York, baptism is held as an essential: pre-requisite to communion. If so, I think this ought fairly to have been stated. It is no part of my present object to inquire how far such a term of church communion is Scriptural or. not. I believe it is rejected by a very great majority of the Unitarian body, and it is for the members of that body to determine how far they are called upon to assist in purchasing a place of meeting for a church, which whatever opinions it may hold in common with that body, maintains a principle which is one of exclusion to all Unitarians who have not submitted to adult baptism. I shall be glad to find that I have been misinformed in this particular; and if so, will send you a donation, for the baptists at York.

I am, Sir,

A, F.

GLEANINGS; OR, SELECTIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN A COURSz OF GENERAL READING.

No. CCLXXXVII.
Unitarian Martyr.

Francis I. King of France, had a bastard son by Madame Cureau, of Orleans, who was brought up and sent to college by the name of Stephen Dolet. He published Commentarii Lingua Latina, in two volumes folio, which were beautifully printed at Lyons in 1536. He also wrote De Re Navali, and a poem on his father's gests. Unfortunately he got acquainted at Lyons with the celebrated Serveto, became a zealous propagandist of his opinions, sent heretical books to Paris, incurred first an imprisonment, and after relapsing, the condemnation to be burnt alive. This horrible sentence was executed at Paris in 1546, and was the model and precursor of that which Calvin inAicted on Serveto at Geneva.

Calvin mentions Dolet in the same phrase with Agrippa and Serveto, of Villanova, as follows:- Agrippam, Villanovanum, Doletum, et similes vulgo notum est tanquam Cyclopas quospiam evangelium scmper fastuose sprevisse. This is a singular figure of vituperative oratory, to represent the Unitarians as one-eyed and to call them Cyclops.

Monthly Mag.

No. CCLXXXVHI. Matt. Henry's Continuators. It is well known that. Matt. Henry was taken away by death in the midst of his great work, the Commentary. He had proceeded no further than the Acts of the Apostles. The following is a list of his Continuators: Rev. John Evans, Rom.

Simon Browne, 1 Cor.
Daniel Mayo, 2 Cor. and 1
and 2 Thess.

Joshua Bayes, Gal.
Samuel Rosewell, Ephes.
William Harris, Philipp.
and Col.
Benjamin Andrew Atkin
son, 1 and 2 Tim.
Jeremiah Smith, Tit. and
Philem.

William Tong, Heb. and
Rev.

Samuel Wright, James.
Zechariah Merrill, 1 Pet.
Joseph Hill, 2 Pet.

John Reynolds, 1, 2, and 3
John.
John Billingsley, Jude.

No. CCLXXXIX.

A Singular Orthodox Preacher.. Acosta the Spanish author, who was born about the year 1539 and died in 1600, published a celebrated work, highly praised by Dr. Robertson, De Natura Novi Orbis. In this work he acknowledges the cruelties of the Spaniards in their conquest of Ame rica; but represents them as the agents of heaven in the conversion of the natives, supported in their mission by various miraculous attestations. He says, however, that a curious orthodox preacher had preceded them: his words are, "That which is difficult in our law to believe, has been made easy among the Indians; because the DEVIL had made them comprehend even the self-same things, which he had stolen from our Evangelical law, as, their manner of confession, their adoration of three in one, and such like, the which against the will of the enemy, have holpen for the easy receiving of the truth."

This extract is taken from the English Translation of the History, published at London, in 4to. in the year 1604.

Mr. Jecans on the Levitical Sacrifices. SIR,

I

HOPE it was proved in my first letter on sin offerings, [Vol. X. p. 646], that the patriarchs offered such sacrifices to God, and that the real design of them was pointed out. I shall now endeavour to shew what is said on the same subject in the Levitical law.

I. It appears that a sin offering was offered to God, and atonement made with its blood for Aaron and his sons when they were consecrated, or set apart, to the priest's office. Levit, viji. 14-17. For the altar, Exod. xxix. 36. For the sanctuary and tabernacle, Levit. vii. For the Levites, Numb. viii. 11, 12, and 21. For Aaron and his sons, and all the people of Israel, when the whole congregation of Israel was at one and the same time, set apart for God, Levit. ix. 1—11. And for a woman who had been in childbed, Levit. xii. 8. For a leper, Levit. xiv. 20-24. For a Nazarite, Numb. vi. 13, 14.

II. Sin offerings were offered for all sins of ignorance, though sometimes there must have been a considerable degree of guilt attached to them. Levit. iv. 2. 23. 26. v. 1-15. Heb. ix. 22. Acts viii. 1-3. comp. 1 Tim. i. 13. III. A sin offering was offered to God, and atonement made with its blood for certain wilful transgressions.

It is said, Levit. vi. 1-7, And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, if a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: then it shall be, because he hath sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of

his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord; and it shall be forgiven him, for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein. Also Numb. v. 5-8.

From hence it appears that atonement was made for the wilful sins of lying, fraud, theft, dishonest traffic, attended with perjury; which are breaches of several of the laws contained in the decalogue.

Hallet says," it is certain that there were sacrifices under the law appointed to make atonement for moral evil, and for moral guilt; particularly for lying, theft, fraud, extortion, perjury, as it is written, Lev. vi. 1, 2, &c."-Notes and Dis. Vol. II. p. 277, 278.

It is said, Levit. xix. 20-23, Whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she (LXX. they) shall be scourged: they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congre gation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord, for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. Comp. Deut. xxii. 24.

Here is another wilful crime of no small magnitude, for which atonement was appointed to be made. It is also evident that some of these crimes would often be committed, and therefore atonement not unfrequently be made for them.

IV. All the males of the children of Israel, who were of a proper age, were required to appear before God at the city of Jerusalem every year, at the three great feasts; at other seasons they probably might go or not as they pleased. Exod. xxiii. 14-16. xiii. 17. xxxiv. 23. Deut. xvi. 6. At each of these feasts a sin offering was appointed to be offered to God for the sins of the congregation in general.

1. The feast of the passover and

the feast of unleavened bread were both kept on the first month of the year; one began on the fourteenth and the other on the fifteenth day of the month. Levit. xxiii. 5, 6. Exod. xii. 1, &c. Numb. xxviii. 15, 22, And one goat for a sin offering, to make au atonement for you.

2. The feast of pentecost was kept fifty days after the passover. Exod. xxiii. 10. Levit. xxiii. 10-21. Numb. xxviii. 26-32. At ver. 30, it is said, and one kid of the goats to make an atonement for you.

3. The day of expiation and the feast of tabernacles were both as one, as they were only four days apart. Levit. xvi. 23. 26-34. Numb. xxix. 12, &c. Ezek. xlv. 19, 20. On this annual day of expiation, Aaron first made atonement with the blood of a bullock for himself and his family; and then with the blood of a goat for all the congregation of the children of Israel. Levit. xvi. 3. A bullock for a sin offering, &c. ver. 6. 9. 11-13. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people. These atonements were made by sprinkling the blood before the Lord in the most holy place, ver. 14, 15. In relation to which things, and his confessing their sins over the head of the scapegoat, it is said, ver. 21, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, ver. 30, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins, before the Lord. Ver. 33, he shall make an atonement for the priest and all the people of the congregation, ver. 34, for all their sins once a year.

4. It also appears from Numb. xxviii. 11-15, that a sin offering was offered at the beginning of every month for the congregation.

By these various appointments, provision was made for the expiation of the generality of these sins which the children of Israel were exposed to, which are not declared, by the law, to be capital.

V. It appears that whenever any person committed a really wilful offence, which was not notoriously presumptuous, nor expressly declared by the law to be capital, that they did not put the person to death, but offered a sin offering to cleanse him from the guilt of it, which also appears to have been right, as their offerings on such occasions were accepted

of the Lord. See Numb. xvi. 46—43, where we are informed that Aaron made atonement by incense, to remove the anger of God for the murmuring of the people, and the plague was stayed. David also offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to God for his sin in numbering the people. 2 Sam. xxiv. 25. And on another occasion, when he thought that God might possibly be displeased with him, he said, let him accept an offering. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19. And when many of the Israelites had broken the law by marrying strange wives, they offered a ram for their trespass. Exod x. 19. 1 Esdras ix. 13-20. In 2 Maccab. iii. 32, 33, there is an account of a sacrifice offered for the health of a sick person, and atonement is said to have been made. They probably thought his affliction was the fruit of his sins. See also 2 Maccab. xii. 29-45. Ezek. xlv. 19, 20.

VI. It also appears that in some cases in which the offences were evidently wilful, not to say presumptuous, but either were not expressly declared by the law to be capital, or were attended with some circumstances which pleaded in favour of the criminals, that they did not immediately put them to death, but kept them in ward until they had consulted the oracle of God: so it was in the case of the youth who blas. phemed God, Exod. xxxii. 30, and also of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day, Numb. xv. 32—36.

So far were they from considering every breach of the law as capital-so enlarged were their views of making atonement for sin.

VII. It is however acknowledged that the law of Moses says, "but the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, &c. the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people." Numb. xv. 30. Deut. xvii. 12.

Human language is imperfect. Every presumptuous sin must be wilful; but probably it will appear that every wilful offence is not, in the eye of the law, presumptuous.

1. This is in part evident from the many instances that have been adduced of atonement being made for wilful transgressions of the law.

2. To make a wilful offence presumptuous, there must, it seems, be some aggravating additional circumstance or circumstances attending it, such as a deliberate, determinate, in

solent and daring opposition to the will of God. Esther vii. 5.

The neglect of Moses in circumcising his son was a wilful offence, but probably not presumptuous, as Zipporah perhaps had opposed the doing of it. Exod. iv. 24, 25. So the captive Jews marrying strange wives at Babylon was a wilful offence, but probably not a presumptuous transgression, as there might be a scarcity of Jewish females there. Exod. x. 2.

But when Moses and Aaron commanded the Israelites to go up against the Canaanites, and they would not, but murmured, and talked of making a captain and returning to Egypt, and even proposed to stone them with stones, their offence was highly presumptuous. Numb. xiii. 17-35, and xiv. 1-10. Therefore they were very severely punished for it, ver. 23. And afterwards, when they saw their folly, and would go against their enemies, though neither Moses nor the ark of God was with them, their behaviour was especially criminal, and they were made to suffer for it, ver. 42 -45. Therefore Moses, many years after, said unto them, in reference to this circumstance, so I spake unto you, and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord, and went presumptuously up into the hill. Deut. i. 48. xviii. 20-22. Accordingly it is said in Deut. xvii. 12, and the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest, &c. or unto the judge, even that man shall

die.

The character of such persons is described by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. xviii. 12, who said to him, when he brought a message from God to them, there is no hope, we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do after the imagination of his own evil heart.

3. The Hebrew words found in the above passages signify acting with a high hand, or doing a thing proudly, or arrogantly as Numb. xv. 30, excelsu manu, Deut. xvii. 12, And the man that will do presumptuously, superbia So Deut. i. 43, and Exod. xxi. 14, and Ps. xix. 13, derived from superbivit, superbè, arroganter egit. See Buxtorf's Lex. And Nehemiah speaking of the very proud, haughty, daring conduct of Pharoah, uses the same term. See Nehem. ix. 10.

719

It therefore appears that every wilful offence is not, in the eve of the law, a presumptuous one, at least not that high presumption which is threatened with death. Therefore it still remains true that wilful sins are, in general, atoneable by the law of Moses, i. e. where the law has not expressly determined it otherwise.

VIII. No sin offering was appointed for idolatry, murder, blasphemy, adultery, witchcraft, lying with a beast, &c. or for any capital offence. See Exod. xxii. 18-20. Levit. xxiv. 1116. Numb. xxv. 3. Deut. xiii. 6. xxii.

22-24. 1 Kings xxi. 10. These are all presumptuous offences, and therefore no atonement was to be made for them. When therefore David was guilty of murder and adultery, he said to God, thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it thee. Ps. li. 16. And when Cain slew his brother Abel, no sacrifice was accepted, but he was banished from the presence of the Lord. Gen. iv. 11-16.

It may be proper to add here, that if . a person knew himself to be ceremonially polluted, or guilty of a breach of the law, and nevertheless presented himself before God at the tabernacle or temple service, his crime was presumptuous, and he became liable to be.

cut off for it. Levit. xv. 31. Numb. xix. 13. Acts xxiv. 6, 18.

Sometimes atonement was made with money, Exod. xxx. 12-16, with prayer and incense, Numb. xvi. 46, 47. And if a guilty person was so poor that he could not procure two young pigeons for a sin offering, he was required to present the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, part of which was burnt on the altar. Levit. v. 7—13. But the standing rule was to do it with blood.

If it should be said that atonement was made by the scapegoat without blood, Levit. xvi. it may be replied, that there were two goats provided for the business of that day, and that these two goats were considered so much as one, and the service one, that they cast lots which of them should be offered a sacrifice to God, and which should be the scapegoat. That one of them was put to death, and atonement made with his blood, for the very sins which were afterwards con fessed by the high-priest, over the head of the scapegoat; and therefore the

manner in which the scapegoat was disposed of probably was designed to teach the Israelites that their sins and uncleannesses were as certainly taken away from them by means of the atonement which was made before with the blood of the sacrificed goat, as if they had all been actually heaped upon the head of the scapegoat for him to carry away with him into the wilderness, from which he was never to return. We have very similar ceremony in Levit. xiv. 4-7, which relates to the cleansing of a leper.

Upon the whole it appears that atonement was made for all the sins of the children of Israel except for presumptuous transgressions, which the law declared to be capital, and many of which offences it actually names.

If it had not been so, a far greater number of Israelites must have been put to death than we have any reason to believe were; or else there must have been a great body of out-casts from among them, a thing which we never hear or read of; for no guilty or polinted person was permitted to appear before God at the tabernacle or temple service, on pain of death.

IX. How far did the efficacy or the sin offering extend?

1. They cleansed the offerer from certain bodily pollutions. It is said in Levit. xii. 8, of a female who had been in child-bed, and the priest shall make atonement for her and she shall be clean. And of the leper, and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean. Levit. xiv. 20. See also Levit. xv.

2. They procured the offerer the forgiveness of such real sins as they were offered up for, or for which atonement was made with their blood; for of such a person it is said, and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be forgiven for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein. Levit. vi. 1-8. v. 1-14. xix. 20.

The primary sense of the Hebrew word which is translated atonement, signifies to cover over, as Noah's ark was covered, or smeared over with pitch, to preserve it from sinking in the flood of waters. Gen. vi. 14. So sin atoned is covered over, that is, forgiven. Ps. xxxii. 1, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

3. If it be said, but supposing the

guilty offerer was not really penitent, would he nevertheless be forgiven? To this it may be replied, that no such supposition should be made.The Almighty God commanded him to repent; he presented the appointed sacrifice to the priest at the door of the tabernacle, laid his hand in a solemn manner on the head of the victim, and confessed his sin; and on the annual day of expiation for sin, fasted, and humbled himself before the Lord for his iniquities, and therefore it was taken for granted that he was really so; and in many cases it would most certainly be so; the sin offering therefore became a medium of forgiveness to the offerer. Levit i. 4. xvi. 29. 2 Sam. xxiv. 22-25. Job i. 4, 5. xlii. 7-9.

What if a similar supposition was raised against the real penitence of a wicked heathen, who presented himself as a penitent believer in Jesus Christ, and who is promised, on his being baptized into Christ, that his past sins shall be forgiven?-There is no end of such nice queries, which ill accord with the spirit of revelation, and especially with the liberal spirit of the gospel. The language of Scripture is, "it shall be forgiven him."-That is enough, and ought to suffice us.

X. If it should be asked, but why was such a method of purifying the unclean, and pardoning the guilty, adopted? Perhaps some persons would consider it as a bold question, and say, who knoweth the mind of the Lord? His understanding is infinite, and his judgment a mighty deep. However, as the government of God is evidently formed to promote our moral improvement, it seems probable that it was adopted,

1. Because it is so well adapted to teach us the purity or holiness of God. As these sin offerings are said to cleanse and sanctify the tabernacle and temple, the utensils of them, and the priests, &c. (Exod. xxix. 33. 36, 37. viii. 34, Heb. ix. 22,) and as an unclean person was said to pollute it, and it was death for any person wilfully to commit this offence, (Numb. xix. 13, Levit. xii. 4, 5), therefore these things would necessarily suggest. to the Israelites that God is indeed a most pure and holy Being. Thus ceremonial purity would lead their thoughts to moral purity, and shew them that they must be holy, for Jeho