signifies that which covers, and, in such connections, that which covers sin so that it no longer demands punishment. When, there- fore, a sacrifice is said to cover sin it must mean that it expiates it, hides it from the eyes of justice by a satisfaction. A -ipb is a sat- isfaction. This satisfaction must be made either by the offender or by some one in his stead. In the case of murder, if the perpetra- tor could not be discovered, a victim was to be slain in his stead, and thus satisfaction was to be made. The law in reference to this case makes the nature and design of sin offerings perfectly plain. The elders of the nearest city were commanded to take a heifer which had not borne the yoke, and wash their hands over it in at- testation of their innocence of the blood of the murdered man ; the priests being present. The heifer was to be slain, and thus expia- tion made for the offence. The words are, □•nrr Dnb "15331 : Greek, koI eltAao-^iyo-crat aurots to at/xa ; Latin, " Et auferetur ab eis reatus sanguinis." The removal of guilt by a vicarious death is, therefore, the Scriptural idea of a sin offering. It would, however, require a volume to present a tithe of the evidence furnished by the phraseology of the Old Testament, that the sin offerings were regarded as expiations for sin ; not designed proximately for the reformation of the offender, but to secure the remission of the pen- alty due to his transgression. The constantly recurring formula is, Let him offer the sacrifice for " sin, and it shall be forgiven him."
The ceremonies attending the offering of sacrifices for sin show that they were understood to be expiatory. (1.) The victims were selected from the class of clean animals appropriated for the sup- port of the life of man. They were to be free from all blemish. This physical perfection was typical of the freedom from all sin of Him who was to be the substitute for sinners. (2.) The offender was required himself to bring the victim to the altar. The service involved an acknowledgment on the part of the offerer of his just exposure to punishment for his sin. (3.) The hands of the offender were to be laid on the head of the victim, to express the ideas of substitution and of transfer of guilt. The sin of the offerer was laid upon the head of the victim. (4.) The blood of the victim, slain by the priest, was received by him as the minister of God, sprinkled on the altar, or, on the great day of atonement, carried into the Most Holy place where the symbol of God's presence was, and sprinkled on the top of the ark of the covenant ; showing that the service terminated on God ; that it was designed to appease his wrath (according to Scriptural phraseology), to satisfy his justice, and to open the way for the free forgiveness of sin. The significance
504 FART m. Ch. Vn. — satisfaction of CHRIST.
assigned to these ceremonial acts is that which their nature de- mands; which the Scriptures themselves assign to them ; and which they must have either to account for the effects which the sin offering produced, or to make out the correspondence between the type and the antitype which the New Testament declares was intended. These symbolical acts admit of no other explanation without doing violence to the text, and forcing on antiquity the ideas of modern times, which is to substitute our speculations for the authoritative teachings of the Scriptures.
The imposition of the hands of the offender upon the head of tlie victim was essential to this service. The general import of the im- position of hands was that of communication. Hence this ceremony was practiced on various occasions : (1.) In appointing to office, to signify the transfer of authority. (2.) In imparting any spiritual gift or blessing. (3.) In substituting one for another, and trans- ferring the responsibility of one to another. This was the import of the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim. It was substituted in the place of the offerer, and the guilt of the one was symbolically transferred from the one to the other. Hence the victim was said to bear the sins of the people ; or their sins were said to be laid upon it. In the solemn services of the great day of atonement, the import of this rite is rendered especially clear. It was commanded that two goats should be selected, one for a sin- offering and the other for a scape-goat. The two constituted one sacrifice, as it was impossible that one could signify all that was in- tended to be taught. Of the scape-goat it is said, " Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their trans- gressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, .... and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." This renders it plain that the design of the imposition of hands was to signify the transfer of the guilt of the offender to the victim. The nature of these offerings is still further evident from the fact that the victim was said "to bear the sin " of the offender. For example, in Isaiah liii. that the servant of the Lord made " his soul an offering for sin," is explained by saying that " He bare the sin of many ; " that " the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; " and that " the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." These and similar expressions do not admit of being un- derstood of the removal of sin by reformation or spiritual renovation. They have a fixed and definite meaning throughout the Scriptures. To bear sin is to bear the guilt and punishment of sin. It may be