to his death on the cross; and it becomes very certain that the sin-offering could not be intended at all to typify this, considered as a vicarious suffering for the sins of mankind. He is called a Lamb, among other reasons, because the lamb was the animal sacrificed in the continual burnt-offering; and a whole burntoffering represented something wholly devoted and consecrated to the Lord, as was his humanity to his Divinity; whereas, in the sin-offerings, a small part of the animal only was cousumed upon the altar. The common doctrine of the vicarious nature of the Lord's sufferings and death, and of the reference thereto of the ancient sacrifices, certainly requires, that, of all the sacrifices, the sin-offering should have the most pointed relation to that subject: and yet, of all the sacrifices, the sin-offering is that in which it is most difficult to trace any relation to it what

ever.

"On the nature of the distinction between the various kinds of offerings, I will submit another extract from the Lecture cited before.

"The Jewish sacrifices were intended to represent the worship of the Lord from the affections and perceptions of a purified heart and mind; which essentially consists in the ascription of all heavenly graces to the Lord as their Author. But what is the effect of such a worshipping of the Lord? what, but the renewal of the heart and mind, so that it is filled with heavenly graces derived from him, and justly acknowledged to be from him alone? And what is this but regeneration; that is, the passing from a merely natural state to a spiritual one, the whole man being renewed by the reception and appropriation of heavenly graces from the Lord? This renewal, or this regeneration, is then represented by the sacrifices of the Levitical code, considered in their regular series.

"The sacrifices consisted, in general, of three kinds,---sinofferings (to which general class the trespass-offering also belonged) peace-offerings and burnt-offerings. In the sin-offerings, part of the animal sacrificed was burnt upon the altar, the others were either burnt without the camp or eaten by the priests, acording to circumstances; but in no case was any of it eaten by the of ferer. In the burnt-offering, the whole was consumed upon the altar, and none was eaten either by the offerer or by the priest. In the peace-offering, the same parts as in the sin-offering were burnt upon the altar, part of the remainder was given to the priest, and the rest eaten by the person who offered it. And it is to be observed, that this was the order in which the sacrifices, when all the kinds were offered, took place; first a sin-offering, next a burnt-offering, and lastly a peace-offering; as is particu

larly directed on occasion of the consecration of the high priest.* Now, to those who are acquainted with the order in which the regeneration of man proceeds, it is easy to discern herein a picture of the whole. The order in which man pro

ceeds is from externals to internals, and afterwards from internals to externals, he being then in both together. When he begins to do the work of repentance, there is an inward principle of love and faith from the Lord, which prompts him to resist evils and to live as the divine commandments enjoin: but to do so he feels as a laborious effort; because, at the beginning, he is only sensible of natural delights, to resist which appears irksome and painful. Still there must be, in the interiors of the soul, a love of the opposite good, from which he acts; though this is as yet unattended with delight in the seat of his conscious perceptions. This state then is represented by the sin-offerings. The part of the animal which was burnt upon the altar, represented the inward good received from the Lord, from which man does the work of repentance; though the smallness of its quantity denotes that this is as yet but little; while the large quantity which was either burnt without the camp or given to the priest, according to circumstances, none coming to the share of the offerer, denotes the imperfect degree in which the lower principles of the mind are yet purified. The next great state attained in the regenerate life, is, when the influence of natural loves is entirely destroyed, and when man is consequently enabled to look to the Lord with his whole heart, both in the interiors and exteriors of his mind, thus, when the uuion of good with truth is effected, and truth is no longer, as in the former state, the apparently reigning principle. Still, though there is thus a great increase in the reception of good within the soul, there is not a full sensation of delight in it in the lower regions of the mind; and though man is enabled to elevate the whole to the Lord, still this is not attended with a full

perception of blessedness in doing so. This is represented by the burnt-offerings, in which the whole of the animal was consumed upon the altar, and no share was returned to the offerer himself. The final state is that, in which the external man, being brought into order, and no longer retaining either affections or delights at variance with those of the internal, is renewed and vivified by the reception in it of the affections and delights of the internal; when love to the Lord and charity to man, in company with a pure and exalted faith, are not only become the ruling motives of the heart, but when the practice of the conduct which such motives prescribe is not only adop* Ex. xxix.

h

ted by the external as a matter of duty and necessity, but is felt to be attended with the utmost enjoyment and delight.— This was represented by the sacrifices of peace-offerings, in which the inward parts were burnt upon the altar, and the flesh was eaten by the offerer. This is expressive of a state of complete regeneration, being the same as is spoken of by the Lord in the Revelation, when he says, "I will sup with him and he with me." The Lord sups with man, when he infuses into him the heavenly affections and views of which He is the sole author; and man sups with the Lord, when he feels what is thus imparted to him as if it were his own, willing what the Lord wills, and taking delight in all that the Lord's will requires.

"Thus, then, it is evident, that the performance of the Levitical sacrifices represented the offering up of man's self to the Lord; first in the sin-offering, partially; next in the burnt of fering, wholly; and finally in the peace-offering, is seen the result of his full renewal into the divine image, when what he had offered is, as it were, given back to him; or rather, something far better in its place.'*

"I have dwelt at some length on the first of Omega's paragraphs of difficulties, as containing the whole essence of the subject; the remainder may be more briefly disposed of.

"He next cites a passage from the Appeal,' in which it is stated, that in all sacrifices, he that offered the sacrifice was directed to put his hand upon the head of the victim.' He asks whether this assertion is not incorrect; and refers to twentyfive places in Leviticus, in which, he states, we read of the sacrifices without any accompaniment of the laying on of hands;' upon which he says, Concerning these I would ask, as Mr. N. does of confession, Seeing then, when it was intended that hands should be laid upon a victim, the command for it is so expressly given, can it be supposed that a similar laying on of hands was intended in all these places, where it is never commanded at all?'

"If I could have been guilty of such an oversight as to make a general assertion in the face of such a host of passages proving the contrary, I should very justly have deserved to have my own words turned against myself, as is here done by 'Omega.'

The above, I believe, will be found to agree in substance, though more popularly expressed, with what Swedenborg has taught upon the subject. I have noticed above, that a sacrifice of each kind was directed to be offered at the consecration of Aaron, Exodus xxix; and that chapter is explained at large, in the beginning of the last volume of the Arcana Coelestia."

I believe, however, that not one of his twenty-five texts proves the circumstance for which he refers to them. There were, we have seen, in the whole, but three general classes of sacrifices,---sin-offerings, burnt offerings, and peace-offerings. The trespass-offering was only a species of sin-offering, and is ex.pressly declared to be a sin-offering.* The law respecting the burnt-offering is given in Leviticus i., and it is there said of the offerer, He shall put his hand on the head of the burnt-offering.' The law of peace-offering is prescribed in Lev. iii, and it is there said of the offerer, He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering.' The law of the sin-offering is delivered in chap. iv. Respecting the sin-offering for a priest, it is commanded, that he shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head.' Respecting that for the whole congregation, that the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock.' Respecting that for a ruler, that he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat.' T Respecting that for one of the common people, which was to be a female kid or lamb, that he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sinoffering,'** Respecting the trespass-offering, which as already noticed, was a species of sin-offering, it is commanded, 'As is the sin-offering, so is the trespass-offering. There is one law for them.'tt

"We find it then expressly commanded, respecting all the kinds of animal sacrifices, that the offerer should lay his hand upon the head of the victim. How is it then that Omega has been able to discover twenty-five instances, in which this was not required? An examination of any one of his instances will evince his mistake.

"His first instance is from Lev. v., 5, 6: and it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for his sin, which he hath sinned, a female of the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin-offering and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.' Here, certainly, nothing is said about the offerer's laying his hand upon the head of the victim neither is anything said respecting the slaying of it, the putting the blood upon the horns of the altar, and pouring out of the remainder at the bottom of the altar, the burning of certain parts upon the altar, and the like. Did none of these things then take place? In other words, was not the animal sacrificed at all? Unques*Lev. v. 6, 7, 8, 9. † Ver. 4. Ver. 2, 8, 13. Ver. 15. ¶ Ver. 24. **Ver. 20, 33. Chapter vii. 7.

§ Ver. 4.

tionably it was, and with all proper ceremonials. But these are not repeated here, because they are contained in the direction before laid down as the mode of proceeding in the sacrificing of a sin-offering. The manner in which a sin-offering was to be made having once been described, it were superfluous indeed to repeat the description on every occasion when a sin-offering is commanded to be presented. All the other instances referted to by Omega are of the same description: they are only specific occasions on which a trespass, or sin-offering; * or a burnt-offering, t is directed to be offered; of course, the mode of making the offering was to be that which is prescribed where the law upon the subject is expressly delivered. The name of the sacrifice was a sufficient direction as to the mode of offering it.

"The statement, then, that in all sacrifices the offerer was directed to put his hand upon the head of the victim, remains unaffected by all the places in which Omega says we read of the sacrifice of animals without this accompaniment. There is, however, one instance, not noticed by him, in which there might be room to doubt whether this was intended. This is in the command about burnt-offerings of the flock. Respecting a burntoffering of the herd, it is directed, in a passage, already cited, that the offerer should put his hand upon its head, but this command is not repeated when directions are given, immediately afterwards, about the burnt-offerings of the flock. But whatever was the reason for this omission, it seems unquestionable that the command was intended to apply in both cases: indeed we find a command to the effect in Ex. xxix. 15; and the accordant practice in Lev. viii. 18.

"Omega next cites a passage from Arc. Cal. 10,023, in which it is said, that by the laying of their hand upon the burntoffering and sacrifice was signified the all of the worship of him who offered, viz. the acknowledgement of sins, confession, &c. But because, in the case of the scape-goat, the imposition and confession over him rendered him unclean, and unfit for the purpose of sacrifice, he asks, 'How are we to understand the con. * Ch. v. 16, 18; vi. 6; xii. 6, 8; xiv. 13, 22, 25, 31; xv. 30; xiv. 6, 11, 15; xix. 22.

† Ch. xii 6, 8; xiv. 19, 20, 22, 31; xv. 30; xxiii. 27. "Some of the places relate to offerings of birds. Respecting these it is never commanded that the offerer should lay his hand upon their head, bacause this action could only be conveniently performed upon a quadruped, and the presenting of the bird with his own hand to the priest had the same signification.'

Lev. i, 10, &c,

Ver. 4.