our translation, and so understood and interpreted by several of the early fathers, yet according to the analogy of the language, and doubtless according to the intention of the versionists, is properly a term of active signification. The reader has only to turn to the learned pages of Bochart to see this point established beyond a doubt. In this sense it is held by many critics of distinguished name to import one of that class of demons or deities who were called by the Latins Dii Averrunci, or the deities who send away or avert evils from their votaries, which was done through the propitiating agency of prayers, sacrifices, and other offerings. This is confirmed by Gesenius, from whose Hebrew Lexicon we extract, in this connexion, what he says on the word 5; "I render it without hesitation the averter, expiator, averruncus, àλeğixaxos, i. e. for 3 Azulzel, from the root p

azal, to remove, to separate. By this name I suppose is to be understood originally some idol that was appeased with sacrifices, as Saturn and Mars; but afterwards as the names of idols were often transferred to demons, it seems to denote an evil demon dwelling in the desert, and to be placated with victims, in accordance with this very ancient and also Gentile rite. The name Azazel is also used by the Arabs for an evil demon. (See Reland de Relig. Mohammed. p. 189. Meninski h. v.) The etymology which we have above proposed, was expressed of old by the Sept. translator, although neglected or misunderstood by most interpreters. Thus he renders it v. τῷ ̓Αποπομπαίῳ, i. e. ̓Αποτροπαίῳ, Αλεξίκακῳ, αυενrunco; v. 10, εἰς τὴν ἀποτομήν ad averruncundum ; v. 16, εἰς άφεσιν. The ecclesiastical fathers have referred this ̓Αποπομπαίος to the goat itself, q. d. scape-goat, although obviously in v. 8 the antithesis lies between and " That ȧroTourasos is indeed of the active instead of passive signification not only has Bochart clearly proved by a long list of classic citations, but the words of Josephus in reference to this rite throw a strong light on this sense of the Sept. rendering: "The goat is sent away into a remote desert as an averter of ills (argoniaμos), and a satisfaction for the sins of the people."+

Hieroz. P. I. L. II. c. 54. T. I. p. 745-7. † Antiq. Jud. L. III. c. 10.

It is clear then, we think, both that the LXX esteemed the "Azazel" a person, and that they supposed that person to be a demon, or deity of the order of " Averrunci," or averters. That the same opinion was held by the early Christians, we seem to have clear proof from the words of Origen, who, in attempting to show that the devil was known in the times of Moses, says among other things, "He who is called in Leviticus Torquatos, and whom the Hebrew Scriptures call Azazel, was no other than the devil." The same conclusion was drawn from this language by the apostate emperor Julian, who maintained that since Moses speaks of the devotement of a goat to a deity called aroTouTaios in contradistinction from Jehovah, he in effect taught the very same doctrine as that inculcated by the heathen theologists respecting the Dii Averrunci. He was answered at length by Cyril of Alexandria, but we are not concerned with the arguments of either, any farther than as they serve as testimonies to the fact of an early belief in the Christian church that "Azazel" in the Pentateuch was the name of an evil demon. That this belief is to be traced to the demonology of the Jews, we think there can be no doubt. Rabbi Menahem in his commentary on Leviticus, says that Azazel was one of the four principal demons whose names he writes together as follows: Sammael, Azazel, Azael, and Mahazael. In like manner the apocryphal book of Enoch makes mention of Azalel, or as it was afterwards written, Azael, among the fallen angels. The same is affirmed in the Rabbinical work entitled Zohar. Mercer in his commentary on Genesis relates as a traditional dogma of the Cabalists, that demons and all kinds of malignant spirits were prone to dwell in burial places and solitudes, and that Azazel was the name of one of this class of beings. Nor are we to forget that the New Testament allusions make it evident, that in the popular belief of the Jews the desert and desolate places were the chosen haunts of these foul fiends. Our Lord underwent his temptation from the devil in the wilderness, and it was hither that the legion of evil demons is said to have driven the possessed man ere they were ejected from him by the word of Christ. It is, moreover, through dry and desert places that the unclean spirit is represented by the Saviour as walking after he had quitted the body of the demoniac. It goes also strikingly to confirm this view of the subject, that these desert-deities were generally conceived of as having

the semblance of goats, or rough, hairy, shaggy creatures, corresponding with the Satyrs of the Greek and Roman mythology, which were sylvan deities or demigods, represented as monsters, half man and half goat, having horns on their heads, hairy bodies, with the feet and tail of the goat. Thus the prophet Isaiah in predicting the ruin of Babylon, says, chapter 13: 21, "Wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures, and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs (Seirim, goats) shall dance there;" where the Gr. has dauóvia demons; the Vulg. "Pilosi," shaggy, or hairy animals; and the Chal. "Demons.” The popular ideas of the external form and appearance of the devil among the rude and ignorant of nearly all nations, both ancient and modern, easily connect themselves with these early traditions, and the language of holy writ in the following passages goes clearly to evince the origin of the vulgar associations. Lev. 17: 7, "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils ( lit. goats) after whom," &c. 2 Chron. 11: 15, "And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils ( goats) and for the calves which he had made." On the peculiar usage of the original term, Kimchi in his Lexicon (voc. ) remarks, "They (demons) are called goats, because they appear in the shape of goats to their votaries." It would seem then that there are good grounds for recognizing in this term a designed allusion to some kind of desert-demon to whom the second goat was in a manner dedicated, devoted, or consigned, but not sacrificed, as this would be a direct contravention of the precept just quoted from Lev. 17: 7, "They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils."

Still the grand question remains to be solved, why the goat was consigned or devoted at all to Azazel? The Rabbins, who for the most part understand Azazel to mean the evil spirit, have advanced some singular notions on this subject. Substituting the name Sammael for Azazel, R. Eliezer scruples not to say, that they offer a gift to Sammael or Satan on the day of atonement, lest he should make their oblations fruitless. Indeed, we are told that it became a current proverb among the Hebrews, "A gift to Sammael on the day of atonement." The idolatrous character of this offering, Moses Gerundinensis endeavors, indeed, to explain

away, but still in such terms as assure us of the fact ;"Our intention when we let loose the goat, is not to present him as an oblation to Sammael. God forbid !—but our desire is to do the will of our Creator, who has delivered to us such a commandment." What is yet stranger, some of the more ancient Christians, who used the Greek translation of the Seventy, were thence led to imagine that "of the two goats, one was sacrificed to God, and the other was sent into the desert to propitiate an evil and impure demon, thus venerated as an apopompean spirit." For this impiety they are deservedly censured by Cyril and Procopius; and it is well remarked by Abulensis, that "the goat was not sacrificed to the demon Azazel, for it is only said that it was conveyed into the desert; for it were a great disgrace to the God of the Hebrews, if he could not deliver his worshippers from demons, and if they were compelled to propitiate the devil lest he should hurt them." And in this connexion we may advert to the opinion of Spencer,* who takes the name "Azazel," as compounded of paz, strong, and brazal, to depart, implying the strong receder, or powerful apostate, an appropriate denomination, he supposes, of the devil as the arch rebel and revolter; to which may be added, that he and other beings of his class were prone, according to popular estimation, to withdraw themselves from all frequented places, and hover about dreary solitudes, tombs, ruins, and deserts. The reasons which he assigns for the extraordinary rite of the consignment of the goat to Azazel, are the three following: (1) That the animal thus laden with the sins of the people and delivered up to the demon, might denote the wretched lot of all sinners. (2) That the dedication of this goat thus circumstanced to an evil demon might serve to show the Israelites the impurity of apostate spirits, and so divert and take them off, and others also, from all proneness to hold intercourse with such beings. (2) That since their sins were sufficiently expiated by the piacular goat sent out to Azazel, they might more willingly abstain from all appli cation to the apopompean gods of the Gentiles.

These reasons, though free from the absurd impiety of the

* De Legib. Heb. L. iii. Dissert. viii. p. 1040.

Rabbinical superstition, strike the sober mind as at once farfetched and fanciful, and we are shut up to the necessity of seeking for a more satisfactory solution of the problem. In attempting this, let us recur again to the incidents mentioned in the text as connected with this singular transaction. V. 9, 10, "And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell, and offer him for a sin-offering. But the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him ( lekappër alauv, to expiate or atone over or upon him,) to let him go for Azazel into the wilderness." And then again after describing the ceremonies of the slain-goat, he adds, v. 21, 22, "He shall bring the live goat, and 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, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat into the wilderness.'

Typical Import of the Scape-Goat.

The common interpretation given by divines of this typical rite, an interpretation built for the most part on the presumption that "Azazel" was the name of the scape-goat, is substantially this :-The two goats constituted in fact but one offering, having a direct typical reference to Christ, who laid down his life for us in the character of a sacrificial victim, and to whom the load of our iniquities was transferred by imputation. But Christ is contemplated in this type in a two-fold aspect, one as dying for our sins, the other as rising again for our justification. But to this two-fold phasis of the mediatorial work of Christ, no single offering could suitably correspond. A double oblation, it is supposed, was nade necessary by the very nature of the case. One goat slain could only show us a sacrificed Saviour; it could not show us a living Saviour. One could not exhibit him "who liveth and was dead, and is alive forevermore." There must be two to convey the great truth, that Christ was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; that "he was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justifica