Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

19 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 occasion 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

[ocr errors]

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 higherthey 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.

and perfect God, because inherently inadequate to fulfil any such design. It was NOT POSSIBLE that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. They did not comport with the majesty of Him against whom the sin was committed, the great God of heaven and earth, whom the death of a beast could never appease. They gave no proper expression of the divine displeasure at sin; the holy repugnance of God's nature at iniquity, and his righteous determination to punish it, could not be thus unequivocally announced; if something more had not been required to procure remission, it could never have appeared that sin was exceedingly sinful. They gave no adequate exhibition of the inviolable rectitude and authority of God's moral government or law; for if such was all that was requisite to secure exemption from the . penalty annexed to its violation, no inference could be more legitimate than that its requirements were originally too strict, its sanctions originally too severe, and that it might be violated with comparative impunity. They bore no proper relation to the sinner, either in point of nature or legal obligation ; the animals which composed them were in respect of nature greatly inferior to man, and in no sense under that law the breach of which occasioned the guilt. And they possessed no value at all proportioned to the life that had been forfeited, and which required to be redeemed; that was the life of an intelligent, moral, immortal creature, but the sacrifice was only an irrational, perishing beast. For these and similar reasons, the sacrifices of the law could

[ocr errors]

R

not take away sin.

Lebanon was not sufficient to

burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a sin-offering: and it might well be asked, Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?

It does not follow from this, that the Jewish sacrifices were useless. Because they did not serve a purpose for which they were never designed, it would be rash surely to infer that they served no purpose at all. They served all the purposes for which they were appointed. They taught the evil of sin and its desert of death. 'In those sacrifices there was a remembrance made of sins every year.' They were offerings of memorial bringing iniquity to remembrance. And they not only reminded men of their sins, but strikingly intimated that these sins were remembered also by God; that something more was necessary to cover them from the eye of omniscient justice; that something else was required before they could assure themselves that HE would no more remember them. They also procured the remission of those temporal penalties which attached to the iniquities of the people of Israel. From the theocratic nature of the constitution, every violation of the laws possessed a double character. As an offence against the statute law, it had a civil character, and exposed to temporal pains; as an offence against the moral law, it had a moral character, and exposed to spiritual pains. The sacrifices seem to have procured a remission of the temporal pains, whatever might be the inward feeling and exercise of the offerer, and to

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »