shape and meaning, he found it impossible to account for it on any sound principles of reason. He therefore made his religion bend to his philosophy, and veiled in allegory whatever would not admit a satisfactory literal solution. And this he must have found still more necessary, if what is related concerning his intercourse with the early Christians be well founded. For, in his controversies with them, the sacrificial system, which they would not fail to press upon him as requiring and receiving a full completion in the sacrifice of Christ, he would have found himself compelled to spiritualize, so as to give it a distinct and independent import. Now, if to these considerations be added, what has been already stated, that this writer had not the means of being perfectly acquainted with the nature of the Hebrew rites, it will follow, that his testimony cannot be expected to bear strongly upon the present question. The same has been already shewn with respect to that of Josephus. So far, however, as they both do apply to the subject, instead of justifying Dr. Priestley's position, they are found to make directly against it. Their silence on the subject of the vicarious import of animal sacrifice, cannot, for the reasons alleged, be urged by Dr. Priestley, as an argument in support of that part of his system, which denies the existence of that notion amongst the Jews: whilst the explicit declarations of Josephus, on the expiatory virtue of sacrifice, and those of Philo, on the necessity of mediation and propitiation to render even our good works acceptable to a God offended at the corruption of our nature, and of some means of ransom and redemption to restore man to his lost estate, sufficiently evince the existence of those great leading principles of the doctrine of atonement, expiation and propitiation, which Dr. Priestley utterly denies to have had any place amongst the Jews, in the days of these two celebrated writers. The value of Dr. Priestley's assertions concerning these writers, as well as of those respecting Jews of later date, being now sufficiently ascertained, I shall conclude this long discussion with a few remarks on the ideas entertained by the ancient heathens, with regard to the nature, and efficacy, of their sacrifices. To adduce arguments for the purpose of shewing, that they deemed their annual sacrifices, not only of an expiatory, but of a strictly vicarious nature, will, to those who are conversant with the history and writings of the ancients, appear a waste of time. But, as Dr. Priestley, in the rage of refutation, has contended even against this position, it may not be useless to cite a few authorities, which may throw additional light, if not upon a fact which is too glaring to receive it, at least upon the pretensions to historical and classical information, of the writer who controverts that fact. What has been already urged in Number V. might perhaps be thought abundant upon this head; but as the testimony of Cæsar respecting the Gauls, in p. 126, is the only one which goes to the precise point of the substitution of the victim to suffer death in place of the transgressor, it may not be amiss to add the testimonies of Herodotus, (lib. ii. cap. 39.) and of Plutarch, (Isid. et Osir. p. 363. tom. ii. ed. 1620.) respecting the Egyptian practice of imprecating on the head of the victim, those evils which the offerers wished to avert from themselves: as also those of Servius, (Æn. 3. 57.) and Suidas, (in voc. лɛρnua,) ascribing the same sacrificial sentiment, the first to the Massilienses, and the second to the Grecian states. Hesychius, likewise, in substituting for the word лeρenua (an expiatory or redeeming sacrifice) the word aveluxov, (as has been noticed, p. 126,) marks with sufficient clearness, that the expiation Cor pro corde, precor, pro fibris sumite fibras. The observations contained in this Number, joined to those in Numbers V. IX. XXII. and XXIII. when contrasted with the position maintained by Dr. Priestley, that in no nation, ancient or modern, Jew or Heathen, has any idea of a doctrine of atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness, save repentance and reformation, ever existed, may enable the reader to form a just estimate of that writer's competency; and may perhaps suggest a useful caution in the admission of his assertions. * Men' piaculum oportet fieri propter stultitiam tuam, Ut meum tergum stultitiæ tuæ subdas succedaneum ? Η Υπό δε τινας καιρός πρωτον ιερείον θύσαι μυθεύονται ψυχήν αντί ψυχής αιτωμένος. NO. XXXIV.-ON H. TAYLOR'S OBJECTION OF THE WANT OF A LITERAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MOSAIC SACRIFICE AND THE DEATH OF CHRIST. PAGE 31. (k)-H. Taylor goes so far, as to use even this argument gravely. (Ben. Mord. p. 811 -814.) Indeed, the bold liberties which this writer has been urged to take with the language of Scripture, and the trifling distinctions to which he has been driven for the purpose of divesting the death of Christ of the characters of the sin-offering prescrib ed by the law, render it desirable, that his whole argument upon this particular point should be laid before the reader. When ingenuity, like that of this author, is forced into such straits, the inference is instructive. "It is true," (he says) "that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews labours to shew a similarity between the Mosaic and the Christian sacrifices: which no doubt there was; and to make out the analogy, uses very hard figures: as when he compares the sprinkling the blood of the victim, to the sprinkling our hearts from an evil conscience; and the tabernacle to the body of Christ; and the flesh of Christ to the veil which opened the way into the Sanctum Sanctorum: and calls it a new and a living way; and considers Christ both as the High-Priest and Victim. But, were the analogy ever so exact, it would not make the expressions literal: and in many particulars there is no manner of likeness between them. For, in the sacrifice of Christ there was no salting with salt, no imposition of hands, no blood sprinkled by the Priest, in which consisted the atonement; for, the atonement was not made by the death of the victim, but by the sprinkling of the blood; since the offender did not offer him to God, nor begged forgiveness of his sins: all which things were customary, and most if not all of them necessary, in a Mosaic expiatory sacrifice of a victim. But this was not the case with Christ. He was crucified and slain, as a common malefactor." "If it be said, that Christ was the sacrificer, and he offered himself up to God; it should be considered, that the sacrifices of the Mosaic law were of fered to gain forgiveness to the person who sacrificed; but this could not be true of Christ, for he had no sin to be forgiven." "If it be said, that he sacrificed as a Priest, to gain forgiveness for others; it should be observed, that according to the Mosaic law, he was incapable of such an office: for the law requires, that the priests should be of the tribe of Levi, or the family of Aaron. But he (Christ) of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priest-hood. (Hebr. vii. 13, 14.) And, therefore, St. Paul, who was aware of this objection, when he speaks of Christ as a Priest, tells us, that he was a priest of a superior order to the Aaronical priesthood, being a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. (ver. 17.) This is a plain concession, that, according to the Mosaic law, Christ was incapable as a priest to offer any sacrifice. But supposing he had been of the tribe of Levi, the case would have been just the same with regard to all mankind, except the Jews: for the Jewish sacrifices did not extend beyond the circumcision. The sacrifice of Christ could not therefore be a propitiatory sacrifice, according to the Mosaic law; and much less a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. "If it was therefore a literal offering or sacrifice |