MENT for them, and it shall be forgiven them.' With regard to the trespass-offering:-'As the sin-offering is, so is the trespass-offering; there is one law for them: the priest that maketh ATONEMENT therewith shall have it.'With regard to at least one of the sacrifices appointed to be offered on the occasion of the passover, we read:-' And one goat for a sin-offering, to make an ATONEMENT for you.'" With regard to that on the day of expiation there is no room to doubt:-'Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a DAY OF ATONEMENT: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day; for it is a DAY OF ATONEMENT, to MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR YOU before the Lord your God.'" Many more passages might be added, in which similar language is employed; but these may be deemed sufficient to establish the position, that the bloody sacrifices of the Jews were vicarious in their nature and import. We are aware of the objections that have been started against this view of the legal sacrifices; but they have all received the most triumphant refutation. Indeed, let any one calmly consider the circumstances connected with the act of sacrificing:the selection of the victim; the relation of the animal to the person for whom it was offered; its substitu 12 Lev. iv. 13-20. 13 Lev. vii. 7. 14 Num. xxviii. 22. 16 Magee, v. i. pp. 354-366. tion in his stead; his confessing over it all his iniquities; the imposition of hands on the head of the victim; its being actually slain and offered to God; let any impartial person candidly consider these circumstances, and say whether he can resist the inference that the sacrifice was regarded as a piacular substitute for the individual by whom it was brought to the altar. The ceremony of the scape-goat in particular, merits attention in this connexion. This sacred solemnity belonged to the annual day of expiation. It consisted in presenting to the Lord two goats, one of which was slain, and the other sent away alive into the wilderness. The two animals together made but one offering, as the language of the statute expresses more than once:-'He shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel Two kids of the goats for A SIN-OFFERING. 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 to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement WITH HIM (i. e. together with the other goat) and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness.'" Each contributed to the atonement, and both were essential to the perfection of the ceremony. Now, the imposition of hands on the animals, and the confession of sins which accompanied it, point out unequivocally that the sins of the people were under 17 Lev. xvi. 5, 9, 10. stood to be transferred to the victim, and, by means of this substitute, expiated or taken away. '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.'" 18 III. Let it now be remarked that the Jewish sacrifices were not, in themselves, sufficient to take away sin, that is, to atone for moral guilt. That they were offered in cases of moral offence admits of the most satisfactory proof. We are aware that a contrary opinion has been strenuously maintained. It has been supposed that it was only in cases of ceremonial offence, of breaches of the ceremonial law, or of sins of ignorance to which no moral character could properly attach, that sacrifices were admissible. Not to say that sins of ignorance may involve moral guilt, as ignorance itself is often criminal; not to insist that breaches of the ceremonial law might well be considered as involving moral turpitude from the state of mind which they indicated; not to remark that once in the year, at least, atonement was to be made for ALL the iniquities of the children of Israel, and of course for moral as well as ceremonial offences; not to build on these 18 Lev. xvi. 21, 22. things, it is sufficient to observe that sacrifices were required in cases of fraud, injustice, perjury, debauchery—all of them direct violations of the moral law, which it was impossible to commit without such a state of mind being implied as could not but be highly criminal in the view of a holy and just God. It is true, there were certain moral offences of an aggravated nature, such as idolatry, adultery, murder, and blasphemy, for which no sacrifice was appointed, or permitted to be offered. But the reason of this was, not that sacrifices were inadmissible in cases of moral delinquency, but that the offences in question subjected the offenders to death, and consequently did not admit of exemption from the outward penalty attached to all offences of the law, and which exemption always resulted from the offering of an acceptable sacrifice. Nor from the circumstance of a sacrifice being inadmissible is it to be supposed that these offences were unpardonable. They were capital offences against the state, and therefore no sacrifice, tending to reinstate the offender in his place in society, was to be offered. But the guilty person might still lift a penitential prayer to the throne of mercy, and, through the propitiation of Christ, might obtain the full forgiveness of his iniquity, be restored to the favour of God, and be admitted to his presence for ever." Independently 196 Quod si pro quibusdam peccatis ultroneis gravioribus nullum legitur institutum sacrificium, qualia erant homicidium, idololatriæ, adulterium, et similia quæ elatâ manu et per superbiam fiebant, ideo hoc factum est, quia puniri ea Deus voluit supplicio capitali, atque adeo peccantes non opus habue of this, however, it is clear that the legal sacrifices had a respect to moral guilt, being offered on occa sion of breaches of the moral law.. Now, what we wish to be observed, is their utter inefficacy, in themselves, to expiate moral transgression. Which was a figure for the time then present,' says the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, "in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.' 20 The conscience of the offerer told of guilt which they could not atone, of pollution which they could not remove, of wrath from which they could not protect. The law being a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect." That moral perfec-: tion which consists in justification, sanctification, peace with and access to God, they could never effect, from an inherent unfitness for such a purpose. FOR IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND OF GOATS SHOULD TAKE AWAY SINS. 22 The reason of this inefficaciousness of the legal sacrifices, was, not simply that they were not appointed by God for the purpose in question. It is true, they were not appointed for such an end. But the inspired apostle carries, the reason much higher— they could not have been so appointed by a wise runt hoc remedio, cùm eorum mors fuerit instar expiationis cujusdam publicæ.'-Turretin, v. ii. p. 470. 21 Heb. x. 1. 22 Heb. x. 4. 20 Heb. ix. 9. |