and the fruits, simply, and not the first-fruits, show that the first honour was held back from the Creator, and given to the creature." (Ibid. pp. 137, 141, 142, 145.) And in this sense it is, that Abel is said by this writer, "neither to have offered the same things, nor in the same way; but instead of inanimate things, animate; instead of young and inferior animals, the matured and choicest:" in other words, that the most animated and vigorous sentiments of homage are requisite to constitute an acceptable act of devotion. In this light, the due value of Dr. Priestley's quotation from this writer, as applied to the present question, may easily be estimated. But had Dr. Priestley looked to that part of this author's works in which he treats expressly of the animals offered in sacrifice, he would have seen that he describes the sacrifice for sin, as being the appointed means of "obtaining pardon, and escaping the evil consequences of sin," —κακων απαλλαγή κακών φυγή αμνησίαν αδικημάτων αιτείσθαι : (Пegi Zawr. pp. 838, 843.) and that in the case of an injury committed, he represents the reparation made to the person injured, joined to contrition for the offence, and supplication of pardon from the Deity, as not sufficient to obtain the divine forgiveness, without offering an animal in expiation. (Ibid. p. 844.)-Had Dr. Priestley indeed asserted that this writer's notion of sacrifice was that of a symbolical and mystical representation, he had given a fair account of the matter. For, when he informs us that "the blood of the victim was poured in a circle round the altar, because a circle is the most perfect figure; and that the soul which is figured by the blood should through the entire circle of thought and ac- tion, worship God:" when he tells us that "the victim was separated into parts, to admonish us, that in order to the true worship of the Deity, his nature must be considered and weighed in its distinct parts, and separate perfections;' (Ibid. p. 839.) it will readily be admitted, that he soars into regions, whither a plain understanding will not find it easy to follow him. But to have stated this, would not have answered the purpose of Dr. Priestley's argument: because this high strain of mysticism would have clearly disqualified him, as an evidence on behalf of Dr. Priestley's, or of any intelligible theory of sacrifice. Indeed, with respect to this ancient writer, the truth seems to be, that viewing the Jewish system without that light, The above observation may supply an answer to many who have objected against the alleged existence of a doctrine of vicarious atonement amongst the early Jews, the silence of Philo upon that head, even when treating expressly upon the choice of victims for sacrifice-See particularly Scripture Account of Sacrifices, App. p. 17. which alone could give it 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 vailed in allegory whatever would not admit a satisfactory literal solution. And this he must have found still more ne cessary, 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 shown 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 showing that they deemed their animal 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 Cesar 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, (En. 3. 57.) and Suidas, (in voc. grua,) ascribing the same sacrificial sentiment, the first to the Massilienses, and the second to the Grecian states. Hesychius likewise in substituting for the word gun an expiatory or redeeming sacrifice, the word Tux, (as has been noticed, p. 126,) marks with sufficient clearness, that the expiation was made by offering life for life. And, not to dwell upon the well known passage in Plautus,* (Epid. p. 412. ed. 1577.) which clearly defines the expiation as effected by a vicarious suffering; or, upon that in Porphyry,† (De Abstin. lib. iv. p. 396. ed. 1620.) in which it is asserted to have been the general tradition, that animal sacrifices were resorted to in such cases as required life for life, 4uxnv artı Yuxas; it may be sufficient to state one authority from Ovid, who in the sixth book of his Fasti, particularly describes the sacrificed animal as a vicarious substitute, the several parts of which were given as equivalents, or though not strictly such, yet hoped to be graciously accepted as such, in place of the offerer: 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 an useful caution in the admission of his assertions. * Men' piaculum oportet fieri propter stultitiam tuam, Ut meum tergum stultitiæ tuæ subdas succedaneum ? † Υπό δε τινας καιρός πρωτον ιερείον θύσαι μυθεύονται ψυχήν αντί ψυχής No. XXXIV.-ON H. TAYLOR'S OBJECTION OF THE WANT OF A LITERAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MOSAIC SACRIFICE AND THE DEATH OF CHRIST. PAGE 33. (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 devesting the death of Christ of the characters of the sinoffering prescribed 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 show 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 vail 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 offered 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 priesthood. (Heb. 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 suppo sing 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 made by Christ as a PRIEST, it was of a higher nature, and of a prior and superior dispensation to the Mosaic; such as was offered in the days of Melchisedek, the priest of the most high God. But we have no reason to think that any offerings before the law were meant to be expiatory, but all of them eucharistical." Thus, after labouring to prove that St. Paul was extravagant in his comparison of the Christian and Mosaic sacrifices; and that all his hard figures had not enabled him to make out a resemblance between them: and labouring to prove this by showing that Christ was neither literally a Mosaic victim, nor a Mosaic priest, (a point which no person was ever mad enough to contend for)-thus, I say, after all this, our author in his concluding paragraph admits the whole nature and force of the Christian sacrifice, and the true distinction which points out the reason why it should not conform in every minute ceremonial with the formalities of the Mosaic; namely, that it was of a higher nature, and of a prior and superior dispensation. For as to the accompa : nying observation intended to do away the effect of this admission; viz. that there is no reason to think that any offerings before the law were meant to be expiatory; this is a mere gratis dictum, the contradiction of which it is hoped is satisfactorily made out in other parts of this work. And thus it appears upon the whole, that on a single gratuitous assumption, the author rests the entire weight of the preceding argument; and on its strength he has presumed to set up his own doctrines in opposition to those of St. Paul. Whether then in the present instance, this author, ingenious and learned as he undoubtedly is, deserves more to be condemn |