The Pulpit Commentary — Leviticus — Section 4

Ignorance of the true historical origin of the teachings of Buddha, this is a subject, the discussion of which would be without the scope of this essay. The fact with regard to Buddhism as now known is that, while the idea of sacrifice is historically present, it has no reference to remission or forgiveness. Self-sacrifice, which is so essential & part of Buddhism, ie nowhere connected with remiesion, but merit; ae when Gautama, while a Bodhisat (i.e. a candidate for the Buddhahood), voluntarily allowed a hungry tigress to devour him, in order to save her life and that of her cubs, ae a step towards becoming a Buddha. In Hinduism, again, there Is no teaching on the 1J11bject of forgiveness, either as 'between man and man, or the deity and man, except in a. very few passages in some of the earliest hymns of the Rig Veda.: as Hinduism progresses, the idea. is lost, not developed. When the head of the cock is cut off before the altar of Ka.Ji, there is no thought of obtaining forgiveness of the deity; the general idea is, as with the Buddhist, that merit will accrue on the performance of a prescribed act of religion which they li.ave learned from their forefathers. There are whole races of men in whose vocabu- lary there is no word for forgiveness. The spirit of retaliation seems to be still as potent as ever, apart from the spirit of Christianity, The successful struggle of the principle of forgiveness, as a. purely human attribute, against the principle of retalia- tion, does not appear to me to be made out. There must, therefore, be some other reason why the virtue of forgiveness, theoretically at all event.a, holds so influential a position in the ethics of the learned men of Europe. The Christian would maintain that this virtue has been learned solely from Holy Sc1ipture by the modems, and from anterior Divine revelation by the ancients. 'l.'hen, again, we have to confront the theory that man, under the influence of a religious instinct (and, of course, the case of the Christian religion is here included), has formed no higher ideal of Divine justice than such as is a reflection of his own innate sense of retaliation or vindictiveness. This, I suppose, to be the meaning of the passages quoted before: 11 In religion the vindictive principle has euphemistic names; it is called law and justice..•. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, blood for blood, is primitive law. Projected into heaven, magnified into the Divine majesty, it becomes the prin- ciple that a Deity cannot be just, and yet a Justifier of offenders." Now, this is a subject that requires extremely nice discrimination. For that the idea of vindictiveness, or retaliation, has been II projected," so to speak, on the Divine justice by the short-sightedness of man, there is no doubt. But that the idea of the Divine,, justice that underlies the Christian religion is the offspring of such a principle in man's heart, is a theory which entirely subverts the truth of Christianity. We may begin by remarking that our natural views of justice, equity, are not, of ,course, in any degree the children of our natural impulse towards retaliation. Nor can Mr. Conway be supposed to suggest this. Equity, human justice, represented by the ,ancients under the symbol of an even balance, so far from being the child of the prin- ciple, or spirit, of vindictiveness, is thnt which alone controls it. Justice determines whether the II pound of flesh" and the debt are really in equipoise; justice stops a man when his instinctive vindictiveness sends him in pursuit of his enemy; the laws of England do not allow a man to retaliate, but endeavour to put him into the hands of justice; and so when our Saviour said, 11 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil," he evidently meant that men should curb tl>J impetuosity of personal vindictiveness, and leave their case in tho hands of a more pl l'fect justice. Man has the power of realizing a per:ect, even-handed justice, however often and rbowever far he may have abused the principle in practice. And a.lthough he may have  tj AN ESSAY ON SACRIFICE.