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 atone6 ment?' you are pleased to answer; 'No: ' for atonement was made with the scapegoat, 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 conjugates, 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

of the burning an handful of fine flour, when done according to his appointment, as available to the covering and securing from punishment his sins and person, might, if he pleased, in another case, accept of the life of an animal, when sacrificed according to his appointment, instead of the life of an offender, or as available so far to his pardon and safety: that which in either case made the offering available to these purposes, or in other words, which gave it its atoning virtue and efficacy, was its being an appointment of God. So that, if, when you suggest, that the victim's suffering death in the offender's stead is not included in the notion of atonement, your meaning be, that atonement was not always made in such a way; I must own it to be just; but at the same time must beg leave to say, that it does not appear to be to your purpose, for the reasons just mentioned : but, if your meaning be, that atonement was never made by a victim's suffering in the offender's stead; this, it must be owned, would be to your purpose, if it could be proved; but that, I should think, it cannot be at least it is not, by any thing that is said in this paragraph (57.) For,

as to what you have observed (which has not yet been taken notice of) that atone

ment was made with the scape-goat,' 'Lev. xvi. 10, though he was not slain, 'but let loose in the wilderness,' &c. supposing it to be true, that he directly and properly made atonement (as no doubt he might do, if appointed by God for that purpose); yet it by no means follows from thence, that atonement might not be made, in other cases, by a victim's dying in the offender's stead. But (if I might be allowed to offer a conjecture here) I should think, that when it is said, that the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness; if we consider, that what was done to, and with the scape-goat, was to signify by emblematical actions, that the sins of the Israelites, for which sacrifices had been offered, were forgiven, and should be remembered no more; if, I say, we consider this, we shall, perhaps, see reason to think, that by the scape-goat's making atonement, no more was intended, than that he was to make it (as I may say) representatively, or

Ꭲ