in quite a contrary sense, shall be SANCTIFIED, or CLEANSED, shall be under an obligation, or necessity, of cleansing himself, as the LXX understand it, ayao@noεtai. See Wall's Critical Notes, Lev. vi. 18. where this point is most satisfactorily treated.

Upon the whole then, there appears no reasonable objection against the idea, that the imposition of hands, in piacular sacrifices, denoted an emblematical transfer of guilt; and that the ceremony consequently implied the desire, that the evil due to the sinner might be averted, by what was to fall on the head of the victim. This receives farther confirmation, from the consideration of other parts of Scripture, in which this ceremony of imposition of hands was used without any reference to sacrifice. In Levit. xxiv. 14, 15. we find this action prescribed in the case of the blasphemer, before he was put to death; it being at the same time added, that whosoever curseth his God, shall bear his sin: thus as it were expressing by this significant action, that the evil consequences of his sin should fall

* Dr. Geddes' authority, when it happens to be on the side of orthodoxy, is not without its weight: because having no very strong bias in that direction there remains only the vis veri to account for his having taken it. I therefore willingly accept his assistance on this subject of the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim. He renders Levit. i. 4. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the victim, that it may be an acceptable atonement for him. And on the words, lay his hand, &c. he subjoins this remark-"I hereby devoting it to God: and TRANSFERRING, as it were, HIS OWN GUILT UPON THE VICTIM." A mere typical rite, (he adds) derived probably, from the legal custom of the accusing witness laying his hand upon the head of the criminal. As to Dr. Geddes' mode of explaining the matter, I am indifferent. Valeat quantum. His admission of the emblematical transfer of guilt upon the victim I am perfectly contented with: and indeed his illustration, by the witness pointing out the object with whom the guilt lay, does not tend much to weaken the significancy of the action."

upon his head and in these words, Maimonides expressly says, the blasphemer was marked out for punishment, by those who laid their hands upon his head, "thy blood be upon thine own head," (see Outram. De. Sacr. lib. i. cap. xv. § 8.) " as if to say, the punishment of this sin fall upon thyself, and not on us and the rest of the people. The expressions also in Joshua ii. 19. 2 Sam. i. 16. Esth. ix. 25. Ps. vii. 16. and several other passages of the Old Testament, respecting evils falling upon the head of the person to suffer, may give still farther strength to these observations.

It deserves to be remarked, that the sacrifice referred to in the passage cited in the text, was that of a burnt-offering, or holocaust; and as the language in which it is spoken of, as being accepted for the offerer, to make atonement for him, obviously falls in with the interpretation here given of the ceremony of laying hands on the head of the victim, it appears, that it was not only in the case of the sinoffering enjoined by the law, that this action was connected with an acknowledgment of sin, but with respect also to that kind of sacrifice, which existed before the law; and which, as not arising out of the law, is accordingly not now prescribed; but spoken of in the very opening of the sacrificial code, as already in familiar use, and offered at the will of the individual: If any man bring an offering a burnt That the burnt sacrifice was offersacrifice, &c. ed in expiation of sins has indeed been doubted, but so strongly is the reference to sin marked in the description of this sacrifice, that Dr. Priestley, on the supposition of its being a voluntary offering, feels himself compelled even to admit it as a consequence, "that in every sacrifice the offerer was considered as a sinner, and that the sacrifice had respect to him in that character." (Theol. Rep. vol. i. pp. 204,

205.)-a conclusion, so directly subversive of his notion of sacrifices as mere gifts, that in order to escape from it, he is obliged to deny, in opposition to every commentator, that the burnt sacrifice here spoken of was a voluntary offering. Now, that the word, should not be translated, as it is in our common version, of his own voluntary will, I admit with Dr. Priestley. It should be rendered, as appears from the use of the word immediately after, and in other parts of Scripture, as well as from the Greek, the Chaldee, the Syriac and the Arabic versions, for his acceptance.* See Houbig. Ainsw. and Purver. But the present version of this word is far from being the strength of the cause. The manner in which the subject is introduced, and the entire of the context, place it beyond doubt, that the sacrifice spoken of was the voluntary burnt-offering of an individual. And thus Dr. Priestley's argument holds good against himself, and he admits that in every sacrifice there was a reference to sin. On the expiatory nature of the burnt-offering, we shall see more hereafter, in Number LXVII.

NO. XL. ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF OF THE PROPITIATORY NATURE OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, INDEPENDENT OF THE ARGUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES THEIR VICARIOUS IMPORT.

PAGE 28. (q)-That the Jewish sacrifices were propitiatory, or in other words, that in consequence of the sacrifice of the animal, and in virtue of it either immediately or remotely, the pardon of the offender was procured, is all that my argument requires, in the place referred to by the present Num

The words, Rosenm. renders, ut acceptus sit Deo, Dei favorem sibi conciliet. Levit. i 3.

ber. The vicarious import of the sacrifice seems indeed sufficiently established by shewing, as has been done, that the sins of the offender were transferred in symbol to the victim, and immediately after, expiated by the death of the animal, to which they had been so transferred. But this has been an argument ex abundanti; and has been introduced, rather for the purpose of evincing the futility of the objections so confidently relied on, than as essential to the present enquiry. The effect of propitiation is all that the argument absolutely demands. For further discussion of this important subject, I refer. the reader to Number XLII.

NO. XLI. ON THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE AND THE TRACES THEREOF DISCOVERABLE IN THE HEATHEN CORRUPTIONS OF THE RITE.

PAGE 28. (s)-That the rite of sacrifice was not an invention of man, but an ordinance of God; that, however in passing among the nations of the earth, it might have become deformed by idolatrous practices, it yet had not sprung from an indolatrous source, it is the principal object, of the second of the Discourses contained in this volume, and of many of the Dissertations which are to follow in the next, to establish.* I shall not therefore here enter

* Dr. Randolph in his interesting and valuable volume of Advent Sermons, has expressed himself with felicity upon this subject." From those who presumptuously deride the doctrine of Atonement, we would ask some reasonable solution of the origin of sacrifice. Will they make it consistent with any natural idea, will they discover in the blood of an innocent victim, any thing recommendatory in itself of the offerer's suit and devotions? Though they should clear away what they term, a load of superstition from the Christian worship, they will find it encumbering every altar of their favourite natural religion; they will find these absurdities forming the significant and

upon a discussion of this question, but confine myself merely to a few extracts from Eusebius, with some accompanying observations, upon this subject.

*

That learned writer having deduced from the scripture account of the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, and Abraham, and from the sacrificial institutions by Moses, the fact of a divine appointment, proceeds to explain the nature and true intent of the rite in the following manner.-" Whilst men had no victim that was more excellent, more precious, and more worthy of God, animals were made the price and ransom of their souls. And their substituting these animals in their own room bore indeed some affinity to their suffering themselves; in which sense all the ancient worshippers and friends of God made use of them. The holy spirit had taught them, that there should one day come a VICTIM, more venerable, more holy, and more worthy of God. He had likewise instructed them how to point him out to the world by types and shadows. And thus they became prophets, and were not ignorant of their having been chosen out to represent to mankind, the things which God resolved to accomplish." In other words he pronounces, that the ancient sacrifices, those prescribed to the patriarchs, and those

generally indispensable part of all religious ceremonies and however disgraced, as we are ready to allow, with every abominable pollution, though retaining nothing to perfect the service, or to purify the offering, still in its expiatory form, in its propitiatory hopes, the sacrifice of heathen nations preserves the features of that sacred and solemn office, which was ordained to keep up the remembrance of guilt, till the full and perfect sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction was made by an eternal Mediator, for the sins of the whole world." Sermons during Advent. pp. 46, 47.

* σε λύτρα της εαυτών ζωής, και αντιψυχα.”

† Euseb. Demonst. Evang. lib. I. cap. x. p. 36. The whole of the tenth chapter is well worth attention.

VOL. I.

39