dency to do it in this way? Not to observe, that the death of the victim pointing out this to the offerer, was not so much shewing him the demerit of sin, as that it was his duty to refrain from, or destroy it.

But after all; what grounds have we from what the scripture says concerning sacrifices to think, that the victim represented the person of the offerer in such a manner as you suppose? for my own part, I do not see that we have any on the contrary, it is no small objection with me against considering expiatory sacrifices in the light in which you have represented them (as indeed it is no inconsiderable argument in favour of that, in which they are generally viewed ;) that they are so often represented in scripture as offered, "not to signify what the offerers should do * for the time to come, of which the law. says nothing that I know of; but in order to make expiation for sins, which had "been committed before ; or to prevent 'those fatal effects of them, which, it is 6 supposed, would otherwise have taken

place' for what can be plainer than that, when such or such sins or uncleannesses were committed or contracted, such or

such sacrifices were to be offered in order to prevent the effects of them; and that, when they had been offered, the guilt and pollution of those sins and uncleannesses were considered as removed? to quote passages to this purpose, as, I presume, it is needless, so it would in a manner be endless. I do not however deny, but that the legal sacrifices were both intended and fitted to be a means of holiness; and must own, that, when in any instance they led to the practice of it, they were productive of a very important effect, and so far answered what, I doubt not, was ultimately intended by them: but this, though indeed remote, or at least different from the victim's dying in the offerer's stead, yet was by no means inconsistent with it. death of the victim, when properly considered as to its moral tendency and design, might very well lead the offerer to the hatred of sin, and the love and practice of holiness; at the same time that he considered it, as more directly and immediately intended, not to shew him, how he ought to slay the brute in himself, &c. but to represent to him, that he had forfeited his life, and deserved to die (like the victim) for

The

his sins; but that God was so gracious and merciful as to accept of its offered life instead of his. Just in the same manner as the death of Christ our sacrifice may be very well allowed to be both fitted and designed to lead us Christians to die to sin, to crucify the flesh, &c. at the same time that we consider it as more directly and immediately intended, by being undergone in our stead, to cleanse us from the guilt of sin, and to save us from death, as the effect of it. As to your reasoning, in the latter part of this paragraph, against vicarious punishment; it seems to me to be just and therefore, as I think myself not affected by it, I shall not take a more particular notice of it.

I therefore go on to consider your 57th paragraph, in which, to the question 'But ' is not—the victim's suffering death in the 'offender's stead, as an equivalent to divine 'justice, included in the notion of atone'ment?' you are pleased to answer; ‘No: ' for atonement was made with the scape

goat, Lev. xvi. 10, though he was not

slain, but let loose in the wilderness, the

properest place for his subsistence,' &c. That by the victim's suffering death in the

offender's stead, atonement is not always made, is what I readily grant, for the reasons you suggest in this paragraph, as well as in other places: but then, they do not prove, that it never is included in the notion of atonement, or that atonement was never made in such a way: atonement might be made, in some cases, by an animal's suffering death in the offerer's stead; though we allow, that, in other cases, it was made in some other way, or by some other means.

But I shall endeavour as briefly as I can, with your help, sir, to set this matter in what seems to me a just light; if it should seem otherwise to you, or any other person, as very likely it may; I can only say, that I should be glad to see it placed in a better. I would beg leave then to observe, that to pitch, or to smear with pitch, seems to me, as well as to you, sir, to be the natural and original sense of the word * No. 63. And that it seems also, so far as I can judge, to retain something of 'this its natural and original sense,' as well. in all those 37 places, where (as you observe) it is used extra-levitically, or with no relation to sacrifices; as in those

other places, where either it, or its con'jugates, as they have relation to atone'ment by sacrifices in particular, are to be 'found.' (68, 70, 115, 117.) or, to use your own words in the paragraph last referred to; atonement for sin, is the cov'ering of sin, or the securing from pun'ishment. And thus, when sin is pardoned, or calamity removed,the sin or person may be said to be covered, made safe, or 'atoned; or that atonement is made for the 'sin or person, whatsoever is the mean, or

reason of pardon or safety.' This, sir, so far as I can perceive, is very just. What then I would observe from it is; that though sins or persons might, in some cases, be atoned, i. e. covered or secured from punishment, in some other way, or by some other means, suppose the burning an handful of the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, Lev. v. 11, 12, 13. No. 57. it does not from thence follow, but that, in other cases, sins or persons might be atoned, i. e. covered or secured from punishment, by a victim's suffering death in those persons' stead. He that was pleased, in one case, from a tender regard to the poverty of the offender (Lev. v. 11,) to accept