secret intention except as it changes the character of the overt act. The oft'ence of man- slaughter embraces a large number of cases where ignorance and error might be pleaded, but are not sufficient to remove the liability of the offender. Guilt is not merely con- scious or subjective liability to punishment, but objective liability as well. Thus is the conscience of man enlightened and its power enlarged by the revelation of God. As Adam knew his sin much more clearly when God had called him into colloquy, so the Law of Moses was an appeal to tbe conscience, a quickening of it, a setting up of the Divine mirror before man, that he might know himself. See this whole doctrine of guilt treated by St. Paul in Rom. vii., "Sin by the commandment became exceeding sinful." "I was alive without the Law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." IV. THE OFFERING FOB BIN IS THE PLEDGE OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS, The sin of igno- rance represented God's view of sin as contrasted with man's view. Therefore, as it was an atoning offering, it proclaimed both the righteousness of God as condemning all sin, and the covenant mercy of God as forgiving all sin. Mao would naturally take account only of known sins, but the true peace is that which proceeds from the assurance of entire and infinite atonement. How different is such a revelation of mercy from any of the heathen satisfactions which were mere attempts to appease the Divine wrath as a recognized danger! But dangers are not only seen, but unseen. lo the case of natural laws, how often we find that we have broken them when we knew not I The true safety is that which we know is not only partial and probable, but absolutely secured against all possible contingencies, God's thoughts are not as our thoughts. He invites us to hide under the shadow of his wings. V. RESPONSIBILITY IN PROPORTION TO PRIVILEGE. The priest represented the people. The congregation was the nation in its collective capacity, therefore it represented not only the individuals as sinners, but the special relation of the community to Jehovah as the body to the head. The official position of the high priest was one of peculiar dignity and solemnity, therefore the sin of the individual in his case was more than his own sin-it was the violation of that larger relation in which the people as a whole stood to their God. All superior knowledge, all elevation of office and vocation, all representation, carries with it special responsibility. Those who a.re ministers of God must feel their sins as heavier burdens, requiring to be put away by special acknowledg- ment, by extraordinary effort. There a.re sins which none but the high priest and the I congregation could commit. So there are sins of official life and sins of Church life, I which we are apt to overlook because they are less upon the individual conscience the.o •. our own personal sins; but God shows us by the regulations of his Law, that we must : hate them e.od a.void them and seek their forgiveness, even as though ·they were . deliberate and individual offences. How often men have done, in the name of their roligious system or in their official capacity, what, if it had been a.scribed to themselves in their private life, they would have immediately condemned I The purity of Church i officers and of Church life in general has much to do with the growth of Christianity. I
The history of ecclesiastical errors is a very sad one. It was the absolute purity of Christ which so severely condemned the religious leaders of his time. They suffered their con,ciences to be blinded by the corruption of the system under which they lived. 'l'hey did evil, thinking often that they did God service. Yet the Church and its rulers will be judged, not by the standard of its own degeneracy, but by the Law of God. Judgment begins at the house of God. There are the most responsible men, there are the greatest ( offences, and there must be the most exemplary me.uifestation of Divine righteousness. The clearing away of sin from the Church is the preparation for the pure worship of God, for the re-established relation between the covenant king and his people, for the outpoured blessings of the throne of grace. VI. 'l'HE FORGIVENESS OF BIN, ONLY BY EXPIATION, THROUGH ATONEldE;,IT, This is especially set forth by the sin offering, for it represented the Divine demand of expialion in cases where human ignorance or error might be pleaded in excuse on man's side, 'What we require is not mere proclamation of pardon, but a peace which is settled oi. eternal foundations. So long as there remains in the mind of the sinner the thought that God is not satisfied, there must be a barrier to fellowship. '!'he setting forth of the sin offering was a provision of Divine righteousness as the condition of peace. God does not overlook sin as that which has excuse made for it i he_ puts it away aa that iO TRt DOOi{ OF LEVI'l'ICUS. [OH. IV. 1-35.