ticular fins which had been committed, cannot be much questioned among thinking perfons. But whether the Dr. will, or will not, think fit, to conceive of them after this manner; enough has been faid, to fhew, that what he alledges here, from the fcripture, as an undoubted confirmation of his fentiment concerning the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, is no confirmation or proof of it at all.

§. 33. HAVING now examined whatever the Dr. has faid in fupport of his notion about the fymbolical nature of Jewish facrifices, I might, here, put a period to this part of my work. But that I may leave nothing unexamined that the Dr. has advanced in relation to his fyftem, I fhall, before I drop the subject, examine two paffages in his book which have not yet been confidered, and which, because they are no part either of his fyftem, or of the evidence of it, but only relate to the method in which he has proceeded in his inquiry after the meaning, efficacy, and defign of Jewish facrifices, or atonements, I have purposely referved the confideration of them to this place. One of these paffages is that which we have, Chap. IV. §. 69. where the Dr. fays, "Therefore by comparing fuch pas

fages, (i. e. the paffages in the Levitical "law, where atonement is faid to be made "for perfons by facrifice,) we fhall gain no "advan

advantage; because they are not fo many "different inftances of a known fenfe, (i. e. of the word atonement,) but are to "be confidered only as one fingle instance "of a doubtful fenfe.". The other paffage occurs Chap. V. §. 70. where he fays, "The texts then, which we are to examine, ἐσ are those where the word (i. e. which is "rendered atonement) is ufed extra-levitically, or with no relation to facrifices; "that we may be able to judge what it imports, when applied to them."

S. 34. ANSW. The Dr. from what he says, §. in the first of these two paffages, feems to think, that the fenfe of the word atonement, or of the Hebrew word which is rendered atonement, in thefe places of the Levitical law where atonement is faid to be made for perfons by facrifice, cannot be discovered by comparing these places and their contexts together, nor from any thing that is faid int the Levitical law about atonements of this kind. And, in the second paffage, the Dr. feems to hint, that the fenfe of this word may be discovered, and can only be discovered, by examining and finding out the fenfe, which it bears in thofe places where it is ufed extra-levitically, or with no relation to Jewith facrifices.-But I am of opinion, that the Dr. has, by these sentiments, been mifled from the road to truth in his enquiries: for I take them to be

thofe

thofe capital miftakes, by which he has been led into a wrong notion about the meaning and nature of Levitical facrifices or atonements. The following obfervations will fhew whether thefe fentiments of mine are right or wrong.

The

S. 35. THE Dr's firft paffage is an inference from an obférvation, which goes before it, and which is this, "In all places "of the Levitical law, where atonement is "faid to be made for perfons by facrifice, "the word, as far I can perceive, is every "where used in one uniform fenfe." truth, therefore, of the inference itself, even fuppofing it to be drawn in a right manner, muft depend on the truth of this obfervation, and either ftand or fall with it. But the obfervation is falfe and groundless; and, therefore, the inference drawn from it, must be so too. That the observation is falfe and groundless, I prove thus ;-In the Levitical law, we find, that piacular facrifices, such as burnt-offerings, fin-offerings, and trefpafs-offerings, were appointed to be offered for perfons, not only in cafes where moral evil or fin was. committed, but in cafes, likewife, where ceremonial pollution was contracted, yea, and in cafes, also, where no fin was committed, nor any ceremonial pollution contracted; and that, in all these cafes, atonement is faid to be made for perfons, by the facrifices which were offered.

See

See Levit. chapters v, vi, xii, xiv, xv, xvi, &c. Now, though the means, by which atonements were made in each of thefe different cafes, confidered as facrifices, were of the fame nature; yet, because these means were directed to a different purpose, and produced a different effect, in each of the three cafes mentioned, the atonements which were made by them, must have been of a very different nature: confequently, the word atonement must bear a different fenfe in each of these cafes. The word atonement, in the following expreffions, viz. atonement made, or making, for fin, or vice; atonement made, or making, for ceremonial pollution; atonement made, or making, for perfons where there was neither fin, nor ceremonial pollution; I fay, the word atonement, in thefe expreffions, must have as different a fenfe as the words vice, ceremonial pollution, and the being untainted by either of the two, have, whether we can discover it, or not: for it is felfevident, that, in cafes of fuch a different nature, atonement could not be made for perfons in the fame fenfe of the word. Hence it is manifeft, that the Dr's obfervation, viz. That " in all places of the "Levitical law, where atonement is faid

to be made by facrifice for perfons, the "word is used in one uniform fenfe," is void of all truth; and confequently, that

the

the inference, which he draws from it, has nothing to fupport it.

§. 36. 2dly. Ir the Dr's obfervation was a true and just one, (as it is not,) yet the inference, which he draws, would not follow from it: that is, if it really were true, that the word atonement, in all the places where atonement is faid to be made for perfons by facrifice, is every where used in one uniform fenfe; yet it would not follow, as the Dr. thinks, "that we can gain no ad

vantage towards the discovery of the true "fenfe of that word in thefe places, by comparing them and their contexts together." If, indeed, by comparing these paffages, the Dr. means, the bare infpection of the word atonement in them, and the comparing the letters and fyllables, of which it is compofed, in each of them, or the founds which thefe letters and fyllables yield in pronunciation; 'tis moft certain, that, by thus comparing these paffages, we can gain no advantage towards the discovery of the true fenfe which the word bears in them. But if, by comparing these paffages, he means, a careful inveftigation of the connection, thread, and drift of the dif courses of which they are parts; a close attention to whatever is faid in them, and in the furrounding contexts, concerning the cases in which, the occafions on which, and the view and defign with which, atonements

were