Page images
PDF
EPUB

* 23, 24,' &c.* But when you farther say, 'we have therefore neither instance, nor argument left to justify, in any sense, the

* However, though I allow, that the laying hands on the heads of the sin-offerings does not of itself prove, that sin was laid upon such offerings, for the reason you mention; yet I would beg leave here to propose it by way of query: Whether it is not reasonable to think, that this rite, when applied to such offerings, was intended to signify the offerers putting, as it were, their sins upon them? The same rite, in different circumstances, or applied to different sorts of sacrifices, might signify different things : when applied to peace-offerings, it might, from the nature of them, be intended as well as fitted to signify, that the offerers freely devoted them to God, and desired that they might be considered and accepted as offered to him, either in a way of impetration, or thanksgiving upon their (the offerers) account: but when applied to sinofferings, it might, from their different nature and ends, be intended as well as fitted to signify, that the offerers laid, as it were, their sins upon such sacrifices, and desired that they might be considered and accepted as offered to God in their stead, or to procure for them the pardon of their sins. Perhaps also, the same sort of reasoning may be applied to the other case of uncleanness contracted by burning the sin-offerings; for though the uncleanness contracted thereby does not of itself prove, that the sin of the offerers was laid upon those offerings, for the reason you mention; yet it might possibly be intended to suggest an idea of that sort; though in order to beget in the Israelites a higher notion of the great purity and holiness of God, he might be pleased to annex, as it were, uncleanness to several such things, as could not,in any sense, transfer guilt. However, I do not think it needful to insist strenuously upon either of these things.

'sentiment of transferring sin, but that of 'the high-priest's putting the iniquities of

[ocr errors]

the children of Israel upon the scape6 goat, Lev. xvi. 21.' You seem to me to say too much. However, before we consider, whether or no, we have any other instance, or argument left to justify, in any sense, the sentiment of transferring sin; it may not be amiss to take some notice of that, which, it seems, we have left; viz. 'the high-priest's putting the iniquities of 'the children of Israel upon the scape-goat.' And here, I must readily own, that by the high-priest's laying his hands upon the head of the live-goat, confessing over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, &c. and then sending him away, by the hands of a proper person, into the wilderness, or a land not inhabited, ver. 21, 22, no more seems to me to have been intended than the representing, or declaring in an emblematical manner, to the priests and people, the pardoning and removing their sins and uncleannesses (so far as that could be effected) by the preceding piacular sacrifices; I say, the preceding piacular sacrifices for at the same time that I allow those actions to have been only emblemat

ical declarations of these effects; I must beg leave to say, that the effects themselves seem to me to have been owing to those expiatory sacrifices, which had been offered before, and by which atonement for

• When particular sins were committed, or uncleannesses contracted; if discovered, particular sacrifices were appointed to be offered in order to atone for them; and such sacrifices had their effect: but because such sins or uncleannesses might be committed or contracted, as might not be discovered, and therefore not particularly -atoned for; it pleased God, as it would seem, to appoint, on a certain day every year, a general atonement to be made; the virtue of which should extend to all such sins and uncleannesses, undiscovered as well as discovered, as the law had appointed atonement to be made for : that ye may be made clean, says the text, from all your sins before the Lord. (See Lev. xvi. 29, 30, and Chapm. Euseb. v. 2, p. 482.) Which I therefore mention, because it will, perhaps, sufficiently account for what is intimated, v. 21, 22, that the scape-goat bore upon him, into a land not inhabited, all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins. But you are pleased to intimate, No. 32, that the putting the in'iquities of the people upon the scape-goat, and his car'rying them away into a desert, &c. signified that God 'had cast all their sins, repented of, behind his back, put 'them out of his sight, and would never lay them to their charge." As to which, I would beg leave to observe, that if the expiatory sacrifices offered at this time, did really make atonement for all the sins of the Israelites without exception; then, without doubt, what was done to, and with, the scape-goat, did signify, that all their sins, repented of, were forgiven: but if those sacrifices did not make atonement for all their sins without excep

their sins had been most properly made. And in this light, if I mistake not, this whole transaction will appear to every one, that attentively considers that chapter, and particularly, the order in which the several things there mentioned are directed to be done. So that the high-priest's laying his hands on the scape-goat, sending him into the wilderness, &c. do not seem to have been designed to have any effect with God (No. 32.) but only to declare to the Israelites, by expressive actions, that their sins and iniquities were forgiven, at least, so far,

tion, but only such as the law appointed atonement to be made for; then the transaction of the scape-goat could not signify the forgiveness of all their sins whatsoever, repented of, but only of such as the law had appointed atonement to be made for for the affair of the scapegoat seems to have had a reference only to those sins which had been expiated just before. If it should seem an objection to this, that the scape-goat was to carry away into the wilderness all the iniquities of the children of Israel, &c. v. 21, it should be remembered on the other hand, that the priest was to make atonement for them (no doubt by the sin-offerings) to cleanse them, that they might be clean from all their sins before the Lord, v. 30. So that the significancy of the affair of the scape-goat extended no further than the atoning virtue of the sin offerings. However I do not deny, but that God forgave all their sins truly repented of: but then, his doing so seems to have been grounded, not upon the sacrifices of this day, but upon one of a more extensive virtue and efficacy as you yourself seem to intimate, No. 134.

as that they might approach his tabernacle with impunity. And whereas it is expressly said, that Aaron-shall confess over the live goat, all the iniquities of the children of Israel, &c. putting them upon the head of the goat; and that the goat, being sent away, shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited: no one, I presume, will say, that in this case, their sins were laid upon the live goat, in order to be expiated in such a manner, as they were by the expiatory sacrifices; nor that the goat carried them away into the wilderness, in the same sense, in which those sacrifices took them away, or made atonement for them; but only so far as to signify that their sins and uncleannesses were now pardoned and removed, as certainly and effectually, as if they had been actually brought together, laid on the 'head of the scape-goat, and so sent away ' into the wilderness.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

However, though I allow, that Aaron's putting the sins of the Israelites upon the head of the scape-goat, &c. (as being, in this case, only emblematical) does not directly prove, that their sins were laid upon the sin-offerings; yet I would beg leave

« PreviousContinue »