not bring upon themselves Sin. In another place, to bear Iniquity, fignifies to bear the punishment of it. Thus Lev. v. 1. If a Soul fin, and hear the Voice of Swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath feen or known of it, if he do not utter it, then he fhall bear his Iniquity, . The LXX. render it, anfetaι The aμapтía", He fall take or receive his Iniquity, i. e. the Punishment of it. And fo the Targum of Onkelos, accipiet, recipiet. And indeed in general, to bear Iniquity, feems to be to bear Punishment for Iniquity, in moft places where the phrafe occurs, (vid. Lev. xix. 8. — xx. 17, &c.) but not to fignify any vicarious Subftitution. No Sacrifice at all was ever appointed for the cafes laft mentioned, fuch as Incest, or not eating the Peace Offering within the time appointed by the Law and therefore the words, fhall bear his Iniquity, muft mean, shall bear the confequences of his Sin.

But, tho' to bear, to carry, to take, to take away, Iniquity, may be ambiguous, or do not imply vicarious Subftitution, yet to bear, or, take the Iniquity of

another

another may be clear and determinate. It may be faid fo indeed: but the evidence is juft the contrary to what is affirmed.

שָׁא נָא חָטָאתִי When Pharaoh faid to Mofes

take my Sin, or, take away my Sin, He could not mean to defire Him to take it upon himself as his Substitute, but to remove it quite; He defir'd him to pray unto the Lord his God, that he would take away from him this death. Exod. x. 17..

3. The feemingly ftrongeft inftance produced by thofe who plead for a vicarious Subftitution in Sacrifices, is that of the Scape Goat, which had the Sins, Tranfgreffions, and Iniquities of the Children of Ifrael put upon its head. It is added, And the Goat fhall bear upon bim all their Iniquities unto a Land not in

the LXX. render it, ferai d xíμapos ¿Q2 ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἀδικίας αυτῶν. The Goat that was not facrificed, was appointed to take, or, bear away, the Sins of the People: and he had them laid upon his head by a confeffion made over him, and thus did he carry them away. But then, as the Scape

L 2

Scape Goat was not a Sacrifice, This instance will not prove, that Sacrifices of Animals were originally defigned to be Substitutes for Offenders, or that the Life of the Beast was given for the Life of him that offered it. The whole Action

in this cafe (like that of cleanfing the Leprous Houfe, in which one of the Birds was ordered to be let fly, Levit. xiv. 53.) feems to have been parabolical: And fo Maimonides understood it, viz. * as "defigned to raise a Fear in the minds of

men, and to work a Converfion, as if they had faid, We are freed from all "our Tranfgreffions, and have caft them "behind us, and banished them to the "utmoft parts of the Earth." The point is not whether, in general, there may not be vicarious Substitutes, (which cannot be difputed) but whether Sacrifices were fuch, or whether piacular Sacrifices were fuch? And this, the cafe of the Scape

* Erant ifte Actiones omnes parabolicæ, ad timorem animis hominum incutiendum, et converfionem hoc medio operandum, q. d. Immunes fumus ab omnibus noftris Tranfgreflionibus; poft tergum noftrum illa projecimus, et ad extremas terræ oras relegavimus. Maim. More Nevoc 1. iii. c. 46.

Goat

Goat cannot determine, unless it can be proved that that was a proper Sacrifice: or that its Life was taken away; which it

was not.

It certainly has been a commonly received Opinion, and the Jewish Rabbi's are particularly cited for it by Dr. Outram, that "the Blood of the Sinner in Equity "ought to have been poured out, and his "Body burnt, as was the blood of the "Victim poured out, and its body burnt; And "that God in his Mercy and Good"ness took the victim instead of, and an Expiation for the Offender."

Some

have expreffed this by-" Blood for Blood, "and Soul for Soul." They understood a Tranflation of Sin upon the head of the Victim, and likewife of the punishment due to the Offender: And this, fays the Doctor, appears from the words they

* Equum erat, ut fuus Sanguis funderetur, et ut cremaretur corpus fuum. Mofes Ben Nachman. Cum Sons ipfe dignus effet cujus Sanguis profunderetur ut Sanguis Victima, corpufque ut Victimæ corpus cremaretur. Cum. que Deus hanc victimam ut rem vicariam et λórpov ejus ab eo acciperet, vide quanta in cum Benevolentia Dei fuit. Rab Bechai. Thefe and feveral others are cited by Dr. Outram, De Sacrificiis, p. 274-277.

ufed, 5, and 1, p. 274-277. But this Rabbinical Notion, however approved by that very learned Writer, is like others of their's, without foundation may have in

many

in the Scriptures, whatever it

Fancy. For,

1. Tho' the Word is used in Scripture for Change or Commutation, yet it is never once faid that any Sacrifice (piacular or not) is a Change or Commutation for a Man. A command is indeed given, that the Tithe of the Herd, or of the Flock, fhall not be changed; and if he change it at all, then Both it and the Change thereof fhall be holy, Levit. xxvii. 33. But as the Change of one thing for another is not the Oblation of one thing instead of another, for this is always forbidden, (for in cafes where a Change of Sacrifices was made, Both were Holy, and Both were to be offered) fo it is impoffible to infer that a Victim was an Oblation for or instead of a Man, from the ufe of this word, which is never once applied to exprefs fuch Notion.

2. The other word therefore,, is much more likely to be depended on;

for

That