origin of sacrifice that the scriptures contain no precise intimation of the fact. Another objection to the divine origin of primitive sacrifice has been founded on those passages of scripture in which sacrifices seem to be disowned by God. Such are those passages in the Psalms in which He is said not to desire sacrifice, nor to delight in burntoffering; and a parallel passage in the prophecies of Jeremiah." In reply to this objection, it is easy. to see that the expressions in question cannot be taken literally, as in this case they would contradict the whole of what is contained in Leviticus and Deuteronomy respecting the appointment of sacrifices. They must therefore be understood, like similar expressions in other parts of scripture, in a comparative sense; and then their meaning will be that God desires not sacrifices, unless they be accompanied with those inward principles and that outward beha-. viour without which they cannot be acceptable to Him. It is thus that God, by the prophet Isaiah, addresses the people of Israel, on account of their wickedness:-'To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices ?-Bring no more vain oblations, incense is an abomination, unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with Your hands are full of blood." In this with-Your light the language under consideration is in accordance with that of the wise man:-'The sacrifice of A 28 Psalm xl. 6.—1. 9.—li. 16. Jer. vii. 22, 23. the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.' Or the meaning may be, that other things are preferred to sacrifices, although the latter are not excluded. The language of exclusion is often employed when only the preference of one thing to another is meant. 'I will have mercy and NOT sacrifice,' means, I prefer mercy to sacrifice. Labour NOT for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat which endureth to everlasting life, cannot be understood as condemning a diligent attention to business, but as commending attention to spiritual things in preference to those which perish with the using. On the same principle must we explain the words of the apostle, 'Adam was NOT deceived but the woman,' as meaning that the man was not first in transgression. The whole, then, that can be legitimately inferred from those passages on which the objection in question is founded, is that Jehovah prefers the dutiful obedience of his creatures to the mere performance of ritual services; not that the latter is not acceptable to him, but that the former is more acceptable; in short, that 'to obey is BETTER than sacrifice, to hearken than the fat of rams.' V. Having now seen the divine origin of sacrifice established, we hope, beyond all reasonable doubt, it remains to complete our argument in behalf of the atonement of Jesus Christ, that we consider what was the USE or DESIGN of this institution. Every institution of God must have an end worthy of himself and appropriate to the appointed means. Nor does it seem possible to conceive, consistently with the wisdom and goodness of God, that the in stitution of sacrifice could have any design short of being a prefigurative memorial of the way in which he had determined to save the life of man which had been forfeited by sin. By transgression, the human race had forfeited the life they possessed, and all right to its continuance. Of this there could not be a more striking representation than was given in requiring a living creature to be sacrificed on occasion of every offence; while the symbol still farther intimated, in an equally striking manner, God's willingness to accept of the life of a substitute for that of the actual offender. The institution of sacrifice thus taught man at once the evil of sin, the punishment sin deserved, and the way by which he might escape this merited consequence. Death by sin, and life by substitution, were as clearly pointed out, as can well be conceived possible, in symbolical language. Both the fall and the recovery of man, the death introduced by sin and the death by which sin was to be taken away, were thus strikingly portrayed. And, as it is impossible to conceive that the life of an irrational animal could be deemed an adequate compensation for the life of a moral creature, it is clear that the institution must have been regarded as prefigurative of a greater and more excellent sacrifice afterwards to be offered up. A promise of a great deliverer had, indeed, been conveyed to our guilty progenitors; and nothing is more natural than to suppose, that sacrifice was appointed as a memorial of the deliverance which he was to effect. 'If we admit,' says one of the ablest advocates of P the doctrine, 'that the scheme of redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was determined from the beginning; that is, if we admit, that when God had ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means; if we admit that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; what memorial could be devised more apposite, than that of animal sacrifice?-exemplifying by the slaying of the victim the death which had been denounced against man's disobedience :-thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind:-and hereby connecting in one view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL, and the RECOVERY: the death denounced against sin, and the death appointed for that Holy One, who was to lay down his life, to deliver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems then to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious knowledge: and the adoption of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death, which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man's transgression; and a full reliance on the promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment. If this view of the matter be just,' adds he, 'there is nothing improbable even in the supposition that that part of the signification of the rite, which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some degree made known from the beginning.'" Why the learned author should have felt any hesitation on this point, we must confess ourselves at a loss to perceive. It was Jesus Christ who was from the beginning the alone object of saving faith, and as an ignorant belief can never be looked upon as entitled to this character, man must have had from the beginning some knowledge of the reference of the sacrificial rite to Him who was to appear in the end as the propitiation for our sins. Without such a reference the rite itself must have been an unmeaning, useless, burdensome ceremony; and, without some such knowledge, the observance of it must have been any thing but a reasonable service-must have been, on the contrary, a piece of heartless drudgery. Nor, taking this view of the matter, can we reckon it as at all a fanciful supposition, that the very first promise of a Saviour given to man was accompanied with the significant ratification of a sacrifice, setting forth that bruising of the heel of the woman's seed by which the serpent's head was to be bruised. And it is not a little interesting to remark, how, on this supposition, the first blood which stained the earth was that of a sacrifice, and the first idea which the forefathers of our race would have of death was derived from that of a victim slain to prefigure Him who was afterwards to abolish death and bring life and 30 Magee, v. ii. pp. 51, 52. |