But this by no means proves, that the sacrifice was not in his opinion expiatory, on the con trary it clearly manifests his belief that it was; since it is only, because it was no longer possible for the Jews according to the Mosaic ordinances, that he considers it as laid aside; for if repentance and prayer were in themselves perfectly sufficient, then the reason assigned for the cessation of sacrifice, and the efficacy of repentance per se under the existing circumstances, would have been unmeaning.

But this writer's notion of the efficacy of repentance and of the ceremonial rites, may be still better understood from the following remarks. Speaking of the Scape Goat, he says (Moreh Nevochim, p. 494.) that "it was believed to pollute those that touched it, on account of the multitude of sins which it carried:" and of this goat he says again, (De Pœnit. pp. 44, 45.) that "it expiated all the sins recounted in the Law; of whatever kind, with regard to him who had repented of those sins; but that with respect to him who had not repented, it expiated only those of a lighter sort:" and those sins of a lighter sort, he defines to be all those transgressions of the Law, against which excision is not denounced. So that, according to this writer, there were cases, and those not a few, in which repentance was not necessary to expiation. And again, that it was not in

itself sufficient for expiation, he clearly admits, not only from his general notion of sacrifices throughout his works, but from his express declarations on this subject. He says, that with respect to certain offences, "neither repentance, nor the day of expiation," (which he places on the same ground with repentance as to its expiatory virtue) "have their expiatory effect, unless chastisement be inflicted to perfect the expiation." And in one case, he adds, that "neither repentance followed by uniform obedience, nor the day of expiation, nor the chastise ment inflicted, can effect the expiation, nor can the expiation be completed but by the death of the offender." (De Pœnit. pp. 46, 47.)

The reader may now be able to form a judg ment, whether the doctrines of the Jewish Rabbis really support Dr. Priestley's position, that amongst the modern Jews no notion of any scheme of sacrificial atonement, or of any requisite for forgiveness save repentance and reformation, has been found to have had existence. And I must again remind him of the way, in which the authorities of the Jewish writers have been managed by Dr. Priestley, so as to draw from them a testimony apparently in his favour. The whole tribe of Rabbinical authors, who have, as we have seen, in the most explicit terms avowed the doctrine of atonement, in the strictest sense of the word, are passed over without a mention, T

VOL. I.

save only Nachmanides, who is but transiently named, whilst his declarations on this subject, being directly adverse, are totally suppressed. Maimonides, and Abarbanel indeed, are adduced in evidence: but how little to Dr. Priestley's purpose, and in how mutilated and partial a shape, I have endeavoured to evince. These writers standing in the foremost rank of the Rabbinical teachers, as learned and liberal expositors of the Jewish law, could not but feel the utility of the sacrificial system, unexplained by that great sacrifice, which, as Jews, they must necessarily have rejected. Hence arises their theory of the human origin of sacrifice; and hence their occasional seeming departure from the principles of the sacrificial worship, maintained by other Rabbis, and adopted also by themselves, in the general course of their writings. From these parts of their works, which seem to be no more than philosophical struggles, to colour to the eye of reason the inconsistencies of an existing doctrine, has Dr. Priestley sought support for an assertion, which is in open contradiction, not only to the testimony of every other Rabbinical writer, but to the express language of these very writers themselves.

But Dr. Priestley is not contented with forcing upon these more remote authors a language, which they never used, but he endeavours to extract from those of later date, a testimony to

the same purpose, in direct opposition to their own explicit assertions. Thus, in Buxtorf's account of the ceremony observed by the modern Jews, of killing a cock, on the preparation for the day of expiation, he thinks he finds additional support for his position, that amongst the modern Jews, no idea of a strict propitiatory atonement has been known to exist. Now, as to Dr. Priestley's representation of Buxtorf I cannot oppose a more satisfactory authority than that of Buxtorf himself, I shall quote the passage as given in that writer; and that no pretence of misrepresentation may remain, I give it untinged by the medium of a translation.

"Quilibet postea paterfamilias, cum gallo præ manibus, in medium primus prodit, et ex Psalmis Davidis ait; Sedentes in tenebris, &c.item, Si ei adsit Angelus interpres, unus de mille, qui illi resipiscentiam exponat, tunc miserebitur ejus, et dicet, REDIME EUM, NE DE

SCENDAT IN FOSSAM: INVENI ENIM EXPIATIONEM

(gallum nempe gallinaceum, qui peccata mea expiabit.) Deinde expiationem aggreditur, et capiti suo gallum ter allidit, singulosque ictus his voci

זה חליפתי זה תחתי זה כפרתי זה,,bus prosequitur התרנגול ילך למיתה ואני אלך לחיים טובים עם כל ישראל

אמן

Hic Gallus sit PERMUTATIO PRO ME, hic IN LOCUM MEUM SUCCEDAT, hic sit EXPIATIQ PRO ME, huic gallo mors afferetur, mihi vero et toti Israeli vita fortunata. Amen. Hoc ille ter

ex ordine facit, pro se, sc. pro filiis suis, et pro peregrinis qui apud illum sunt, uti Summus Sacerdos in vet. test. expiationem quoque fecit. Gallo deinde imponens manus, ut in sacrificiis olim, eum statim mactat, cutemque ad collum ei primum contrahit et constringit, et secum reputat, se, qui præfocetur aut stranguletur, dignum esse: hunc autem gallum IN SUUM LOCUM SUBSTITUERE et offerre; cultello postea jugulum resolvit, iterum animo secum perpendens, semetipsum, qui gladio plectatur, dignum esse; et confestim illum vi e manibus in terram projicit, ut denotet, se dignum esse, qui lapidibus obruatur : postremo illum assat, ut hoc facto designet, se dignum esse, qui igne vitam finiat: et ita quatuor hæc mortis genera, pro Judæis gallus sustinere debet. Intestina vulgo supra domus tectum jaciunt. Alii dicunt id fieri, quia quum peccata internum quid potius quam externum sint, ideo galli intestinis peccata hærere: corvos itaque advenire, et cum Judæorum peccatis in desertum avolare debere, ut hircus in vet. test. cum populi peccatis in desertum aufugiebat. Alii aliam reddunt causam. Causa autem, cur gallo potius quam alio animante utantur, hæc est, quia vir ebraice

Gebher appellatur. Jam si Gebher peccaverit, Gebher etiam peccati PŒNAM SUSTINERE debet-Quia vero gravior esset pœna, quàm ut illam subire possent Judæi, gallum gallinaceum qui Talmudicâ seu Babyloniâ dialecto 2 Geb