But whose was the sin that was coveredatoned for? Was it that of the animal whose life was offered? That idea is not admissible. And to shut out that idea, and to turn the eye in quest of the guilt, from the victim to another quarter, the animal must have upon it all the signs and tokens of innocence. If his offering be a burnt-sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish' (Lev. i. 3). And so in the Pascal sacrifice, Your lamb shall be without blemish' (Exod. xii. 5). An animal, so to speak, which has done no sin, was alone fit to be laid upon the altar. Whose, then, was the sin? in other words, in whose room was the life of the victim offered? We are told very plainly, both by words and by symbolic acts in whose room the life of the sacrifice was offered. He,' the person bringing the sacrifice, 'shall offer it of his own voluntary will. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him' (Lev. i. 1.4).

This principle, even that of substitutionthe innocent dying in the room of the guiltywas placed conspicuously at the head of the sacrificial institute. It is visible all throughout, and makes itself prominent as the ruling principle of the whole. Let us take, for instance, the day of high atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month. On that day the high priest was to make atonement, first, for himself and for his house, offering for that end 'a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.' Next, he was to make atonement for 'the congregation of the children of Israel with two kids of she-goats, which were to be severally disposed of in the manner to be afterwards noted. Next, he was to make atonement for the holy place and the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar,' because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins. Having made this universal atonement, he was 'to cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat.' The first was to be offered as a burnt-offering; the second was to be sent away into the wilderness, but laden with a burden which irresistibly suggests and teaches the doctrine of substitution-the innocent bearing the sin and enduring the punishment of the guilty. That burden was 'all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins' confessed over the live goat, by the high priest, both his hands being the while upon the head of the animal, to signify 'the putting' the sins of the people upon the head of the goat.' It is added, 'the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.' The two underlying ideas here, beyond all doubt, are those of imputed guilliness and vicarious suffering, and we do not see how it was possible, by words and signs, more clearly to teach these ideas. These were the great truths at the

centre of the Old Testament worship; and in these truths the world was indoctrinated during four thousand years. If not, what truth did that worship teach? What end did it serve? Did God, after the manner of certain governments on earth, knowing the love of his creatures for pantomime and play, devise and maintain this system to amuse and beguile the successive generations, and not rather that the world might advance in knowledge and truth?

But it may be asked, what relation is there between the sufferings of an animal and the sin of man? or, as the apostle has put it, can the blood of bulls and goats take away sin? This is a most pertinent question, and one which helps forward our investigation, and makes more irresistible the conclusion to which that investigation points. The blood of bulls or goats could not really take away sin. These sacrifices were and could be nothing more than types and shadows. But there can be no shadow without a substance, and this compels us to ask where and what was the substance? There can be no mistaking the substance, which was Christ. The apostle, writing under the direction of the Spirit, says of the Old Testament observances, that they were 'a shadow of good things to come; but the body is of Christ.' One whole book of the New Testament Scriptures, the Hebrews,' to wit, is devoted to an exposition of the Aaronic priesthood and sacrifices. And what is that exposition? It is in brief that in Christ we have the reality of that of which we had only the shadow under the law. In the former all was typical, in the latter all is real: the priest is real; the sacrifice is real; the cleansing is real; and the redemption is real. The doctrine of a real substitution and of a vicarious sacrificethe imputation of the sinner's guilt to the innocent substitute, and the actual expiation of that guilt by the blood of Christ, is taught as the substance of the gospel, and as the essence of that religion which God has made known to man for his salvation, in a manner so plain in the Epistle to the Hebrews that there is no way of getting quit of it save by denying the inspiration of that part of the canon. And to what avail should we do so, seeing the same truth remains written, in terms equally plain, in so many other portions of the New Testament Scriptures. This lets us into the reason why Christ, in instituting the Supper, said with reference to the bread and wine, This is my flesh,' 'This is my blood.' He did so to show that that in which lies the essence of a sacrifice was in His sacrifice; and that, unlike Cain, He was not bringing the fruits of the field; but, like Abel, a veritable sacrifice. He had brought a holy nature; but that was not His sacrifice. He had brought a sinless life; but that was not His sacrifice. He had brought a perfect example; but neither was that His sacrifice.

He had brought love to God and man; but neither is this His sacrifice. Now He brings Bimself-His flesh and blood, and therewith He makes a real expiation, and accomplishes the redemption of the world -J. A. W.

ATONEMENT, DAY OF (H. day of atonements), an annual festival of universal cleansing among the Israelites, which began on the evening before the tenth day of the seventh month (Tisri), and lasted to the evening of the same tenth day. It took place, therefore, nine days after the Feast of Trumpets, and five days before the Feast of Tabernacles. Its occurrence in the seventh month, and its name, Sabbath of Sabbaths, that is, the great Sabbath, show that this institution made a part of the Judaical Sabbath system; on which account the two great festivals, the Sabbatical year and the year of Jubilee, opened with the Sabbath of Atone. ment. As a Sabbath, the day was to be kept free from all manner of work, both on the part of the Hebrews, and of strangers resi dent among them. But the distinguishing peculiarity of the day was, that it was a season of annual purification, releasing the Jewish people from all lapses, omissions, and sins, into which they might have fallen during the year. The particularity with which the observances of the day are laid down (Lev. xvi.; xxiii. 26-32. Numb. xxix. 7-11), proves the importance that was attached to the institution, for which reason it is termed 'the day,'' the great day;' and, as fasting was required among its usages, it is denominated the fast' (Acts xxvii. 9. Isa. lviii. 3. Ps. xxxv. 13). The word rendered 'fast' denotes, in the original, humiliation of soul, as the seat of the affections, of which, humiliation the fast was the outward means and token: the day was therefore one of general moral review, of contrition, and self-abasement before Jehovah; a day of sorrow and mourning; but also, in consequence of the universal atonement then made, a day of deliverance, joy, and peace.

The purification was universal, beginning with the high priest, and descending to the furniture of the tabernacle. Hence the idea of sin must here be enlarged beyond its ordinary comprehension. In Mosaism ritual uncleanness bore the name, as well as moral defilement. The universality of the cleansing had a high spiritual import, betokening that there is nothing in creation holy but God; thus raising man's idea of the Creator, and making that idea hallowing to the human soul. The purification did not omit the priests, and so brought them into the same class of sinners with their fellow-man, and aided to counteract any vain notion of self importance and self-righteousness which their position might otherwise engender. The rites of cleansing began with the priests, thus intimating that it is with holy hands and a purified heart that God's work was to be

undertaken. The moral import of these observances in general cannot be mistaken. If the effect corresponded only in part with the original design and tendency, the same may be said of Christianity itself. But the Janguage of the prophets clearly shows, that the moral significance of the entire ritual was its divine element; towards a full conception of which the chief minds of the nation made rapid progress, and, at the same time, held forth their light to the whole of the people (Isa. lviii. Ps. 1). Nor must it be forgotten that Judaism eventually gave rise and place to Christianity, the most ceremonial to the most purely spiritual religion upon earth. Moses and Christ are at the head of two very dissimilar cycles of divine revelation; yet the first was the harbinger of the second; such is the connection and such is the unity that prevail in the dispensations of Providence.

As no other nation had for its fundamental idea and aim 'Holiness to Jehovah' (Exod. xxviii. 36), so, amid all the religious observances of the world, there is none that corresponds with the day of atonement. Some resemblance to it may be found in the Ramadan of the Mohammedans, which, however, most probably imitated the Jewish festival. At a less distance lies the Hindoo Sandrajonon (Priestley's Comparison'): most remote are the Supplicationes of the ancient Romans.

AUGUSTUS (L. honourable and inviolable), the title of honour by which is generally described in history, Caius Julius Cæsar Octavius or Octavianus, of the family of the Octavii, son of the prætor Caius Octavius, adopted son and soie heir of his great uncle, the well-known warrior and writer, Caius Julius Cæsar, whose name Augustus, according to custom, added to his own. He was born in the consulship of Cicero and Antony, 691, U.C; 62, A.C. After the assassination of Julius Cæsar by Brutus and his associates (44, A.C.), he united himself with Marc Antony and Lepidus to make war on the slayers of his relative. The three soon disagreed. Augustus gained (31, A.C.) a final victory in the seafight at Actium on the Ambracius Sinus, on the western side of Northern Greece; and thus having set aside competitors, he pro ceeded to take possession of the universal empire, which Rome had ready to give to the final victor. Retaining the old republican forms, the senate (725, U.A.) handed over the state to the hands of a monarch, under the military title of imperator (commander): whence our word emperor. Augustus was also distinguished by the title of Cæsar, in honour of his uncle. Year by year the senate and himself played at the game of preserving the substance of a despotism under the shadow of republican forms; the emperor laying down his authority, and the

senate entreating him to resume it. The title Augustus was conferred on him by the senate as an honourable designation, and has special allusion to the sacred character of the emperor in his capacity of the national chief priest. Liberality towards the army, moderation towards the senate, skill and mildness in the management of the people, patronage of the arts, and respectable powers of mind, secured Augustus in possession of the government for a period of forty-four years, and enabled him to found the greatest military dominion that was ever known. He died in the seventy-sixth year of his age, 767 after the foundation of Rome, and (according to the vulgar era) fourteen years after the birth of Christ, at Nola, in Campania.

Herod, who had taken sides with Antony, was, of course, implicated in the defeat which the latter underwent at Actium: he was, however, received by Augustus into favour, who gave him the title of 'King of the Jews,' and enlarged his dominions. He also raised Herod's brother to the dignity of tetrarch. As an expression of his gratitude, Herod built, in honour of Augustus, a marble tem

ple not far from the fountains of the Jordan, and showed, throughout his life, the greatest deference to the imperial will. After Herod's death, Augustus divided his dominions, agreeably to the testament of the deceased monarch, among his sons, but saw himself compelled to banish one of them, namely, Archelaus, when he attached that prince's territory of Judea and Samaria to the province of Syria. The liberal acts of Augustus towards Herod and the Jews arose from no feeling of respect for that people, but from considerations of policy, and a certain kind of favourable regard towards Herod personally.

AVOUCH (L. to claim), an old form of our usual word avow, to own, or take to one'sself, in which sense the term is used in Deut. xxvi. 17, 18, Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God;' and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people.' The Hebrew word is the same as that which is rendered 'say.' -Shakespere thus uses the word:

If the duke avouch the justice of your dealing.

BAAL (H. Lord) was the most popular, if not the supreme, male-divinity of the Canaanitish nations, as well as of the Carthaginians and the Babylonians. The name Baal, intended to denote the lord or master of the world, was applied to the sun as the great celestial influence; and, considered as the male deity, Baal represented the fructifying power of nature, in contradistinction from the passive and bearing power which was recognised in the moon under the appellation of Astarte. The service of Baal was therefore a corrupted form of nature-worship, or the worship of natural objects, to which the East so readily, so widely, and so thoroughly yielded, in consequence of the splendour in which the hea

BAA

venly bodies there appear, and the diminutive proportions into which man is thereby reduced. Baal was the protecting divinity of the Tyrians, who denominated him Melcarth, city-king. Images of Baal are found on coins, on which he is commonly seen beardless, his head encircled with a chaplet of ivy, clad with a lion's hide, and bearing a club; or he grasps a serpent, whence it may be that the Greeks termed him Hercules. Of the two cuts here given, the smaller deserves special notice. It is taken from a coin found in the Tyrian island Cosyra. Its style shows its antiquity, while the influence of Grecian art is visible in the impression from the larger coin.

The Phoenicians extended the worship of Baal co-extensively with their colonisation, and erected in many places large and splendid temples in his honour.

By those among the Israelites who were given to idolatry, offerings were made to Baal on the roofs of houses (Jer. xxxii. 29), and on high places (Jer. xix. 5), probably because his worship was illegal so as to render privacy desirable. But the powerful could disregard the law: accordingly, Ahab, king of Israel, influenced by his Sidonian wife, openly served Baal, and, having built in his honour a temple in Samaria, raised in it an altar, and made a grove; doing 'more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him' (1 Kings xvi. 31, seq.). The ten tribes, after their separation, were more inclined to idolatry (1 Kings xii. 28) than Judah; but the latter also gave public homage to the idol, for Manasseh reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them; and he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times (practised astrology; comp. Lev. xix. 26), and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger' (2 Kings xxi. 3, 6). This idolatry was found in the times of the Judges (ii. 11, 13), where we find groves connected with the worship of Baal (Judg. iii. 7; vi. 25). His priests were very numerous: in the days of Elijah they amounted to four hundred and fifty (1 Kings xviii. 22). Indeed, they appear to have consisted of a graduated hierarchy, designated, in 2 Kings x. 19, 'prophets, servants, and priests. We have already seen that children were offered in sacrifice to Baal: the testimony of Jeremiah (xix. 5) puts this otherwise almost incredible atrocity beyond a doubt: They have built also the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire for burnt-offerings unto Baal.' Incense was burnt to him (Jer. vii. 9). In order to procure his favour on special occasions, the priests danced madly round the altar; and, if the desired sign was withheld, they cried aloud, and cut themselves till the blood gushed out. The whole chapter whence we derive these facts (1 Kings xviii.) is very impressive, and deserves attentive perusal. Strange that the Hebrews should have been so sottishly corrupt, as to have preferred Baal and his prophets to Jehovah and Elijah, and thus have rendered the trial there narrated necessary. Yet even Solomon, in his old age, burnt incense and offered sacrifices to Phoenician idols, seduced by his foreign wives (1 Kings xi. 5, 8). Idolatry was not only disloyalty to God. it was also connected with vicious, degrading, and voluptuous practices. Priapism is met with in one form of Baal-worship, namely, Baal

peor,- a divinity which was honoured by the sacrifice to him of the chastity of young maidens (Numb. xxv. 1-5; xxxi. 16. Josh. xxii. 17). Besides Baal-peor of the Moabites, other modifications of this idolatry are found, as Baal-berith, covenant Baal, as the Greeks had a Zeus, who presided over oaths, and the Romans a Deus, who punished infractions of fidelity: the Shechemites worshipped Baal-berith in a temple set apart for his honour (Judg. viii. 33; ix. 4, 46). From Jer. xii. 16, it appears that it was usual to swear by Baal, whence may have arisen the epithet of berith, equivalent to covenantpreserving. Another form was that of Baalzebub (2 Kings i. 2, 3, 16), a Philistine god at Ekron, of whom Ahaziah sent to inquire whether he should recover from his illness. The name signifies fly-god. The insect world affords in Palestine, as in all countries, several species, which are exceedingly annoying and injurious to man; whence Baal received an addition to his name, to denote his protecting power against gnats, locusts, &c. Pausanias relates that the Greeks at Elis offered annnal sacrifices to Zeus, the fly-repeller.

As it was customary with the Hebrews to form names in part out of some elements of the name for God,—thus, Isaiah, Elijah, Elishah; and with the Greeks in the same way, thus, Theophilus, Timothy; and as this custom still prevails among the Germans, thus, Gottlieb, Gottfried (in English Godfrey, hence Jeffery), so the worshippers of Baal made that word to enter into combination with others to form proper names: accordingly, we have Ethbaal, a king of the Sidonians (1 Kings xvi. 31); Baalath, a city in Dan (Josh. xix. 44); and Hannibal and Hasdrubal.

BAAL-GAD (H. Lord of good fortune). There are several places in Scripture which bear a name compounded with the word Baal, of comparatively little importance; but the city which was probably known by the name that stands at the head of this article, was too distinguished to be passed in silence. Its more frequent appellation is Baalbec, city of the sun; in Greek, Heliopolis, which lay in Cole-Syria, on the north-eastern boundary of Palestine, at the foot of Mount Hermon, and formed the northern limit of the conquests of Joshua (Josh. xi. 17). It stands in the northern extremity of the lovely plain of Bekaa. In the second book of Chronicles (viii. 6), Solomon is said to have built, among other cities, Baalath, in Lebanon. The similarity of the name suggests that this is the same with Baalbec, especially as Baalath is mentioned by Josephus as one of the places of pleasure erected by that monarch in Syria, on account of the temperate nature of the climate, the delicacy of the fruits, and the excellence of the air and water. A more appropriate spot could not