(2.) The second mark of distinction is closely con- nected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to be a scheme proceeding from (iod, and, in bis foreknowledge, connected with the one central fact of all human his- tory. It is to be foimd in the typical character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which, as the E|iistle to the He- brews argues, all their efKcacy depended. It must be remembered that, like other ordinances of the law, they had a twofold effect, depending on the special position of an Israelite as a member of the natural theocracy, and on his general position as a man in relation with God. Ou the one hand, for example, the sin-offering
was an atonement to the national law for moral offences of negligence, which in "presumptuous" — i. e. deliberate and wilful — crime was rejected (see Numb, xv, 27-31; and comp. Heb. x, 26, 27). On the other hand, it had, as the prophetic writings show us, a distinct spiritual sig- nificance as a means of expressing repentance and re- ceiving forgiveness, which could have belonged to it only as a type of the great atonement. How far that typical meaning was recognised at different periods and by different persons, it is useless to speculate ; but it would be impossible to doubt, even if we had no testi- mony on the subject, that, in the face of the high spirit- ual teaching of the law and the prophets, a pious Israel- ite must have felt the nidlity of material sacrifice in it- self, and so believed it to be availing only as an ordi- nance of God, shadowing out some great spiritual truth or action of his. Nor is it unlikely that, with more or less distinctness, he connected the evolution of this, as of other truths, with the coming of the promised Mes- siah. But, however this be, we know that, in (Jod's pur- pose, the whole system was typical; that all its spirit- ual efficacy depended on the true sacrifice which it rep- resented, and could be received only on condition of faith ; and that, therefore, it passed away wheia the Antitype had come.
2. The nature and meaning of the various kinds of sacrifice are partly gathered from the form of their in- stitution and ceremonial, partly from the teaching of the pro|)hets, and partly from the N. T., especiallv the Epistle to the Hebrews.
(1.) 0/il-Tesfament Relalions. — Here all had relation, under different aspects, to a covenant between God and man.
((/.) The sin-ojfei-in(] represented that covenant as broken by man, and as knit together again, by God's appointment, through the "shedding of blood." Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of the blood before the veil of the sanctuary, the putting some of it on the horns of the altar of incense, and the pouring-out of all the rest at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering. The flesh was in no case touched by the offerer; either it was consumed by fire without the camp, or it was eaten by the priest alone in the holy place, and every- thing that touched it was holy Cdilp). This latter point marked the distinction from the peace-offering, and showed that the sacrificer had been rendered un- worthy of communion with God. The shedding of the blood, the symbol of life, signified that the death of the offender was deserved for sin, but that the death of the victim was accepted for his death l)y the ordinance of God's mercy. This is seen most clearly in the ceremo- nial of the Day of Atonement, when, after the sacrifice of the one goat, the high-priest's hand was laid on the head of the scape-goat — which was the other part of the sin-offering — with confession of the sins of the peo- ple, that it might visibly bear them away, and so bring out explicitly what in other sin-offerings was but im- plied. Accordingh', we find (see quotation from the Mishna in Outram, De Sacr. i, ch. xv, § 10) that in all cases it was the custom for the offerer to lay his hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess, generally or specially, his sins, and to say, "Let this be my expia- tion." Beyond all doubt, the sin-offering distinctly witnessed that sin existed in man, that the " wages of that sin was death," and that God had provided an atone- ment by the vicarious suftering of an appointed victim. The reference of the Baptist to a " Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world" was one understood and hailed at once by a "true Israelite." See Sin-of- fering.
(6.) The ceremonial and meaning of the hurnt-nffer- ing were very different. The idea of expiation seems not to have been absent from it, for the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of sacrifice; and, be- fore the Levifical ordinance of the sin-offering to pre- cede it, this idea'raay have been even prominent. But
SACRIFICE
225
SACRIFICE
in the system of Leviticus, it is evidently only second- ary. The main idea is the ofturing of the whole victim to God, representing (as the laying of the hand on its head shows) the devotion of the sacriticer, body and soul, to him. The death of the victim was (so to speak) an incidental feature, to signify the completeness of the devotion ; and it is to be noticed that, in all solemn sac- rifices, no burnt-offering could be made until a previous sin-offering had brought the sacriticer again into cove- nant with God. The main idea of this sacrifice must have been representative, not vicarious; and the best comment uywn it is the exhortation, in Kom. xii, 1, " to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and accepta- ble to God."