EXPIATIOX
422
EXPIATION
offences besides those above mentioned were capital, that is, exposed the oftendur to death, is clear from this, that all oli'ences against the law had this capital character. As death was the sanction of the com- mandment given to Adam, so any one who transgress- ed any part of the law of Moses became guilty of deatli ; every man was 'accursed,' that is, devoted to die, who ' continued not in all things written in the book of the law." 'The man only tliat doeth these things shall live b}^ them' was the rule ; and it was, therefore, to redeem the offenders from this penalty' that sacrifices were appointed. So, Avith reference to the great daj' of expiation, we read, ' For on that daj' shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you mav be clean from all your sins ; and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for tiie cliildren of Israel for all their sins once a year' (Lev. xvi, 30-34).
5. "To prove that this was the intention and effect of the annual sacrifices of the Jews, we need do little more than refer to Lev. xvii, 10, 11 : ' I will set mj' face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I have given it to you npon the altar to make an atonement for jour souls : for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.' Here the blood which is said to make an atonement for tlie soul is the blood of the victims ; and to make an atonement for the soul is the same as to be a ran- som for the soul, as will appear by referring to Exod. XXX, 12-lG ; and to be a ransom for the soul is to avert death. ' They shall give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, that there be no plague among them,' by which their lives might be suddenly taken away. The ' soul' is also here used oVn'iouslj' for the life ; the blood, or the life of the victims in all sacri- fices, was substituted for the life of m.in, to preserve him from death, and the victims were therefore vica- rious.
G. "The Hebrew word "^SD, rendered atonement, signifying primarily to cover, to overqiread, has been the su'iject of some evasive criticisms. It comes, how- ever, in the secondary sense, to signify atonement or propitiation, because the effect of that is to cover, or, in Scripture meaning, to remit offences. The Septua- gint also renders it by t^tXriffK-o^ifu, to appease, to make propiiious. It is used, indeed, where the means of atonement are not of the sacrificial kind ; but these in- stances equally serve to evince the Scripture sense of the term, in cases of transgression, to be that of recon- ciling the offended deity Ijy averting his displeasure, so that when the atonement for sin is said to be made \>\ sacrifice, no doubt can remain that the sacrifice was stricth' a sacrifice of propitiation. Agreeably to this conclusion, we find it expressly declared, in the several cases of piacular oblations for transgression of the di- vine commands, that the sins for which atonement was made by those oblations should be forgiven.
7. ''As the notion that the sacrifices of the law Avere not vicarious, but mere mulcts and fines, is overturned hy tlie general appointment of tlie blood to be an atone- ment for the souls, the forfeited lives, of men, so also is it contradicted by particular instances. Let us refer to Lev. vi, 15, IG : 'If a soul commit a trespass, and sin tiirough ignorance in the holj' things of the Lord, he sliall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy tiling, and shall add a fifth part thereto, and shall give it to the j)riest.' Here, indeed, is the proper fine for the trespass ; but it is added, ' He shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish, and the priest shall make atonement for him •with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall b« forgiven him.' Thus, then, so far from tlic .sacrifice being the fine, the fine is distinguished from it, and with the ram only was the'atonemcnt tnade to the Lord for his trespass. Nor can the ceremonies with
which the trespass and sin offerings were accompanied agree with any notion but that of their vicarious char- acter. The worshipper, conscious of his trespass, brought an animal, his own property, to the door of the tabernacle. This was not a eucharistical act ; not a memorial of mercies received, but of sins committed. He laid his hands upon the head of the animal, the symljolical act of transferring punishment, then slew it with his own hand, and delivered it to the priest, who burned the fat and part of the animal upon the altar; and, having sprinkled part of the blood upon the altar, and in some cases upon the offerer himself, poured the rest at the bottom of the altar. And thus, we are told, ' Tlie priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.' So clearly is it made manifest by these actions, and by the description of their nature and end, that the animal bore the punishment of the ofl'ender, and that b}' this appointment he was reconciled to God, and obtained the forgiveness of his offences.