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 sa-
crifices were resorted to in such cases as required
life for life, uxnv avti uxns; it may be suffi-
ψυχην αντι
cient 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 equiva-
lents, 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.
Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.

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, antient or modern, Jew or Heathen, has any idea of a doctrine of atonement, or of any requi

Men' piaculum oportet fieri propter stultitiam tuam, Ut meum tergum stultitiæ tuæ subdas succedaneum? 4 Υπο δε τινας καιρες πρωτον ιερείον θυσαι μυθεύονται ψυχην αυτά ψυχης αιτωμενες.

site 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.

NO. XXXIV.—ON H. TAYLOR'S OBJECTION OF THE WANT OF A LITERAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MOSAIC SACRIFICE AND THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

PAGE 31. (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 divesting the death of Christ of the characters of the sin-offering 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 shew 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 veil 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 priest-hood. (Hebr. 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 supposing 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 shewing 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 accompanying 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.