being impossible that a man could deny, or keep back that which was entrusted to him by another; or take from another his property by violence or deceit; or deny upon oath, and withhold from the proper owner what he had found, without a consciousness of the guilt. Besides, it is to be observed that neither in these, nor in the case of the bond-maid, is it said that the sin was committed in ignorance: but, on the contrary, the very expressions used in the original, unequivocally mark a consciousness of crime in the several instances alluded to, as may be seen particularly in Outram De Sacrif. lib. i. cap. xiii. 4. where this point is fully established in opposition to Episcopius. These crimes indeed of fraud, perjury, violent injustice, and debauchery, the writer in the Theol. Rep. seems disposed to treat as venial offences, being criminal, as he says, but in a low degree. (Vol. iii. p. 412.) But for the purpose of proving that no atonements were ap pointed for transgressions of the moral law, it would be necessary to show that these acts were not in any degree criminal: this however he has not attempted, and is consequently in the conclusion compelled to admit, (p. 414.) that the Levitical atonements extended to violations of the moral law. Sykes also, it must be observed, is obliged to confess, that the cases here alluded to, are cases of "known and open wickedness." (Scr. Doctr. of Redemp. p. 331.) Hallet expressly says, "it is certain that there were sacrifices under the law appointed to make atonement for moral evil, and for moral guilt; particularly for lying, theft, fraud, extortion, perjury, as it is written, Lev. vi. 1, 2, &c."-Notes and Discourses, vol. ii. p. 277, 278.

Now, that these atonements in cases of moral transgression, involved a real and literal remission of the offence, that is, of the penalty annexed to it, will appear from considering not only the rigorous sanction of the Mosaic law in general, by which he who did not continue in all the words of the law to do them, was pronounced accursed, (Gal. iii. 10. Deut. xxvii. 26.) and consequently subjected to the severest temporary inflictions; but also the particular cases in which the piacular sacrifices are directly stated to have procured a release from the temporal punishments specifically annexed to the transgression: as in the cases of fraud, false-swearing, &c. which, with the punishments annexed by the law, and the remission procured by the piacular oblation, may be seen enumerated by Grotius, (De Satisfact. Chr. cap. x.) and still more fully by Richie, (Pecul. Doct. vol. i. p. 232-252.) Houbigant also speaks of it, as a matter beyond question, that in such offences as admitted of expiation under the Mosaic law, a release from the temporal penalty of the trans

gression was the necessary result of the atonement: on Lev. v. 4, he describes the effect of the atonement to be, "ut post expiationem religione factam, non sit amplius legum civilium pœnis obnoxius." Hallet says, that the sacrifices "procured for the offender a deliverance from that punishment of moral guilt which was appointed by the law;" and instances the case of theft, in which though the offender was liable to be cut off by the miraculous judgment of God, yet the sacrifice had the virtue of releasing from that immediate death which the law had denounced against that particular sin. Notes and Disc. p. 276-278.

That the remission of sins obtained by the Levitical sacrifices was a remission only of temporal punishments, cannot weaken the general argument; as the sanctions of the law under which the sacrifices were offered, were themselves but temporary. The remission of the penalty due to the transgression was still real and substantial: the punishment was averted from the offender, who conformed to the appointed right and the sacrificial atonement was consequently in such cases an act of propitiation. The sacrifices of the law indeed, considered merely as the performance of a ceremonial duty, could operate only to the reversal of a ceremonial forfeiture, or the remission of a temporal punishment: that is, they could propitiate God only in his temporal relation to his chosen people, as their Sovereign: and for this plain reason, because the ostensible performance of the rite being but an act of external submission and homage, when not accompanied with an internal submission of mind, and a sincere repentance, it could acquit the offender only in reference to that external law which exacted obedience to God as a civil prince. In such cases, the Jewish sacrifices, merely as legal observances, operated only to the temporal benefits annexed by the Levitical institution to those expressions of allegiance: but, as genuine and sincere acts of worship and penitence, whenever the piety of the offerer rendered them such, they must likewise have operated to procure that spiritual remission and acceptance which antecedent to, and independent of the Levitical ordinances, they are found in several parts of scripture to have been effectual to obtain.

The author of the Scriptural Account of Sacrifices, (p. 168.) thus reasons upon this subject." This people, (the Jews) as to their inward state, were doubtless under the same control, both of the law of nature, and of the divine Providence, as they were before the law; this having introduced no change in this respect. They were consequently entitled to the pardon of all their sins, of what nature soever, upon the same terms as before." And then he goes on to

show, that with the sacrifices of the law, they continued to offer such also as had been customary in the Patriarchal times. And in proof of this, he adduces instances from the law itself, in which such sacrifices are referred to and recognized. They appear manifestly alluded to in the two first chapters of Leviticus, in which the language marks the of fering to be of a purely voluntary nature, and merely prescribes the manner in which such an offering was to be made; whereas, when specific legal and moral offences are to be expiated, the law commands the offering, and the specific nature of it. He adduces also the cases of David, and of Eli's house, to show that scripture supplies instance of "sacrifices offered out of the occasions prescribed by the law for averting the divine displeasure upon the occasion of sin." (p. 173.) What this writer justly remarks concerning sacrifices distinct from those prescribed by the law, I would apply to all; and consider the penitent and devout sentiments of the offerer, as extending the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifice to the full range of those benefits, which before the Levitical institution were conferred on similar genuine acts of worship.

Nor let it be objected to this, that the apostle has pronounced of the Levitical offerings that they could not make perfect as pertaining to the conscience. (Heb. ix. 9. x. 1.) The sacred writer here evidently speaks in comparison. He marks the inferiority of the figure to the substance: and the total insufficiency of the type, considered independently of that from which its entire virtue was derived, to obtain a perfect remission. It might indeed, he argues, by virtue of the positive institution, effect an external and ceremonial purification, but beyond this it could have no power. The blood of bulls and of goats could not, of itself, take away sins. It could not render the mere Mosaic worshipper PERFECT as to conscience. It can have no such operation, but as connected in the eye of faith with that more precious blood-shedding, which can purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. It could not, says Pierce, on Heb. ix. 9. "with reference to the conscience, make perfect the worshipper, who only worshipped with meat and drink-offerings and washings, &c."-In this view of the subject, the remarks contained in this Number, seem no way inconsistent with the language of the apostle.

One observation more, arising from the passage of the apostle here referred to, I would wish to offer.-In pointing out the inferiority of the Mosaic to the Christian institution, we find the writer, in the tenth chapter, not only asserting the inefficacy of the Mosaic sacrifice for the full and perfect remission of sins, but taking considerable pains to prove it.

Now from this it seems, that the Jews themselves, so far from confining their legal atonements to the mere effect of ceremonial purification, were too prone to attribute to them the virtue of a perfect remission of all moral guilt. Of this there can be no question as to the later Jews. Maimonides expressly says in his treatise, De Pænit. cap. i. § 2. that "the scape-goat made atonement for all the transgressions of the law, both the lighter and the more heavy transgressions, whether done presumptuously or ignorantly: all are expiated by the scape-goat, if indeed the party repent." I would remark here, that though Maimonides evidently stretches the virtue of the atonement beyond the limits of the law, (presumptuous sins not admitting of expiation,) yet he seems to have reasoned on a right principle, in attributing to the sincere and pious sentiments of the offerer, the power of extending the efficacy of the atonement to those moral offences, which the legal sin-offering by itself could never reach.

No. XXXVIII.- -ON THE VICARIOUS IMPORT OF THE

MOSAIC SACRIFICES.

PAGE 35. (0)-I have, in the page here referred to, used the expression vicarious import, rather than vicarious, to avoid furnishing any colour to the idle charge made against the doctrine of atonement, of supposing a real substitution in the room of the offender, and a literal translation of his guilt and punishment to the immolated victim; a thing utterly incomprehensible, as neither guilt nor punishment can be conceived, but with reference to consciousness, which cannot be transferred. But to be exposed to suffering, in consequence of another's guilt; and thereby, at the same time to represent to the offender, and to release him from, the punishment due to his transgression, involves no contradiction whatever. In this sense, the suffering of the animal may be conceived a substitute for the punishment of the offender; inasmuch as it is in virtue of that suffering, the sinner is released. If it be asked, what connexion can subsist between the death of the animal and the acquittal of the sinner, I answer without hesitation, I know not. To unfold divine truths by human philosophy, belongs to those who hold opinions widely different from mine on the subject of atonement. To the Christian it should be sufficient, that scripture has clearly pronounced this connexion to subsist. That the death of the animal could possess no such intrinsic virtue is manifest; but that divine appointment could bestow upon it this expiatory power, will not surely be denied: and as to the fact of such appointment, as well as its reference to that great event from which

this virtue was derived, the word of revelation furnishes abundant evidence, as I trust appears from the second of the Discourses contained in this volume.

Now, that the offering of the animal slain in sacrifice, may be considered vicarious in the sense here assigned, that is, vicarious in symbol, (or as representing the penal effects of the offerer's demerits, and his release from the deserved punishment in consequence of the death of the victim)→→→ seems to require little proof beyond the passages of scripture referred to in the text. If farther evidence should however be required, we shall find it in a more particular examination of that most solemn service of the yearly atonement, described in pp. 50, 51, of this volume. Mean time, it may be worth while to inquire, how far the arguments urged in opposition to the vicarious nature of the Mosaic sacrifices, will operate against this acceptation. And for this purpose, it will be sufficient to examine the objections, as stated by Sykes, and H. Taylor; inasmuch as the industry of the former, and the subtilty of the latter, have left none of the arguments of Socinus, Crellius, or the other learned antagonists of the doctrine of atonement, unnoticed or unimproved; and the skirmishing writers of the present day have done nothing more than retail, with diminished force, the same objections. They are all reduced by Sykes and Taylor under the fol lowing heads, 1. It is no where said in the Old Testament, that the life of the victim was given as a vicarious substitute for the life of him who offered it. 2. The atonement was not made by the death of the animal, but by the sprinkling of the blood at the altar. 3. No atonement could be made, where life was forfeited. 4. Atonements were made by the sacrifice of animals in some cases where no guilt was involved. And 5. Atonements were sometimes made without the death of an animal, or any blood-shedding whatever.*--This is the sum total of the arguments collected by the industry of these writers, against the notion of the vicarious nature of sacrifice and it must be remembered, that Sykes applies these to the idea, that "the taking away the life of the animal was designed to put the offerer in mind of his demerits," no less than to the idea, that "the life of the animal was given in lieu of the life of the sinner;" (pp. 79, 80.) so that they may fairly be replied to on the principle of atonement here contended for.

Now, to the first of these objections it may be answered, that it is again and again asserted in the Old Testament, that in cases where punishment had been incurred, and even where

*See Sykes's Essay on Sacr. p. 121–141. Ben Mord. p. 797–799. and Crell. contra Grot. cap. x.