BY JEWS AND HEATHENS.

ce being necessary to the forgiveness of eol. Rep. vol. i. p. 409–411.)—Now position to this, it is notorious, that Cession made by the Jews, in offerim in sacrifice, concludes with (the victim) be my expiation.* vriters directly interpret as which in justice should

259

simple religion of Christ

the Apostles were

such vessels, as were

se neatly

at upon the head of

w offer." Thus Baal Aruch .ever the expression, let me be

piation, is used, it is the same as if

Deen said, let me be put in his room, that I ay bear his guilt and this again is equivalent to saying, let this act whereby I take on me his transgression, obtain for him his pardon." In like manner, Solomon Jarchi (Sanhedr. ch. 2.) says, "Let us be your expiation, signifies, let us be put in your place, that the evil which should have fallen upon you may all light on us :" and in the same way, Obadias de Bartenora, and other learned Jews, explain this formula.

Again, respecting the burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin, Nachmanides, on Levit. i. says, that “it was right, that the offerer's own blood should be shed, and his body burnt: but that the Creator, in his mercy, hath accepted this victim from

* See the form of confession in Maim. de Cult. Divin. de Veil. pp. 152, 153.

subject whatever. He has asserted, that no trace

of

any scheme of atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness save repentance and reformation, is to be discovered either in the book of Job; or in the Scriptures of the antient, or any writings of the modern Jews; or amongst the Heathen world, either ancient or modern.-These assertions, as they relate to Job, and the religion of the Heathens, have been already examined; the former in Number XXIII. the latter in Number V. An enquiry into his position, as it affects the Jews, with some farther particulars concerning the practices of the Heathen, will fully satisfy us, as to the degree of reliance to be placed on this writer's historical exactness.

With respect to the sentiments of the antient Jews, or in other words, the sense of the Old Testament upon the subject, that being the main question discussed in these Discourses, especially the second, no enquiry is in this place necessary: it will suffice at present to examine the writings of the Jews of later times, and we shall find that these give the most direct contradiction to his assertions. He has quoted Maimonides, Nachmanides, Abarbanel, Buxtorf and Isaac Netto, and concludes with confidence, that among the modern Jews no notion has ever existed, " of any kind of mediation being necessary, to reconcile the claims of justice with those of mercy:" or, as he elsewhere expresses it, of " any satisfaction beside re

pentance being necessary to the forgiveness of sin." (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 409-411.)-Now in direct opposition to this, it is notorious, that the stated confession made by the Jews, in offer ing up the victim in sacrifice, concludes with these words, let this (the victim) be my expiation.* And this the Jewish writers directly interpret as meaning, "let the evils which in justice should have fallen on my head, light upon the head of the victim which I now offer." Thus Baal Aruch says, that "wherever the expression, let me be another's expiation, is used, it is the same as if it had been said, let me be put in his room, that I may bear his guilt and this again is equivalent to saying, let this act whereby I take on me his transgression, obtain for him his pardon." In like manner, Solomon Jarchi (Sanhedr. ch. 2.) says, "Let us be your expiation, signifies, let us be put in your place, that the evil which should have fallen upon you may all light on us:" and in the same way, Obadias de Bartenora, and other learned Jews, explain this formula.

Again, respecting the burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin, Nachmanides, on Levit. i. says, that "it was right, that the offerer's own blood should be shed, and his body burnt: but that the Creator, in his mercy, hath accepted this victim from

* See the form of confession in Maim. de Cult. Divin. de Veil. pp. 152, 153.

him, as a vicarious substitute (), and an atonement (5), that its blood should be poured out instead of his blood, and its life stand in place of his life." R. Bechai also, on Lev. i. uses the very same language. Isaac Ben Arama, on Leviticus, likewise says, that "the offender, when he beholds the victim, on account of his sin, slain, skinned, cut in pieces, and burnt with fire upon the altar, should reflect, that thus he must have been treated, had not God in his clemency accepted this expiation for his life." David de Pomis, in like manner, pronounces the victim, the vicarious substitute (mn) for the offerer. And Isaac Abarbanel affirms, in his preface to Levit. that "the offerer deserved, that his blood should be poured out, and his body burnt for his sins; but that God, in his clemency, accepted from him the victim as his vicarious substitute (n), and expiation (D), whose blood was poured out in place of his blood, and its life given in lieu of his life."

I should weary the reader and myself, were I to adduce all the authorities on this point. Many more may be found in Outram de Sacrificiis, p. 251-259. These however will probably satisfy most readers, as to the fairness of the representation which Dr. Priestley has given, of the notion entertained by modern Jews concerning the doctrine of atonement, and of their total ignorance of any satisfaction for sin, save only repentance and

amendment.-One thing there is in this review, that cannot but strike the reader, as it did me, with surprise: that is, that of the three writers of eminence among the Jewish Rabbis, whom Dr. Priestley has named, Maimonides, Abarbanel and Nachmanides, the two last, as is manifest from the passages already cited, maintain in direct terms the strict notion of atonement: and though Maimonides has not made use of language equally explicit, yet on due examination it will appear, that he supplies a testimony by no means inconsistent with that notion.-Dr. Priestley's method of managing the testimonies furnished by these writers, will throw considerable light upon his mode of reasoning from antient authors in support of his favourite theories. It will not then be time misemployed, to follow him somewhat more minutely through his examination of them.

He begins with stating, that Maimonides considered sacrifice to be merely an Heathen ceremony, adopted by the Divine Being into his own worship, for the gradual abolition of idolatry. This opinion, he says, was opposed by R. Nachmanides, and defended by Abarbanel, who explains the nature of sacrifice, as offered by Adam and his children, in this manner-viz. " They burned the fat and the kidneys of the victims upon the altar, for their own inwards, being the seat" (not, as it is erroneously given in Theol. Rep. as the seal)" of their intentions and purposes;