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 seen or known of it, if he do not utter it, then be shall bear his Iniquity, 13ty ?! The LXX. render it, ahfetal Tàr å paptia", He skall take or receive bis Iniquity, i. e. the Punishment of it. And so the Targum of Onkelos 9??!, accipiet, recipiet. And indeed in general, to bear Iniquity, seems to be to bear Punishment for Iniquity, in most places where the phrase occurs, (vid. Lev. xix. 8. 17, &c.) but not to signify any vicarious Substitution. No Sacrifice at all was ever appointed for the cases last mentioned, such as Incest, or not eating the Peace Offering within the time appointed by the Law: and therefore the words, shall bear bis Iniquity, must mean, shall bear tie consequences of bis Sin.

But, tho' to bear, to carry, to take, to take away, Iniquity, may be ambiguOue, (r do not imply vicarious Sabftitution, yet to bear, or, take the Iniquity of


[ocr errors]


,שָׁא נָא חָטָאתִי When Pharaoh Taid toMees

another may be clear and determinate. It may

be faid fo indeed : but the evidence is just the contrary to what is affirmed.

said , take my Sin, or, take away my sin, He could not mean to desire Him to take it upon himself as his Substitute, but to remove it quite; He desir’d him to pray unto the Lord his God, that he would take away from him this death,

Exod. x. 17..


Here .נָשָׂא עָלָיוּ אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנחָם .babited

The seemingly strongest instance produced by those who plead for a vicarious Substitution in Sacrifices, is that of the Scape Goat, which had the Sins, Transgressions, and Iniquities of the Chil. dren of Israel put upon its head. It is added, And the Goat shall bear


him all their Iniquities unto a Land not in

? the LXX. render it, aúnfetai é xíuapos ép εαυθώ τας αδικίας αυών. 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 confession made over him, and thus did he carry them away. But then, as the


L 2

Scape Goat was not a Sacrifice, This instance will not prove, that Sacrifices of Animals were originally designed 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 case (like that of cleansing the Leprous Houfe, in which one of the Birds was ordered to be let fly, Levit. xiv. 53.) seems to have been parabolical : And so Maimonides understood it, viz. * “ as

designed to raise a Fear in the minds of men, and to work a Conversion, as if they had said, We are freed from all

our Transgressions, and have cast them " behind us, and banished them to the “ utmost parts of the Earth.” The point is not whether, in general, there may not be vicarious Substitutes, (which cannot be disputed) but whether Sacrifices were such, or whether piacular Sacrifices were such? And this, the case of the Scape Goat cannot determine, unless it can be proved that that was a proper Sacrifice : or that its Life was taken away; which it

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


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 “ Viêtim poured out, and its body burnt;" And “that God in his Mercy and Good“ nefs took the victim instead of, and an

Expiation for the Offender.” Some have expressed this by—“Blood for Blood, “ and Soul for Soul.” They understood a Translation of Sin upon the head of the Victim, and likewise of the punishment due to the Offender : And this, says the Doctor, appears from the words they

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Æquum erat, ut suus Sanguis funderetur, et ut cremaretur corpus suum. Moses Ben Nachman. Cum Sons ipfe dignus effet cujus Sanguis profunderetur ut Sanguis Victimæ, corpufque ut Victimæ corpus cremarctur.

Cum que Deus hanc victimam ut rem vicariam et aut pou ejus ab eo acciperet, vide quanta in eum Benevolentia Dei fuit. Rab. Bechai. These and several others are cited by Dr. Outram, De Sacrificiis, p. 274–277.


I 3


.p ,תמורה and ,כפר ,ufed

[ocr errors]

, , p. . But this Rabbinical Notion, however approved by that very learned Writer, is like many others of their's, without foundation in the Scriptures, whatever it may have in Fancy. For

1. Tho' the Word 1771:n is used in Scripture for Change or Commutation, yet it is never once said that


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, shall not be changed; and if he change it at all, then Both it and the Change thereof Mall 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 cases where a Change of Sacrifices was made, Both were Holy, and Both were to be offered) so it is impossible to infer that a Victim was an Oblation for or instead of a Man, from the use of this word, which is never once applied to express such Notion.

2. The other word therefore, 922, is much more likely to be depended on;

for That

« VorigeDoorgaan »