« PreviousContinue »
This process inay not rapidly increase Considered with reference to their the number of converts, but if slow object, they seen in Scripture to be diand quiet in its operation, it is pro- vided into four classes, which have the gressive, it is not that which appeareth following naines in the Old Testament,
a , away.
Well-directed zeal will not Latin, * Holocaustum, sacrificia sacomplain of finding nothing to do if sutaria, sacrificium pro peccato, et sain this way its efforts are employed in crificium pro noxa,” in English, the promoting Christian truth: it would, burnt-offering, the peace-offering, sinindeed, check much ebullition, it would offering, and trespass or guilt-offerentirely check all vaunting expressions, ings. all contemptuous epithets, all invi- Now from merely inspecting this dious comparisons with others whose classification of Jewish sacrifices, we creed is different, all which is incon- are natuually led to conclude, that as sistent with Christian charity and gen. sacrifices belonging to the two latter tlemanly, courtesy. It is true, Uni- classes were specially provided for the tarians do not say, “ stand off, we expiation of sin, the rest were apare holier than thou ;” but even the pointed for other purposes; and, in civility of saying, “Come to us, we are particular, that sacrifices of the class of wiser than thou,” may be construed as peace-offerings, with its subdivisions, savouring of intellectual pride, and (called [Lev. vii.] 177ini jana 773, dispose some to decline accepting the namely, the vow, the voluntary offerinvitation.
ing and the thanksgiving,), were in I have no objection to doctrinal dis- no degree intended for expiatory sacussion, or to. doctrinal discourses crifices.* from the pulpit, when not so frequent Now, if the sacrifice itself had no as to endanger the engrossing the at- expiatory import, no part of the ceretention, or at least abating it to the monial which attended the sacrifice practical duties of the Christian life. could have such import; but, the imThe discipline of the heart, the regu- position of hands on the head of the lation of the conduct, “ denying un- victim, and the shedding and sprinkling godliness and worldly lusts,” is harder of its blood, were constituent parts of work than the acquirement of specu- the ceremonial of peace-offerings ; lative knowledge ; and the relish ex- hence it seems reasonable to infer, that cited by the latter may produce a these ceremonies cannot in themselves disrelish for “ dry morality." be considered as proofs of an expiatory It has been said that the Unitarian's
or vicarious import, in any connexion is a scanty creed: happily, no charge in which they occur, We mean, that can be brought against it as leading supposing they might admit of such its professors to satisfy themselves import, in cases where there was other with a scanty morality.
evidence for its existence, they canA CONSTANT READER.
not, in defect of such evidence, be adduced as in themselves proving a
vicarious import. An Essay on the Nature and Design of Sacrifices under the Mosaic Laro,
And here it may be well to remark and the Influence which Jewish a notable instance of sophistry which Ideas and Language concerning
is to be met with, upon this very them had upon the Language of the point, in the work of a modern
chamNew Testament. By the late Rev. pion, for what are called orthodox
views of sacrifice and atonement, whose Henry Turner.
fortune it has hitherto been to have (Continued from p. 275.) many admirers and few opponents. Design of the Mosaic Sacrifices.
“'In order to prove," (says Dr. T now follows that we determine,
This class includes so large a portion saic records, and in general from the of the Jewish sacrifices, that it has apwritings of the Old Testament, what propriated to itself the most general term may be conceived to have been the that is used in relation to animal sacridesign and object of sacrifices under fices, viz. O'nal. Outram, lib. i. c. I. the law of Moses.
Magee, Discourses, &c.,) " that the He next states that Maimonides ceremony of the imposition of hands, concurs in this opinion, so far at was not attended with the acknow- least as appears from the following ledgment of sin in sacrifices not pia passage : * Ambas quisque manus cular, it is necessary to shew that in suas inter bina victimæ cornua ponit, none but piacular was there any re- et peccatum confitetur juxta victiference whatever to sin. In these, mam pro peccato noxamque juxta indeed, the parden of sin is the ap- victimam pro noxâ cæsain, ac juxta propriate object; but that in our ex- holocaustum confitetur ea, quæ contra pressions of praise and thanksgiving, leges jubentes facta sunt, vel quidem acknowledgment should be inade of contra leges vetantes, quibus jubentes our own unworthiness, and of the implicantur.”. “ Juxta victimas salugeneral desert of sin, seems not unrea- tares, ut mihi videtur, non confitetur sonable. That even the eucharistic [peccata sua] sed Dei laudes commesacrifices (the peace-offerings) then morat.” Thus Maimonides gives it might bear some relation to sin, espe- as his opinion that, with respect to cially if animal sacrifice, in its first peace-offerings, no confessions of sins, institution, was designed to represent but praises of God, were uttered at the that death which had been brought in ceremony of the iinposition of hands. by sin, will, perhaps, not be deemed Thus it appears far from obvious, improbable. And in confirmation of from this passage of Dr. Outram, that this it is certain that the Jewish Doc. the Jewish Doctors combine in all tors combine, in all cases, confession cases confessions of sins with impoof sins with imposition of hands." sition of hands : for the words themThe reference here is to Dr. Outram, selves are ambiguous; and MaimoDe Sacr. lib. i. c. xv. § 8.
nides advances a directly different Now, what Dr. Outram states is opinion. this. It appears that the imposition Dr. Magee proceeds in the place of hands was in all cases a method of before cited) to argue in the following prayer for good, or imprecation of manner: “But be this as it may, it evil, or both. Hence it arises that is at all events clear that if the ceresolemn prayers are currently desig- mony be admitted to have had in each nated by the single word Xespaberia kind of sacrifice the signification suit(“the laying on of hands,") where no ed to its peculiar nature and intention, mention is made of any prayers in ex- it necessarily follows, that when used press words. (Deut. xxxiv. 9; 1 Tim. in piacular sacrifices it implies a rev. 22.) So that the same law which ference to and acknowledgment of prescribes imposition of hands on the sin.” Or, as he explains himself a head of the victim, may be judged to few sentences after,
is that this cerehave tacitly prescribed thať the pre- mony was intended symbolically to senting of prayers should be part of the transfer the sins of the offerer on the sacrifice. Hence the saying of Aaron head of the victim.” ,
Why, if there were piacular sacri. ' , “Ubi non est [péccatorum] confes. were symbolically transferred to the sio,* ibi non est impositio manuum, victim, then this ceremony might exquia manuum impositio ad confes. press such transfer, but this is the sionem pertinet." Where there is no very thing to be proved; and the confession there is no imposition of question is, not having other proof hands, because the imposition of hands of the vicarious import of sacrifices, appertains to confession.
does the use of this ceremony afford such proof? We say, clearly not,
for it is introduced into the ceremonial • Dr. Outram here inserts “ peccato. of the cucharistic sacrifices, which had rum; but it does not appear that the no reference to sin, and could not, word "71, requires this insertion, as therefore, receive such reference from from the Lexicons, and various passages this ceremony the imposition of of Scripture, it is evident that the word is hands, therefore, on the head of the often used for confessions or ascriptions victim was not calculated to confer a of praise.
vicarious import on sacrifices; and in
סמיכה אין ודוי שאין ,Ben Chajim fces in which the sins of the oferer במקום ,להתורות היא שהסמיכה
defect of other proof, itself furnishes were emblematical of the bearing away none of the existence of any such im. of sin. port.
But since in peace-offerings, there Dr. Magee takes for granted the is no evidence of there being a similar thing to be proved. It is obvious that confession of sins, over the head of this ceremony of the laying on of the victim, and the animal was not hands was used on occasions of various sent away into the wilderness, but and widely different import.“ Thus sacrificed upon the altar, the cerein the case of the blasphemer, those mony of the scape-goat can prové who had borne witness against him, laid nothing with respect to the vicarious their hands upon his head, (Lev. xxiv. import of sacrifices; and it is not -14,) and were wont (as Maimonides more reasonable to argue for it from informs us) to devote him to death, in this instance, than it would be to argue these words, &c. JnW quxna 707, that the laying on of hands bestows a
Sanguis tuus. in caput tuum re- vicarious import upon the punishment cidat, tuo enim merito periisti. On of the blasphemer; or that the patrithe contrary, the patriarch Jacob, arch Jacob did, in a vicarious sense, laying his hands on the heads of lay his hands upon the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh, at the same Ephraim and Manasseh. tiine commended then, in his prayers It admits of question whether this to God. And Moses, by the same Jewish rite of the scape-goat, (which ceremony, committing the govern- was no sacrifice since it was sent away ment to Joshua, would doubtless pray alive into the wilderness,) does in any for the increase of divine graces, that degree favour the doctrine of the vicahe might be competent to so great an rious import of sin. For the animal office. Again, the high-priest, in a is not treated as if there was any religious ceremony, laying hands even guilt (symbolically) inhering in it; it upon a brute animal void of reason, is merely a mechanical, unconscious viz. the goat that was to be led into instrument in the business of bearing the desert, at the same time confessed away sin ; and one cannot well regard upon his head the sins of the people!" the ceremony in any other light than Now the only rational method of de- as a palpable way of representing to termining the signification which this a rude people of gross understanding, ceremony must necessarily have in all an assurance of the forgiveness and cases, (for this is the least question,) removal of sin. is to fix upon something common to How this pardon was granted reall the instances in which it is found mains as much as ever a question to to occur.
be determined by other evidence. Proceeding according to this obvi- But the ceremony of the scape-goat ous maxiin, it appears that the laying is applied in another way to prove the on of hands was always accompanied vicarious import of several of the by a solemn address to the Supreme Jewish sacrifices. That the argument Being, and that it was a method of may have full justice done to it, we designating such things as were either will state it in the words of Dr. Outdevoted to death or commended to (De Sacr. lib. i. cap. xxi. Ş 3.) divine favour, or, in short, designated He premises “ that the sacred writers to any important office or sacred use. are wont to speak of unexpiated
To apply this to the case of the crimes, as of a foul stain polluting the scape-goat. It is expressly said, that guilty. And so it arises that the exthe high-priest laying both his hands piation of sins is often expressed by on the head of the goat, was to con- words equivalent to cleansing. Such fess over him all the iniquities of the as in Greek, καθαρισμος and καθαριζειν, children of Israel, putting their sins and in Hebrew, 53 and 770, words upon its head.
The laying on of which the Greek interpreters somehands was merely to designate the ob- times translate by kabupišev. Next, ject of the ceremony, and to express let it be considered that on the appoina solemn religious address; it was the ted day of expiation the sins of the verbal confession of prayers, and the people of Israel were transferred in a giving away the goat in charge to be symbolical manner to the goat, which carried away into the wilderness, that was to be led into the wilderness
From which ceremony the goat be- 25, &c.); and we learn from the last came so polluted with the stain of verse of this chapter of Leviticus, that these sins, that it polluted him by the reason, or rather the rule of this whom it was led away with a kind of distinction, was, that those were not corresponding stain : as appears from to be eaten of which the blood was his not being permitted to return to brought into the holy place and sprinthe camp till he had washed his clothes kled towards the mercy-seat. and bathed in water. Lastly, it is to sin-offering, whereof
any of the blood be observed, with respect to such vic- is brought into the Tabernacle of the tiins in piacular sacrifices, as had their congregation to reconcile withal in blood carried into the holy place, but the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall their bodies burnt without the camp, be burnt in the fire.” (Lev. vi. 30.) after imposition of hands and confes- It is maintained, indeed, by some, sion of sins, that thus a similar pollu- that the flesh of all sin-offerings betion arose in thein as that of the came polluted by the rite of sacrifice, scape-goat. Which appears from the and that whereas it is said, (Lev. vi
. pollution of those who carried their 18,) Every one that toucheth it bodies out of the camp to burn them. shall be holy,” this should be renFrom these circumstances there ap- dered “shall be sanctified or cleansed," pears (in the opinion of Dr. Outram) shall be under the necessity of cleansthe clearest indication of vicarious pu- ing himself. In proof of this, Dr. nishment."
Magee appeals to what is adduced in What creates suspicion of the un- Wall's Critical Notes, where he says soundness of this argument, is the this point is most satisfactorily treated. small proportion of cases in which the We have not access to this work, and imposition of hands and (supposed) shall, therefore, only say that we reconfession of sins over the victim quire more than Dr. Magee's dictum seems to convey this impurity. For to persuade us that Wall or any man there are only four instances of it. can prove that flesh, of which the miThe sin offering of ignorance for the nistering priests ate, in the holy place, high-priest, (Lev. iv. 3,) that for the as of a most holy thing, was such as whole congregation, (Lev. iv. 13,) and to pollute and contaminate those who the sin-offerings at the festival of ex- touched it. piation, one for the high-priest and We are not called upon at present house of Aaron, another for the con- to give any theory for the explanation gregation of Israel. (Lev. xvi.) There of that pollution which seems to have is no indication of impurity being con- inhered in the bodies of those sinveyed to the victim by imposition of offerings of which the blood had been hands in the following cases : the sin- taken into the holy, or most holy offering for any of the common people place. Only we appeal to the judgwho had sinned through ignorance; ment of our readers, to determine the sin-offering of ignorance for a whether these few instances in which ruler, all the trespass-offerings, peace- sacrifices for sin seem to have involved offerings and burnt-offerings. Now, pollution, out of a great number of the flesh of the victims employed in other sin-offerings which involve no these various sacrifices, so far from idea of pollution, can be considered as being considered as polluted by sacri- conclusive. fice, was either wholly consumed on As far as we have yet gone, therethe altar, or was used in holy festivals, fore, we have seen nothing that proves or else was the portion and subsistence the vicarious import of Jewish sacriof the priests who officiated. Nay, it fices. And yet, if this be not proved, is sometimes pronounced to be most it seems obvious that the whole of holy, and on that account not to be what is commonly called the orthodox eaten but in the holy place, by every system, of typical sacrifices, imputed male of the family of Aaron.' (Lev. sins, &c., must fall to the ground. vii. 6.)
Dr. Magee, indeed, who evidently And this is particularly affirmed re- wishes to elude the task of maintainspecting the flesh of all sin-offerings, ing the old scheme of a literal excepting those cases of sin-offering translation of guilt and punishment which have been particularized as be- from the offender to the victim," and ing burnt without the camp (Lev. vi. who congratulates himself on his nice selection of the phrase "vicarious aggravated cases was inflicted upon import of the Mosaic sacrifices,” de- · the offender himself, in lighter offences clares even this position to be unne- was transferred to his victim, and that cessary for the establishment of his the punishment of the beast was submain argument, and after having be- stituted for the punishment of the stowed more than twenty pages upon man?” the proof of vicarious import in the We must profess ourselves incapaMosaic sacrifices, subjoins a No. 40, ble of perceiving these evident marks in which he amusingly tells his fatigued of vicarious punishment, which our reader that all this had been “ an author claims for the instances which argument ex abundanti,” and had he here adduces. May not the fol. been introduced rather for the purpose lowing explanation sufficiently account of shewing the futility of objections so for this difference of treatment, nameconfidently relied on, than as essentially, that when the offence was too light to his inquiry
and fugitive to be treated in a strict, All that Dr. Magee considers as judicial way, the Divine Lawgiver was necessary to the defence of what is pleased to appoint a method by which called orthodoxy on this subject, is to the offender might be reconciled as a shew that the Jewish sacrifices were worshiper ? propitiatory, (or in other words, says The ceremony of shedding and he, No. 40,) that in consequence of sprinkling the blood of the victim in the sacrifice of the animal, and in virtue the ritual of the Mosaic sacrifices, is of it, either immediately or remotely, thought to be a strong argument in the pardon of (sin in) the offender was favour of the opinion of vicarious puprocured.
nishment. And though, as we have For our own part, however, we are observed already, any force which this of a different opinion, and feel it ne may appear to have from other consicessary to maintain the position still derations is weakened by the occurfurther against alt objectors, that the rence of the ceremony in Mosaic sa. Mosaic law contains nothing emble- crifices of all kinds, that is, in a great matical of vicarious punishment. number of sacrifices where no confes.
There is an argument, used by Dr. sion of sins took place, and conseOutram, on the opposite side of the quently no vicarious import could question, which it seems proper to possibly be conveyed; yet it must be examine. He says, (lib. 1. cap. xxi. allowed that more is to be said in de$6,) " Although there is a somewhat fence of the vicarious import of this clearer indication of vicarious punish- part of the sacrificial rite than any ment in those sacrifices in which the other. blood of the victims was carried into There is a passage in Leviticus, the holy place, and their bodies burnt which is certainly more like an indicawithout the camp, yet the same mean- tion of the vicarious substitution of ing really existed in all the other life for life than any other passage to trespass and sin-offerings. Which be found in Scripture relating to Mo. is apparent from this, that when of- saic sacrifices. It is as follows, (chap. fences of a more aggravated nature xvii. 10, 11,)“Whatsoever man there were to be expiated by the death of be of the house of Irael, or of the the guilty person himself, those of a strangers that sojourn amongst you, lighter kind were to be expiated by the that eateth any manner of blood, i blood of an animal. For example, will even set my face against that man let it be supposed that any one had that eateth blood, and will cut him reached such a height of inpiety as off from amongst his people.” The to compose for his own use holy oil, next verse runs thus in the Hebrew;
, for by his own death : on the con- 70' waja N10 DIN 'J thus translatrary, the same crimes committed ted, Anima enim omnis carnis est insanthrough ignorance and by accident, guine eumque vobis in aram dedi ad exwere to be expiated by the blood of piandas animas vestras. Sanguis enim a victim. Wherefore,” says Dr. Out- est, qui pro animâ expiationem facit. ram,“ what can be more evident than And the following seems to be the most that the punishment, which in more exact translation of it into English.
כי נפש הבשר בוס הוא ואני נתתיו or knowingly and advisedly to eat of לכם על המזבח לכפר על נפשתיכם fat or blood