them, according to the view which he has given us of it: for there is no instance of atonement,exhibited in either of these two wholes, that implies, yea, that doth not exclude, the notions, both of giving an equivalent
to God, and of transferring guilt. But
when all this is admitted, it will not follow, that the notion of giving an equivalent to God, or that of transferring guilt, doth not belong to the fense of Levitical sacrifices or atonements. The texts of scripture mentioned, only tell us, what was included, or not included, in the notion and fense of extra-levitical atonements: but they determine nothing at all about what was included, or not included, in the idea and fense of Levitical sacrifices or atonements. And, therefore, it is a wrong way of reasoning, to argue, that, because the notions of giving an equivalent to God, and of transferring guilt, were not included in the fense of extra-levitical atonements, therefore, they are not included in the fense of levitical atonements. The exclusion of these notions from the idea of the former, doth not prove, that they belong not to the fense of the latter. 'Tis very possible, that neither of these notions may belong to the fense of Levitical sacrifices or atonements; and there are reasons to think, that they do not: but then the proof of this must be brought from some other topic, than that of their not
belonging belonging to the sense of extra-levitical atonements.—But what I am chiefly concerned to remark here, is, that these two inferences, even supposing they were good and conclusive, with regard to Jewish sacrifices; yet they are no way subservient to the Dr's main purpose, which is to prove, that piacular sacrifices were symbols of prayer, repentance, and good moral dispositions of mind. For, if we mould suppose, that giving an equivalent to God, and the transferring of guilt, are wrong notions of piacular sacrifices; yet it will not follow, from these being wrong notions of them, that the Dr's notion of them is the right one. And, for any thing that he has yet proved to the contrary, it may be as wide of truth, as either of the other two.
§. 26. These then are all the inferences, which the Dr. has drawn from what he has exhibited, and said, about the nature of extra-levitical atonements. And it now appears, I think, that no one of them comes up to his main point, or amounts to a good proof, or even to any shadow of a proof of this, "That Jewish sacrifices were sym"bolical addresses to God, expressing by "outward signs, what is expressed in prayer "and praise by words, or in the course of "life by deeds:" but that, on the contrary, there is something in the nature of G 2 sorrie some of these atonements, perhaps of them all, which has the appearance of a proof of the sal (hood of this notion of Jewish sacrifices.
§. 27. But though the Dr. has not drawn any inference from extra-levitical atonements, or from any thing that he has said about them, that is subservient to his main point; yet, in winding up this head, he draws a conclusion from the whole, which makes ample amends for all defects. This conclusion the Dr. draws In the following words, viz. "From the whole we may, I "think, truly conclude, that sacrifices were *c symbolical addresses to God, expressing "by outward signs, what is expressed in "prayer and praise by words, or in the
course of life by deeds q."
§. 28. This conclusion exhibits the Dr's definition of sacrifices of all kinds, whether piacuiar sacrifices or peace-offerings. Now, in that part of his book which treats of extra-levitical atonements, he fays nothing about peace-offerings. The whole, therefore, from which the Dr. draws this conclusion, must comprehend not only all that he has said about extra-levitical atonements; but, likewise, all that he has said in the second chapter of his book, about the meaning,
'See Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap, VI. §. n8.
design, and efficacy of Jewish sacrifices; where, indeed, he endeavours to prove the truth of this conclusion, in relation both to peace-offerings, and piacular sacrifices: consequently, this whole must comprehend whatever the Dr. in the foregoing part of his book, has said, or advanced, in support of his opinion about the symbolical nature of sacrifices.—But all the parts of this whole I have already examined, and have shewn, that no one of them contains, or affords, any premises, from which this conclusion can be fairly, and with any degree of evidence, drawn. And since it cannot be rightly drawn from any one of these parts, 'tis manifest, that it cannot be drawn from the aggregate of these parts, or the whole it- t self. Wherefore, we cannot truly conclude from this whole, "That sacrifices were "symbolical addresses to God, expressing *c by outward signs, what is expressed in "prayer and praise by words, or in the "course of life by deeds." And, consequently, that the Dr's opinion, about the symbolical nature of Jewish sacrifices, remains unsupported by any thing he has yet advanced in support of it.
§. 29. The Dr. to strengthen his conclusion from the whole, subjoins, u And "surely it must confirm this sentiment (/. e. "about the symbolical nature of Jewish
sacrifices) beyond all doubt, when- the G 3 ".scrip