offerings of the old economy were of different kinds, not only as bloody and unbloody, but that among those which involved the shedding of blood some were designed for one purpose and some lor another. The whole question relates to the sin offerings prop- erly so called, of which the sacrifices on the great day of atonement were the special illustrative examples. The conmion doctrine as to these sin offerings is, (1.) That the design of such offerings was to propitiate God ; to satisfy his justice, and to render it consistent and proper that the offence for which they were offered should be forgiven ; (2.) That this propitiation of God was secured by the expiation of guilt ; by such an offering as covered sin, so that it did not appear before Him as demanding punishment ; (3.) That this expiation was effected by vicarious punishment ; the victim being substituted for the offender, bearing his guilt, and suffering the penalty which he had incurred ; (4.) That the effect of such sin offerings was the pardon of the offender, and his restoration to favour and to the enjoyment of the privileges which he had forfeited. If this be the true Scriptural idea of a sacrifice for sin, then do the Scriptures in declaring that Christ was a sacrifice, intend to teach that He was the substitute for sinners ; that He bore their guilt and suffered the penalty of the law in their stead ; and thereby reconciled them unto God ; i. e., rendered it consistent with his perfections that they should be pardoned and restored to tlie divine fellowship and flivoui*.
Proof of the Common Doctrine concerning Sacrifices for Sin.
That this is the true doctrine concerning sacrifices for sin may be argued, —
1. From the general sentiment of the ancient world. These offerings arose from a sense of guilt and apprehension of the wratli of God. Under the pressure of the sense of sin, and when the dis- pleasure of God was experienced or apprehended, men everywhere resorted to every means in their power to make expiation for their offences, and to propitiate the favour of God. Of these means the most natural, as it appears from its being universally adopted, was the offering of propitiatory sacrifices. The more numerous and costly these offerings the greater hope was cherished of their efficacy. Men did not spare even the fruit of their bodies for the sin of their
give a divine sanction to the use of animal food. Notwithstanding these conflicting speca- lations of individual writers, it remains true that the great body of Biblical scholars of all ages and of all classes regard the sin offerings of the Old Testament as real piacular sacri- fices. This is done by the highest class of the modern German theologians, who for them- ■elves reject the Church doctrine of the atonement.
500 PART III. Ch. Vn. — satisfaction of CHRIST.
souls. It was not that the Deity, to be propitiated, needed those oblations, or could Himself enjoy them ; but it was that justice demanded satisfaction, and the hope was entertained that the death of the victims misht be taken in lieu of that of the offender. Even those who repudiate the doctrine of expiation as belonging to the religion of the Bible, admit that it was the doctrine of the ancient world. But if it was the doctrine of the ancient world, two things naturally follow ; first, that it has a foundation in the nature of man, and in the intuitive knowledge of the relation which he as a sin- ner bears to God ; and, secondly, that when we find exactly the same rites and ceremonies, the same forms of expression and the same significant actions in the Scriptures, they cannot fairly be understood in a sense diametrically opposite to that in which all the rest of the world understood them.
2. The second argument is that it is beyond doubt that the Hebrews, to whom the Mosaic institutions were given, undei-stood their sacrifices for sin to be expiatory offerings and not mere forms of worship oi* expressions of their devotion of themselves to God ; or as simply didactic, designed to make a moral impression on the offender and on the spectators. They were explained as expiations, in which the victim bore the guilt of the sinner, and died in his stead and for his deliverance. That such was the doctrine of the Hebrews is proved by such authors as Outram, in his work " De Sacrificiis ; " by Schoettgen, " Horee Hebrseae et Talmudicie ; " Eisenmenger, " Endecktes Judenthum," and other writers on the subject. Outram quotes from the Jewish authorities forms of con- fession connected with the, imposition of hands on the victim. One is to the following effect : ^ "I beseech thee, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I have done (spe- cifying the offence) ; but now I repent, and let this victim be my expiation." The design of the imposition of hands was to signify, say these authorities, the removal of sin from the offender to the animal.^
3. It is no less certain that the whole Christian world has ever regarded the sacrifices for sin to be expiatory, designed to teacli the necessity of expiation and to foreshadow the method by which it was to be accomplished. Such, as has been shown, is the faith of the Latin, of the Lvithei*an, and of the Reformed churches, all the great historical bodies which make up the sum of professing
1 " Obsecro Domine, peccavi, rebellis fui, perverse egi, hoc et illud feci, nunc autem me peccasse poenitet; haec sit itaque expiatio mea." De Sacrificiis, i. xxii. 9, edit. London 1677, p. 273.
2 Lib. I. XV. 8, p. 166 flf.