Some therefore have queftioned, whether the Pafchal Lamb ought to be deemed a Sacrifice, fince it differs fo much from all other Sacrifices, as being all the Proprietor's, and having none of the Forms ufed over it that other Sacrifices had: No Salt; no Meat Offering, nor any Drink Offering was added to it; and he that brought it to the Temple flew it. But notwithstanding the want of these circumftances, this does not alter the nature of the thing, or make the Passover not to be a proper Sacrifice, Since it was brought to the Temple, and the blood was poured out, and the inwards burnt upon the Altar. The Pafcal Lamb was the Sacrifice of a Company and where a Company are concern'd, no one can act for the whole, unless there be a proper Reprefentative, as the Elders of a Congregation are for the Congregation, or perfons deputed are for those who depute them; or Governors may be for their People. In this case therefore there was no Impofition of Hands; no fuch Rite was commanded ; the Lamb was only to be brought to the Temple; and as it was, what the Jews

call

was flain

Call one of the leffer or lighter Holies, it any where in the Court, and not as Other Sacrifices were.

These are, or may be, the Reasons why no Impofition of Hands was admitted in the cafes of the First-born, Tithes and the Palover. But even in Cafes where Laying on of Hands was required, there were certain Perfons who were never admitted to perform this Ceremony. The Jews have a Rule, that*"All can lay "on hands except a Deaf man, a Fool, a "Minor, a Blind man, a Gentile, a Slave,

or a Deputy, and a Woman.” The reason why the Three firft are excepted is, because they want fufficient understanding. This reafon Maimonides † affigns; and fo does R. Obadiah de Bartenora. And the reafon is good; For they that "want Un"derstanding" are not competent Judges of what they are doing, or of what is

* Omnes manus imponere poffunt, excepto Surdo, Stulto, et Minorenni, cæco, gentili, legato, et Muliere. Mishnah. Vol. V. p. 96.

Surdus, Stultus, et minorennis non imponunt manus, quia non pollent intellectu. Maim. in loc.

Quia ii intellectu haud præditi funt. Bartenora. in

Loc.

the

the Intention of the Ceremony. The Law was express and clear, that the man that made the Burnt Offering was to lay his own band upon the Head of it, Lev, i. 4. And when he did fo, He was, for Himfelf, to confefs his own Sins; and therefore* no Subftitute, no Servant, no "not a man's wife, could poffibly do this " for Him." So that the Reafon of the thing excluded all others, as well as the very Letter of the Law, from being Deputies or Subftitutes, in the performance

of this Rite.

By why is a Deaf man fuppofed to want understanding enough to lay hands on his Sacrifice? This Sort of Men are commonly join'd with Fools and Minor's by the Jews, and are deem'd exempted from the Obfervation of the Law, in most, if not all the affirmative Precepts. They understood therefore by the word on, one that was dumb as well as deaf; one fo incapacitated, that he could not speak,

*Ex eo quod dicitur, et imponet manum SUAM, concludunt [Sapientes,] quod ipfius Domini Sacrificii manus imponendæ funt, et non manus Servi, nec Legati, nec Mulieris ipfius. Maim in loc.

much

much less declare the defign of his Sacrifice and then indeed the Reason of their Rule will hold good, because all Sacrifice was attended with a certain form of words, which could not here be pronounced: Not but that they fometimes ufed this word in a more restrained Senfe, and meant "one that had the power of Speaking, "tho' he had loft the faculty of Hearing "in either Both or one Ear only.”

The Reason why the Rabbi's have excluded Blind men from laying on their Hands is very strange. It feems, that none of the Sanhedrim, or Elders of the Congregation was ever Blind: + and "it was deem'd an unworthy thing that

any of the Sanhedrim fhould be Blind. "From hence they gathered, that be"cause in the cafe of Publick Sacrifices "no Blind man ever laid on hands, there

*Quivis igitur Surdus, tametfi loqui poterat, immo et aurium altera captus, præcepto apparendi folutus erat. Maimon. De Sacris Solemnibus. c. 2.

+ Indignum erat ut in Synedrio quifquam effet Senator cocus.-Colligimus porro autem manuum Impofitionem Sacrificiorum privatorum ab impofitione manuum publicorum Sacrificiorum, nempe, quemadmodum in uno non fit per cœcum, ita nec in altero. Maimon. in Mihn. De Muneribus. Vol. V. p. 97.

"fore

"fore in Private Sacrifices" (i. e. fuch as were offered by Private perfons) "none "that were blind should lay on their "hands." This fhews what strange Inferences can be made, when the Reasons of Things are neglected or difregarded. The Rabbi's conftantly teach, that no Expiation was made without Impofition of bands: Why therefore a Blind man, that repented of his Sins, and defired to be in favour with God, fhould not reap the benefit of his Sacrifice as well and as much as one that could fee, is impoffible to shew.

There is indeed one cafe allowed in the Jewish Practice, where One man might lay on hands for Another, and that is, * <<< "That an Heir may lay on "hands, and bring his Meat and Drink Offering, and change." What is meant by this, is, That if a man had promised, or vowed any particular Beaft for a Sacrifice, either an Holocauft, or Peace Offering, and died before he had performed his Promife, then the Heir was

* Hæres etiam manus fuas imponat, libamina offerat, et commutet. Mih. Minchoth. c 9. § 7.

obliged