these places, which relate to Levitical atonements of facrifices. Befides, this ambiguous word's being used in fuch a variety of fenfes in those texts which relate to extra-levitical atonements, gives one ground to think, that it may bear a fenfe different from all these, in those texts which relate to Levitical atonements: and this fufpicion will be greatly ftrengthened, and even converted into an high degree of probability, when it is confidered, that, among all the means whereby extra-levitical atonements were made, there is not one to be found, that was of a fymbolical nature, or, of the fame nature with thofe by which the Dr. fuppofes Levitical atonements to have been made.-This inference, therefore, which the Dr. draws, inftead of being, in any manner, conducive to confirm or fupport his notion about the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, has, in all the respects mentioned, a direct tendency, if not to confute and fubvert, yet to render it, in the highest degree, improbable.

§. 25. THE Dr's third inference from the whole, is, "That the giving an equivalent "to God is no ways included in the no"tion of atonement." And the fourth is, "That the transferring of guilt doth not belong to the fenfe of atonement". Thefe two are good inferences from the whole of the Dr's 37 texts of fcripture, and from

G

› 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 inftance 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 fenfe of Levitical facrifices or atonements. The texts of fcripture mentioned, only tell us, what was included, or not included, in the notion and fenfe of extra-levitical atonements: but they determine nothing at all about what was included, or not included, in the idea and fenfe of Levitical facrifices 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 fenfe of extra-levitical atonements, therefore, they are not included in the fense of levitical atonements. The exclufion of these notions from the idea of the former, doth not prove, that they belong not to the fenfe of the latter. 'Tis very poffible, that neither of these notions may belong to the fenfe of Levitical facrifices or atonements; and there are reafons to think, that they do not: but then the proof of this must be brought from fome other topic, than that of their not

belonging

belonging to the fenfe of extra-levitical atonements. But what I am chiefly concerned to remark here, is, that these two inferences, even fuppofing they were good and conclufive, with regard to Jewish facrifices; yet they are no way fubfervient to the Dr's main purpose, which is to prove, that piacular facrifices were fymbols of prayer, repentance, and good moral difpofitions of mind. For, if we should suppofe, that giving an equivalent to God, and the transferring of guilt, are wrong notions of piacular facrifices; 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 faid, 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 fhadow of a proof of this, "That Jewish facrifices were fym"bolical addreffes to God, expreffing by "outward figns, what is expreffed in prayer "and praise by words, or in the course of "life by deeds:" but that, on the contrary, there is fomething in the nature of G 2 fome

some of these atonements, perhaps of them all, which has the appearance of a proof of the falfhood of this notion of Jewish facrifices.

any

§. 27. BUT though the Dr. has not drawn inference from extra-levitical atonements, or from any thing that he has faid about them, that is fubfervient to his main point; yet, in winding up this head, he draws a conclufion from the whole, which makes ample amends for all defects. This conclufion the Dr. draws in the following words, viz." From the whole we may, I "think, truly conclude, that facrifices were

fymbolical addreffes to God, expreffing by outward figns, what is expreffed in prayer and praife by words, or in the courfe of life by deeds."

§. 28. THIS conclufion exhibits the Dr's definition of facrifices of all kinds, whether piacular facrifices 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 conclufion, muft comprehend not only all that he has faid about extra-levitical atonements; but, likewife, all that he has faid in the fecond chapter of his book, about the meaning, design,

a See Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap. VI. §. 118.

defign, and efficacy of Jewish facrifices; where, indeed, he endeavours to prove the truth of this conclufion, in relation both to peace-offerings, and piacular facrifices: confequently, this whole must comprehend whatever the Dr. in the foregoing part of his book, has faid, or advanced, in fupport of his opinion about the fymbolical nature of facrifices.-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 conclufion can be fairly, and with any degree of evidence, drawn. And fince it cannot be rightly drawn from any one of thefe parts, 'tis manifeft, that it cannot be drawn from the aggregate of these parts, or the whole itfelf. Wherefore, we cannot truly conclude from this whole, "That facrifices were fymbolical addreffes to God, expreffing by outward figns, what is expreffed in prayer and praife by words, or in the "courfe of life by deeds." And, confequently, that the Dr's opinion, about the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, remains unfupported by any thing he has yet advanced in fupport of it.

§. 29. THE Dr. to ftrengthen his conclufion from the whole, fubjoins, "And

furely it must confirm this fentiment (i.e. "about the fymbolical nature of Jewish "facrifices) beyond all doubt, when the

G 3

"fcrip