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 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. 1. 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 ob

servations.

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 sin-offering 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-sacrifice, &c.-That the burnt-sacrifice was offered 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, uh, 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

В в

other parts of scripture, as well as from the Greek, the Chaldee, the Syriac, and the Arabic versions, for his acceptance.* See Houbig. Ainws. 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 be 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 35. (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 Number. The vicarious import of the sacrifice seems indeed sufficiently established by showing, 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 inquiry. 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 35. (7)—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 idolatrous source,-it is the principal object of the second of the Discourses contained in this volume, and of many of

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

the Dissertations which are to follow in the next to establish.*. I shall not therefore here enter 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 ransomt 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 in

structed 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 enjoined by the law, were types and figures, and known to be such, of that one great sacrifice, which was at a future day to be offered upon the cross, for the sins of the whole human race.

Of the practices which grew out of this original institution, and of the abuses to which it led amongst the heathen world, perhaps the most remarkable may be discovered in the ac

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 signifi cant and 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 na. tions 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.

Η « Λύτρα της εαυτων ζωής, και αντιψυχά.

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

count of the mystical offering of the Phenicians recorded by the same writer from Sanchoniatho; which, as well from the extraordinary circumstances of the transaction itself, as from the interesting and important bearing given to it by a late ingenious writer, I here submit to the reader in the words of the historian.

*"It was an established custom amongst the ancients" (speaking of the Phenicians,) " on any calamitous or dangerous emergency, for the ruler of the state to offer up, in prevention of the general ruin, the most dearly beloved of his children, as a ransom to avert the divine vengeance. And they who were devoted for this purpose, were offered mystically. For Kronus truly, whom the Phenicians call Il, and who, after his death, was translated with divine honours to the star which bears his name, having whilst he ruled over

* Εθος εν τοις παλαιοίς εν ταις μεγάλαις συμφοραίς των κινδύνων, αντί της πάντων φθοράς, το ηγαπημένον των τέκνων τες κρατώντας η πολεως, η έθνος, εις σφαγήν επιδιδοναι, λύτρον τοῖς τιμωροις δαίμοσι. Κατεσφάττοντο δε οι διδομένοι ΜΥΣΤΙΚΩΣ — Κρανος τοίνυν, ον οι Φοίνικες Ισραηλ προσαγορεύεσι, βασίλευαν της χώρας, και υσέρον μετά την τε βικ τελευτην εις τον το Κρονκ ασέρα καθιερω θεις, εξ επιχωρίας νύμφης, Αναβρει λεγομένης, υιον έχων μονογενή, ον δια τότε Ιεκδ εκάλουν, το μονογενες ὅτως ετι και νυν καλεμενε παρά τοις Φοινιξι) κιν δυνων εκ πολέμε μεγίσων κατειληφότων την χώραν, βασιλίκω κόσμησας σχηματι τον υιον, βωμον τε κατασκευασαμενος κατέθυσεν. Euseb. Prap. Εvang. Lib. I. cap. x. p. 40. and Lib. IV. cap. xvi. pp. 156, 157.

It will be remarked here that the word lopana, in this extract of Eusebius I have written Il in the translation.-This I have done upon the authority of the ablest critics. Grotius, Vossius, and others, are of opinion that the transcriber of Eusebius meeting with a (1) supposed it to be a contraction of the word Ispanλ, (Israel) often abridged thus in the MSS. of the Greek Christian writers, and wrote it at full length as we now find it. This is confirmed by the circumstance of Kronus being elsewhere called Il, as we learn from Eusebius himself, (pp. 36, 37.)—On this see Grotius in Deut. xviii. 10. Vossius de Idol. lib. I. cap. xviii. p. 143. Marsham Can. Chron. p79: and Bryant's Observat. on Hist. p. 288. The last named writer says, "Kronus originally esteemed the supreme Deity, as is manifest from his being called I and Ilus. It was the same name as the El of the Hebrews; and according to St. Jerome, was one of the ten names of God. Phanicibus Il, qui Hebræis El, quod est unum de decem nominibus Dei. Damascius, in the life of Isidorus, as it occurs in Photius, mentions that Kronus was worshipped by the people of those parts, under the name of El. bovines was Zuger τον Κρόνον Ηλ, και Βηλ, και Βολαβην επονομάζεσι.” Observations, &c. p. 289. -It should be observed that the (El) of the Hebrew is written (1) in Syriac; and consequently is the Il of the Phenicians: so that Il and Et are without doubt the same name.

It should not, however, be dissembled, that Stilling fleet, (after Scaliger and others) is of opinion, that the word might have been written Israel by Eusebius, as we now find it, and that by that Abraham might have been intended. (Orig Sacr. p. 371.) He has not, however, advanced any thing to place this matter beyond doubt. And the authority of Eusebius himself as already given, with the other reference that have been noticed, renders it highly probable that I was the word as originally written. Vossius also (p. 143.) remarks, "Parum credibile est, Phoenices pro Deo summo, hoc est Molocho, sive Saturno, habituros Israelem, parentem gentis vicinæ, maxi• meque exosa; quod satis sacra testatur historia."

that people, begotten by a nymph of the country, named Anobret, an only son, thence entitled Jeud, (it being to this day usual with the Phenicians so to denominate an only son,) had, when the nation was endangered from a most perilous war, after dressing up his son in the emblems of royalty, .offered him as a sacrifice on an altar specially prepared for the purpose."

On the Phenician rites, and particularly upon their mystical offering here described, the late very learned Mr. Bryant has offered some curious and striking observations, from which I have made the following selection, which I trust will not be unacceptable to the reader.

After speaking of the sacrifices customary with various nations, especially their human sacrifices, he goes on to say,"These nations had certainly a notion of a federal and an expiatory sacrifice. It was derived to them by tradition; and though originally founded in truth, yet being by degrees darkened and misapplied, it gave rise to the worst of profanations, and was the source of the basest and most unnatural cruelty. I have shown at large that human victims were very common among the Phenicians: and Philo Byblius tells us from Sanchoniatho, that in some of their sacrifices there was a particular mystery: they who were devoted for this purpose, were offered mystically:' that is, under a mystical representation: and he proceeds to inform us, that it was in consequence of an example which had been set this people by the god Kronus, who in a time of distress offered up his only son to his father Ouranus."*-He observes that there is something in the account so very extraordinary as to deserve most particular attention; and after quoting the passage from Eusebius, which I have given at full length in page 212, he remarks, that "if nothing more be meant by it, than that a king of the country sacrificed his son, and that the people afterwards copied his example, it supplies a cruel precedent too blindly followed, but contains nothing in it of a mystery." "When a fact (he adds) is supposed to have a mystical reference, there should be something more than a bare imitation. Whatever may have been alluded to under this typical representation, it was, I believe, but imperfectly understood by the Phenicians; and is derived to us still more obscurely, by being transmitted through a f† secondary channel."

⚫ It is to be noted that Eusebius has given this account of the matter in a passage different from that which I have already quoted from him. A γενόμενος, και φθορας, τον εαυτό μονογενή υιον Κρονος Ουρανω πατρι ολοκαςPrep. Evang. p. 38.

Bryant here alludes to the circumstance of our not being possessed of Sanchoniatho's history itself, but merely of a fragment of a Greek transla