The instances of atonement here adduced, are not indeed of the sacrificial kind; but they equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in cases of transgression, to be that of reconciling the offended deity, by averting his displeasure; so that, when the atonement for sin is said to be made by sacrifice, no doubt can remain, that the sacrifice was strictly a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this conclusion, we find it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations for transgression of the divine commands, that the sin, for which atonement was made by those oblations, should be forgiven.*

Doctor Priestley and H. Taylor have of late endeavoured to subvert this notion, by representing sacrifices merely as gifts, and atonement as nothing but a ceremonial purifying and setting apart from common use, for the divine service, without any idea whatever of propitiation see Theol. Repos. vol. i. p. 199–205. and B. Mord. p. 799-805. How far this theory is invalidated by the observations contained in the present Number, it remains for the reader to judge. I shall only add, that Doctor Sykes, whose authority both these writers are in general very willing to acknowledge, does not hesitate to pronounce the sacrificial meaning of the word atone

*See Levit. iv. 20, 26, 31, 35. v. 10, 13, 16, 18. vi. 7. xix. 22. Numb. xv, 25, 26, 28. Consult also Hallet's Notes and Discourses, vol. ii. p. 270-274.

ment, to contain the notion of propitiation; deriving it, as has been here done, from the original signification of the word to cover, that is, " to remove or take away anger or offence, by so covering it that it may not appear:" (Essay on Sacrifices, pp. 152, 158, 159,) and "to make atonement for sins" he says "is to do something by means of which a man obtains pardon of them.” (p. 306.)

How strongly the propitiatory import of the sacrificial atonement, contended for in this note, was attributed to it by modern Jews, has been already amply detailed in Number XXXIII.-In Doctor Laurence's Sermon on the Metaphorical character of the Apostolical Style, (pp. 17. 32.) there are some good observations on the Targum of Jonathan, tending to confirm the position, that the ideas, of atonement, and of forgiveness, were held by the Jews in the time of our Saviour, as perfectly equivalent,

1

NO. XXXVII.-ON THE EFFICACY OF THE MOSAIC ATONEMENT AS APPLIED TO CASES OF MORAL TRANSGRESSION.

PAGE 33. (")-For the purpose of reducing. the sacrificial atonement to the simple notion of external purification, it has been thought neces

sary, to deny the appointment of any expiation for the transgressor of the moral law. It has been argued, that those sins and iniquities, for which, it is in several instances expressly said, that forgiveness was procured by the atonement, "do not in the language of the Old Testament necessarily imply a deviation from moral rectitude, or a transgression of the moral law; but are frequently used, when nothing more can be understood, than a privation of that bodily purity, which the ceremonial law required; as we read of the iniquity of the sanctuary, (Numb. xviii. 1.) and of the iniquity of the holy things, (Exod. xxviii. 38.); and as we find the ashes of the burnt heifer, though applied only for the purification of external uncleanness, expressly called 'the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin;' (Numb. xix. 7.) and in like manner, the oblation required from him who had recovered from a leprosy, a sin-offering: the unclean person, though free from blame in a moral point of view, yet in the eye of the law being deemed a sinner." These observations, it is but fair to confess, are to be found in the pages of one of the ablest advocates of the doctrine of atonement. It is also urged, that the sins, for which atonement were appointed, were at most but sins of ignorance; to which scarcely any moral character could attach, and which deserved to be ranked in the same class with mere natural or accidental infirmities. This

latter point is largely insisted on by writers, who oppose the received doctrine of atonement; and is particularly enforced by a writer in Theol. Rep. vol. iii. who signs himself Eusebius; and who professes to enter fully into an examination of the several cases of atonement, recorded in the Old Testament.

In reply to the first of these arguments, let it be remarked, 1. That the expressions so much relied on, iniquity of the holy things, iniquity of the sanctuary, mean merely the profanation, or improper use of the holy things, &c.; so that the iniquity here refers to the persons making this improper use of the holy things not to the things themselves: and thus the entire objection, derived from the use of this expression, falls to the ground. This appears, as well from the force of the term in the original, which is translated iniquity; as from the context of the passages referred to. The Hebrew word my being derived from my, the strict signification of which is to turn, or be turned, aside from the proper state or destination, applies with peculiar propriety to the improper, or profane use of the holy things of the sanctuary. And this sense is supported by the passages in which the expression occurs: the Priests bearing the iniquity of the Sanctuary, (Numb. xviii. 1.) and Aaron bearing the iniquity of the holy things, (Ex. xxviii. 38.) manifestly relating, and being understood by every commentator to relate, từ

1

the care to be taken that no improper use or legal defilement should profane the sacred things; inasmuch as, in such case, it would rest with Aaron, and with the priests, to bear the punishment of, or make atonement for, such profanation. Thus Jarchi on Num. xviii. 1. 66 Upon you I will bring the punishment of the strangers, that shall sin concerning the sanctified things that are delivered unto you." Houbigant translates the words in Numb, sustinebit sanctuarii noxas; i. e. as he explains it, reus erit delicti in sanctuarium admissi—and in Exodus, suscipiet maculas donorum.-See also Ainsworth, Patrick, Calmet, Le Clerc, Dathius, and in short, all the commentators, who concur in this interpretation, and in like manner explain the passage in Exodus: see likewise Levit. xvi. 16—19.

But as the word iniquity, thus applied to the sacred things, will not prove, that by sin, in the Levitical law, nothing more was intended than external defilement; so neither will, 2. The application of the term sin and sin offering to persons labouring under mere corporeal impurities. Respecting the case of the burnt heifer, in which though intended solely for the purification of external uncleanness, the ashes are expressly called the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, it must be noted, that the argument here is chiefly derived from the words of the translation, without attending sufficiently to the original: the