souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before

the LORD.

31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

32 And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead,

13 Heb. fill his hand.

shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments:

33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.

34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins "once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

14 Exod. 30. 10. Heb. 9.7.

SCAPE-GOAT AND YOUNG BULLOCK, GOAT, AND KID OF GOATS, FOR SIN OFFERING.

Verse 8. "Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats."-There is no account in Scripture of the manner in which these lots were cast: but the following is the substance of the explanation given by the Rabbins, which, of course, in common with their other explanations, we are at liberty to reject if we see cause to do so. The two goats were placed, the one on the right and the other on the left hand of the high-priest. An urn was then brought, into which the high-priest cast two lots, one of which was marked " for Jehovah," and the other for "Azazel"-which is the word we translate "scape-goat." The authorities which give this account add that the lots were of wood in the tabernacle, of silver in the first Temple, and of gold in the second Temple. The lots being well shaken about in the urn, the high-priest put in both his hands and took out one in each; and the lot in the right hand was assigned to the goat on the right hand, while that which the left hand drew belonged to the goat on the left hand. It is also said that it was regarded as a favourable omen when the right hand brought up the lot" for the Lord;" whereas, when that hand drew the lot "for Azazel," it was accounted an indication that God was not pacified. If this were really the case, we see nothing in

Scripture on which such an inference could be fairly grounded, unless we consider it warranted by the frequent mention of the right hand in a general sense, as the post of honour and preference.

10. "Let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.”—The word which we translate "scape-goat," is in the Hebrew Ny, azazel. This name has given occasion to various etymological conjectures, the best of which seems to us that of the Septuagint, which appears to consider it as formed of two Hebrew words, which combined, signify "the sent away goat," and accordingly translates it by axorourais. The Rabbins inform us, that after the lot had been taken, the high-priest fastened a long fillet, or narrow piece of scarlet to the head of the scape-goat; and that after he had confessed his own sins and those of the people over his head, or (for we are not quite certain about the point of time) when the goat was finally dismissed, this fillet changed colour to white if the atonement were accepted by God, but else retained its natural colour. It is to this that they understand Isaiah to allude when he says: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah i. 18.) After the confession had been made over the head of the scape-goat, it was committed to the charge of some person or persons, previously chosen for the purpose, and carried away into the wilderness; where, as we should understand, verse 22, it was set at liberty; but the Rabbins give a somewhat different account. They inform us (speaking with a particular reference to Jerusalem and the Temple service), that the goat was taken to a place about twelve miles from Jerusalem where there was a formidable rocky precipice; and they add, that for this occasion a sort of causeway was made between Jerusalem and this place, and that ten tents with relays were stationed at equal distances between them. On arriving at the precipice the goat was thrown down from its summit, and by knocking against the projections, was generally dashed to pieces before it had half reached the bottom. It is added that the result of this execution was promptly communicated, by signals, raised at proper distances, to the people who were anxiously awaiting the event at the Temple. It is also said, that at the same time a scarlet ribbon, fastened at the entrance of the Temple, turned red at this instant of time, in token of the Divine acceptance of the expiation; and that this miracle ceased forty years before the destruction of the second Temple. We do not very well understand whether this fillet is a variation of the account which places one on the head of the goat, or whether there were two fillets, one for the goat and the other for Temple. If the latter, we may conclude that the change took place simultaneously in both. However understood, it is very remarkable that the Rabbins, who give this account of the fillets, assign the cessation of the miracle by which the divine acceptance of this expiation was notified, to a period precisely corresponding with the death of Christ-an event which most Christians understand to have been prefigured by atoning sacrifices, which they believe to have been done away by that final consummation of all sacrificial institutions. The assertion of the Apostle, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Heb. ix. 22), renders the account of the Rabbins that the goat was finally immolated, rather than left free in the wilderness, far from improbable, were it not discountenanced by verse 22. It is however possible that the Jews may have adopted the usage described when they settled in Canaan, and could not so conveniently as in the wilderness carry the goat to “a land not inhabited." But they allow that it sometimes escaped alive into the desert, and was usually taken and eaten by the Arabs, who, of course, were little aware of what they did. See Calmet, Arts. ‹ Azazel,' and 'Expiation;' Jennings' 'Jewish Antiquities,' &c.

21. "Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel.”—A similar act took place in the ordinary sin offerings; but the present was a peculiarly solemn occasion in which that ceremony was exemplified. When the animal is understood as a representative victim, whose death atones for the iniquity of him in whose behalf it is offered, some formal act for constituting the representation, and expressive of a transfer to him of the sin for which he is to make atonement, would naturally be thought of; and an act for this purpose, more simple and impressive than the present, could scarcely be devised. Accordingly we find the idea accompanied by the same, or a very similar act in different times and countries. It was so in Egypt. We have already described an Egyptian sacrifice, after Herodotus; but we purposely omitted one particular, reserving it for this place. He says that when an animal was sacrificed, the Egyptians heaped awful imprecations on its head, wishing that all the evils which impended over those who offer the sacrifice, or over Egypt in general, might fall upon it. They always cut off the head of the victims, and after imprecating it, they carried it forth and sold it in the market to foreigners; but if there were none in the neighbourhood, they threw it into the river. This custom was general over all Egypt; and, in consequence of it no Egyptian would ever taste the head of any creature that had breathed. In India also there are manifest traces of the same usage. Mr. Roberts mentions, that when a man offers a goat or ram, he puts one leg over it (as on horseback), and lays his hand upon its head, while the priest repeats the prayers, after which the head is struck off at one blow. The same writer states that persons under various circumstances vow to set a goat at liberty in honour of some god, if the prayers which they make are granted. So also, if a person has committed what he considers a great sin, he also liberates a goat, and then, in addition to other ceremonies, he sprinkles the animal with water, puts his hands upon it, and prays to be forgiven. Before such goat is set free, to go where it likes, the owner either makes a slit in its ear, or fastens a yellow cord (observe the scarlet fillet mentioned in the note to verse 10) around its neck. These are the tokens by which the animal is known, and which secure it from molestation. (Oriental Illustrations,' p. 83, 87-8.) A remarkable analogy to at least the Rabbinical explanation about the scape-goat occurs in the Hindoo sacrifice of a horse mentioned in Mr. Halhed's translation of the Code of Gentoo Laws.' The offerer fastens a scroll of writing upon the horse's neck, and dismisses him to go where he pleases: but the animal is attended night and day by a stout and valiant man, equipped with the best necessaries and accoutrements, whose business it is to protect the animal's freedom. In the end, it seems, the horse is sacrificed, and his carcase consumed in the fire: and the Oriental commentator, cited in Mr. Halhed's preface, remarks that, "the intent of this sacrifice is, that a man should consider himself in the place of that horse." (Gentoo Laws, xxi. and 127.) Similar ideas have always prevailed more or less in Arabia. One of the most curious illustrations of this is given by Bruce, the Abyssinian traveller. A quarrel between two parties of men took place, and great disorder and mutual Hostility prevailed for several days. At last, their ammunition being nearly expended, the old men on both sides settled the matter by agreeing to lay all the blame upon a camel. One was accordingly produced, and brought without the town, where they spent great part of the afternoon in upbraiding the poor animal with all the offences of hand and tongue of which they had been themselves guilty. When his measure of iniquity seemed full,-" each man thrust him through with a lance, devoting him dus manibus et diris, by a kind of prayer, and with a thousand curses upon his head; after which each man retired, fully satisfied as to the wrongs he had received from the camel."

29. "In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls."-This was one of the great annual observances; but not one of those at which the presence of every male was required at the tabernacle or Temple. It was held on the tenth day of the month Tizri (September), which is the first month of the civil year, and the seventh of the ecclesiastical. The day was observed as a most strict fast, and no servile work was done thereon Many expiatory

ceremonies have already passed under our notice, as required in various circumstances; but this was the grand and general expiation in which atoning sacrifices were made for all the sin and all the defilement of the preceding year. Hence it was pre-eminently distinguished as the Day of Atonement. The idea of the institution seems to have been, that inasmuch as the incidental and occasional sin offerings had, from their very nature, left much sin for which no expiation had been made, there should be a day in which all omissions of this sort should be supplied, by one general expiation, so that at the end of the year no sin or pollution might remain for which the blood of atonement had not been shed. The ceremonies are too distinctly detailed to require a general explanation; but we have made some remarks on a few particular points. For an account of the manner in which this solemn fast is observed by modern Jews, we may refer to Buxtorf, Calmet (Dictionary,' folio edit.), and Allen's Modern Judaism.'

8¶ 8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among 1 Exod. 29. 18. Chap. 4. 31. Heb. that hunteth any hunting. 3 Gen. 9. 4. Verse 5. "Offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD."-The purport of this law as read here, is, that the Israelites were to bring the animals they intended to kill for food, to the tabernacle, to be dealt with as peace offerings, the blood being applied and the fat consumed as in such sacrifices, the rest being eaten by the offerer, as in the regular sacrifices of this class. But then the difficulty comes of reconciling this text with Deut. xii. 13. Michaelis thinks that the law of the chapter before us, was only intended to operate temporarily during the sojourn in the wilderness, and that the law in Deuteronomy, delivered just before the entrance of the Hebrews into Canaan, was intended expressly to repeal that now under consideration. On the other hand, Dr. Boothroyd, without adverting to this alter

native, thinks that the two passages cannot be reconciled without adopting, as he does, a clause which does not now exist in the Hebrew text, but is found in the Samaritan and Septuagint versions. This consists in an addition to verse 3, as it now stands, of the words,-" for a burnt offering or for a peace offering, acceptable and of a sweet savour to Jehovah." The direction would then mean, not that animals killed for food were to be offered as peace offerings, but that burnt offerings and peace offerings should be sacrificed no where else but at the tabernacle. We are not called upon to determine between these alternatives. The authorities and reasons for that adopted by Dr. Boothroyd speak for themselves; but as those in favour of that which has the merit of dispensing with any addition to the reeeived text, are not at once so apparent, we may state that the regulation is conceived to have arisen with the view of preventing secret sacrifices to idols. It was a custom in ancient times for a person to make an offering of the flesh which he intended to use as food: and as the Israelites were certainly much addicted to idolatry, it might not unreasonably be suspected that they would privately make their offerings to idols under pretence of slaughtering animals for food. It was an obvious and effectual method of preventing this, to order that all animals slaughtered for food should, in the first instance, be killed in public and offered only to Jehovah. If the interpretation here given to this law be correct, this was doubtless the primary consideration on which it was founded; indeed, however it be understood, that its object was to prevent idolatrous sacrifices is expressly declared in verses 5-7. It does not appear whether the meat thus offered was to be eaten within a given time and in company, like the regular peace offerings; if so, this would have been no particular hardship; for as we have already had several occasions to remark, tribes circumstanced as the Israelites were in the wilderness, do not slaughter animals for every-day consumption, but only for the purpose of making a feast; so that what was enjoined as to the peace offerings was what would be ordinarily done whether the animal were offered or not. Michaelis does not seem to have been aware of this strong corroboration of the view he was led to adopt, and in which, we are, upon the whole, rather disposed to concur. The view does not appear to be weakened, but rather strengthened, by the law in Deuteronomy, which has the tone of removing in Canaan a restriction which had prevailed in the wilderness. The reasons for the repeal are nearly as obvious as those for the original law. A new and more instructed generation had arisen than that which had been so deeply imbued with the idolatries of Egypt, and the occasion for the restriction would therefore not have been strong. And besides, the observance of the original law would have been scarcely practicable when the Hebrews became settled in Palestine. They would naturally then be disposed to consume more animal food, as settled people usually do even in the East, than when nomades; and yet this law would nearly have operated as an interdiction to a great part of the population, who, residing at a distance from the tabernacle or temple, would have been obliged to take a long journey with their oxen, sheep, or goats, to offer them at the altar before they could taste their meat.-It deserves to be remarked, that if the law in the present text is to be understood of regular burnt offerings and peace offerings, a very unnecessary repetition of it occurs immediately after in verses 8, 9; and this is unusual in the laws of Moses.

7. "Devils.”—The word thus rendered literally means "hairy ones," and in its most usual sense refers to goats. There can be little question that the reference is to the very ancient heathen god Pan, whose worship originated in Egypt, and was there very common, a goat being his representative, and whose statues were a combination of the human and goatish figure. Hence probably arose the popular personification of Satan, in a figure analogous to that here assigned to Pan. See the note to 2 Chron. xi. 15.

CHAPTER XVIII.

1 Unlawful marriages. 19 Unlawful lusts. AND the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.

3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: 'which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

6 None of you shall approach to any that is 'near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8 The nakedness of thy father's wife

shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for their's is thine own nakedness.

11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her naked

ness.

12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 15 "Thou shalt not uncover the naked3 Chap. 20. 11. * Chap. 20. 19. 5 Chap. 20. 20.

1 Ezek. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. 2 Heb. remainder of his flesh. 6 Chap. 20. 12.