before him to the tabernacle) but that, at the will of God, it was exposed to be tormented by the devil. This sentiment is supported by such arguments as these. 1. It is the received opinion of the Jews, that Azazel is one of the names of the devil, just as Samael, Azael, and Machazael. In like manner a Christian poet thus sings against Marcus the disciple of Valentinus, who was thought to deceive the spectators by his juggling tricks. HA SOI CHOREGEI SOS PATER SATAN AIEI, "Which thy father Satan ever enables thee to perform by the angelic power of Azazel." These verses are cited by Epiphanius, Hæres. 34, 11. The etymology favors this. For NGASASEL is the goat which went away; that is, the creature which kept not its first estate, but revolted from God. Elsewhere in scripture the devils are called goats, as Lev. xvii. 7. 2 Chron. xi. 15. Kimchi in his Lexicon gives the reason of it: "They are called goats," says he, "because they appear in the shape of goats to their votaries." Maimonides in more Nevochim, lib. iii. c. 46. speaks much to the same purpose. To this may be referred the ancient mythology concerning Pan, Faunus, and the Satyrs, who were likewise called goats. Since then devils have indisputably been called goats elsewhere, why may not the devil here likewise be emblematically signified by Azazel, that is, the goat which went areay? or, as Ben Nachman speaks, the prince who rules in desert places? LII. The fourth opinion is that of Bochart, who, though he owns he can advance nothing certain on the head, yet offers his conjecture, which is thus: The Arabic verb azala signifies to remove and separate. Which he proves by many instances. And he thinks that Azazel is derived from that, and signifies separation and secession. The goat, therefore, whose lot is to Azazel, to secession, was that which by lot was appointed for retreat, in order to be led into a separate place of the wilderness, which, ver. 22. is called, a land cut off, or separated. LIII. But leaving every one to judge for himself, the third opinion pleases me not a little, because it seems to rest on the firmest grounds, and gives us a discovery of a great mystery; and I scarce see, what can be objected to it, unless this one thing, which Bochart advances; namely, that NGEZ and ASAL agree not in gender, the former being feminine, the latter masculine and therefore, says he, the word could not be made up of both. But that reason is of no great weight: for, 1. In compound names, grammatical analogy is not always regarded for instance, in the word SAMUEL, which at full should be SAULMEEL, asked of God, the letters ALEPH and VAU and LAMED are struck out, and MEM is joined with EL by a schurec, whereas analogically it ought to be joined by a tzere. Instances to this purpose are numerous. 2. A change of genders is common among the Hebrews. We have a similar instance in Gen. xxx. 38. HATZON VATECHAMNAH, in the feminine; and ver. 39. VATÆCHEMU HATZON, in the masculine. Buxtorf hás collected a great many examples to this purpose in his in his syntax3. Though NGEZ be feminine in signification, yet it is masculine in termination, as also the plural NGIZIM; and therefore it is no wonder it be joined with a word of a masculine termination; which is also done, Lev. Xxii. 27. NGEZKI JIVALER VEHAIAH, where a double masculine is joined to the word NGEZ. But neither is Spenser's observation to be overlooked, that NGASA SEL may be explained by, the strong one going away. For NGAZ signifies strong. And as the true God is said, Psal. xxiv. 8. to be strong and mighty; so also the devil was called Azizos by the Phoenicians; in the gospel, Luke xi. 21. the strong man. LIV. 2. It is worth inquiring, what might be signified by Aaron's laying his hands on the head of the goat which was not done here only, but also upon other occasions, Lev. i. 4. Lev. iii. 2. and Lev. iv. 4. and Herodotus says, this was likewise in use among the Egyptians, lib. ii. c. 39. See Outram, de sacrif. lib. i. c. 15. § 18. and c. 22. § 5. seq. Bochart, if I mistake not, has given us the best explication of the reasons of this. 1. The offerer, by this rite, delivered up the victim to God, and, as it were, manumitted or released it, professing, he gave up all the right he had in that animal, exempted it from his own dominion, and devoted it to the service of God. Just as the Romans formerly held in their hand the slave they were to set at liberty, uttering these words, I will, that this man be free. 2. By this very ceremony, the sinner deprecated the wrath of God, and prayed, that it might fall on the head of that victim, which he put in his own stead. By this ceremony, therefore, the sins of all Israel were laid on this goat, in order typically to bear them, and carry them away far from Israel. LV. 3. Let us inquire, what is ERATZ GESERAH, the land of excision or separation, into which that goat was to be carried. I don't think, that any particular place was precisely signified: for it is not credible, when the sacred services were performed at Jerusalem, that the goat was carried to the same place, to which it was carried, when Aaron performed that ceremony for the first time in the wilderness. In general, therefore, it signifies a place remote from the resort of men; ATHAR TZEDU, a desolate place, says Jonathan; JETHIBAH ÆRÆTZLO, an uninhabited land, according to On kelos. The Greeks call it GEN ABATON, rayless or inaccessible. Abarbanel explains it, a land of the decree, meaning that country, concerning which a decree was made, that the captive Israelites should be sent away thither. LVI. 4. We may inquire who is that ISH NGETTI, fit man, who was to carry away the goat? We meet with the Hebrew word NGETTI no where else. The Greeks render it ETOIMOS, ready. NGETH certainly signifies time, the same that the Chaldee SEMAN. Hence they inferred, that NGETTI with the Hebrews, is the same with the SEMIN of the Chaldees, ready, furnished. It would not be improperly rendered KARIOS OF EUKAIROS, seasonable, oportune. Abarbanel will have it to be FSH GADOL BESEMINI VENGETTI, a man of great dignity in his age and time, at least in the application of the type. Whatever be in this, it is very plain, that God appointed no particular order of men for this office. The Rabbins tell us, that any one was fit for it, if he was appointed by the high priest; and that formerly scarce any, but a stranger, was employed in this service. LVII. Lastly, We are to inquire what became of that goat at last. The Jewish doctors have a constant tradition, that the priest fastened a piece of scarlet cloth in the shape of a tongue, weighing two sheckles, to the head of the scape-goat, which the conductor of the goat, when he was come to the place appointed, divided in two, and fastening one part to the rock, to which he had driven the goat, and the other to the horns of the goat, he pushed the goat down from behind; which falling headlong, was crushed to pieces, before it reached half-way down the precipice. But Jonathan insists, it was pushed down by some divine power. Moreover, if this scarlet tongue turned white, which they say was generally the case, they looked upon that as a happy omen; and thence conjectured, their sins were forgiven; according to that, Is. i. 18. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. But these things are either false, or doubtless uncertain, which borders upon falschood. Others therefore are of opinion, that it was let loose in the wilderness, to feed where it listed: and Bochart proves, that both the ancient Greeks and Romans had animals consecrated to God, which were called APHETA ZOA, animals let loose: and the words of the text favor this, ver. 22. And he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. LVIII. Let us now search into the mystical meaning of all this. That solemn day represents to us Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven; and principally, our reconciliation with God, in virtue of his satisfaction and intercession. Aaron, we see, performed those sacred rites in linen garments, of less value indeed, yet white and very pure. This was to represent Christ's humiliation, which was never lower, than when he was most engaged in making atonement for our sins; and likewise shewed his most holy purity, unstained with the spot of the least sin. In this respect, our Lord is certainly greater than Aaron, and all the other high priests; because he stood in need of no offering for his own sins, for he had no sins, on account of which an offering was necessary, Heb. vii. 26, 27. When the Israelites saw Aaron first offering for his own sins, they might thence easily conclude the weakness and unprofi tableness of that earthly priesthood. For what real good. could that priest do the people, who, by a solemn expiation, publicly declared, that he himself, together |