means whereby they might approach into his presence and conciliate his favour. 3. It is characteristic of all God’s self-revelations, under every dispensation, that he discovers himself as jealous of any use by man of un- authorized methods of worship or service. He uniformly insists upon this very point of his sovereign right of dictating methods of worship and service, as well as terms
of acceptance. ‘The religion of unfallen men might, well —
enough, proceed on a basis of natural reason and con- science acting spontaneously. But since the salvation of the sinner must be only of grace, the religion of the sinner, In the principles on which it rests, the methods by which it is realized, and the very forms whereby it is to be expressed, must originate with God, and be dictated by him to us. Thus, all manner of “ will-
worship” and ‘“‘teaching for doctrines the command- |
ments of men,” are forbidden with equal emphasis in both the Old and New Testaments (Matt. xv. 9; Mark vii. 7; Isa. xxix. 13; Col. ii, 28). 4. As a matter of fact, the very first recorded instance of acceptable worship in the family of Adam brings before us bleeding sacrifices, and seals them emphatically with the divine approbation. They appear in the first recorded act of worship (Gen iv. 3, 4). They are emphatically approved by God as sdon as they appear. From that time down to the era of Moses they continued to be universally the characteristic mode in which the people of God worshipped him acceptably (Gen. vill. 20-22; xv. 9,10; xx. 2-13; dood. 40 56 xii: 7/8).
That these primitive sacrifices were strictly piacular appears to be certain—1. From the manner in which the sacred record presents the direct effect of the sacrifice of Noah. Immediately after he left the ark ‘Noah builded an altar unto the LoRD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings
SACRIFICES PIACULAR AND TYPICAL. 117
on the altar. And the Lorp smelled a savour of rest ; * caarzer and the Lorp said in his heart, J will not again curse the “~~ ground any more for man’s sake,” Sc. (Gen. viii. 20-22.)
2. Also from what is said of the occasion and design
of the sacrifices of Job: ‘‘ His sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day..... And it was so, when
the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent
and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning,
and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job
all the days” (Job i. 4, 5 *). 3. The bleeding sacrifices which prevailed among all races of mankind, and the votaries of all the ethnic religions from the ages preced-
ing all written history, were certainly regarded as piacular. This fact is freely admitted by Bahr and by
all the advocates of the Moral: Theory of the sacrifice
of Christ.
Such writers as Jowett and Maurice, Young and a be Bushnell, reject the plain teaching of the Bible on the ¢ ae subject of vicarious and piacular sacrifices, because it PY 6% outrages their instinctive moral judgments and senti- mankind. ments. Maurice, Young, and Bushnell maintain that the sacrifices of the Mosaic institute were not piacular— that they were designed to express the repentance and spiritual aspirations of the worshipper, and not to effect the propitiation of God. Jowett, more consistent than they in his Rationalism, as he far surpasses them in learning and genius, appears to admit that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were piacular, but denies that they are so far forth true types of the sacrifice of Christ : ‘Heathen and Jewish sacrifices rather show us what the sacrifice of Christ was not than what it was.” Again, he affirms that “to state this view of the doctrine at length
* See marginal reading. + Epistles of Paul, vol. ii., p. 479.
118 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
cuarrer (that is, the orthodox view) is but to translate the New