i-.

f^:

¦ ¦, ¦; •''¦..¦-¦;¦¦.•'. ; : • •. ¦ •• 'AH* i^>i - -y,

''l':;'»:^':{i.i';'.

MS",. .-.

* * ? »- * ¦

. ':i'.i

YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Estate of
Reverend Orville %. Petty

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Dr. LUTHARDT'S WORKS.
In three handsome crown 8vo volumes, price 6s. each.
' We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times for young men
entering on life, or, let us say, even for the library of a pastor called to deal
with such, than the three volumes of this series. We commend the ir^ole of
them with the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are altogether quite a
specialty in our literature." — WeeMy Review.
APOLOGETIC LECTURES
ON TH&
FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Fowrth Edition.
By C. E. LUTHAEDT, D.D., Leipzig.
'Prom Dr. Luthardt'a exposition even the most learned theologians may derive in
valuable criticism, and the most acute disputants supply themselves with more trenchant
and polished weapons than they have as yet been possessed of.' — BelVs Weekly Messenger.
apologetTc~lectures
ON THE
SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Third Edition.
' Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself
on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.' — Literary World.
apologetTc~lectures
ON THE
moral truths of CHRISTIANITY.
Second Edition.
' The ground covered by this work is, of course, of considerable extent, and there is
scarcely any topic of specifically moral interest now under debate in which the reader
will not find some suggestive saying. The volume contains, like its predecessors, a truly
wealthy apparatus of notes and illustrations.' — English ChwchTnan.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s.,
ST. JOHN THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
Bt Peofessoe C. E. LUTHAEDT,
Author of ' Fundamental Truths of Christianity,' etc.
Translated and the Literature enlatged by C. E. Gregory, Leipzig.
' A work of thoroughness and value. The translator has added a lengthy Appendix,
containing a very complete account of the literature bearing on the controversy respect
ing this Gospel. The indices which close the volume are well ordered, and add greatly
to its value.' — Guardian.
' There aa-e few works in the later theological literature which contain such a wealth
of sober theological knoiirledge and such an invulnerable phalanx of objective apolo-
getical criticism.' — Professor Gaericke.

Crown 8vo, 6s.,
LUTHARDT, KAHNIS, AND BRUCKNER.
The Church : Its Origin, its History, and its Present Position.
'A comprehensive. review of this sort, done by able hands, is both instructive and
suggestive.' — Record.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,
SERMONS
FOR THE
CHRISTIAN YEAR.
ADVENT-TRINITY.
By Professor ROTHE.
Translated by WILLIAM E. CLAEK, M.A. Oxon.,
Prebendary of Wells and Vicar of Taunton.
' The volume is rich in noble thoughts and wholesome lessons.' — Watchman.
' The sermons before us are wonderfully simple in construction and expression, and at
the same time iremarkably fresh and suggestive. ... It is a mind of real keenness,
.singularly pure and gentle, and of lofty spirituality, that expresses itself in these dis
courses.' — Weekly Review.
Just published, in two vols., large crown Swo, price Is. M. each,
THE YEAR OF SALVATION.
WORDS OF LIFE FOR EVERY DAY.
A BOOK OF HOUSEHOLD DEVOTION.
Bt J. J. VAN OOSTBRZBB, D.D.
' A work of great value and interest. To the clergy these readings will be found full
of suggestive hints for sermons and lectures; while for family reading or for private
meditation they are most excellent. The whole tone of the work is thoroughly practical,
and never becomes controversial.' — Church Bells.
' The very best religious exposition for everyday use that has ever fallen in our way.' —
Bell's Weekly Messenger.
' This charming and practical book of household devotion will be welcomed on account
of its rare intrinsic value, as one of the most practical devotional books ever published.'
— Standard. ' Massive of thought, persuasive, earnest, and eloquent.' — Literary Churchman.
'As might have been expected from so clear and vigorous a thinker, every passage is
valuable either as an exposition or a suggestion.'— Henky Wakd Beeoheb in Christiajn
Union. BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Just published, in crown Suo, price 6s.,
MOSES:
A BIBLICAL STUDY.
' Our author has seized, as with the instinct of a master, the great salient points in the
life and work of Moses, and portrayed the various elements of his character with vivid
ness and skill. . . The work will at once take its place among our ablest and most
valuable expository and practical discourses.'— £opiisi Magazine.
'A volume full of valuable and suggestive thought, which well deserves and will
amply repay careful perusal. We have read it with real pleasure.'— aris^ton Observer.

THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE
OF SACRIFICE.

PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
roK
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON  HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, . . . ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG.

THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE

OP

SACRIFICE.

BY
ALFRED CAVE, B.A.

•It torn nrarfr to be BeBireB tfjat iat cduIB afltee tjpn tije nature at
Scriptural iSacrtfice.'— pye smith.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1877.

pXg3 C3l5s

PREFACE.

IN books not a few which have been written upon the
Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, upon the Sacri
fice of Christ, and upon the Sacrifices of the Christian Church,
it has been forgotten that no one of these subjects can be
advantageously studied without the others. Nevertheless, it
stands to reason, that to describe the ceremonial of Judaism,
for example, apart from the cardinal doctrines of Christianity,
is like writing a history of the acorn and saying nothing of
the oak to which it grows ; it stands to reason that the theo
logian who defines the Christian doctrine of the Atonement
without reference to the expiatory features of Mosaism, might
as wisely undertake a philosophical biography and ignore the
entire story of childhood, and the early display of hereditary
tendencies ; it even stands to reason that he who hopes to
state the Christian doctrine of Priesthood or Unbloody Sacrifice
without an exhaustive and methodical inq[uiry into that sym
bolical system which has provided the very names of his
subject-matter, might as rationally hope to study English
scientifically without a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon, or Geology
without a previous acquaintance with Mineralogy.
With a view, therefore, to his own intellectual satisfaction
in the first place, and in the second to the filling of an unde
sirable void in our theological literature, the Author has
attempted an investigation into the scriptural doctrine of
Sacrifice in all its dissimilitude and completeness. Of course,
the Author is aware that this subject has received cursory
elucidation in numerous systems of Theology and Philosophy ;

8 PREFACE.
but the lack of detail, the necessitated avoidance of the his
torical method, and the incorporation of things extra-biblical,
rendered, in his esteem, such treatment inadequate. Nor was
the series of sermons on "The Doctrine of Sacrifice deduced
from the Scriptures," by the lamented F. D. Maurice, admirable
as those discourses were in spirit and ingenious in practical
applications, of sufficient accuracy or fulness to preclude
further research. In the following pages a tentative inquiry
is undertaken, the characteristic feature of which is the desire
to exhibit the several phases of Scriptural Sacrifice, in all
their fundamental resemblance and gradational difference,
from the days of Adam to those of the Apostle John — nay, if
the testimony of the apostles be received, to the undeclining
day of the New Jerusalem.
A. C.
Watford.

CONTEIN'TS.

INTRODUCTION.

statement of Subject, ....

PAGE 17

Method of Investigation —

(1) Biblico-Theological,

18

(2) Critical, .....

20

Importance in apprehending —

(1) Bible, 

21

(2) Judaism,

23

(3) Atonement, ....

24

(4) Sacerdotalism, . ,

25

Definition of Sacrifice, ....

26

Division of this Treatise, ....

27

BOOK I.— PREPARATORY.
PART I.— THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Chap. 1. — The Origin of Sacrifice.
Difficulty in apprehending pre-Mosaic Age, ....
Primitive Sacrifice not evolutional, . . , .
Paradisaic, the Ideal and Original Sacrifice, ....
The Sacrifice of Abel, the Original Animal Sacrifice,

31 32 3334

Chap. II. — The Development and Significance of Patriarchal
Sacrifice.
Development of Abel's Sacrifice, ...... 44
On Subjective Side, . . . . . . .45
On Objective Side, ....... 45
Corrective Revelation granted to Abraham, .... 47
Patriarchal Sacrifice and the Remission of Sins, .... 48
Patriarchal Sacrifice and the Religious Life, . . . .53
Summary of Patriarchal Doctrine, ..... 53

10

CONTENTS.

PART II.— THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.

Chap. I. — The Mosaic Injunctions.
Mosaic, an Advance upon Patriarchal Sacrifice, .
The Transitional SacrificeS';-
(1) The Passover, .....
(2) The Covenant Sacrifice, ....
Difficulties of Study of Mosaic Sacrifice, .
Division of the Mosaic Injunctions,
The Mosaic Injunctions concerning —
(1) The Place of Sacrifice — the Tabernacle,
(2) The Sacrificial Ministrants,
1. The Levites, ....
2. The Priests, ....
3. The High Priest, ....
(3) The Legal Preparations for Sacrifice — Purifications,
(4) The Sacrifices themselves,
a. The Blood Sacrifices —
1. The Burnt-Offering,
2. The Peace-Offering,
3. The Sin-Offering, ....
4. The Trespass-Offering,
6. The Bloodless Sacrifices,
(5) The Sacrificial Times and Seasons,
Summary of Chapter — the Jewish Calendar of Sacrifice, .

PAGE 59

60 616363 64 686970
7172 76 7678 798081 8285

Chap. II. — The Essential Significance of the Mosaic Injunctions.

The Mosaic Sacrifices had some reference to the Religious Life of the
Jew, .....
That reference partly seen in the Essential Significance,
The Essential Significance of — »
(1) The Tabernacle, .
(2) The Priesthood, .
(3) The Purifications,
(4) The Sacrifices,
a. Generally —
1. As Presentations, .
2. As Atonements,
6. Specifically —
1. As Burnt-Offerings,
2. As Peace-Offerings,
3. As Sin-Offerings, .
4. As Trespass-Offerings,
5. As Bloodless Offerings,
(5) The Sacrificial Times and Seasons,
Summary of Chapter,

899093 9597 98

101 101 102105 106 106 108

CONTENTS.

11

Chap. III.— The Symbolic Significance of the Mosaic Injunctions.
The Mosaic Sacrifices Symbolic, . . . . . .110
The Canon for the Study of this Symbolism, . . . .111
Where Symbolism is to be expected, ..... 113
The Symbolical Signiticanoe of Details of—
(1) The Tabernacle, ....... 115
(2) The Priesthood,  119
(3) The Purifications,  121
(4) The Sacrifices, . . ¦ . . . . .123
u. The Blood Sacrifices —
I. As to their Ritual, viz. —
1. The Presentation, . . . . .123
2. The Imposition of the Hand, . . . .123
3. The Aspersion of the Blood, . . . .124
4. The Combustion, . . . . .126
B.The Concluding Meal, . . . . .127
Summary, ...... 127
II. As to their Several Species —
1. The Sin-Offering, ..... 128
2. The Trespass-Offering, ..... 129
3. The Burnt-Offering, ..... 130
4. The Peace-Offering, ..... 130
Summary, . . ' . . . . 131
6. The Bloodless Sacrifices, . . . . .132
(5) The Sacrificial Times and Seasons, .... 134
Chap. IV. — The Sacramental Significance of the Mosaic Injunctions.
The Relation of the Mosaic Sacrifices to the Remission of Sins, . . 138
(1) The Nature of the Mosaic Atonement, .... 139
(2) Its Method,  139
(3) Its Extent, ....... 143
(4) Its Efficacy, . . . . . . .146
The Relation of the Mosaic Sacrifices to the Religious Life of the Offerers, 148
Summary, . . . . . . . . 150
Chap. V. — The Typical Significance of the Mosaic Injunctions.
The Mosaic Sacrificial Injunctions have a Typical as well as an Essential,
a Symbolic, and a Sacramental Significance, . . . 153
The Nature of a Type, ....... 154
The Value of Types be/ore and after the Appearance of their Antitype, . 159
The Mosaic Sacrifices contain an Element of Prophecy, . . . 160
This Element of Prophecy seen —
(1) In the Contrast between Mosaism and Promise to Abraham, . 161
(2) In the Contrast between Mosaism and Promise at Sinai, . 161
(3) In the Contrast between Mosaic Symbols and Things symbolized, 162
(4) In the Contrast between Law and Practice, . . . 164
Summary and Conclusion, ...... 166

Chap. VI. — General Review of the Mosaic Sacrificial Injunctions, 168

12

CONTENTS.

PART III.— THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.

Chap. I. — The National Conception of Mosaic Sacrifice. PAGE
The post-Mosaic Times a Period of Assimilation, . . . 179
The Assimilation effected by the National History —
(1) During the Lifetime of Moses, ..... 181
(2) During the Lifetime of Joshua, ..... 182
(3) During the Times of the Judges, ... .182
(4) During the Times of the Undivided Monarchy, . . 184
(5) During the Times of the Divided Monarchy— . . . 185
1. In Israel, ....... 185
2. In Judah, ....... 186

Chap. II.— The Hagiographio Conception of Mosaic Sacrifice.

The Assimilation of the Mosaic Doctrine also aided by the Hagiographa
and their Authors, ......
Division of the Hagiographa into Historical and Poetical Books,
The Historical Books aided Assimilation —
(1) By acknowledging the Religious Satisfaction to be found in
Mosaic Sacrifice,
(2) By Recognition of Subjective Side of Sacrifice, .
The Poetical Books aided Assimilation —
(1) By also acknowledging the Religious Satisfaction to be found in
Mosaic Sacrifice, ......
(2) By exposing the Folly of Iniquitous Observance,
(3) By Recognition of Subjective Side of Sacrifice, .
(4) By their Messianic Conceptions, .....

189
190

191192

193
194 195 196

Chap. III.— The Prophetical Conception of Mosaic Sacrifice.

The Task of Prophecy in relation to Mosaic Sacrifice,
The Nature of Prophecy, ......
A CoroUary from this Definition, ....
The Task of Prophecy double— Assimilative and Developmental,
The Prophetical Writings aided Assimilation —
(1) By reiterating the Importance of Sacrifice as a Mode of Wor
aliip, 
(2) By delineating the Consequences of Iniquitous Observance,
(3) By recognising Importance of Subjective Side, .
(4) By announcing Transitional Nature,
(5) By Messianic Conceptions, ....
The Prophetical Writings aided Development —
(1) By uniting the Messianic and Sacrificial Teaching,
(2) By predicting the Time when this Union would take place,

200201 202
204

205205206207 207209215

CONTENTS.

13

Chap. IV. — Other Theories of Old Testament Sacrifice reviewed.

A Review of other Theories advisable,
Classification of other Theories, .
The Allegorical and Biblico-Theological to be considered.
General Review of Allegorical Theories, .
The Allegorizing of Origen, .
His numerous Followers,
Origin of the Method,
Its Failings, .....
Transition to the Biblico-Theological Theories, .
Spencer's De Legibus Hebrceorum, .
Outram's De Sacrijiciis,
Lowman's Rationed of the Hebrew Ritual, .
General Review of Biblico-Theological Theories, .
Bahr's Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, .
Hengstenberg's Beitragen zur Einleitung ins A. T.,
Followers of Bahr and Hengstenberg,
Kurtz, AUtestamentliche OpfercultMs,
Critical School, ....
Summary, ....
Chap. V. — The Transition,

PAGlt 221 221223 223
223 228228 230 233233240 242244244 251252252 254256 258

BOOK II.— PLEROMATIC.
Chap. I. — The New Testament Doctrine of Sacrifice generally
CONSIDERED.
General Character of the New Testament Teaching, . . . 265
That Teaching divisible into Two Parts, viz. that concerning Christ and
that concerning Man, ...... 265
General Illustration of the Sacrifice ascribed to Christ, . . . 266
General Illustration of the Sacrifice ascribed to Man, . . . 268

Chap. II. — The New Testament Description or the Work of Christ
AS Sacrificial.

The Method of Examination : —
(1) Linguistic, .......
(2) Biblico-Theological, ......
Thus examined, the Work of Christ is seen to be described throughout
the New Testament as.in some sense Sacrificial, viz. —
(1) In Teaching of John the Baptist, ....
(2) In Teaching of Jesus, ......
(3) In Teaching of James and Jude (by Implication),
(4) In Teaching of Peter, ....•¦

270272

273 274276277

14

CONTENTS.

(5) In Teaching of Paul, ......
(6) In Teaching of John, ......
(7) In Teaching of Authors of Epistle to the Hebrews and the Reve
lation, .....-•
Summary, ........

PAGE 278
282283
284

Chap. III. — The New Testament Doctrine of the Work of Christ.
The Extraction of such a Doctrine necessary, .... 286
Method, twofold — Biblico-Theological and Dogmatic, . . . 287
I. The Biblico-Theological Doctrine of Work of Christ —
(1) According to Peter, ...... 288
(2) According to Paul, ...... 290
(3) According to John, ...... 295
II. The Dogmatic Doctrine of the Work of Christ —
(1) As to Necessity, ...... 297
(2) As to Nature, ....... 299
(3) As to Effects, ....... SCO

Chap. IV. — The Work of Christ as expressed in Sacrificial Language.
The Connection between the Old and New Testament Sacrifices twofold
— of Figures and Things figured, of Type and Antitype, . . 304
The Figurative Description of Work of Christ —
(1) In Figures borrowed from the Tabernacle, . . . 306
(2) In Figures borrowed from the Priesthood, . . . 307
(3) In Figures borrowed from the Purification, . . . 308
(4) In Figures borrowed from the Sacrifices, . . . 308

Chap. V.— The New Testament Doctrine of Atonement.
The Antitypical Description of the Work of Christ, . . . 312
An Indispensable Preliminary— the New Testament Doctrine of Atone
ment, ........ 312
Two Methods of Inquiry— Biblico-Theological and Dogmatic, . . 313
Results of the Biblico-Theological, 1 . . . _ 314
Results of the Dogmatic, . . . . . . .314
Summary, •¦•..... 324

Chap. VI.— Critical Review of Theories of Atonement.
Equivocal Use of the Word Theory,
Classification of Theories,
Examination of Theories, viz. —
(1) Gnostic, .
(2) Unitarian,
(3) Patristic,
(4) Of Anselm,
(5) Of Duns Scotus, .
(6) Of Abaelard,

326
328329331333
337340341

CONTENTS.

15

(7) Arminian —
a. Grotius,
6. Limborch,

343 346

Chap. VII. — The Theories of Bushnell, Campbell, and Dale.
M'Leod Campbell's iVaiMreo/iAe .d^onemeni, .... 349
and Law, . . 362376

Bushnell's Vicarious Sacrifice and Forgiveness and Law,
Dale's Congregational Lecture, ....

Chap. VIII. — The Atonements of the Old and New Testaments.
The Antitypical Description of the Work of Christ (continued), . . 393
Nature of Type and Antitype, ...... 394
The Atonement of the New, antitypical of that of the Old —
I. Probably, as seen in —
(1) Transitional Nature of Mosaism, .... 395
(2) Transitional Nature of Prophecy, .... 396
(3) Fulfilments of Prophecy, ..... 397
(4) New Testament Views of Judaism, .... 397
(5) Exclusive Nature of both, ..... 397
(6) Explication in New of Unexplained Features of Old, . . 398
II. Certainly, as seen in a Comparison —
(1) As to Nature of Atonement in both, .... 401
(2) As to Method of Atonement in both, .... 402
(3) As to Extent of Atonement in both, . . . . • 402
(4) As to Efficacy of Atonement in both, .... 403
Summary, ........ 404

Chap. IX. — Human Sacrifices in the New Testament.
Lives and Labours of Christian Believers described under Scriptural
Analogies, ....... 407
Apostolic Doctrine of State of Man under the Gospel according to —
(1) Teaching of our Lord, ...... 410
(2) Teaching of John, ...... 411
(3) Teaching of Paul, ...... 411
(4) Teaching of Peter, James, and Jude, . . . .413
General Conclusions, . . . . . . .415
Chap. X. — Human Sacrifices under the New and Old Covenants.
Human Sacrifices figuratively described, . . . .417
The more Scientific Employment of Sacrificial Analogies, . . 419
The one Guiding Principle in this more Scientific Use, . . . 421
(1) The Priest antitypically considered, .... 422
(2) The Purifications antitypically considered, . . ' . 423
(3) The Sacrifices antitypically considered, .... 423
1. As to their Ritual, ...... 423
2. As to their Species, ...... 424
Summary, ........ 425

16

CONTENTS.

Chap. XL— The Sacrifice of the Lord's Supper.

Human Sacrifices sacramental, ....
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,
The Questions controverted, ....
Consideration of these Questions — ^the Scriptural Evidence,
Was the Rite of the Eucharist a Sacrifice ?
First, was the Eucharist in any way Sacrificial ?
Secondly, in what Sense was the Eucharist Sacrificial ? .

PAGB 427430
431 431432
432 436

Chap. XII. — A Review of other Views upon the Holy Eucharist.
Classification of Theories —
(1) The Romanist Theory, ...... 440
(2) The Lutheran Theory, ... . . 450
(3) The Zwinglian Theory, ... . . 453
(4) The Socinian Theory, ..... 454
(5) The Calvinistic Theory, ...... 455
Summary of New Testament Doctrine of Human Sacrifice, . . 456

Chap. XIII. — Sacrifice in the Heavenly World.
The New Testament Doctrine of Sacrifice generally considered, . . 458
That Doctrine the Postulate to be assumed in Old Testament, . 460
That Doctrine non-Transitional in Time, .... 461
That Doctrine projected into Eternity, ..... 462
Completion of Cycle of Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, . . . 464

Chap. XIV. — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice.

Conclusion,

465

APPENDIX.
I. On the Hebrew Sacrificial Terminology and its HeUenistio Equi
valents, .......
II. On Azazel, ......
III. On Jewish Interpretation of Isaiah liii., .
IV. On the Seventy Weeks, .....

473489 492497

INDEX.
I. Scripture passages referred to, .
II. Subjects, Books, Quotations, Notes, etc., referred to.

501 509

IlfTRODUCTIOK

" Scientia est secundum modum cognosoentis." — Aquinas, Summa Theologica,
Pt. I. Quaest. xiv. Art. 1.

OUR subject is the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice. With
the Rabbinic, Patristic, Tridentine, Augsburg, Socinian,
or Westminster doctrine we are only indirectly concerned, as
each may serve to elucidate the teaching of Holy Writ. Still
less have we to do with that comparative method, now so
much in vogue, which forms its estimate of truth from the
consensus of all religions. The Bible is our fons et judex, —
the source or the test of aU. opinions legitimate to our inquiry.
Our aim is dogmatic, not apologetic. The whole subsequent
discussion will be conducted on the assumption of the historic
value and accuracy of the books of Scripture. Not that we
are unaware of the assertions of " criticism." We have heard
much of the hypotheses of " pious frauds," " adroit manipula
tions," "literary fictions;" but, without giving our reasons why
we regard such assertions as " idola theatri " (to accept Bacon's
phrase), — without even delaying to state at length that we
.cannot imagine how religiously-minded Jews or Christians
could append a " Thus saith the Lord " to their own political
or ecclesiastical surmises, — we content ourselves with saying
that we do not at present concern ourselves with these views.
Relegating to Isagogics its appropriate inquiries, our task
is to ask, not, " Are all, or is part of the scriptural statements
upon Sacrifice credible ? " but, " What do the Scriptures
really teach upon this theme ? " It may be that we shall be
advancing the cause of truth by such an objective examina
tion. As has been well if unfamiliarly said, "Material
B

1 8 INTRODUCTION.
Canonics " (Biblical Theology) " has both the right and the
power to exercise a salutary and invigorating reaction upon
the many vacillations into which Formal Canonics " (or the
Science of Introduction, as it has been called) "is still fre
quently betrayed." ^ What the Bible actually does contain,
may not improbably put some restraint upon theories as to
what it should contain.
The following treatise wiU thus assume the form, with its
accompanying weaknesses and advantages, of a monographic
contribution to Biblical Theology. The appropriate method
is at once suggested. Biblical Theology owes its separate
existence in the organism of theological sciences to its
rigorous adhesion to inductive reasoning. Accepting the
truths of Scripture as the man of science accepts the pheno
mena of nature,— as facts, that is, which it is his duty not
to explain away, but to explain, — the biblical theologian sets
himself to ascertain what these truths are, and to exhibit their
latent doctrines or general laws. This is not the only method
open to the student of the Holy Scriptures; for Theology
possesses the unspeakable advantage over Natural Science of
being already aware of many of its highest generalisations
before the act of induction, and the professor of Dogmatics may
consequently employ now the laborious method of arguing from
a variety of particulars, and now the readier deductive process.
Nevertheless, the science to which the name of Biblical
Theology has been recently applied, is the result of the con
sistent application of the more tentative process; Exercising
a cautious observation in marshalling the truths with which
he has to deal, the biblical theologian summons to his aid, as
far as is needful for his purpose, aU the accessory means at
his command, and makes diligent use of the auxiliary sciences
of Biblical Criticism, Biblical Philology, and Biblical Psy
chology. Having to deal with a written record of an ancient
time, he acquaints himself, as far as is practicable, with the
original texts of the Old and New Testaments. Then, since
the data with which he will be occupied are couched in
foreign languages, a further subsidiary study directs itself to
a sufficient knowledge of the lexicology and grammatical laws
1 Dorner, History of Protestant Theology (T. & T. Clark), vol. iL p. 433.

INTEODTTCTION. 1 9
of Hebrew, Chaldee, and Hellenistic Greek. Nor is this
textual and philological training all that is needful to enable
him to proceed to his more special task. Since the Scriptures
are written upon an unusual background of opinion, experience,
and custom, he must also familiarize himself with their psy
chological standpoint, — sympathy being as indispensable for
the appreciation of a sacred prophet as a profane poet. After
a dutiful acquaintance has been made with these several
preliminary aids, he may proceed to take the first step in
biblical interpretation by assuring himself of the significance
of isolated sentences. This gained, he may commence to
generalize and advance stage by stage from the meaning of
single precepts to that of paragraphs, thence to that of
books, of combinations of books, of Testaments, and of the
whole Bible. Biblical Theology is, in fact, a larger exegesis ;
it aims at the exact, organic, historical interpretation of the
contents not of a verse or a chapter or a book, but of the
entire Scripture.^ A gigantic aim indeed 1 Ours is no such
aim. We are but to deal with one narrow section of the
larger science ; but these introductory remarks will equally
apply to the course we must pursue. We shall follow the
path just delineated. By an assiduous employment of the
several auxiliary studies we have mentioned, we shall exercise
a becoming spiiit of observation iu eliciting those facts which
bear upon the subject of Sacrifice. We shall then proceed
to the labour of classification and induction, enunciating the
several forms which the doctrine of Sacrifice assumed during
the course of sacred history. Our mark will subsequently
be hit in the centre when we have obtained one organic
whole, composed of different members it may be, yet dis
playing a fascinating and harmonious progress. If it be
observed that the growth of opinion sketched above is not
¦' Compare on this subject of method, Oehler's pamphlet. Prolegomena zur
Theologie des Alt. Test. 1845 ; Sehleierpiacher's famous essay, Hermeneutik und
Kritik ; Landerer's article, ' ' Hermeneutik, " in Herzog's Real-Encyclopddie, vol.
V. ; Oehler's posthumous work, Theologie des AU. Test. 1873, § 3 (translated in
Foreign Theological Library, 1875). The author would also especially mention
a work which he regards as one of the most important contributions to biblical
study in recent times, Diestel's Oeschichte des Alt. Test, in der christlichen
Kirche, 1869.

20 INTBODUCTION.
minutely mapped down in the several chapters of this treatise,
the logician will remember that reasoning is stiU reasoning if
it be stated in enthymemes.
On the subject of method, another point must be referred
to. What has so often been said of the syllogistic method,
holds equally of the inductive, — it is more frequently a
criterion of truth than an organon of discovery. So the
method we have just mapped down will aid us as much in
testing truth as in discovering it. The man who sets himself
to find out aU things without extraneous aid, if he does not
attempt the impossible, limits his attainments to the narrow
circle of his personal knowledge and the narrow grasp of his
individual intellect. The scientific inquirer does no such
thing. His mind is a tabula rasa in this respect, — ^not that it
is cleared of all the facts and inferences ascertained by others,
but that it is prepared not to accept those facts and inferences
untU they have been accurately verified. He, for example,
who has determined to ignore all the acquisitions of his pre
decessors and contemporaries, and to examine and classify the
whole vegetable kingdom without assistance, is not a scientific
botanist, but an Adamite ; and he who, pursuing it may be
some course of private investigation, accepts simply on authority
the conclusions even of a Linnaeus, a De Candolle, or a
Lindley, is credulous without being scientific. The scientific
botanist unflinchingly employs the inductive method as a
means of discovery in the limited domain of his personal
investigation, and also as a touchstone in the wide domain of
the recorded investigations of others. To verify and never
ignore the past history of his special study ; to accept not at
sight, but after a patient assay, is the part of the genuine
searcher after truth. The same may be said in biblical
study. He who is ignorant or arrogant enough to dream of
interpreting by his unaided effort the whole Bible aright, is
more worthy of ridicule, because of the greater difficulty of.
the subject-matter, than he who affects to build a science
of the natural forces without consulting either the labours of
physicists from the days of Anaximander and Archimedes to
those of Grove and Tyndall, or that mass of acknowledged
fact which is common property and forms the undisputed

INTRODUCTION. 2 1
contents of popular manuals. Undoubtedly the history of
dogmas has largely, if tacitly, influenced the students of
Biblical Theology ; but if a statement of method is made at
all, it ought to be complete, and so wide a source of know
ledge should be distinctly noted. It is the duty of the
biblical theologian not simply to interpret the contents of
Scripture by a direct employment of the inductive method
(which, as we have previously remarked, is to limit his
researches by his own faculty of apprehension), but, having
acquainted himself with the researches of others, accurately
to try their conclusipns by the same method, and accept or
reject them accordingly. The labours of great exegetes,
whether of the past or the present, have immense fertility of
suggestion and correction; and the investigator of Scripture
may learn as much from a cautious use of the interpretations
of others as from his own researches. Indeed, he cannot be
assured that his own interpretations are corre'ct, unless he can
demonstrate the unscriptural character of all others. The
criticism of other opinions is the commentator's verification.
Throughout this treatise it will be seen that the scriptural
doctrine of Sacrifice is indirectly investigated by an exami
nation of antagonistic theories, as weU as directly by an
exposition of Scripture.
The importance of such an inquiry as the present, is for
several reasons very great. In the first place, it wiU. facilitate
an understanding of portions of the contents of that unique
book, upon the comprehension of which, if regard be had, we
will not say to its revealed^ but simply its philosophical
character, it would assuredly be no waste of energy if the
minds of our wisest and greatest were bent. Truth is ever
valuable, but truth about the Bible is the religious want of
our time. An indispensable preliminary to the satisfaction
of that want is a scientific study of the book itself. The
variety of professedly scriptural systems has thrown many
upon the dilemma that either some of the sectarian interpre
tations must be incorrect, or that the Scriptures themselves,
as is sometimes affirmed, may after all mean anything. The
Bible must be consistent or inconsistent, and common sense,
has naturally drawn the inferences, that if it is consistent all

22 INTRODUCTION.
the several interpretations cannot be just, and that if it is incon
sistent it does not deserve the high place as a religious guide
usually accorded to it. It is true that of the reasoners who
maintain that the lack of unanimity in interpretation argues
the impossibility of agreement little notice need be taken;
it might be as soundly alleged, that so long as there are
opposing camps upon any disputed point, unanimity in the
interpretation of nature is impossible. Just as Science fails
as yet to interpret unanimously the whole realm of nature,
so Theology is as yet unable to unanimously interpret the
entire contents of Scripture. As Butler justly said: "It
is not at all incredible that a book which has been so
long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths
as yet undiscovered ; for all the phenomena and the same
faculties of investigation from which such great discoveries
in natural knowledge have been made in the present and the
last age, were equally in the possession of mankind several
thousand years before."^ Nor should it be forgotten that
biblical as well as natural interpretation has been enriched
by pitched battles over rival hypotheses. The controversy
upon justification inaugurated a fervid study of the Bible
long before the publication of The Origin of Species gave new
life to Biology. Our knowledge of the Bible, like our know
ledge of nature, consists of facts, inferences (facts of a wider
application), and opinions, the relative domains of which are
always being more accurately adjusted by the labours of suc
cessive explorers ; and it is equally wrong to refuse to accept
demonstrated facts and legitimate inferences as truth, and to
denominate truth what has not yet passed the stage of opinion.
In the attitude, however, of suspended judgment, with which
the claims of the Bible are frequently met, it has become
imperative that the consistency of the Scriptures should be
conclusively vindicated or refuted. Hence we hold that, in
the fever of modem research and the hesitancy of contem
porary questioning, it is most important to attain a complete
and impregnable knowledge of what the Bible actually con
tains. To show the possibility of a consistent interpretation
of one difficult and perplexing portion of the Scriptures will
I The Analogy of Religion, Part II. cap. iii.

INTRODUCTION. 23
be one result of this treatise. The continudty^ of Scripture
is no mean argument for its veracity.
Then, secondly, the doctrine of Sacrifice is the key to the
understanding of Judaism, Not even the antiquary can afford
to neglect the history and significance of the Israelitish nation.
The children of Abraham, whilst consciously or unconsciously
assimilating what they could from conquerors they despised,
remained, in spite of the fascinations of the splendid tyranny
of Egypt, the nomad life of the Arabian desert, the magnificent
opulence of Babylon, the subtle agstheticism of Greece, and
the compact military regime of Rome, " a peculiar people,
distinct in habits and distinct in creed." Their state was a
church ; their judicial code was a religion ; their lands were
fiefs from the Most High; their magistrates were divine
vicegerents ; their priests were rulers, and their rulers priests ;
the republican phase of their polity, because of the headship
of Jehovah, was indistinguishable from an absolute monarchy
of the most rigid type ; its monarchical phase displayed an
extraordinary democracy, where kings were controlled by
prophets from the ranks of the people. To the Christian,
Judaism is of still higher importance. The children of Israel
" are literally our spiritual ancestors ; their imagery, their
poetry, their very names have descended to us ; their hopes,
their prayers, their psalms are ours." ^ But there is another
reason why any aid the most trifling should be earnestly
welcomed to the study of Judaism. In the present unsettle-
ment of religious belief, when every religion is standing upon
its trial, and is judged by its individual merits rather than by
its antiquity or the assertions of its votaries, considerable
prominence is necessarily given to what is called the Science
of Comparative Rehgion. Now, if Christianity is to make good
its claim to superiority over Brahmanism, Buddhism, or the
faith of Islam, — if the inspiration of the Bible is to be
regarded as different in kind as well as degree from the
afflatus which prompted the Vedas, the Koran, or the writings
of Confucius, much of the stress of the demonstration will lie
' Comp. Oehler, Tlieologie des Alt. Test. § 7 (translated in Foreign Theological
LS>rary). * Stanley, The Eastern Church, p. xxiv.

24 INTRODUCTION.
on the proof of the divine origin of the Christian faith and
literature ; thus the beginnings of both, as seen in the history
of Israel, wUl possess an abnormal importance. Judaism is
Christianity in embryo, and the contrast in doctrine and
morals between the religion of Moses and the religions of aU
other ethnic competitors wOl have almost as much to do with
the settlement of the question of the exceptional position of
Christianity as the controversy concerning the person of
Christ. Now, if by the historian, the student of religions, and
the professing Christian, the Jewish faith cannot be neglected
without loss, neither can the doctrine of Sacrifice, which forms
so vital a portion of that faith. Indeed, whether it be true,
as Bishop Temple has urged in his well-known essay, that
" the results of the (divine) discipline of the Jewish nation
may be summed up in two points, a settled national belief
in the unity and spirituality of God, and an acknowledgment
of the paramount importance of chastity as a point of morals," ^
or whether it be a sufficient explanation of the purpose of the
Hebrew race that " monotheism denotes and explains all the
characteristics of the Semitic family," ^ as M. Renan has
alleged, will be more speedily settled by an investigation into
the sacrificial ritual of the Tabernacle and the Temple than
by any other means.
Thirdly, the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice is of incalculable
value in duly appreciating that cardinal tenet of Christianity,
the doctrine of the Atonement. The truth of this statement
can only be fully realized at the close of such a discussion as
the present. Nevertheless, the slightest recollection, we will
not say of New Testament language, but of common religious
phraseology, will convince of the necessity of precise concep
tions of the sacrificial teaching of the Old and New Testaments.
It has been too much the habit of theologians to approach the
study of the Levitical worship after exact views have already
been gained of Christian teaching; a wiser procedure, inas
much as the law was divinely ordained to precede the gospel,
would be to make a preliminary investigation of Judaism,
Instead of the vicious custom of reading the New Testament
^ Essays a/nd Reviews, "The Education of the Human Race."
' Histoire Oinirale des Langues Simitiques, Book I. cap. i. sec. 1.

INTRODUCTION. 25
into the Old, would it not be a beneficial change if we were to
begin to read the Old Testament into the New? Only too true
are the words of a modern writer : " The death of Christ," in
current estimation, " is not a sacrifice in the Levitical sense ;
but what we mean by the word sacrifice is the death of
Christ." ^ The doctrine of Atonement wUl be seen in a flood
of superadded light, if it is approached, as the Bible teaches
us to do, from the side of the Mosaic sacrifices. Well might
the learned Godwyn say, that the reason why " many have no
better acquaintance with Christ and his apostles, is because
they are such strangers with Moses and Aaron." ^ But leaving
these general considerations to be subsequently substantiated,
suffice it to add, that when so influential a system as the
Arminian grounded its theory of the Atonement upon an
inadequate view of the nature of scriptural sacrifice, it must
be apparent to all how indispensable accurate views upon such
a subject become.
And it may be urged, in the fourth place, that accurate
views of the scriptural teaching concerning the ritual and
nature of Sacrifice cannot but play an important part in com
bating that sacerdotal theory, of which' the Church of Rome is
the most consistent exponent, and which, more or less current
since the third century of our era, has unexpectedly been
brought into prominence of late by a section of the Anglican
Church. Now it is no part of our labours to speak either
rhetorically or critically concerning this theory, but we
cannot refrain from saying that it is becoming daily oi^e of
the most burning ecclesiastical and theological questions. May
the war be waged in the intellectual arena ! and may it never
be forgotten in the discussion that there is a soul of truth in
things erroneous ! We venture to assert that it is because
so little has been heard of late in Protestant pulpits of the
Christian doctrines of priesthood and sacrifice, that the
Romish exaggerations of those truths have found a house
ready swept and garnished for their reception.
We have already drawn attention to the limits of our
subject, by stating that the Scriptures of the Old and New
¦ Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 477.
' Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, dedication.

26 INTRODUCTION.
Testaments are the source or the test of all opinions legitimate
to our inquiry: our bounds wiU be stDl more accurately beaten
by a definition of the word "Sacrifice." This is the more
necessary, since the term as used in the authorized version
and as now commonly employed is far from being unequivocal,
and affords examples of both the tendencies of language to
become either wider or more restricted in meaning, sometimes,
for example, being equivalent to sin-offering (which" is but a
small portion of the biblical idea of Sacrifice), and sometimes
being expressive of movements of the religious life, such as
spontaneous benevolence and unintentional self-denial (which
the Scriptures would assuredly not designate by such a name).
In our current theological literature also, we read of self-
sacrifice and vicarious sacrifice, sacrifices that are types and
those that are antitypes, symbolical sacrifice, and sacrifices
without a trace of symbolism, a life that is a sacrifice and a
death that is the same, a sacrifice offered once for all and
sacrifices that may be daily offered, sacrifices that are acts of
worship and sacrifices that are the undertaking of another's
loss ; and these expressions, it may be added, are either used
without a suspicion that they contain anything requiring
definition, or else without the slightest heed to biblical usage,
until the reader cries out in the name of all that is precise at
the subtle vagueness that is invading his thoughts. Manifestly,
if we are to investigate the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice," we
must first ascertain and then rigidly adhere to the scriptural
conception of Sacrifice, and it may well be matter for con
gratulation that the scriptural conception was first expressed
in the scrupulously nice language of Israel. From its
possession of a store of appropriate generic and specific words
with discriminate meanings, the Hebrew displays no such
laxity in its use of sacrificial terms as we find either in English
or Hellenistic Greek : its available terminology has the pre
cision of Science. If, then, we would transplant something of
the same exactitude into our present investigation, the termin
ology we employ must be of sufficient accuracy to enable us
to retain the Hebrew usage. Referring to the first Appendix
to this work for an examination of these Hebrew terms and
their English and Greek equivalents, it may suffice for our

INTRODUCTION. 2 7
immediate purpose to say that the necessary precision may be
ensured by using the word Sacrifice, with its synonyms oblation,
offering, presentation, in translating the Hebrew generic term,
and adding differentiating words, as in sm-offering, burnt
sacrifice, evening oblation, presentation of meal, to denote the
several biblical species. A Sacrifice, then — the synonym of
the Hebrew generic term — ^must be defined, in accordance
with scriptural usage as weU as etymology, as a gift to God, —
a surrender to Jehovah of what has cost the offerer something.
Negatively, it may be said that a sacrifice can never be cost
less, nor is that gift a sacrifice which is made to man. Such
a definition must suffice for our present purpose, leaving it to
the subsequent investigation to substantiate and qualify it.^
This introduction may now be concluded by explaining the
division of the subject. This is an easy matter, for, according
to the biblical conception, an act of sacrifice — the surrender
of the life of the sinless Jesus upon Calvary — ^is at once the
vanishing point of the Old Covenant and the starting-point of
the New. The Bible thus restricts our examination, first, to
that of the times of preparation, and secondly, to that of the
times of fulfilment. But this preparatory epoch is a period of
development through three principal stages — -the Patriarchal,
the Mosaic, and the Prophetic. The First Book of this treatise
is therefore preparatory, and treats of the Old Testament
doctrine of Sacrifice ; this book naturally splitting itseK into
three divisions, the first of which deals with the doctrine in
the days preceding the Mosaic legislation, the second with the
doctrine as taught by Moses, and the third with the doctrine
as developed during the post-Mosaic and pre-Christian age.
The Second Book, called (from an expressive Greek word
signifying completion) Pleromatic,^ treats of the New Testament
doctrine of Sacrifice, and its reconciliation with the doctrine of
the Old Testament.
¦ On the contents of this paragraph, see Appendix I. on the Hebrew Sacri
ficial Terms, specific and generic, and their equivalents in English and Hellenistic
Greek. ' Comp. Eph. i. 10 (Greek).

BOOK I.
PREPARATORY.

' Vetus Testamentum recte intelligentibus prophetia est Novi Testamenti. '
Augustine, Conira Faustum Manichceum, Book XV. cap. ii.

PART I.
THE PATRIAKCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.

" The Piety of the Patriarchal era was individual, not congregative, — it was
domestic, not ecclesiastical, — it was genuine and affectionate, not formal or
choral or liturgical, — it did not emulate or even desire the excitements of a
throng of worshippers assembling ' to keep holy day, ' and making the air ring
with their acclamations ; more of depth was there in that ancient piety ; and it
may be believed that the worshipper drew much nearer to the throne of the
Majesty on high than did the promiscuous crowd that in after times assembled
to celebrate festivals and to observe national ordinances," — Isaac Taylor, 2'Ae
Spirit of the Hebrew Poetry, chap. vi. p. 112.

CHAPTER I.
THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE.
" Die Opfer des Alten Bundes sind freie Aeuszerungen der gbttlich bestimmten
Natui des Menschen." — Neumann, Deutsche Zeitschrift fur christl. Wissen-
schaft, 1852, p. 238.
PECULIAR difficulties guard the approaches to the pre-
Mosaic age ; and not Eden itself is less accessible than
that period of time to which the name of Antediluvian
has been attached. " The mists that shroud antiquity " are
sufficiently bewildering; but when, in addition to piercing
them, we have to familiarize ourselves with habits and cus
toms remote from present experience, whether European or
Oriental ; when we have to represent a life which, if we
restrict ourselves to the biblical election of faith, feeble
indeed in intellectual acquirements and social appliances, was
at the same time millenarian in religious consciousness, the
task may well seem insuperable. Who shall paint the
portrait of an Enoch, for example, " walking with God " in
the midst of an idolatrous generation without written revela
tion, liturgy, or saintly companionship ? — as manifest a con
tradiction to any theory of merely natural development as
the expansion of water in the act of freezing is to the law of
contraction on decrease of temperature. Further, in accord
ance with their habitual eclecticism, the scriptural records
are so extremely sketchy and reticent, that single phrases,
and even isolated words, possess an importance which it
would be difficult to exaggerate. Age, an alien genius, and
the paucity of details, prevent indisputable reasoning or
accurate delineation.
We may at once, however, dismiss as unbibhcal, and
therefore irrelevant to our inquiry, a hypothesis favourably
regarded in many quarters, that " the idea of sacrifices offered

32 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
up to immortal beings who govern the world presupposes a
degree of culture and experience hardly acquired in the
course of centuries ; " ^ or, as the same truth has been other
wise expressed, that " sacrifices " are " a stage through which,
in any natural process of development, religion must pass ; " ^
or, again, that "the general study of the ethnography of
religion, through aU its immensity of range, seems to counten
ance the theory of, evolution in its highest and widest sense." *
Scripture does not countenance the theory of evolution in the
matter of sacrifice. It is the express teaching of the Book of
the Genesis, that offerings were, at any rate, made to God by '
the children of Adam and Eve, the first created pair. As,
according to Biblical teaching, the conclusions of Anthropology
rest on the ultimate unity of the human race ; as a Biblical
Cosmology must confess this present earth, with its attendant
sun and planets, to be the result of a distinct creative act ;
as in a Biblical Science of Religion the earliest faith must
be represented as monotheistic, and the several forms of
heathenism as aberrations from that primary faith, its way
ward offspring and not its ignorant parents, so, in that
religious history of mankind which professes to adhere to the
scriptural archives, the offering of sacrifice must almost
immediately follow the exit from Eden. With the truth or
falsity of this statement, as we have remarked in our intro
duction, we are not concerned ; it is enough to draw attention
to the fact.
But a study of the opening chapters of the Genesis compels
us to find a still earlier date for the origin of sacrifice ; for
they imply that sacrifice, in the scriptural sense of that word,
was synchronous with the creation of man. The whole life'
of our unfaUen primogenitors was one continuous self-sur
render. " For then," as Augustine says, " pure and untainted
by any spot or blemish of sin, they gave their very selves to
God as the cleanliest offerings."* That exceptional life of
1 Kalisch, Commentary on Leviticus, " Preliminary Essay on the Sacrifices of
the Hebrews," etc., § 2.
^ Lubbock, The Origin of Civilization, p. 237 ; 3d ed. p. 351
^ Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. ii. p. 408.
* De Civitate Dei, Book XX. cap. xxvi.

THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE. 33
fearless intercourse was itself an oblation of the saintliest and
most expressive kind, — a kind, indeed, which it was the
problem of all succeeding phases of sacrificial worship to
restore. Whether the devotional feelings which possessed
our first parents assumed any material form other than the
obedient fulfilment of their allotted tasks of government and
tillage,- the conceptions formed of that paradisaic life must
determine. It may possibly be true, as was said by one of
the later Rabbis, that " before Adam sinned he was himself
a sacrifice, and had on that account no need of further
sacrifice ; but after he had sinned and experienced the sense
of need which naturally .follows, he brought a sacrifice
to remove that sense." ^ It will, however, weigh with most,
that, altogether apart from the simplicity and artlessness
that characterized the paradisaic relations between God and
man, a self-sacrifice which did not include a sacrifice of
substance would be unworthy and incomplete. To give
labour was surely to give its fruits. As the details, therefore,
of that primeval life slowly harmonize in the mind, one is
almost irresistibly led to echo the words of Sartorius : " I
doubt not that our first parents in Paradise, invested with
sway over the earth, brought not simply prayers, but, out of
the thankfulness of their hearts, sacrifices of praise and
thanks, by consecrating to God the firstlings of the flowers
and fruits of Eden." ^ But without spending words upon
what words will never decide, let it be remembered, first, that
all the sacrifices in Eden were eucharistic — expressive, that
is, of those inseparable feelings of cheerful dependence and
gratitude ; and, secondly, that they consisted in all probability
not simply of the ceaseless acts of a ready obedience, but of
such material expressions of devotion as fruit and corn.
Immediately, however, the sword barred the entrance to the
garden, this paradisaic sacrifice was at an end, and as yet
man knew no other.
The interval of interrupted sacrifice was not prolonged.
1 Rabbi Jacob, quoted by Tholuek, Das Alt. Test, im Neu. Test. Part II. § 1 ;
p. 81 in 6th edition.
2 Sartorius, Ueber den Alt. und Neute.st. CuUus, p. 52. Comp. Kliefoth,
Litu/rgische Abhandlurigen, vol. iv. p. 8. C

34 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF ?,kf:&TS\£%^Jj^ y/

After a lapse of years — so the history runs — sufficient for
the birth of Eve's two eldest children, their growth to years of
responsibility, and their engagement in the crafts of the stock-
keeper and agriculturist, Cain and Abel brought offerings to
the Lord : " And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain
brought of the fruit of the ground an offering ^ to the Lord.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and
indeed of their fat." ^ Whether the brothers had ever brought
offerings before, we are not told.' Cain may have presented
his fruits and Abel his lambs, as their father had in all
probability done in Eden, unheard or at least unanswered;
but the divine recognition on the present occasion of Abel's
offering renders certain that Abel had never sacrificed in
^ Gen. iv. 3-5. Considerable difiB.culty has been seen in the fact that Abel's
sacrifice is designated minchah, — a word which is used in Leviticus for vegetable
offerings exclusively. Is not the explanation simpler than has been supposed ?
We dwell upon it because the significance of Abel's act largely turns upon the
explanation adopted. Referring to Old Testament usage, we find the word in
question used with a variety of applications. In Leviticus, it is true, it stands
for such things as com and cakes ; but elsewhere it is differently employed,
sometimes being contrasted with burnt-offerings, more frequently in contrast
with blood-sacrifices, whilst in some passages it signifies any offerings what
ever, whether animal or vegetable, and is even used for the morning and evening
sacrifice. This statement of various usage would not be complete if we did not
add that in numerous instances the word, even in the Pentateuch, has no
reference to sacrifice at all, but simply signifies a present from man to man.
The fundamental idea of the word is, a sacrifice where the act of presentation,
not that of burning or slaughter, is the prominent feature. Thus, in the pre
sent passage, Abel's offering is appropriately named minchah, because it is the
fact of presentation at all that is emphasized. See Appendix I.
^ It is but the' exigencies of his peculiar interpretation which has led KeU,
Commentar ijher Genesis, in loco (Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch, Foreign
Theological Library, vol. i. p. 109), to translate "of their fat " — " of the fattest
of the firstlings." There is no biblical authority for such an interpretation.
Indeed, the very Hebrew word employed points to "the fatty portions" of the
carcase so frequently mentioned in the Levitical law (see Lev. vUi. 26, ix. 19,
etc.). Such an interpretation is as unwarranted as that of Grotius, who con
sidered these "fatty portions " to be wool and milk.
3 Very opposite arguments have been deduced from the form of the narrative.
Magee, Discourses and Dissertations on Atonement and Sacrifice, Dissert. Ixiv.
thinks the opening words, "in process of time," signify a stated time for the
performance of that duty which Abel fulfilled, and that "the whole turn of
phrase marks a previous and familiar observance." Warburton, Divine Lega
tion of Moses, Book IX. cap. ii., finds in the same words conclusive proof not
only that this was the first sacrifice, but that this sacrifice was of human
origination.

THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE. 35
exactly the same way before : " And the Lord looked upon
Abel and his offering; but upon Cain and his offering He
did not look."^ Into this incident of the first accepted
sacrifice of fallen man we must closely examine, and, "by
comparing and pursuing intimations scattered up and down it,
which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the
world," ^ understand what we can.
At the outset, let us premise that it is of the utmost
moment, in the study of these primitive times, not to over
step the limits of what is written. We have, for example,
no solution offered here as to whether the divine approval
was conveyed by a visible sign, such as a flame or a flash of
lightning,^ or by a subjective experience, unquestionable and
personal, analogous to that which the Christian possesses in
the assurance of faith ; and far more weighty problems are
suggested by this narrative than this of archaeological memory.
Studied by the more circumstantial knowledge of later times,
there are numerous doctrinal questions which this episode
suggests, the answers to which can never transcend the barest
possibility. Let us not make the mistake of finding in
the suggestiveness of birth all the minutiae of ultimate growth.
If we will but restrict ourselves to the exact statements of
the narrative and their legitimate implications, features will
be discovered in this general and undifferentiated rite of
considerable moment
Two questions rise for settlement : first. What was the
' The Septuagint has the very singular reading (to which Origen called atten
tion in his Eclogce) of (urix for Cain's sacrifice, and S^pj for Abel's, thus
reversing the common usage, as many have supposed. Is not such a fact con
clusive proof that both words were considered by the Seventy as synonymous ?
See Appendix I.
* Butler, The Analogy of Religion, Part II. cap. iii.
' Scriptural analogy would, it must be admitted, lead us to infer that this
recognition was by fire. By fire the divine approval was manifested to Gideon,
and at the inaugm-ation of the Tabernacle and the Temple (see Lev. ix. 24 ;
Judg. vi. 21 ; 2 Chron. vii. 1). And so it has frequently been decided (comp.
Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 2d ed. 2d half, 1st div. p. 220, and Weissagung und
Erfiillung, vol. i. p. 33 ; Delitzsch, Commentar ibber Genesis, vol. i. p. 195).
Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture (T. & T. Clark), 5th ed. vol. i. p. 288,
thinks that the seal of acceptance was conveyed by some motion of the cherubim
or the flaming sword, near which he imagines the service would naturally be
performed.

36 THE PATRLA.RCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
nature of Abel's sacrifice? and, secondly. What was its
origin ? In other words. What were the feelings which im
pelled Abel to offer sacrifice in the form he did ? and. How
came he to choose that especial form ?
What, then, was the nature of Abel's sacrifice ? Was a
gift of lambs essentially superior to a gift of fruits ? Was it
that Abel's sacrifice was a thankoffering, and Cain's a thank
less presentation ? Was the quality determined by the fact
that the offerings of Abel were choice, and those of Cain
indiscriminate 1 Had the effusion of blood, which must have
taken place before Abel could present the fat of his victims,
anything to do with the acceptability of the offering ? Was
the death of the animal any recognition on Abel's part of his
mortal desert, and the sin of Cain an insufficient contrition
for his faults ? AU these queries have received afSrmative
answers at the hands of commentators. We do not under
take to examine these replies in detail. The best reply wUl
be given by as minute an analysis of Abel's act as the cir
cumstances of the case aUow. Four motives must have
impelled Abel to that deed which earned for him the cog
nomen of "righteous," — a sense of divine estrangement, a
desire to approach the Deity, a trust in the merciful features
of the divine proclamation to sinful man sufficient to counten
ance approach, and a consciousiiess of the penal clauses of
that proclamation of sufficient intensity to severely condition
that approach. , Abel knew no more of the Divine Being than
had been previously revealed in the Creation, Paradise, and
the Fall ; yet these revelations were adequate to inform him
of the broad principles of religion. In the divine declaration
to the newly-created Adam, in the bUss of Eden, in the flame
" cutting hither and thither " without the gate, in the severe
toU and heated brow, in that sentence so inappropriately
caUed " the curse," in aU ' the memories and experiences of
that primeval life, our first ancestors knew of One, the Creator
and Preserver of the world and man. Who, by sumptuous
sustenance, by pleasant toU, by delegated rule, by congenial
companionship human and divine, had provided for their
happiness in their sinless days ; Who had been grossly dis
credited and wUfuUy disobeyed ; Who had sternly upheld by

THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE. 37
punishment His violated decree ; Who, in the announcement
of doom, had held an even balance, eternaUy cursing the
tempter, whUst siinply punishing the tempted, and in the
administration of justice had attempered severity with mercy,
not sentencing the fallen to fruitless toU, to endless ascendency
of the flesh, or to immediate disintegration; Who, compas
sionating the distress of our first parents when, in the naive
words of Scripture, they " knew that they were naked," had
humbled Himself to make coats of skins to cover them. With
such a spiritual education there must have been a terrific
conflict of emotions in Abel's mind before his ultimate
decision to approach the Divine Majesty. " CoiUd approach,"
he would assuredly argue, "be acceptable to Him who,
because His loving condescension had been repaid by dis
obedience, had withdrawn Himself within His secret pavUionI
Was the longing after God any pledge that God longed after
him ? Would not approach be intrusion, and intrusion be
punished by the immediate fulfilment of that sentence so
mysteriously described as ' death' V Enough that the know
ledge which Abel possessed of God gave the victory to a trust
in the divine mercy, and that, neither despairing nor presum
ing, he determined to make trial of the divine attitude towards
himself Taking the firstlings of his flock, he kUled them, and
presented them and their fat before the Lord.
Now no one, it may be assumed, who has in the least
degree entered into the spirit of these early records, so
advanced in their conception of the Deity, and so pure in
their religious teaching, wUl maintain for a moment that
these slaughtered animals were other than symbolical. To
the notion that these sacrifices were presented with the design
of appeasing in some heathen anthropomorphic fashion a
terrible Being who had sway over nature and man, the whole
narrative gives the lie. But of what were they symbolical ?
Does this presentation of lambs substantiate our previous
analysis of Abel's motives ? What did the act of sacrifice in
any form symbolize ? and what is the significance of sacrifice
in this extraordinary form ?
One feature of Abel's act is abundantly clear. His offering
was eucharistic. Indeed, it would appear from the fact that

38 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
both brothers brought their gifts at the same time, that they
were foUowing some precedent, — possibly, as we have before
hinted, the eucharistic offerings of Paradise. For Abel to
offer the lambs which his incessant care had reared was to
offer part of his very self ; and every such offering must be
eloquent of self-surrender. Presentation of anything was an
embodiment of two of the feelings which must have agitated
Abel, — viz., his desire to approach the Most High, and his con
viction of the divine mercy. But was this desire and wUUng-
ness to serve the Lord, thus emblematicaUy expressed by a
gift of the produce of toU, aU that the symbol contained ?
The mere approach itself would be sufficient proof of the
desire to draw near to his Maker ; gratitude for life given
or spared, any feeUng of worshipful surrender that happened
to be the predominant motive of approach, would be repre
sented by any offering of the products of labour ; the intensity
of worshipful feeling would be conveyed by the careful choice
of firstlings and the presentation of their fat ; — Why, then,
were the offerings not simply selected, but slaughtered ? If
Abel simply wished to express his gratitude for life and its
blessings, what appropriateness could there be in symbolizing
gratitude for life by death ? If his intention was to objectify
thankfulness for mercies, how came it that he imagined that
his enjoyment would be symboHzed by the removal of all
possibUity of enjoyment from an animal ? The nature of the
symbol employed, as well as the preceding history of the FaU,
compels us to look farther than a sense of grateful surrender
for th« significance of Abel's act. The eucharistic theory of
the origin of Sacrifice, whUst it acknowledges the two indis
pensable postulates of the divine mercy and human desire for
worship, most disastrously neglects the equaUy indispensable
postulates of human sin and divine alienation. That Abel
slaughtered his lambs is proof positive of his conviction that
for him the eucharistic offerings of Eden were no more. His
was a novel means of sacrifice, and the very novelty testifies
to Abel's sense of inability to approach the Deity in the
simple and entire consecration of his parents before the Fall.
To his desire to worship, and to his faith in the divine mercy,
the very form which the sacrifice of these lambs assumed is

THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE. 39
an impregnable argument that Abel superadded a sense of
divine estrangement, and a consciousness of the penal clauses
of the curse.
The justness of this conclusion concerning the symbolical
nature of Abel's sacrifice wiU more clearly appear upon a
consideration of the second question proposed: "How came
Abel to select the especial form he did ? How was it that the
extraordinary notion entered Abel's head of kUUng his lambs
and giving them to God, apparently valueless ? " The answer
to this question will give the most convincing exhibition of
the actual state of Abel's mind, and substantiate the peculiar
significance of this earliest sacrifice of slain animals which we
have already deduced.
It is idle to import into the discussion statements which
were made in after times concerning the power of " blood " to
effect atonement, or to say that Abel thus displayed a know
ledge of the potency of the finished work of Christ, or to
assert that he was but fulfiUing some express commandment
given from above ; all such statements are unwarranted by the
record itself. What we have in all sobriety to do is to answer
from the data before us, or to declare unanswerable, why
Abel presented before the Lord sacrifices which the mention
of fat declares to have been slaughtered. Now, be it recaUed
to mind that the first experience given to Adam, after his
participation in Eve's sin, of a change in the relations between
himself and his Maker, was a sense of shame arising from a
recognition of nakedness, and that the first act of divine mercy
was, in the suggestive words of Scripture, " to make coats of
skins and clothe them." This clothing was an exquisitely
sacramental act, which must have wrought with ever-deepening
conviction the feeling of forgiveness. Have we not here the
clue of which we are in search ? Again the sense of sin and
terrible estrangement was enwrapping a human soul, and in a
moment of divine enlightenment the thought had come that
the death of an animal might once more bring reUef. Possibly
God would again " clothe " him, or grant that quietude which
was a consequence of the covering of nakedness.^ Surely it
' "Surely it is not attributing to the venerable heads of the human family,
persons who had so recently walked with God in Paradise, an incredible power

40 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
was in some such course of reasoning that Abel's faith con
sisted. The Lord God merciful and gracious had sent a gleam
of light into the darkness that had fallen upon the world.
Abel Uved up to that light ; he made trial of it upon new
issues, and, deeply conscious of sin and estrangement, yearning
for forgiveness, he advanced from an instinctive feeUng of the
appropriateness of the finest fruits of his calUng to symbo-
Uze the grateful surrender of himself to Him " in whom he
Uved and moved and had his being," to the less self-evident
belief that these lambs, if slaughtered, might be divinely
accepted, and become to him instruments of hope and pardon.
Abel " did good " in making his offering both an expression of
penitence and gratitude, "those inseparable religious emotions,"
and at the same time a prayer of faith for forgiveness and
assurance. He did as his Maker had done before him, and,
laying the creatures he had slain according to precedent
before the Lord, besought that the previous consequence might
again follow. The Ufting up of the divine countenance upon
the offering proved conclusively the soundness of Abel's pre
possessions. The " look " of the Lord demonstrated that man
might approach the Divine Majesty by means of acceptable
sacrifice ; and that acceptable sacrifice consisted, objectively, of
an offering which followed at once the precedent of Eden and
the precedent divinely estabUshed, and, subjectively, of that
pious frame of mind which Uved in the experience of those
religious facts which had been revealed by God to man. A
gift of the choicest and best was not enough, nor was the
feeUng of worship enough which such a gift might express ;
a slaughtered animal was not enough, nor was the trustful
of spiritual discernment, or supposing them to stretch unduly the spiritual
import of this particular action of God, if we should conceive them turning the,
divine act into a ground of obligation and privilege for themselves, and saying:
' Here is Heaven's own finger pointing out the way for obtaining relief for our
guilty consciences. The covering of our shame is to be found by means of the
skins of irrational creatures, slain in our hehaif— their lives for our lives, tJieir
clothing of innocence for our shame ; and we cannot err — we shall but show our
faith in the mercy and forgiveness we have experienced— if, as often as the sense
of shame and guilt returns, we follow the footsteps of the Lord, and by a renewed
sacrifice of life clothe ourselves anew with His own appointed badge of acquittal
and acceptance.'" What Fairbairn, Typology, vol. i. p. 298, thus ascribes to
Adam, is ascribed in the text to Abel.

THE ORIGIN OP SACRIFICE. 41
following of the divine precedent which such a slaughtering
conveyed: acceptable sacrifice must display aU these things
in harmonious union.^
If these inferences are warranted, the sin of Cain consisted
in the fact that, although from the force of custom or a
momentary impulse he desired to approach God in sacrifice, he
neither recognised the means which the divine clemency had
ordained to aUay the sense of guUt, nor even possessed, as the
form of his sacrifice shows, any feeling of estrangement or fear
of the divine anger such as moved his brother. For Cain, the
world of thorns and thistles was still Eden. It is noteworthy,
also, that it is not even said that he brought of the choicest or
the earliest of his agricultural produce to lay before the Lord,
— an early example of the proverb, " He who knows no sin
knows no gratitude." Nor is it any alleviating circumstance,
as some maintain, that each brother simply brought of the
products of his special avocation ; for barter was possible, or
else the very incentive to a division of labour is eschewed.
Mentally, the offering of Cain was characterized neither by a
sense of sinfulness and its invariable effects, nor by adequate
gratitude ; materially, his offering was presumptuous and un
precedented for a sinful man.
A reply may now be readily returned to that question which
has engaged so much attention at different times, — whether
the origin of animal sacrifice was divine or human.^ Some
¦¦ Without forestalling subsequent investigation, it is well.to remind the reader
that one element which must be taken into account in estimating any theory of
the origin of Blood-sacrifice must be the congruity of that theory with later
scriptural teaching. Now the theory just advanced, which finds the origin of
Abel's sacrifice in his perception of the importance of the precedent established
in the divine act of clothing, explains two otherwise inexplicable features of the
Mosaic ritual, — viz. (1) the figure of speech employed in the Hebrew to designate
what the authorized version translates as "atonement;" and (2) the fact that
all sacrificial animals were ordered to be flayed, the skins falling to the officiating
priest. * For an able risum€ of this famous controversy, see Ontram, De Sac7-ifciis,
1st ed. 1677, Book I. cap. i., who, himself refraining from afSrming anything
as certain, cites Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Tertullian, Theodoret,
Cyril of Alexandria, Maimonides, Eusebius of Csesarea, and Eabbis Ben Gerson
and Abarbanel for the human side. Amongst later writers, Warburton, Divine
Legation, Book IX. cap. ii. ; and Davison, Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of
Sacrifice, pp. 19, 20, and Discourses on Prophecy, 6th ed. p. 67, declare them-

42 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
have maintained that Abel sacrificed in obedience to an express
divine command ; others, in obedience to a tentative impulse.
The detaUs of the narrative seem to point to a via media.
The paradisaic sacrifices, it is true, were the spontaneous de
votional acts of a right-minded worshipper : to know God
and not know sin, was to give oneself unreservedly to holy
service. But with respect to the offerings of faUen man, the
case is different. The precedent which Abel constituted into
a precedent for animal sacrifice was undoubtedly of divine
appointment ; just as certainly the stretch of faith, the spiritual
vision so conspicuous in Abel were human. The vague
leadings, the data for decision, were of God ; the reachings
forth of faith, the deUberate act, were of man. Besides, to say
that this earUest animal sacrifice was dictated by a religious
impulse in the human mind, — that impulse itself being divinely
prompted, — would harmonize with the whole patriarchal and
scriptural annals of the divine interference in human affairs,
as weU as with the primeval promise at the Fall of mingled
struggle and salvation.^
Abel paid for his pioneership with his blood. But uninten-
tionaUy he had done in some degree what his great Antitype
did wholly and consciously : he had given his Ufe a ransom
for many. Thenceforth (we are simply dealing with the
bibUcal statements) it became truth for man, that the inter
ruption of intercourse between the Creator and His creature
necessitated by the Fall had been momentarily annuUed.
Thenceforth a kind of gospel proclaimed itself, that, in some
unexplained way, the awful consequences of " Eve's first dis
obedience " had been palliated. With equal clearness, from
the time of the rejection of the offering' of Cain, it had become
evident that not every sacrifice would be efficacious, but only
those would ensure the divine regard which accurately fulfiUed
selves for the human origin. Whilst Faber, Horce Mosaicce, voL ii. p. 239 ;
Magee, Discourses on the Atonement, etc.. Discourse II. and Disserts, xlvii.,
xlviii. ; Pye Smith, Four Discourses, Discourse I.; and Litton, Mosaic Dispensa
tion, p. 95, declare themselves for the divine origin.
1 Comp. Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 386 ; Keil, Handbuch der bib-
lischen Archaologie, vol. i. p. 192 ; Neumann, Deutsche Zeitschrift zur christliche
Wissenschaft, 1852, p. 238 ; and Oehler, " Opfercultus des Alten Testaments,"
Herzog's Real-Encyclopadie, vol. x. p. 617.

THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE. 43
certain conditions. From the death of Abel, in fact, a divine
revelation had become the hereditary possession of the human
race, that the Almighty, although estranged by the FaU, could
be approached in animal sacrifice.
Accepting, then, for the sake of argument, the truth of the
recital just studied, would there have been anything extra
vagant in its prominence, or would it be incredible that sacrifice
of animal victims should have played so large a part in the
Uves of those religious heroes of the Patriarchal Age selected
for immortal fame ? Would it even be incredible, always on
the assumption of the unity of the human family, that in after
times this rite should have become a world-wide institution,
albeit oftentimes observed with the spirit of a Cain, in times
and places where aU signs of its origin or true nature had long
been buried or falsified ? Confining ourselves, however, to the
statements of the Genesis, it is evident that wherever in later
times there was a desire on the part of the patriarchs to
approach God in any form of worship, this primitive sacrifice
suggested the medium to which recourse was had. When the
waters of the deluge had assuaged, " Noah buUt an altar unto
the Lord ; and took of every clean beast, and every clean fowl,
and offered burnt-offerings upon the altar." ^ Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob assured themselves on their migrations of the abid
ing presence of the Lord, by the erection of altars at the several
places to which they came or returned.^ By animal sacrifice
Jacob took God to witness between himself and Laban.^ Nor
must the reiterated divine command for such acts be left out
of sight.* rt is also a fair inference from the common erection
of altars,* that there was a more frequent sacrificial observance
than has been specifically described. The very question of
Isaac, " Where is the lamb for the burnt-offering ?"^ testifies to
the lad's familiarity with the rite.
' Gen. viii. 20. ^ Gen. xii. 7, 8, xiii. 4, xxvi. 25, xxxiii. 20, xlvi. 1.
' Gen. xxxi. 54. * Gen. xxii. 2, xxxv. 1.
' Gen. xlvi. 1, xxi. 33, xxviii. 10. ^ Gen. xxii. 7.

CHAPTER II.
THE DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF
PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICE.
" Den Menschen in seinem geistigen Bilden und Gestalten zu rechtfertigen
ist ein edles Geschaft. "— Heqbl, .Msthetik, i. p. 401.
HOWEVER originated, once fairly rooted in the thought
and practice of a single mind, — and rooted it must have
been, from the circumstance of the divine approval, — the
elementary principle of approach to God by means of animal
sacrifice, in accordance with the analogy of the Scripture revela
tions generally, was permitted to grow by common processes into
the popular consciousness. No more distinct reply M'as given
for ages to the religious cravings of humanity. Even the in
timations made to Noah and Abraham were simply hortatory
or corrective ; they encouraged the ordinance, and explained
its limits without further explaining its nature. Throughout
the Patriarchal Age, the spiritual discovery of Abel became the
warrant and the model of all reUgious worship.
Left thus to themselves, the patriarchs extracted what
heavenly consolation they could from their great precedent,
and, still retaining the fundamental features, enlarged its
appUcation and augmented its symbolism. Sacrifice entered
upon a stage of natural development. What had brought
reUef at one critical moment, was employed for reUgious pur
poses at all times and aU seasons. The Lord had given
a fact. Abel, with characteristic faith, had brought a fervid
meditation to bear till the divine fact became a motive for
deliberate action; his descendants displayed their reUgious
spirit by carrying their ancestor's example , into aU the
varied relations of life. A solitary rite became a universal
cultus.

DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICE. 45
The development which the original act underwent in the
pre-Mosaic Age, showed itself on the subjective side by the
numerous reUgious feeUngs it was made to express. In the
rush of emotion which urged Abel to his deed, two feelings
were uppermost, — the desire for worship, and the desire for
forgiveness. In after times, the strong crying and tears being
forgotten, the fact of the divine acceptance alone remained.
That approach to God was possible at aU, became emphasized ;
and entrance to the HoUest once effected, the avenue was
trodden not for one purpose only, but for many. Indeed, it
is difficult to define what were the feelings which actuated
the worshippers even on the occasions recorded in the Genesis
when offerings were presented ; but it is clear enough that
whenever approach was desired to the heavenly throne, then
animal blood was spilt. The offerings presented by Noah and
his descendants conclusively demonstrate the variety of occa
sions on which this method of divine worship was resorted to.
AU those subtle emotions which subsequently found expres
sion in burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, in sin and trespass
offerings, in incense and tithes, — nay, aU those subtle emotions
which constitute the spiritual feeUng of mankind the wide
world over, were brought to the Lord and presented with the
accompaniment of the bodies of clean beasts.
But it is in the objective side of sacrifice that the develop
ment which resulted from the patriarchal sentiment is most
fuUy seen. There was quite a variety of detaU added to the
ritual by the operation of the common processes of thought.
So early as the time of Noah, advances had been made upon
the method of Abel. Whereas Abel signified his sense of
indebtedness by an oblation of lambs, and knew no higher
ritual than simple slaughter and subsequent devout presenta
tion, Noah gave expression to his gratitude by an offering of
every clean beast and bird, pursuing in addition a more
elaborate plan in the details of the gift. Having erected • an
altar, he not merely slaughtered his victims, but consumed them
by fire. Whether these features of ritual were originated
before the days of Noah it is impossible to tell, but the
universaUty they afterwards attained is explained by their
singular propriety. Altars — earth raised to heaven — were

46 THE PATRLA.RCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the steeples of patriarchal times ; they embodied the thought
of the Psalmist when he sang, " The heavens are Thy throne."
As to the greater number and variety of the victims, that
foUowed from the very nature of sacrifice ; the more costly
the gift, the truer the sacrifice. Then, to consume the victim
by fire, — to cause the smoke of the burning sacrifice to rise
towards heaven, — if it was not due to some tradition that it
was by fire the divine approval was signified to Abel, is at
once seen to be a more symboUcally complete presentation.
Nor did the evolution of the material side of sacrifice end in
these additional elements so frequently seen in post-Noachian
sacrifice. In a sacrifice subsequently made by Jacob,^ we even
find that the whole of the carcase of the offering was not
consumed, but — a curious anticipation of later prescriptions —
part was presented to God as a kind of patriarchal "grace
before meat," and part was retained to form a sacrificial
feast. Other innovations were also made. That there should
be fixed recurring times of sacrificial observance, would per
haps be contrary to the spirit of that age of scanty religious
privUeges.^ When the knowledge of God was in its most
elementary form, when neither Law, Prophets, nor Gospel had
spoken, when there were consequently no dogmas settled by
the general consent of a Church, when there was not even a
Church, the piety of good men would consist not in subtle
analyses of feeling periodically exhibited, nor in inteUectual
apprehension of doctrine periodically explained, but in a faith
simple, exemplary, incessant. Sabbatarianism is ecclesiastical.
But whether traces of such recurrence can be found or not,
the growth is apparent of a rudimentary idea of the appro
priateness of special places of worship, as is seen in the
^ Gen. xxxi. 54, xlviii.' This variety of sacrifice is designated tsevach — not
peace-offering, the technical name of which is shelamim, hut festal-offering, the
genus of which the peace-offerings are species. See Appendix I.
2 " Oblations were not yet indeed fixed unto times and seasons, as the most of
them, especially the most solemn, was afterwards under the law ; and therefore
I suppose their offering was occasional, upon some appearance of God to them,
on great mercies received, in times of great dangers, troubles, or perils to them
selves and families, when they were in doubts and perplexities about their
affairs, and would inquire of God for direction, they betook themselves unto this
solemn service, as the instances on record do manifest." — Owen, Exposition of
the Hebrews, Exercitatio I. on Priesthood of Christ.

DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICE. 47
frequent erection of altars, now in places where the Deity
had already manifested Himself,^ and now in the conse
cration of a new house.^ There are also traces of the gradual
rise of a separate order of sacrificial ministrants, chosen
either because of exemplary piety or social pre-eminence ;
sacrifices being performed by the heads of famUies on behaK of
their respective households,^ and at length by the prince of
those larger famiUes, the petty patriarchal kingdoms.*
To obviate, however, an especial danger to which the
cardinal principle was liable, a second revelation was made
during this age, ratifying and defining the first. It has been
already shown that the fact had been committed to the
reverent keeping of tradition, that Abel, by the selection and
slaughter of the fittest, had obtained an assurance of his
restoration to divine favour — what, then, would be more
natural than that human victims, the value of the material
side of sacrifice being exaggerated, should be considered more
reverend and potent than animal ? If Abel had attracted
the divine regard by the slaughter of domestic creatures of
pure form and superior parts, would not the offended Deity
be better pleased with that self-surrender which would be
instanced by the voluntary slaughter of the nearest and dearest?
At any rate, we have the wide teaching of history,* that from
the days when children were passed through the fires of
" horrid " Moloch, and Achilles threw upon the funeral pyre
of Patroclus "A dozen noble sons of haughty Troy,"
to the more recent times, when multitudes immolated them
selves beneath the wheels of Juggernaut, or were ruthlessly
massacred in commemoration of the " grand customs " of the
deceased kings of Dahomey, in nations barbaric and in those
of considerable pretensions to culture and civiUzation aUke,
men have so reasoned. Such a deduction was effectively
precluded wherever the trial of the faith of Abram^ was known.
' Gen. xii. 7, xxxv. 17. ^ Gen. xiii. 18.
3 Gen. viii. 20, xii. 7, xiii. 18, xxvi. 25, xxxiii. 20, xxxv. 2 ; Job i. 5.
* Gen. xiv. 18 ; Ex. ii. 16, iii. i.
' See the able historical review of human sacrificing in Kalisch, Leviticus,
Essay A. §21.
' Gen. xxii. 11-14.

48 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Having been bidden offer up his son, the offspring of his age
and the pledge of his posterity, as a holocaust on Mount
Moriah, when, in single-eyed obedience, the victim was bound
and the knife drawn, Abram's hand was stayed by the voice of
an angel, the effusion of blood being completed by the substi
tution of a ram. In this act we have, in the first place, a
renewed sanction of animal sacrifice as a method of approach
to God; in the second place, a renewed declaration that an
objective sacrifice must have its subjective side of penitent
and voluntary surrender, so entire, indeed, as not to withhold
on demand the Ufe of an only son, born under privUeged con
dition and with a privUeged destiny ; and, in the third place,
with a distinct approval of the motives which prompted
human sacrifice, a distinct disapproval of such sacrifice. What
a hold this incident and its lessons had upon Abram's descend
ants, the whole subsequent history of the chosen seed,
testifies. Having thus broadly indicated the features of patriarchal
sacrifice as determined by divine revelation and human
adoration, one or two questions intimately connected with this
earliest phase of the entire scriptural doctrine may be con
sidered. These questions concern the relation of these offerings
to the reUgious life of the time. And first we have to
consider the relation of patriarchal sacrifice to the forgiveness
of sins. To maintain that there was any such relation, is to deny a
very commonly expressed opinion that there is no example of
expiatory sacrifice in pre-Mosaic times. Now it would be
extraordinary indeed, if, when the consequences of sin were so
tangible, the sacrifice of Abel, for example, had no reference
whatever to conscious sinfulness. However such an opinion^
can have got a footing in theological circles at aU is a puzzle,
unless it be that the mere mention of that distracting word
"expiatory" (of which we shaU have a good deal to say
iSee Kalisch, Leviticus, Essay A. § 3 ; Dale, Jewish ^Temple amd
Christian Church, p. 283 ; Hengstenberg, Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift, p.
14 (Commentary on Ecclesiastes, T. & T. Clark, p. 377); Bahr, Symbolik
des mosaischen Cultus, vol. ii. p. 363 ; Kurtz, Der AUtestamentliche Opfercultus,
§ 87 ; Oehler, in Herzog's Real-Encyclopadie, voL x. p. 618, and Theologie
des Alt. Test. vol. i. § 121 (translated in Foreign Theological Library) ; Keil,

DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PAT EI ARCHAL SACRIFICE. 49
hereafter) is sufficient to introduce irreparable confusion into
thought. Or perhaps this view, so unwarranted by the facts,
is a logical consequence of the prevalent adaptation of the
earUer books of Scripture to the darUng evolutional theory of
the hour. Now, if it be meant that in primitive times there
is no account of an offering which by its intrinsic merit,
apart from any reference either to a present accommodation
or a future achievement, wrought the forgiveness of sins,
this is undoubtedly true; but then it is also true, that in
such a sense no Old Testament sacrifice could be designated
expiatory. Or, if it be meant that in patriarchal times there
were no sacrifices which expressed the single idea of an
offering for sin without the interblending of other ideas, this
is also true; but then, on the other hand, it must not be
overlooked that before the Mosaic institutions, in the days of
undeveloped reUgious observances, there were no sacrifices
exclusively thank-offerings, or peace-offerings, or trespass-
offerings. But if it be meant that during the Patriarchal Age
there were no sacrifices which had even a partial reference
to human sin, this, however much may be attributed dem
kindlichen charahter of those times, must on the face of the
evidence be most emphaticaUy denied. Indeed, it would be
contrary to that divine arrangement by which the initiation
of any movement is characterized, — namely, that it should
originate in an instinctive, if not inteUectual, clearness of
vision seldom afterwards experienced, — were not the offerings
of Abel and his imitators in every pre-Christian sense expia
tory. Or, leaving so general a consideration, how shaU we
satisfactorily explain the distinction between the adoration of
the two brothers, or the ritual of every subsequent sacrifice,
which, as we have previously argued, slaughtered as weU as
presented its choice gifts, if they had not some reference to
the aUeviation of that mortal curse primarily pronounced upon
the defalcation in Paradise? That in some way animal
Archaologie, vol. i. p. 194. Although he refuses to follow Lightfoot and
Magee in their unauthorized translation of Gen. iv. 7, " a sin-offering lieth at
the door," the author, in common with Fairbairn, Typology, vol. i. p. 302 ;
Delitzsch, Die Genesis Ausgelegt, in loco; andSchoberlein,article "Versohnung,"
in Herzog, vol. xvii. p. 88, endorses their opinion as to the existence of expiatory
sacrifices whilst rejecting their arguments. 5

50 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
sacrifice and forgiveness of sins were cause and effect, the
history of Cain and Abel demonstrate.
But, granting the matter of fact, what was there in the
" sweet savour " from smoking altars which could paUiate the
divine wrath or counteract the divine aUenation? When
the gates of Paradise were closed, how was it possible for
animal sacrifice to open the way to a kind of spiritual
paradise ? How was it possible that the blood of bulls and
goats should take away sin ? The heathen notion of a present
to conciliate an angry fetish, or an offering which, apart from
any accompanying feeling in the worshipper, could by its
intrinsic worth effect any end, having been previously negatived
as inharmonious with the facts themselves, and foreign to that
early pietism with which we are concerned ; what elements
were there in these offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts
which could be a source of satisfaction to that Most High
God, the possessor of heaven and earth, or that Eternal One,
the Almighty, Who chaUenged Job to impeach His righteous
ness as well as rival His thunders ? It would be a most
important element in the comprehension of that phase of the
entire doctrine which is under discussion, if it could be ascer
tained what may reasonably be regarded as the efficient cause
in thus obtaining the divine pardon.
The time has not yet come for a precise reply. Some
elements in the attainment of forgiveness are clear enough ;
others are far from clear. It is evident that the forgiveness of
sins attended the correct presentation of animal sacrifice,
correct presentation consisting in due attention to both the
objective and subjective sides. Thus, on the one hand, sacri
fices were weU-pleasing to God which retained the leading
features of that of Abel; and, on the other hand, which
were representative of a pious state of mind, of due sub-
missiveness and an accompanying contrition. But when we
come to consider what constituted the potency of either feeUng
or act, what reply have we ? Some have dUated upon the
practicaUty of those primitive ages, and have maintained that
it is unnecessary to look beyond the symboUc aspects of the
question ; but such a position, if it is not derogatory to the
spirituaUty of the Old Testament fathers, is assuredly incon-

DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICE. 51
gruous with the conception they haye transmitted to us of the
Deity they worshipped. Besides, if sacrifice was only valid
because it was symboUc, how are we to account for the fact
that centuries after approach had been made to the Deity
without the medium of the symbol, the symbol was neverthe
less stUl employed with divine assent and by divine command ?
how are we to account for the teaching of the Genesis, that
whilst sacrifice induced prayer, prayer did not supplant sacri
fice ? ^ Further, the question may be asked even here, —
although the settlement of the matter can only be obtained in
the study of the Mosaic phase of sacrifice, — " Of what was a
slaughtered animal symbolic ? Is there any hint, even the
slightest, in the bibUcal statements, either directly or infer-
entiaUy, that any symboUc significance was seen in the act of
mactation ? " All we know for certain is that the patriarchs
did attach considerable weight to the objective side of sacrifice,
quite apart from the later statements of Prophecy or Gospel,
and without approaching by a single step that border-land of
charm and magic which equally belonged to a degenerate
scriptural and a heathen ceremonial. What part, then, in
their opinion, besides the representation of the emotion they
themselves experienced, had these slaughtered animals to play
in the work of their redemption ? They knew that death had
been decreed upon their race for its transgression ; they saw
that by divine permission, suggestion, i and command, sheep
and oxen became their substitutes, and paid the mortal penalty
in their stead ; what reason could they assign or imagine for
this singular substitution ? Did they suspect that their
Creator and Preserver was becoming their Teacher, and leading
them on from feeUngs they actually possessed to feeUngs He
' The relations between prayer and sacrifice have been warmly discussed, the
several views advanced being of course corollaries of the special views advocated
of Old Testament Sacrifice, and rising and falling with those views. The only
theory it is needful to allude to, is that which identifies the one with the other.
Thus Outram says : " Prayers are spiritual sacrifices, and sacrifices are symbolic
prayers." This is an important truth, but it requires limitation. The gist of
the whole matter is contained in a remark of Hengstenberg's, Die Opfer der
h. Schrift, p. 9 (Commentary on Ecclesiastes, T. & T. Clark, p. 373) :
"Sacrifice is in the main embodied prayer . . .; but besides the subjective
(innerlich), the sacrifices of the Old Testament have also an objective (gegen-
standUch) side. , . . Prayer only runs parallel with the subjective side. "

52 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
would have them possess ? Did they reaUze the possibiUty
that instinctive suspicions of truth might be preparing the
way for divine revelations ? As they drew near to God, they
knew that the Uves of innocent and unoffending animals were
taken in Ueu of their own, which had been justly forfeited ;
what did they regard as the reason of this singular vicariate,
the foundation of this extraordinary analogy? Whether
they ever asked themselves such questions we do not know :
possibly, without interrogation, they thankfuUy rested in the
ethical discovery of Abel. But whatever were their opinions,
it is ¦sufficiently evident from the data before us that they may
have seen in animal sacrifice not only a sensuous representation
of their personal feeUngs, but in the representative material
itself an element of prophecy constituting it a type of things
to come. Side by side in their experience two truths had
been developing, — the one, that somehow or other redemption
was being obtained by sacrifice ; and the other, that somehow
or other redemption was to be obtained by that seed of the
woman which should bruise the serpent's head,^ that seed of
Abraham in which aU nations of the earth should be blessed,*
that ShUoh unto whom should be the gathering of the people.'
Indeed, in addition to the sacrificial teaching, the promise of
a future deliverance had been growing more and more expUcit
throughout the Patriarchal Age. The general promise of
successful conflict with Satan made to Eve's offspring,* has
become to Noah a promise of salvation through Shem, to
Abraham a promise of salvation through Isaac,* and to Jacob
a promise of world-wide dominion to a Prince who should
come from Judah's loins.® If the blood of buUs and goats, as
from their reUgious spirit they would instinctively feel, could
not remove sin ; if, after learning to pray, they had neverthe
less received repeated divine approvals of the offering of
animal sacrifice, would it have been astonishing if they had
connected the two revelations of redemption by sacrifice, and
redemption by a coming deliverer ? ^ At any rate, there was
a sufficiency of reason to create a spirit of expectancy, a
' Gen. iii. 15. 2 Gen. xxii. 18. » Gen. xlLs. 10.
* Gen. iii. 15. •' (jen. xxii. 18. « Gen. xlix. 10.
'¦ Compare Hengstenberg, Christologie des Alten Testaments (translated in

DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICE. 53
dUigent awaiting of events, which stimulated the devout to
pursue their habitual method of approaching the throne of
God, and at the same time to look in every mother's son for
the promised Saviour,
Passing on from the relation of animal sacrifice to the
forgiveness of sins, it is necessary to remark that sacrifice was
also connected with the whole religious Ufe. Those largely
misunderstand the bearings of this central, this solitary form
of divine worship, who find its whole purpose in imparting the
sense of pardon. It is even probable that in the lives of those
ancient heroes of Old Testament story the sense of sin played
a far less prominent part than it does in our own more modern
experiences ; for, as the apostle says, when speaking of one
great aim of Mosaism, — the giving objective reaUty and clear
ness to the testimony of conscience, — "By the law is the
knowledge of sin." The rites oi sacrifice, simple as they
were, were used for aU sorts of reUgious purposes. They
were the instruments of adoration, and faith, and fellowship,
and petition, and adjuration, and rejoicing, as well as of
penitence. They brought God near to the worshipper, and
the worshipper near to God. Whatever reUgious feeUng
could stir the manifold heart of man, that feeling could find
vent in animal sacrifice. But this point has received sufficient
iUustration in the present and preceding chapters.
The interest of the Patriarchal Age to a student of the
scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice centres in the offerings of
Adam and Abel. So long as the hand of Eve was unstretched
to the forbidden fruit, so long sacrifice was simple, fearless,
entire, and consisted in the total consecration of body, soul,
and spirit. The problem of subsequent sacrifice was so to
aUeviate or annul the consequences of the fall as to restore that
earUest stage of trustful and complete surrender of the whole
nature as a 6va-la ^waa. Towards the solution of that
problem, but a meagre advance was made in the pre-Mosaic
times. Originally suggested by the success which greeted the
great discovery of Abel, the patriarchal sacrifices expressed
Foreign Theological Library, vol. L pp. 1-89) ; also Pye Smith, Scripture
Testimony to the Messiah, 3d ed. vol. i. pp. 224-239 ; 6th ed. voL i. pp.
150-166.

54 THE PATRIARCHAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the most opposite reUgious emotions; and although they passed
through a course of natural development, and were amended
in ritual in accordance with the reUgious sense of generations,
in their most detaUed form they were nevertheless character
ized by extreme simpUcity. StiU, powerfuUy symboUc as they
were, whether of things present or things to come, they were
but symbols ; in this lay their weakness and their transience.
The distance between God and man had been bridged, how
insecurely ! Those slaughtered beasts consuming into smoke
might speak of a penitent and eucharistic surrender of the
offerer's self to his Maker, but what was there in such a
presentation which could restore to man his forfeited reUgious
privUeges ? Those slaughtered beasts, if regarded from the
side not of human presentation so much as of divine pre
cedent, might speak of an appointed method of forgiveness
and sanctification, but what part had they to play in the
great tragedy of human history ? True, some of these privi
leges were regained, some of that tragedy was unfolded. It
was undeniable that Almighty God had bestowed His regard.
But much as there undoubtedly was to arouse a sense of
thankfulness for such mercy, what was there, immediately the
intellect and higher nature of man had become stirred, to
satisfy the questionings which, despite of faith, would some
times be uppermost? If, in some hour of spiritual insight,
there came flashing into the soul vague, almost ilUmitable
thoughts upon the divine purposes of grace, what satisfaction
was there for intense longings ? what certitude amidst per
turbing surmises ? An unquestioning obedience to precedent
had to be brought to the altar where God was, and a hearty
and impUcit trust but faintly aided by an intangible sense
of propriety. Speculation, or an unspeculating adherence
to matter-of-fact, there might have been in abundance ; of
intellectual repose or assurance other than unreasoning faith
there was none. "I approach my God in animal sacrifice,"
was the only possible ejaculation of the devout patriarch, " not
because I see its purport clearly, or because the inklings that
I have of a mysterious appropriateness in my act have ought
that I can express in words, but because He who is my
Creator and, in spite of my sin, my Preserver, has deigned to

DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICE. 55
haUow this altar with His smUe, and because I believe that
He knows best what is . fitting and right, and wiU, if He
thinks weU, in due time reveal the purpose which at present
is latent in this ordinance." A study of the Mosaic sacrifices
wiU show us the divine revelation of mercy which the
patriarchs trusted, and it was counted to them for righteous
ness, stUl further unfolding.

PAET II.
THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.

^vvdfAt^a." — Chrysostom, HomiL in Ps. xcv.

CHAPTER I.
THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS.^
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the Mount . . . and I
win give thee tables of stone and a law. " — Ei. xxiv. 12.
IN the Mosaic cultus the ceeleres ingenii motus of the
Patriarchal Age have become authoritative, and the
simple method of adoration of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is
supplanted by a worship of many ordinances, more compUr
Gated, centraUzed, gorgeous, and expressive. In Egypt, the
enslaved descendants of Israel had been accustomed to
witness a princely and powerful hierarchy administering
idolatrous rites in splendid temples ; in Canaan, as the
chosen people of the one " I Am," they possessed a priest
hood as powerful and a ritual as splendid. Instead of a
1 It may be well to gather into one view once for aU the most important
literature upon this subject ; omitting, however, the very numerous works, the
interest of which, because of their allegorizing interpretation, is now great only
in an antiquarian point of view. In addition to the well-known Commentaries
and Biblical Dictionaries, the following are the principal works written in
English : — Moses Lowman, Rational of the Ritual of the Hebrew Worship,
1748 ; Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture (T. & T. Clark), in 2 vols. 5th ed.
1870 ; Litton, The Mosaic Dispensation, the Bampton Lecture for 1856 ; and
(if allowance be made for the endeavour of the author to support "by argument
derived from his special department of study, the philosophical ideas which all
genuine science at present seems eager to establish ") KaUseh's Commentary on
Leviticus, 2 vols. 1867. The more important works in German are : — Bahr,
Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, in 2 vols. 1837 (the first volume of a second
and largely altered edition was issued at the close of 1875) ; KeU, Ha/ndbuch
der biblischen Archaologie, first half, " On the Theocratic Relations of the
Israelites," 1858; Elliefoth, Liturgische Abhandlungen, vol. iv., "Ueber den
Alttestamentlichen Cultus," 2d ed. 1858 ; Kurtz, Der AUtestamentliche Opfer-
cultus, 1862 (translated in Foreign Theological Library, 1863) ; Oehler, articles
in Herzog, Real-Encyclopadie, on "Opfercultus des Alten Testaments," and
" Priesterthum ; " also his posthnmous Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. i_
"Mosaismus," 1873 (translated in Foreign Theological Library, 1875) ; Vange-

60 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
rudimentary conception of a special place of sacrificial wor
ship such as was current in earUer times, the Mosaic injunc
tions present us with one prescribed place where alone
sacrifice was legitimate ; in place of a faint suggestion of a
separate order of sacrificial ministrants, there is an ordained
class whose duty and prerogative it was to present offerings ;
a simple sacrificial ritual, equally utiUzed in the expression
of feelings the most opposite and various, has become an
estabUshed series of special forms, each adapted, after severe
preparation, to express some distinct reUgious emotion ; whUst
an indiscriminate timeUness of sacrifice has yielded to a
minute and developed doctrine of sacrificial times and
seasons. The cotyledonary spiritual growth of patriarchal
worship has become in Mosaism differentiated into root and
stem and branch.
But before proceeding to the detailed examination of the
Mosaic injunctions, it wiU be weU to pause for a few moments,
in order to note briefly two reUgious rites, which, retaining
something of the undifferentiated character of the patriarchal
service, and yet presenting features foreign to that service,
were manifestly transitional, — that is to say, the Passover and
the Sacrifice of the Covenant, the first suggestive rites of
the new rigime.
mann. Das Opfer nach Lehre der heiligen Schrift, % vols. 1866 ; and, if used
with discrimination, the foUowing works of the "Critical" school: — ^Ewald,
Die Alterthilmer des Volkes Israel, 3d ed. 1866 (Eng. Trans. 18.76.) ; Knobel,
Die Biicher Exodus und Leviticus erklart, 1867 ; and Sehultz, AUtestamentliche
¦ Theologie, vol. i. 1869. There are also several works written in Latin, which,
despite their obsolete reasoning, are of the highest value from their repertoire of
materials, — ^viz., Outram, De Sacrijiciis, 1st ed. 1677 (of which a useful English
translation was published in 1817) ; Spencer, De Legibus Hebrceorum et earvm
Rationibus, 1st ed. 1685; and,, in addition to these two treatises by Englishmen,
the monumental work of the Jewish proselyte Ugolinoj published at Venice in
1744-69, the Thesaurus Antiquitatum Saerarwm, in 34 vols., a. collection of.
previous contributions to the study of the Jewish Antiquities. If help is
required from a knowledge of the Jewish rites and customs, as practised at the
time of our Lord, reference should be made to the writings of PhUo, especiaUy
"De Sacerdotium Honoribus," "De Victimis," and "De Victimas Offerenti-
bus," and the numerous Rabbinic extracts to be found in Buxtorf, Lexicon
Ghaldaicum et TcUmudicum, 1639 ; Godwyn, Moses and Aaron, 1st ed. 1616 ;
Lightfoot, MinisteriuTTt Templi, 1st ed. 1684 ; and Eeland, Antiquitates Sacrm
veterum Hebrceorum, 1708. For a critical estimate of all these works from a
biblical standpoint, see Part III. chap. iv.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 61
The night of the Exodus, memorable for its deliverance,
was also memorable in the history of sacrifice. At the
moment when the cry rose from every Egyptian household
at the death of the first-born, in every Hebrew home the
entire famUy, non-decimated by the destroying angel, was
standing with loins girt and staff in hand, hurriedly par
taking of a sacrificial meal. The reason was simple. The
enslaved nation was celebrating by divine command its first
Passover.^ A lamb or kid, a male and physicaUy immaculate,
selected four days previously, had been slain at sunset in
every household ; the blood of the victim had been obediently
sprinkled by means of a branch of hyssop upon the posts and
lintel of the front-door, and the carcase, roasted whole, was
being hastily eaten with bitter herbs and unleavened bread.
Postponing to a later stage of our inquiry the minuter details
of this ritual, it is sufficient now to remark that the signifi
cance of this sacrifice of the Passover Ues upon the surface.
Undoubtedly there is here — as, indeed, might be expected
from the fact that a special revelation was given upon
the subject — no service of the ancient form ; none the less,
whether the significant manipulation with blood or the meal
itself were regarded, was this " Last Supper " of the deepest
reUgious import. On the one hand, this sacrifice was an
atonement sufficiently potent to stay the arm of the angel of
death ; and, on the other hand, the sacrifice was a sacrament,
in which to the merciful sparing of life there was added a
divinely provided sustenance for trials yet to come. In one
eloquent ceremonial the leading features of Mosaism were
prophetically embodied.
In the early days of the life of the liberated IsraeUtes yet
another memorable sacrificial service is chronicled.^ After
the first return of Moses from the summit of Sinai, and the
proclamation to the tribes of the decalogue, and the civil and
reUgious rites which are enumerated in the twentieth and
three foUowing chapters of the Exodus, the solemn covenant
between Jehovah and His children was reUgiously concluded
by the effusion of blood and holy feasting. An altar having
been erected, and surrounded by twelve pUlars, according to
' Ex. xii. ' I^. xxiv.

62 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the number of the tribes, victims were slain for burnt-
offerings and festal-offerings.^ During the process the blood
of the slaughtered animals was coUected in basins, and subse
quently swung by Moses one half upon the altar, and the
other half upon the assembled people. It is no part of our
purpose to recount or controvert the many opinions which
have been held concerning the nature, the origin, or the
significance of this Sacrifice of the Covenant ; these opinions
have for the most part arisen from that mistaken method
which ignores historical progress. Instead of searching the
detaUed statements of Leviticus for an explanation of this
ceremony, it is far more instructive to adhere to the actual
evolution of events. Thus studied, this rite of the covenant
is seen in fact to be a patriarchal festal-offering such as was'
offered by Jacob at his covenant with Laban, with the peculiar
ritual of blood-manipulation of the Passover superadded. Every
soul in the camp would know, as the odorous smoke curled
upwards from the altar, that he was personaUy taking God to
solemn witness of his vow to keep that law which Moses had
just recited ; every soul would know, as the drops of blood
feU from the upUfted hand of Moses upon his head and
garments, that once more the angel of death had passed him
by ; and, as he ate and drank of the roasted buUock and its
accompanying drink-offerings, every soul would know that the
Lord had again provided for his physical need, and, so long
as the covenant stood intact, would stUl provide.
These two important rites, to which we have thus cursorily
alluded, were inaugural. They broke the monotony of the
past ; they concentrated attention upon the revelations yet to
come. It was manifestly their purpose to prepare the way
for a more elaborate system and a more circumstantial revela
tion. Immediately after the elders beheld the glorious vision ]
of Deity resting as it were upon a sapphire pavement as clear
as the blue heavens, by which the covenant was divinely
ratified, the first announcements of that more complex system
were made ; and announcements continued to be made now
1 Not "peace-offerings," as the authorized version translates, thereby intro
ducing inexplicable confusion into the study of the Mosaic injunctions —peace-
offerings are as yet unknown. '

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 63
from Sinai, and now from between the wings of the cherubim
in the HoUest, untU the days immediately preceding the death
of Moses. A study of the Mosaic worship, like that of the pre-
Mosaic Age, is attended with considerable difficulty, and from
the same causes, though not to the same extent. Eemoteness,
irrecoverable hiatus in the records, and a genius foreign to
western civiUzation and Christianity, are extremely baffling
to any attempt at the reconstruction of the earliest phase of
Judaism. Nor can we hope for any material assistance from
writings or traditions outside the pale ' of Holy Writ. It
might perhaps be expected, with apparent justice, that in the
case of Mosaism any elements of difficulty in its study due
to the Pentateuch would be more than counterbalanced by
the knowledge of those early times to be obtained from the
extant writings of Josephus, PhUo, and the authors and com
mentators of the Talmud and its alUed compositions : modern
Jewish traditions and customs might even be expected to
render some assistance ; but unfortunately, the numerous addi
tions and perversions made in the Mosaic law in later times
rendered a caution necessary so early as the days of our
Lord against the " traditions of the elders," and the Jewish
customs of to-day are even more at variance with the precepts
of the Pentateuch than they were then. It is much if a
suggestion gathered here and there at immense cost can
throw a probable Ught upon earUer usage ; for the most
part, such aids are of the sUghtest possible value. The only
authentic sources for the study of Mosaism are the books of
the Pentateuch,. and the occasional gleams of Ught that faU
from the later canonical books. It is from necessity as well
as from choice that our exposition of Mosaism is scriptural.
As an indispensable preUminary to an analysis of the
Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice, it wiU be necessary to classify,
as methodicaUy and succinctly as possible, the diffuse series
of sacrificial commands given at different times to Moses.
Many obstacles lie in the way of completeness ; nevertheless,
by avoiding on the one side the mistake of over-generaUza-
tion, and on the other that of too statistical minuteness, it
must be our endeavour to obtain from the sources to our

64 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
hand as accurate a knowledge as possible of the Mosaic con
tributions to our subject. In the first place, we shaU present
the several injunctions which concern the Tabernacle or place
of sacrifice ; in the second, those which concern the Priests
or sacrificial ministrants ; in the third, those which concern
the Purifications or legal preparations for sacrifice; in the
fourth, those which concern the several Sacrifices themselves;
and, in the last, those which treat of the sacrificial Times and
Seasons, concluding the chapter with a brief risumA of the
entire Mosaic ceremonial. This antiquarian chapter, to which
attention is especiaUy requested in spite of its detail and
dryness, wiU be succeeded by five chapters upon the various
significations of the antiquities here classified. It is only
necessary to add by way of further caution, that the Levitical
injunctions are not arranged in this chapter in the order in
which they were given, but as they coUectively appeared at
the death of the lawgiver. It is not desired to present a
history of the successive amendments or expansions which
the law underwent before the entry into the Land of Promise,
but a general view of the worship as it remained throughout
Old Testament times.
It is as impossible as it is unnecessary for our purpose to
resolve, from the data given in the Exodus, aU the questions
of detaU which have been started concerning the sacred edifice
caUed the Tabernacle.'' Nor should such resolution be ex
pected. Had words sufficed for the description of the entire
structure to its minutest features, the vision might have been
spared in which the whole was accurately placed before the
^ For the principal studies upon the Tabernacle, see Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 1,
vol. i. pp. 55-498; ed. 2, vol. i. pp. 65-602 ; Ewald, AUerthumer, pp. 156-173;
Fairbairn, Typology, vol. ii. pp. 232-257, 291, etc. ; Friederich, SymhoUk des
mos. Stiftshiitte, 1841 ; Hengstenberg, Authentic des Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 628,
etc.; Keil, Archaologie, vol. i. pp. 76-119; Knobel, Exodus, pp. 245-336;
Kurtz, Alttest. Opfer. §§ 10-16 (translated in Foreign Theological Library) ;
Leyrer, article "Stiftshiitte," in Herzog, vol. xv. pp. 92-117 ; Lowman, Hebrew
Ritual, pp. 67-106 ; Neumann, Die Stiftshiitte, 1861; Oehler, Alttest. Theologie
(translated in Foreign Theological Library), §§ 114-120 ; Outram, De Sacri-
ficiis, caps. ii. and iii.; Philo, Quis Rerum divinarum Hceres; Eiggenbach, Die
mosaische Stiftshiitte, ed. 1, 1862 ; ed. 2, 1867 ; Sehultz, Alttest. Theologie, vol.
i. pp. 198-210 ; Van Til, Commentar. de Tdberna^yulo Mosaico, 1711, and in
Ugolino, vol. viii. ; Witsius, Miscellanea Sacra, vol. i. p. 393, etc.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 65
eyes of the seer. The principal facts may be gathered, never
theless, from the two sections of the Exodus,^ — the one of
which narrates the divine injunctions as they were given to
Moses, and significantly enough commences with the mercy-
seat ; the other of which chronicles the actual course of erection,
and begins with the construction of the Tabernacle .proper.
This Tabernacle, where alone sacrifice could be offered under
capital penalties,^ was bmlt of the free-wUl and compulsory
offerings of the entire people, and consisted of a portable
building surrounded on aU sides by an extemporized court
yard. It was always so pitched on encampment that it stood
in the centre of the congregation, and the beams of the rising
sun passed through its entrance.^ The Tabernacle proper was
an oblong of Shittim* planks, plated with gold and fitted with
sUver, thirty cubits in length, ten in breadth, and ten in
height. Over this wooden framework hung four coverings in
such a way as to simulate a tent, whence the name of the
whole. The innermost covering^ was in ten strips so joined
as to form two halves, which were united by gold hooks and
blue eyes, and consisted of tapestry of white and purple and
scarlet and blue, with cherubim interwoven — "the work of
the thinker." * The three other coverings acted as tent cloths
outside this more brilliant and symboUc one, and were made
of cloth of goats' hair, the covering of Arab tents to this day,
of reddened rams' skins, the common red leather of Syria and
' Ex. xxv.-xxvii. and xxxv. -xxx viii.
" Lev. xvii. 3-5.
' Ex. xxvi. 18-23, xxxvi. 25-27 ; Num. iii. 38.
^ The Shittim was probably the Acacia vera, a species with white thorns,
blackish legumes, and a hard and light wood (see Hasseus, " De Ligno Shittim,"
UgoUno, vol. viii.).
* Bahi- argues in his valuable wOrk upon the Mosaic .symboUsm, that this
covering of parti-coloured tapestry was not placed outside the wooden framework
of the Tabernacle, but was so arranged as to cover not only the ceUing, but the
inner waUs, leaving, however, the plated planks peeping like a wainscot for a
cubit from the ground ; and Bahr has been followed by KeU, Kurtz, and Neu
mann, also by Fairbairn. This is not the place to undertake an exhaustive
examination of the matter, but the opinion in the text is the common one, and,
since Bahr's exposition, has been maintained by Ewald, Friederich, Knobel,
Leyrer, and Eiggenbach.
' Ex. xxvi. 36 (Heb.). Compare Gesenius, Thesaurus Philohgicus Criticus
Heb. et Chald., vol. iii. p. 1310. E

66 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Palestine,^ and of the skins of the sea-cow** respectively. On
the open or east side a curtain of Egyptian byssus, Tyrian
purple, carmesin or a burning scarlet, and hyacinth or a dark
blue — of the same material, in fact, as the innermost covering,
with the exception of the figures of cherubim — was suspended
on five pUlars of gilded acacia sunk in copper sockets, and
formed the entrance. Within, the Tabernacle proper was
divided into two parts by another curtain called the VeU, of
the same materials as the tapestry of the ceiling, and sus
pended on four gilded pillars of acacia sunk in silver sockets ;
the part to the west of the veil being a cube of ten cubits in
the edge, and called, according to the common Hebrew idiom
for pre-eminent excellence, the Holy of Holies, or the Holiest ;
the remaining space, of the same breadth and height but
double the length, being called the Holy Place. Around the
Tabernacle proper ran an open space, one hundred cubits
long and fifty cubits broad, caUed the Court, enclosed by
curtains of twisted white byssus,^ hung by the aid of pegs and
cords upon sixty piUars of acacia five cubits high, with sUver
capitals and connecting rods and brass sockets, these curtains
being absent for a space of twenty cubits on the east side,
which was closed by a curtain of similar material to that
which formed the entrance to the Holy Place. The position
of the more solid structure within the court has not been
further described, but was probably such that the space before
the Holy Place was a square of fifty cubits.* All the tools
1 Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 97.
2 "The sea-cow is evidently meant (Dujong, Manati, Halicore), which belongs
to the same tribe as the dolphin. It is found in the Red Sea, reaches a length
of from 8 to 10 feet, is hunted like the whale, and has a skin which is much
usedfor sandals and shields. "—Knobel, Exodus, p. 260.
' A great controversy has raged as to whether this shesh was made of flax or
cotton. Foster, De Bysso Antiquorum, 1776, concluded that shesh-was a cotton
stuff. Eecent researches would seem to countenance the statement of Pliny:
"Superior pars .ffigypti in Arabiam vergens gignit fruticem, quem aliqui gossy-
pion voeant, plures xylon et ideo Una inde facta xylina . . . Vestes inde sacer-
dotibusiEgypti gratissimse " (Histona Naturalis, Book XIX. cap. i.). Any who
are interested in the question wiU find valuable notes in Keil, Archaologie, vol,
i. p. 80; and in Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 2, vol. i. pp. 282-291. The Septuagint
invariably translates shesh by byssus, and, as the name has almost become
acclimatized, the author retains it.
* PhUo, De Vita Mosis, quoted by Bahr, ed. 1, vol. i. p. 70.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 67
used in the erection or removal of the Tabernacle were com
manded to be of copper.
Circumstantial descriptions were also given to Moses of the
utensils appropriate to the several divisions of the Tabernacle.
In the Court, the popular place of sacrificial worship, stood
the altar of burnt-offering and the laver. The altar^ was a
square portable coffer of acacia copper-plated within and
without, and fiUed with earth or rough stones so as to form a
level hearth ; it was surrounded by a raised platform, along
which the officiating priest could move, reached by an incUned
plane on the north side ; at the four corners of the altar were
projections like the horns of oxen ; its utensils — its ash-pans,
its shovels, its basins, its fiesh-hooks, its pans for fuel — were
made of copper. After the conspiracy of Korah and his
company, the censers that had contained the profane fire were
beaten into plates and added to the altar.^ The laver was a
round basin resting upon a pedestal, both basin and support
being made of the copper mirrors of the women who served
before the door of the Tabernacle ; ^ it was used by the priests
for purposes of purification in the services of the Holy Place
and the altar of hurnt-oflering. In the Holy Place stood
the altar of incense, the table of shew-bread, and the golden
candlestick, upon which no eyes fell but those of the priest
hood. The altar of incense was a portable box of acacia
fitted with horns like the altar of burnt-offering, and so over
laid with thin plates of gold upon its sides, its top, and its
horns, as to be appropriately called the Golden Altar ; it stood
against the veil. The table of shew-bread, or face-bread, Veas
an ornamental acacia table entirely plated with gold, placed
on the north side ; upon it were laid plates,, goblets, and sacri
ficial spoons, all of gold ; the table received its name from
' F. von Meyer has the merit of clearly unfolding the structure of this altar
in his Bibeldeutungen, p. 206, etc. English readers will find Meyer's plan and
elevation in Fairbairn, Typology, vol. ii. p. 530.
2 Num: xvi. 39.
^ " It is the custom of all women to behold their face^ every morning in a
mirror, that they may be able to dress their hair ; but, lo! there were women in
Israel that served the Lord, who abandoned this worldly delight and gave away
their glasses as a free-wiU offering, for they had no more use for them." — Aben-
Ezra, quoted by Lightfoot, Pitman's edition, vol. ix. p. 419.

68 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the cakes of bread which were exposed upon it " before the
face" of the Lord. The golden candlestick was a lamp
staiiding opposite the table of shew-bread, with seven arms
ornamented with almond blossoms, made throughout of
wrought gold, its needful appliances being also of gold. In
the Holy of HoUes, the sacred floor of which was trodden but
one day in the year by the high priest at the solemn cere
mony of the Day of Atonement, there w^as but one article of
furniture — the Ark of the Covenant or of the Testimony. It
consisted of two parts — the Ark proper, and the Capporeth or
Mercy-seat. The Ark proper was a rectangular acacia box,
plated within and without with the purest gold ; within it
were placed the two stone tables given to Moses on Sinai,
and subsequently the Book of the Law, Aaron's rod that
budded, and a pot of manna. The capporeth, which formed
the lid of the box just described, was a plate of massy
gold, having at either end a golden cherub,^ the faces of
which were turned towards each other, and the wings .
of which overshadowed the space beneath. It was
within that sacred space, aglow with gold, dark with the
shechinah, that Jehovah had said, " And there I wiU meet^
with thee."
The entire sanctuary was solemnly consecrated by anoint
ing oil on the first day of the second year of the sojourn in
the wUderness ; and the cloud by day and fire by night
thenceforth testified that where the Tabernacle rested, there
Jehovah dwelt.
From the injunctions concerning the place of sacrificial
worship, we proceed in the second place to those which treat
1 Into the disputed question as to the form of the cherubim we do not enter.
Von Gerlach suggested that biblical analogy would lead us to think their faces
human, their necks leonine, their bodies and feet those of a buU, and their
wings those of an eagle. So Spencer, De Legibus Hebrceorum, Book III. Dissert.
V. cap. iv. , had already maintained in his highly interesting dissertation on the
subject, that, according to scriptural and profane testimony, the cherubim were
"simulacra aurea, multiformia, ad formam tamen vitulinam propiusaccedentia."
Able summaries of the question from different standpoints wUl be found in KeU,
Archaologie, vol. i. p. 86, note 5 ; Oehler, Theologie des A. T. (translated in
Foreign Theological Library), vol. i. § 119 ; and the latest and most elaborate
statement, Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 2, pp. 362-381.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 69
of the sacrificial ministrants or Priesthood.^ According to the
Sinaitic proclamation, the tribe of Levi was constituted sole
administrator in the public worship of the nation.^ But the
consecration of this tribe did not proceed on a principle of
equaUty of privilege. Amongst those specially set apart for
holy purposes, there was a triple gradation, — of Levites, of
Levites of the fanuly of Aaron, and of Levites the successive
heads of the family of Aaron.
The Levites proper were not priests — that is, they did not
perform sacrifice. They were assistants and servants to the
priests. Their duties, generally stated, were to understand,
teach, and transmit the law of Jehovah,^ and, in addition to
this general vocation, to perform special duties in the transport
and service of the sanctuary, according to their famiUes, — as
Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites.* To these labours
they were consecrated at an age of from twenty-five to thirty^
by a process of purification.* They received an adequate
means of support in the tithes^ given by the whole nation,
and a convenient dwelling-place in their thirty-five cities.
Upon further specific commands concerning the Levites, it is
unnecessary for us to dweU.*
1 Compare Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 1, vol. ii. pp. 3-188 ; Ewald, Alterthilmer,
pp. 345-396 ; Fairbairn, Typology, vol. ii. pp. 258-291 ; Kalisch, Leviticus,
Essay B. ; KeU, Archaologie, vol. i. pp. 151-187 ; Kiiper, Das Priesterthum des
Alten Bundes, 1866 ; Kurtz, Alttest. Opfercultus (translated in Foreign Theo-
logical Library), §§ 6-9; Lowman, Hebrew . Ritual, pp. 107-143; Oehler,
articles " Hohepriester, " "Leviten," "Priesterthum," in Herzog, Real-Encyclo
padie, vols. vi. viu. and xii., and Theologie des A. T. (translated in Foreign
Theological Library), vol. i. §§ 92-96 ; Outram, De Sacrificiis, Book I. cap.
iv.-vii. ; Sehultz, Alttest. Tlieologie, vol. i. pp. 180-191 ; Tholuek, Das Alte
Testament im Neuen Testament, §§ 2 and 4 of the 2d part ; Wangemann,
Das Opfer nach Lehre der heil. Schrift., vol. i. pp. 143-145, and vol. ii. pp.
77-114 ; and the monographs by Boldich, Braun, Carpzov, Saubert, and Selden,
in Ugolino, vol. xii.
" A little later, however, Joshua appointed some of the Gibeonites to the
more menial offices of service, to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water."
These Gibeonites and their descendants were afterwards known as the Nethinim
(Josh. ix. 21-27 ; Deut. xxix. 11 ; 1 Chron. x. 2 ; Neh. xi. 3).
' Lev. X. 11 ; Deut. xxxi. 9-13, xxxiii. 10. Comp. 2 Chron. xvU. 8, 9 ; Neh.
viii. 10 ; Mai. u. 7, 8.
¦¦* Num. xviU. 1-7, iv. 1-49. * Num. iv. 5, viii. 23, 26.
« Num. viu. 5, 22. ' Num. xviu. 21-32, and Lev. xxvii. 31-33.
' There was apparently no special clothing for the Levites in the time of
Moses. In later times they had a dress of white (2 Chron. v. 12),

70 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
The regulations concerning the Aaronites, as being more
intimately connected with our subject, must be enunciated at
a little greater length. They alone were eUgible for the dis
tinctive office of the priesthood, the consummation of sacrifice ;
and they alone were admitted, as famiUars of Jehovah and
equals of angels, into the Holy Place.^ They were supported
by tithes ; but whereas the Levites received one-tenth of the
whole national produce, the priests received a tenth of the
tithe.^ The priests also received as stipend the offerings of
first-fruits,' the ransoms of the first-born,* and portions of every
kind of sacrifice except the burnt-offerings and those offerings
which were made in atonement of their own sins or those of
the united people. Thirteen cities were apportioned as their
place of residence.® As prerequisites of service, every priest
had, in addition to his hereditary qualification, to give proof
upon examination of possessing an immaculate physical constitu
tion,* and probably also, as in the case of the Levites, of having
attained a prescribed age.^ They were consecrated to their
sacred office by a minute service,* which consisted of two sets
of acts, — in the first place, of purification, investiture, and anoint
ing ; and in the second place, of a triple sacrifice, of a bullock
for a sin-offering, a ram for a burnt-offering, and a ram for a
peace-offering. With respect to their habit of life, Uttle is
' In later times, certain members of the family of Aaron had more honourable
duties and offices than simple officiation at the altar. Thus there was a sagan
or assistant to the high priest, two catholikin or assistants to the sagan, an
executive for the treasury, seven keepers of the keys, the several chiefs of tlie
watch or heads of the priestly courses, the Jieads of houses who were the chiefs
of the priestly families, and the priest anointed for war who accompanied the
tribes in battle.
' Num. xviu. 26-28.
' Ex. xxiii. 19 ; Lev. ii. 14, xxiii. 17 ; Num. xviii. 8-11.
* Lev. xxvii. 26 ; Num. xviu. 17; Deut. xv. 19. Comp. Ex. xiu. 12 ; Num.
xviii. 15.
* Later, priests were distributed by lot through thirteen Levitical cities. See
Josh. xxiv. 4-10.
« "A priest upon whom was found anything profanatory, put on black gar
ments, and esteemed himself black, and went his way ; but he upon whom no
thing profanatory was found, put on white garments, and esteempd himself white, ,
and went in and served with his brothers, the priests." Quoted by Oehler from
the Mishna Middoth. Is there any reference to this in the " clothing with
white raiment" in Eev. iii. 5?
¦• Lev. xxi. 16-24. 8 Ex. xxix. 1-37, xl. 12-15 ; Lev. viii. 1-36.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 71
said further than that they are forbidden to eat anything that
had died a natural death or been torn by beasts,^ to touch the
de'ad body of any except those of their own kin,^ to shave
either head or beard,^ to marry a dissolute, unclean, or divorced
woman,* or to drink wine when approaching the sanctuary.^
After the primary investiture, all priests wore, " for glory and
for beauty," a special attire,* consisting of a byssus coat,^a byssus
mitre,* byssus breeches,^ and a girdle made of byssus inter
woven with the distinctive colours of the Tabernacle — hyacinth,
purple, and scarlet.^" By the silence of the Scriptures upon
further articles of clothing, the rabbinic tradition is sub
stantiated, that the priests served barefoot.^^
In addition to the distinctions of rank amongst the famiUes
of Levi, there was alsa a distinction in the family of Aaron.
To one priest, the head of the family, — the priest jpar excellence,
sometimes called " the anointed priest," and in later times
the " high priest," '^ — was given the proud position of sacerdotal
' Lev. xxu. 8. 2 Lev. xxi. 1-4.
* Lev. .xxi. 5. * Lev. xxi. 7.
* Lev. X. 9. This command has been the occasion of considerable sophistry on
the part of the Rabbis, as may be gathered from a passage in Maimonides, which
has been quoted by several investigators, and which we append, partly as a
Eabbinic curiosity, and partly as an instance of the little aid to be expected
upon the earlier practice of Mosaism from the later customs of the Jews. This
is the extract: — "A priest prepared for service, just after having drunk
wine, is forbidden to penetrate beyond the altar. If he penetrate farther and
officiate, his ministry is vain, and he is devoted to death. But this is to be
understood of him who has drunk a quarter of a log (not quite a quarter of a
pint) of fresh wine forty days old, without any space of time having elapsed
after drinking. But if he has drunk less than a quarter of a log, or even if he
has drunk a quarter of a log, but either some interval of time has passed after
drinking or he has mixed water with the wine, or, finally, if he has drunk wine
less than forty days old, then, although he has drunk more than a quarter of a
log, he is free from blame, nor does he profane his ministry." This may be
very good law in the eyes of a scribe, but what verdict must be passed upon the
eyes? * The great book upon the priestly vestments is Braun, Vestitus Sacerdotum
Hebrceorum, 1st ed. 1698, 2d ed. 1701 ; also printed in Ugolino.
7 Ex. xxxix. 27 ; Lev. vi. 3. « g^. xxxix. 28.
9 Ex. xxvin. 42.
1° Ex. xxviii. 40. Lightfoot states that the priestly girdle was all of white ;
but whatever was the habit in later times, in Mosaic times it was parti-coloured.
^' Comp. Ex. iii. 5 ; Josh. v. 15.
•' This expression, which is never found in the Pentateuch, is first mentioned
in 2 Kings xii, 10. In the Pentateuch, Aaron and his successor are designated

72 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
supremacy. His privileges and prerogatives, many and awe-
inspiring, need only be referred to as they affect our general
inquiry. WhUst participating in all the duties and immunities
of the ordinary priesthood, he had some rights and offices none
could share. His consecration was more pompous and mag
nificent, occupying seven days, and partaking in an extended
form of the usual steps of purification, investiture, anointing,
and sacrifice.'' In his mode of life, his was to be a stricter
cleanliness and a more ceremonial purity. His attire bespoke
higher honour ; for, in addition to the common priestly vest
ments, he wore for higher glory and greater beauty the so-caUed
golden garments, — viz., an upper garment, richly woven in blue,
and hung with blue, purple, and scarlet pomegranates and
golden beUs alternately; upon this tunic the curious ephod,^
the distinctive badge of his office, with its accompanying
jewelled breastplate, and in addition to the common priestly
mitre an upper mitre or crown of gold, engraved with the
words, " Holiness to the Lord." To the high priest fell the
solemn duties of the Day of Atonement.
The next series of injunctions has to do with the Levitical
Purifications.^ According to the Mosaic law, there were
certain physical conditions which made it impossible for their
subject to approach the sanctuary without crime, or to partake
of those things which were " holy to the Lord."* . In the
"the priest," as if, as Ewald, Alterthilmer, p. 346, puts it, any more distinctive
name was unnecessary.
' Outram states, on rabbinic authority, that after the consumption of the
sacred anointing oU made by Moses, the oU was never made again, the step of
anointing being dropped out of the rite of initiation.
^ " The hierarchic ephod must not be confounded with the linen ephod which
the ordinary priests and other persons wore in divine service. See Judg. viu.
27 ; 1 Sam. u. 18; xxu. 18 ; 2 Sam. vi. 14."— Kiiper, Das Priesterthum, note
on p. 58.
' Compare Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 1, vol. u. pp. 454-522 ; Ewald, Alterthiimer,
pp. 143-145 ; Fairbairn, Typology, vol. ii. pp. 408-428 ; Keil, Archaologie,
vol. i. pp. 268-308; Kurtz, Alttest. Opfercultus (translated in Foreign Theo
logical Library), §§ 213-218 ; -Leyrer, article " Reinigungen," in Herzog, vol.
xu. ; Oehler, Theologie des A. T. (translated in Foreign Theological Library),
§§ 142, 143 ; and Spencer, De Lustrationibus et Purificationibus Hebrcedrum,
reprinted in UgoUno, vol. xxii.
« Ex. xix. 15 ; Lev. vii. 20, 21 ; comp. 1 Sam. xxi. 5.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 73'
technical language of the law, there were certain physical con
ditions which rendered their subject "unclean," The " unclean"
were temporarily cut off from the theocratic privileges of the
IsraeUte, whether priest or common person ; but these theo
cratic privUeges were restored upon the dutiful fulfilment of
the rites of purification. These rites being frequently therefore
the indispensable antecedents of sacrifice, caU for some attention.
Purification was effected either by water or by blood.
The aqueous purifications were as follows: — For the Levites
who led the scapegoat into the wilderness on the Day of
Atonement, and who burnt the remains of the several sin-offer
ings, for the priests who slaughtered and burnt the red heifer
in the ceremony to be presently described, and for the un-
cleanness arising under the law from conjugal intercourse,
involuntary seminal emission, menstruation, and contact with
a human or animal corpse. It was simply necessary for those
who were rendered impure, by the ceremony of the Day of
Atonement to wash their clothes and bathe their bodies, in
order to resume their normal condition in the eyes of the
law.^ The priest also and his assistants, who prepared the
water of separation from the ashes of the heifer, became pure
on washing their clothes and bodies the same evening, remain
ing unclean, however, in the interim.^ The husband and wife
who had been rendered incapable of attending divine service
by intercourse, remained unclean till the evening, when they
were ordered to bathe.^ Involuntary seminal emission placed
amongst the unclean tUl the evening, when the uncleanness
passed away upon bathing the person and washing any gar
ments or skins the semen had touched ;* in time of war such
an one must go out of the camp during the hours of unclean
ness.^ During the menstrual period, the woman, her bed, and
her clothing (and in certain cases, her husband), were impure
for seven days, purification being effected by washing and
bathing.* The touch of the carcase of an animal that had died
a natural death, necessitated separation till the evening, and
subsequent bathing.' AUied to these forms of purification
I Lev. xvi. 26-28. ^ Num. xix. 7-22. ' Lev. xv. 18.
* Lev. XV. 16, 17. ^ Deut. xxiu. 10.
« Lev. XV. 19-24 ; comp. xvui. 19, xx. 18. ' Lev. xi. 25, 26, 36, 40.

74 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
were those previously mentioned, by which the priests and
Levites were consecrated to their office, and by which the
priests daUy prepared themselves for service.
Another aqueous purification of a pecuUar kind, viz. the
singular ceremony for counteracting the contamination of a
human corpse, needs a paragraph to itself A dead body
rendered aU impure in its immediate neighbourhood. To be
in a tent at the time of the death of an inmate, to enter a tent
where a dead body lay, to touch a corpse, a grave, or a bone,
was to contract uncleanness for seven days. The very pots
and pans in the neighbourhood of a corpse were defiled. Purifi
cation was effected by sprinkling with water mingled with
ashes, expressly prepared by the sacrifice of a red heifer. The
sons of Israel brought to the son of the high priest a spotless
red heifer, which was slaughtered without the camp as a sin-
offering. The officiating priest (still without the camp) then
sprinkled some of the blood collected in the process of slaughter
seven times towards the Tabernacle, and burnt the carcase with
the skin, blood, and dung, throwing cedar-wood, hyssop, and
scarlet wool into the fire. The ashes were coUected by one
who was ceremonially clean, and preserved in a clean place
for subsequent use. When any one presented himself for
purification, the following ceremony took place : — Some of the
ashes thus prepared and preserved were mixed with living, that
is to say, running or spring, water,^ and a legally clean man
taking a bunch of hyssop and dipping it in the water on the
third and seventh day after defilement, sprinkled the tent, and
the vessels, and persons it contained. After washing and bath
ing of the person, the unclean became pure in the evening.^
Certain temporary forms of impurity were removed by
animal sacrifice. After the birth of a Ijoy, the mother was
unclean for forty days, and after the birth of a girl for eighty.
At the lapse of those times she might present herself at the
altar, bringing a lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon
or dove for a sin-offering ; or, if she was poor, a pigeon might
be substituted for the lamb.* Any irregular uterine or urethral
' Maimonides defines this living water as "ex fontibus seaturientibus aut ex
fluviis rapide fluentibus. "
* Num. xix. s Lev. xu. 1-8.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 75
discharge rendered impure as long as it lasted, and for seven
days after its cessation. On the eighth day two pigeons were
to be brought, the one as a burnt, and the other as a sin-offer
ing, when the uncleanness was removed."^ A ceremony of the
same class, but more intricate, constituted the method of cleans
ing the leper when once his leprosy had departed. The
purification was divided into two series of acts, performed at
intervals of seven days. On the first day the priest examined
the leper without the camp, and, if he was assured of his cure,
sent for two Uving birds, a piece of cedar-wood, some scarlet
wool, and a few sprigs of hyssop. He then killed one of the
birds in such a manner that its blood mingled with living
water contained in a vessel beneath. After this, the Uve bird,
the cedar, the wool, and the hyssop were dipped together into
the vessel. With the water thus prepared the leper was
sprinkled seven times, and the live bird was aUowed to fly
away. The second series of acts were commenced seven days
afterwards, by shaving the head, the beard, and the eyebrows,
washing the clothes, and bathing the body. The next day a
process of sacrifice was gone through, consisting, in the first
place, of the presentation of a lamb and a little oU as a trespass-
offering, some of the blood of .the former and a few drops of
the latter being applied during the ritual to the right ear, the
right thumb, and the great toe of the right foot ; and, in the
second place, of > sheep and fiour for sin-offerings, burnt-offer
ings, and meat-offerings.^ It should be noted that those who
suffered from urethral or uterine discharge and from lepro»y, as
well as those whose impurity arose from contact with a corpse,
were not only disallowed from entering the court of the Taber
nacle, but were also, so long as their impurity lasted, banished
the camp.
In addition to these ceremonies of individual purification,
on occasions of the bestowal of great spiritual blessing the
whole nation was bidden consecrate itself by special prepara
tion. Such national sanctification preceded the giving of the
law at Sinai* and the passage of the Jordan,* the two chief
events in the history of the wanderings ; and analogous cases
1 Lev. XV. 1-15, and 25-30. ^ Lev. xiv.
8 Ex. xix. 10. * Josh. iu. 5.

76 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
on a more limited scale may be found in the sanctification of
the house of Jesse before the anointing of David,^ and of the
tribe of Levi previous to the religious reforms of Hezekiah.^
The next class of injunctions concerns the Sacrifices them
selves.* In their classification, the precedent of post-Mosaic
times may be foUowed, according to which all sacrifices are
divisible into two broad classes, — viz., those in the ritual of
which there is an effusion of blood, and those where there is
no such effusion. The latter class may be caUed the Blood
less, and the former the Blood-offerings ; or, as will be
subsequently seen, the names may be adopted of " Sacrifices "
(pure and simple), and " Sacrifices of Atonement." Each of
these classes contained several varieties, which must be distin
guished. We commence with the blood-sacrifices, the specific
varieties of which may be named the burnt-offerings, the peace-
offerings, the sin-offerings, and the trespass-offerings.
Burnt-offerings* were presented on behalf either of indi
viduals or the nation, the national offerings being more
^ 1 Sam. xvi. 5. ^ 2 Chron. xxix. 1, 5.
^ The following is a list of the principal works which have been written on the
subject of the Mosaic Sacrifices : — Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 1, vol. u. pp. 189-324;
Ebrard, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthuumg in der heiligen Schrift
begrilndet, 1857 ; Ewald, Alterthilmer, pp. 31-90 ; Fairbairn, Typology, vol. u.
pp. 320-361 ; Hengstenberg, Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift, 1859 (appended to
Comment, on Ecclesiastes, Foreign Theological Library) ; Hofmann, Der Schrift.
beweis, 2d ed. 1857, pp. 214-294 ; Kalisch, Leviticus, Essay A. ; KeU, Archa
ologie, pp. 195-265 ; Klaiber, Die Neutestamentliche Lehre von der Siinde und
Erlosung, 1836, pp. 367-422; Knobel, Leviticus, pp. 339-414; Kurtz, Alttest.
Opfercultus (translated in Foreign Theological Library), §§ 17-161 ; Kiiper,
Das Priesterthum des A. B., pp. 90-192; Lowman, Hebrew Ritual, pp. 144-'
206 ; Marbach, "Das Blut, eine theologische Studie," Hilgenfeld Zeitschrift fur
ivissenschaft. Theologie, 1866, voL u. p. 137, etc. ; Neumann, "Die Opfer des
Alten Bundes," Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir christlich. Wissenschaft, 1852, 1853,
and 1857; Oehler, article "Opfercultus des A. T.," Herzog, vol. x., and
Theologie des A. T. (translated in Foreign Theological Library), vol. i. §§ 120-
141 ; Outram, De Sacrificiis, Dissert, i. cap. viu. -xxii. ; Sehultz, Alttest. Theo
logie, vol. i. pp. 222-258; Spencer, De Legibus Hebrceorum, Book III. Dissert, n.;
Steudel, Vorksungen ilber die Theologie des Alten Testamentes, 1840, pp. 296-
333 ; Stockl, Liturgie ¦ und dogmatische Bedeutung der Alttest. Opfer, insbe-
sondere in.ihrem Verhaltnisse zur Neutest. Opfertheorie, 1848; Tholuek das
A. T. in N. T. Pt. U. § 3 ; Tractates, Sebachim and Menachoth in Talmud;
and Wangemann, Das Opfer nach Lehre des heil. Schrift, vol. 1. pp. 148-400,
* See Appendix I. The laws of the burnt-offering are given in Lev. i.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 77
appropriately described under the next head of the Sacrificial
Times and Seasons. The individual offerings consisted in the
case of the thriving of a spotless ox,^ ram, or he-goat, and in
the case of the poor of a turtle-dove or pigeon. The ritual
for the presentation of birds was extremely simple. The
priest nipped off the head, burnt it, and then, having taken
out the crop and fseces and thrown them into the ash-pit,
made an incision in the wings, and consumed the entire body
by fire. A different ritual attended all other kinds of burnt-
offering. The victim was brought to the altar by the offerer,
who then forcibly ^ laid his hand upon the animal's head, and
slaughtered it on the north side.* In the act of slaughtering
the blood was caught by the priest and swung against the
four walls of the altar. The offerer then flayed the slaugh
tered animal,* divided it, cleansed the intestines and the lower
parts of the legs ; whereupon the officiating priest, appropriat
ing the skin, placed the severed parts with the head and fat
in order upon the wood which had been previously arranged
upon the ever-burning fire, and the whole sacrifice rose " as
an offering of fire of a sweet odour unto Jehovah." If the
burnt-offering consisted either of large or smaU cattle, it was
ordained that after the entry into Canaan a meat-offering
should foUow it.° A further feature of importance was, that
non-Israelites, who were rigidly excluded from other sacrific-
ings, might present burnt-offerings.*
As varieties of the individual burnt-offerings, the several
burnt-offerings may be mentioned which, as previously
1 The several blemishes which rendered an animal an illegitimate offering are
given. Lev. xxii. 19-25. Jewish tradition increased the varieties to seventy-three.
According to tradition, also, every animal offered in sacrifice was examined from
head to foot by a priest before it was allowed to proceed to the altar. See Eeland,
Antiquitates Sacrce Vet. Heb., Book III. cap. i. § 11.
' The Hebrew word always applied to this act signifies more than "an imposi
tion of hands ; " it is a resting, a leaning of the hand.
' Philo is in error as to the Levitical prescriptions, if not as to the later prac
tice in the Herodian Temple, when he says (De Victimis, cap. v. ) that a priest
performed the slaughtering. See Lev. i. 5, iii. 2, iv. 24, 29, 33, etc.
* In the Herodian Temple, a series of hooks, attached by wooden supports to
stone pillars, were employed in the process of flaying ; when these hooks were
insufficient, as at the Passover, the carcases were suspended upon staves placed
across the shoulders of two men.
' Num. XV. * Lev. xvii. 8, xxii. 18, 25.

78 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
described, were presented as means of purification, those
which were presented at the priestly and high-priestly conse
crations, and those made at the release of the Nazarites from
their vows, none of which caU for more detaUed notice at
present. Peace-offerings ^ were social rather than national or indi
vidual offerings ; for, although they were presented by indi
viduals, they were only consummated by the feast at which
famiUes or parties of friends assisted. They consisted of large
and smaU cattle of both sexes, the male, however, having the
pre-eminence. The ritual in part resembled and in part
differed from that of the burnt-offering. The victim having
been brought to the altar, the offerer laid his hand upon its
head, slaughtered it (but apparently not on the north side ^), —
the priest meanwhUe catching the blood and sprinkling it
upon the altar, — flayed, divided, and cleansed it. The course
subsequently foUowed was essentiaUy different from that
employed for the burnt-offering. Instead of consuming the
animal entire, the offerer detached all the separable portions
of fat, such as the flare, and that in whieh the intestines,
kidneys, and liver are embedded, and in the case of sheep
severed the fat tail;* these portions were then burnt with the
daUy burnt-offering. The breast was afterwards " waved " by
a kind of horizontal movement and given to the Aaronites,
and the right leg was lifted or " heaved " off as a gift to the
officiating priest. The remains of the carcase were carried
away by the offerer, and a meal made of it, for himself and his
household, which was partaken of in the sacred precincts of
the Tabernacle. Meat and drink offerings also accompanied
this form of sacrifice, one of the cakes of the meat-offering '
always faUing to the priest.*
' The laws of the peace-offering are given in Lev. iii. and vii. 11-86.
' Nothing is said on this matter in Leviticus, although tbe burnt and sin
offerings are expressly commanded to be slain upon the north side. KaUsch, Levi
ticus, A. X. 3,. quotes a questionable rule from the Mishna, that the most holy
offerings were killed on the north side, and the less holy in any part of the comt
3 "In modern Palestine aU the sheep are of the broad- tailed species. The
broad part of the tail is an excrescence of fat, fi-om which the true tail hangs
down. "^Robinson, Palestine,^ vol. ii, p. 166..
*Lev. vii. 12; Num. xv. 3. It would appear,, from a variety of rabbinic
testimony, that in later times this order of ritual above described was not

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 79
The thank-offerings, votive-offerings, and voluntary-offerings
were varieties of the peace-offerings. -"^
Sin-offerings,^ like burnt-offerings, were offered on behalf
of individuals and on behalf of the nation — the national
sin-offerings being presented on feast-days, and being more
appropriately described under that head. The individual sin-
offerings varied in ceremonial according to the status of the
persons presenting them. If the high priest sinned in his
official position, he was to offer an ox without blemish.
Having performed the presentation, the imposition of hands,
and the slaughtering in the customary manner, he took a part
of the blood into the Tabernacle, and sprinkled it seven times
" in the face of the veU of the Holy" ; and having piit some
of the blood upon the horns of the altar of incense, he
poured out the remainder at the bottom of the altar of burnt-
offering ; the same fatty portions which were removed in the
case of the peace-offerings were afterwards lifted off the
carcase and consumed above the daUy burnt-offering, the
high priest carrying the rest of the carcase to a clean place
before the camp, and burning it on wood with fire. In the
case of unconscious sin on the part of the whole congrega
tion, the elders presented a young ox, which was manipulated
as that for the high priest. When a ruler or common Israelite
sinned through ignorance, they were ordered to bring, on
becoming conscious of their fault, the riUer an immaculate
he-goat, and the IsraeUte an immaculate shaggy she-goat ; in
both cases the offerer then went through the customary
process of laying on the hand and slaying, upon which the
priest, having coUected the blood, smeared some upon the
horns of the altar of burnt-offering, poured out the rest at the
foot, and burnt the whole of the fat upon the hearth ; the
carcase feU to the priest. The sin-offerings were slain where
adopted in every peace-offering. In the peace-offerings of private persons, the
imposition of hands was followed by the slaughtering, and this by the cere
monial of waving. In the public peace-offerings the imposition of hands was
omitted, and the waving took place both before and after the slaughtering. In
the sacrifice of the restored leper, the imposition of hands was foUowed first by
the waving and then by the slaughtering.
' See Appendix I.
" The laws of the sin-offering are given. Lev. iv.

80 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the burnt-offerings were.^ It is also noteworthy that, whilst
many victims might be offered as a burnt-offering, the sin-
offering might never consist of more animals than one.
Sin-offerings as weU as burnt-offerings were presented in
certain purifications, in the consecration of the priests and
high priests, and in the sacrificial ceremony of the Nazarite.
The asham, or trespass-offerings,^ formed a class quite distinct
from the sin-offerings.* In the primary law upon the subject
three groups of sins are mentioned as requiring these sacrifices,
— namely, in the first place, any unconscious negligence in
presenting the gifts due to Jehovah, such as sacrifices, tithes,
or first-fruits ; secondly, any unintentional infringement of a
divine ' command ; and, thirdly, any deceitful violation of the
rights of property, whidh, notwithstanding the fact that by
the nature of the case it could not be unintentional, " would
have proved," had no forgiveness been possible for it, "too
rigorous for human frailty and imperfection." * In aU cases
the offering consisted of a ram, the blood of which, after the
customary presentation, imposition of hands,^ and slaughtering, ,
instead of being smeared upon the horns of the altar, or taken
into the Holy Place like the blood of the sin-offerings, was
simply swung against the side of the altar, — the ritual being
thenceforth the same as for the sin-offering either of a ruler or
a common Israelite. This class of sacrifice was always accom
panied by a recompense, which was considered as due to God
and man : the discharge of the debt to God being effected by
the placing by the priest of a fancy value upon the offered
ram equivalent to the wrong done ; and the human liabUity
' Lev. vi. 25.
" The laws of the trespass-offerings are given in Lev. v. 14, etc., and vi. 1-7.
Also compare the articles by Eiehm and Eink, " Ueber das Schuldopfer,"
Theologische Studien und Kritihen for 1854 and 1855.
' Considerable controversy has arisen upon the difference between the sin and
trespass offering. That they are different (although the Hebrew names for each
are etymologically synonymous) is shown by the facts that each has a distinct
ritual, that sin-offerings were made without trespass-offerings, trespass without
sin offerings, and both were made together. The difference wUl, however, be
more conveniently studied in our next chapter.
^ Fairbairn, Typology, vol. n. p. 345.
* Such, at any rate, is the conclusion from the analogy of the Mosaic animal
sacrifices ; nevertheless, no command is given respecting the laying on of hands
in connection with the trespass-offering.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS; 81
being discharged by the payment to the party vrronged of the
whole amount of the fraud, increased by a retributory fifth.
Trespass- offerings were offered under certain conditions by
the Nazarite and the restored leper.
Among th£ bloodless sacrifices^ the meat-offerings,^ as they
have been called in the authorized version, took a prominent
place. They were the Levitical vegetable sacrifices, and were
offered either on behalf of individuals or the nation. They con
sisted of fine wheaten flour, or of cakes of the same, variously
prepared with oU, according to the culinary arts of the Jews,
some being baked in a smaU oven like the Arab's tannur,
some being prepared on plates, and some in a skUlet ; they
also occasionaUy consisted of roasted ears of corn. To aU
these " meat-offerings " oU and salt were added, and to those
which consisted of flour or grain incense also. The fruits of
trees — such as almonds, pomegranates, dates or figs, any, in
fact, upon which continuous labour was not expended in culti
vation — were strictly forbidden to be presented, as was any
admixture of honey or vinegar. The ritual of presentation
was very simple. The offerer brought the offering to the
priest, who took a handful of the meal and oU with the
incense, and burnt them on the altar, the remainder faUing to
the priest as " a thing most holy." On some exceptional days,
such as Sabbaths and feast-days, the whole of the offering was
burnt. Sometimes a drink-offering of wine, or of some strong
intoxicating Uquor caUed shecharf was added without any
special ritual. Let it be noted that the meat-offering was
always preceded by some blood sacrifice, with two exceptions,
— viz., the daily offering of the high priest, and that offering
which was substituted for the blood sacrifice in the case of
the poor.*
The offerings of shew-bread, incense, and oU for the Holy
Place were also important bloodless sacrifices. The striking
name of the shew-bread or face-bread was derived from the
* A large amount of information concerning the bloodless sacrifices of Mosaism
may be gathered from Thalhofer's Prize Essay, Die unblutigen Opfer des
mosaischen Cultus, 1848 ; it is written, it should be stated, however, in the
Roman CathoUc interest.
' See Appendix I.
^ Kalisch, Leviticus, Essay A. § 8, B. 7. * See Lev. v. 11.
F

J82 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
command, " Thou shalt lay upon the table face-bread before
My face continually." ^ This bread ^ consisted of twelve loaves
according to the number of the tribes of Israel, which were
laid upon the table in the Holy Place on a Sabbajth and
renewed the foUowing Sabbath, those which were removed
being assigned to the priests, who were required to eat them
in a holy place. The offering of oU* was an offering of the
purest olive oU, with which the high priest replenished the
golden candlestick every day; and the offering of incense,*
the special incense which was burnt on its appropriate altar
every morning and every evening.
Other varieties of bloodless sacrifices were the redemption
moneys of five shekels a-piece for every IsraeUte except the
Levites,^ the free-will offerings for the construction and
maintenance of the Tabernacle and for the vestments of the
priesthood,* the wood-offerings which were made after the
arrival in Canaan,^ the tithes,* the firstUngs of fruits, cattle,
and men,' the oblations of spoils taken in battle,''*' and the
several exceptional vows ^^ of self, house, cattle, or land which
were solemnly and voluntarUy made to God. Quite in harmony
with the Mosaic conception of Sacrifice, Ewald ^^ speaks of the
Sabbath, or sacrifice of rest, and the corporeal sacrffices of
¦circumcision, the vow of the Nazarite, and fasts. To describe
these bloodless sacrifices more minutely woiUd fiU many pages,
and would not advance our general inquiry.
The fifth class of Levitical injunctions treats of the Sacri
ficial Times and Seasons.^*
1 Ex. XV. 30 (Heb.). 2 Lev. xxiv. 5-9.
' Ex. xxvii. 20, 21 ; Lev. xxiv. 3, 4. * Ex. xxx. 7, 8, 34-38.
* Num. iu. 47-51. e Ex. xxxv. 20-29.
' Neh. X. 34, xiii. 31. From these statements it would appear that the pre
sentation of the necessary fuel for the altar was a customary offering.
8 Lev. xxvii. 30-33 ; Num. xviu. 21-32.
^ Ex. xxiii. 19 ; Lev. ii. 14, xxiu. 17 ; Num. xviu. 8-11.
^^ Num. xxxi. 48-54. » Lev. xxvii.
^2 Alterthiimer, pp. 109-143.
" Compare Bahr, Symbolik, ed. 1, vol. u. pp. 525-698 ; Ewald, Alterthiimer,
pp. 468-488; Fairbairn, Typohgy, vol. u. pp. 434-464; Keil, Archaologie,
vol. i. pp. 345-418 ; Hupfeld, "De primitiva et vera festorum apud Hebrseos
ratione ex legum Mosaicarum varietate eruenda," Osterprogramm, 1852; Kurtz,
Alttest. Opfercultus (translated in Foreign Theological Library), §§ 174-213, pp.

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 83
The Jewish ecclesiastical year consisted, so to speak, of
ordinary and extraordinary days, or, to adopt the distinction
of the EngUsh Prayer-book, of common and holy days. These
extraordinary or holy days were the seventh-days or Sabbaths,
the first days in each month or the new-moons, the Feast of
Trumpets and the Day of Atonement on the first and tenth
days of the seventh month respectively, and the three annual
festivals, — viz., the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which com
menced on the fourteenth day of the first month with the
Passover,^ lasting seven days ; the Feast of Harvest or First-
fruits, or Weeks, or Pentecost, which was celebrated on the
fiftieth day from the day of the Passover;^ and the Feast
of Tabernacles,* or Ingathering, which was observed on the
fifteenth and the seven foUowing days of the seventh month.
Lengthy descriptions of these holy days are not caUed for ;
the reader is referred to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus.
What it is of especial importance to our inquiry to observe,
is that these several ordinary and extraordinary ecclesiastical
days were celebrated amongst other methods by special and
appropriate sacrificings. The whole year round, evening and
morning, a burnt-offering was made of a lamb, accompanied
by a meat-offering of meal and oU, and a drink-offering of
wine; the whole year round a sacrifice was also daily offered
of incense and of meal by the high priest. On the Sabbath
days the evening and morning burnt-offerings were doubled.
In the beginning of the months, or new-moons, on the seven
days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Day of the
First-fruits, and on the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of
295-361; Leyrer, article "Zahlen bei den Hebraem,'' Herzog, vol. xviii.;
Meyer, De Temporibus Sacris et Festis Diebus Hebrceorum, 1724 ; Oehler,
articles "Feste der alten Hebraer" and " Versbhnungstag, " Herzog, vols. iv.
and xvii. ; and Theologie des Alt. Test. vol. i. (translated in Foreign Theological
Library), §§ 144-156 ; Sehultz, Alttest. Theologie, vol. i. pp. 210-222 ; and
Wangemann, Das Opfer nach Lehre der H. S., vol. ii. pp. 159-189.
' For the institution of Passover and rules for its observance, see Ex. xii.,
xui. 3-10, xxxiv. 18-21 ; Lev. xxiii. 4-8 ; Num. ix. 1-14, xxviu. 16-25 ;
Deut. xvi. 1-8.
2 Eor the institution of Pentecost and rules for its observance, see Lev.
xxui. 15-21 ; Num. xxvui. 26-31 ; Deut. xvi. 9-12.
^ For the institution of Feast of Tabernacles and rules for its observance, see
Ex. xxiu. 16 ; Lev. xxiii. 34-43 ; Num. xxix. 12-38 ; Deut. xvi. 13-16,
xxxi. 10-13.

84 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
Atonement (of course in addition to. the daUy and monthly
oblations), sacrifices were made of two young buUocks, one
ram, and seven lambs as a burnt-offering, with proportional
meat-offerings and drink-offerings, and of a goat as a sin-
offering. On the day of the Passover the only additional
ritual was that of the paschal kid or lamb, which, having
been selected four days previously, was kUled in legal form
at the altar of burnt-offering, immediately roasted without
breaking a bone, and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter
herbs ; no stranger was aUowed to participate without sub
mission to the rite of circumcision.^ At the Feast of Taber
nacles there was a great peculiarity in the prescribed ritual :
as on the other feast-days, a goat was offered as a sin-offering,
but as regards the burnt-offering the number of rams and
lambs was doubled, being two and fourteen instead of one and
seven; whilst, instead of the two young buUocks of other
feast-days, seventy were offered in aU during the feast, these
being so distributed that on the last day seven were slain,
eight on the day previous, nine on the day preceding that,
and so on, daily increasing untU the number reached thirteen,
the proportion slaughtered on the first day of the feast.
There only now remains the ceremony of the Day of Atone
ment,^ a detaUed description of which wiU make the statement
of the sacrificial times and seasons complete. The law con
cerning the Day of Atonement contains instruction as to the
performance of the appropriate ritual, and as to its performance
annuaUy. The prescribed ritual was as foUows : As a sacri
fice for the priesthood, the high priest was to bring a sin-
offering of a buUock and a burnt-offering of a ram ; and as a
sacrifice for the congregation, a sin-offering of two he-goats and
a burnt-offering of a ram. The priest was to be clothed not
in his state costume, but in one entirely of white, to be put
on after bathing the whole body, and not simply the hands
and feet as customarily. This dress of white was not even
the plain official dress of the ordinary priesthood, for that had
a coloured girdle. Lots were then cast upon the two he-
goats, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel;* and accordingi
as the lots feU, so were they presented as Uving sacrifices
'¦ Ex. xu. 48. ' Lev. xvi. a On Azazel, see Appendix IL

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 85
before the altar. The ceremony of the expiation of the
priesthood and the holy places then commenced. The buUocks
having been slain as a sin-offering for himself and his house,
the high priest fiUed the censer with embers from the altar
of burnt-offering and with incense, and placed the censer
within the veU. Some of the blood of the ox was then
sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, and seven times upon the
ground. Atonement was afterwards made for the nation.
The he-goat was slain, and its blood having been taken into
the HoUest, was sprinkled as the blood of the ox had previously
been. The floor of the Holy Place was next sprinkled with
blood, and the altars of incense and burnt-offering. The
expiation of the priesthood. Tabernacle, and nation being now
performed, an exquisitely symbolic act of forgiveness was gone
through. The high priest placed both his hands upon the
head of the Uve goat, confessed over it all the sins and trans
gressions of the people, and sent it away by a man who was
standing ready into the desert. The high priest then removed
his whole garments, purified himseU at the laver, and having
donned his official robes, offered the burnt-offerings for himseK
and the people.
From the lengthy series of injunctions which have now
been classified, it wiU be readUy seen how laborious, protracted,
and intricate a system was this Mosaic worship by presentation.
Yet how imposing ! No religious ritual of ancient or modern
times has appealed more forcibly to the eye or the imagination.
It was a stirring and suggestive sight, beyond all question,
which greeted such an one as a Levite, as he stood in early
morning within the court of the Tabernacle ready to perform
those more menial offices to which he had been appointed.
Around him ran the white curtains of the sacred enclosure,
reUeved at regular intervals by the dull gold of the copper
uprights and the gleam of the sUver capitals. A few paces
from where he watches, the more favoured members of his
tribe, bearded, clad in their priestly robes of white and their
parti-coloured girdles, are standing barefoot near the altar of
burnt-offering, on the hearth of which the remnants of last
night's sacrifice are stUl burning, or possibly purifying them-

86 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
selves at the laver in preparation for their sacred duties.
The lamb for the morning sacrifice is slam and burnt before
his eyes ; and, a few moments afterwards, the high priest, in
his official robes of white and blue, "holiness to the Lord"
gUstening in gold upon his mitre, the jeweUed breastplate
flashing and sparkling in the sun, is passing to the Holy Place,
the beUs and pomegranates at the fringe of his tunic ringing
as he goes. Perhaps, as holy hands draw aside the curtain of
the sanctuary, a glimpse is caught of the consecrated space
within, Ut by the golden candlestick and hazy with incense
from the golden altar; or, if the interior is sealed, there
nevertheless is the tent of Jehovah, its gorgeous parti-coloured
curtain in full view, and its immediate covering of blue and-
gold and scarlet and purple worked upon white with cherubim
just visible beneath the outer awnings ; and the onlooker knew
that within, not far from the Ark and the mercy-seat and the
shechinah, which were hidden behind the veU, the high priest,
was performing divine service, and meeting with Jehovah under
exceptional privUeges. As private members of the chosen race
come streaming in with their offerings, the more active duties
of the day begin. At one time, one who has inadvertently
broken some commandment of the law is watching the blood
of the sin-offering, which he has just brought and kiUed
with his own hand, as it is smeared in atonement upon the
horns of the altar ; at another, the priest is Ustening over the
head of a ram to a confession of fraud, and computing the
amount of monetary indemnity to be paid. Now a Hebrew
woman, but recently a mother, is modestly presenting herself
with her offering of pigeons ; and now the high priest is
passing through the gate of the court, attended by a Levite
carrying birds and scarlet wool and hyssop, — he has been
summoned without the camp to examine a restored leper.
Anon an appUcation is made for the means of purifying some
tent where the dead is lying. Here, in joyful recognition of
the divine favour, a soUtary worshipper is presenting a burnt-
offering ; there, recumbent upon the holy soU, a whole famUy
are merrily partaking of the remains of a peace-offering. At
one hour, a householder is compounding for the property which
he has voluntarily vowed unto the Lord ; the next, a Nazarite,

THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 87
with unshorn hair and beard, is presenting the prescribed
sacrifices for release from his vow. Possibly, as the day
advances, a consecration to the priesthood is impressively
performed. And these ceremonies are maintained the whole
year round. As the Jewish calendar ran its course, it was as
if one long bleat, one incessant lowing, filled the air ; it was
as if one continuous stream of sacrificial blood choked the
runnels of the court. The year opened with the evening
sacrifice and the new-moon celebration, the expiring flames of
which were fed next day by the ordinary morning sacrifice
and by a round of individual presentations, which must some
times have known no interruption untU the smoke of the
evening sacrifice again rose into the air and another day
began. Day after day the customary ceremonial was repeated,
tUl the Sabbath twUight fell and double sacrifices were
slaughtered. On the tenth day of the first month came the
solemn celebration of the Passover, when in every home, with
devout recoUections and enthusiastic hopes, a paschal lamb
was spread upon the board. Then foUowed the seven days of
Unleavened Bread, with their customary and holy-day ritual,
bringing at length, after the repeated diurnal, sabbatic, and
lunar formalities, the fuUer slaughter of Pentecost. Day after
day. Sabbath after Sabbath, new-moon after new-moon, the
authorized worship was again continued, untU there came a
break to the monotony once more on the first day of the
seventh month in the Feast of Trumpets, and on the tenth
day of the same month in the awful and grave procedure of
the Day of Atonement, foUowed after five days' interval by
the singular and more grateful worship of the Feast of
Tabernacles. The year was afterwards brought to a close by
the common series of daily, weekly, and monthly effusions of
blood.

CHAPTER II.
THE ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC
INJUNCTIONS.
"Der syrabolisohe Cultus in Ganzen und Einzelnen solche Ideen und Wahr-
heiten darstellen miisse, welche mit den anerkannten und auch sonst klar
ausgesprochenen Principien des Mosaismus iibereinstimmen." — Baehe, Symbolik
des mosaischen Cultus, ed. 1, vol. i. p. 47.
BUT the question arises, what significance these injunctions,
so varied, so curious, so difficult, so minute, which have
been analyzed and arranged in the preceding chapter, can
have had for the pious Israelite, who, not content with an
uninteUigent obedience, endeavoured to comprehend the pur
pose of this divinely-revealed rubric. Had the wheels of
time roUed backward, and in a freak of mockery at human
advance, substituted an elaborate materiaUsm for the simple
and semi-spiritual worship of his ancestors ? Were those
higher aspirations which ever and anon came into his soul,
welcome, yet unsought, to be cUpped by endless compulsory
observances of forms and ceremonies 1 Was divine worship
to be henceforth a fashion of dress and a variety of manual
labour ; his newly acquired revelation a gorgeous system of
idolatry ; the several sacrifices a slavish acquiescence in an
opus operatum? Such thoughts, if not negatived by the
Mosaic principles of the unity, providence, and spirituality of
Jehovah, would be for ever set at rest by the express teaching
of the Mosaic revelation itself, which, by clearly announcing
the doctrinal significance of certain leading features of the
Levitical cultus, gave some satisfactory reply to the question
ing quo tendit of its adherents.
That the Mosaic ceremonial, if we accept the genius of the
Pentateuch, must have had some immediate reference to the
religious Ufe of the chosen people, and that that ceremonial in

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 89
no way countenanced the magical rites of heathenism, are pro
positions which must be accepted by the BibUcal Theologian.
It is contrary to the whole teaching of the Pentateuch that
(as a EationaUst has maintained) incense was off'ered with
sacrifices to keep off flies, and the dress of the priesthood was
of white linen because it would wash easUy. Is it not equaUy
at variance with the Mosaic revelation that the prescribed
rites were but dumb types, which would only assume the
power of speech some centuries later ? Is it not an ignorant
misrepresentation of the Levitical teaching, to say that " the
Jew was simply the keeper of a casket which he could not
unlock, an actor in a symbolic representation which to him
conveyed Uttle or no meaning " ? ^ For more than sixteen
hundred years before the declarations of Jesus were given to
the world, the sacrificial ritual described in the preceding
chapter was the Only authorized Jewish worship, the one
divine reply to the cravings of the spiritual nature of the
IsraeUtes; and it must be conceded that it is the express
teaching of the books of Moses, that the word of the Law as
weU as that of Prophecy "always had its twofold use, to
instruct by its promulgation as weU as its accompUshment." ^
At the very threshold, therefore, of our inquiry into the
significance of the Mosaic sacrifices, it wUl be of considerable
moment, before attempting to investigate in any way the
deep-seated symbolism and the far-reaching typical aUusions
which must be subsequently studied, that we ascertain the
direct statements of the Thorah, or the books of the Law, con
cerning the doctrinal significance of its sacrificial injunctions.
This, which may be caUed the essential significance of the
Mosaic injunctions, wiU be best deduced, according to the
method of the preceding chapter, from an examination, in the
first place, of the several divisions of the cultus, and, secondly,
of the cultus in its t6tality.
^ Litton, The Mosaic Dispensation, p. 77. In such words Litton aptly ex
presses the import of the common typical theory of Mosaism ; his own view is
different. ^ Davison, On Prophecy, 6th ed. p. 70. Davison, however, has missed this truth
and dwelt upon the reserve which he beUeves the law maintains respecting the
meaning of its ordinances. See On Prophecy, pp. 139-150 ; Primitive Sacrifice,
p. 89.

90 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
The essential significance of the Tabernacle may be inferred
from the names customarUy given to it. These names may
be divided into three classes, — viz., in the first place, those
which, like housed tent^ abodef abode of the testimony,*" convey
the general idea of a place of divine residence ; secondly, those
which, like tent of assembly ^ or tent-house of assembly^ express
the idea of a meeting-place for God and man ; and, thirdly,
those which, like sanctuary^ draw attention to hoUness as an
attribute of the place itself. As examples of the first class,
the following passages may be taken : — " The first of the first-
fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord,
thy God ; " ^ " According to aU that I show thee, after the
pattern of the abode ; " ' " And thou shalt make a hanging
for the door of the tent ; " ^'' " This is the sum of the abode,
the abode of the testimony." " As examples of the second
class, these may suffice : — "In the tent of assembly " (Auth. Ver.,
in the tabernacle of the congregation) " without the veil, which
is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shaU order it from
evening to morning before the Lord ; " ^ and, " Thus was aU
the work of the tent-house of the assembly'' (Auth. Ver., tabernacle
of the tent of the congregation) " finished." ¦'* The divine com
mand, " Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell
among them," ^* wUl iUustrate the third class. Now a house
where God was, or was to be supposed to be, must be a place
for worship, and a place for divine worship must of necessity
be holy ground ; thus one fundamental idea lay at the root of
aU these appeUations, viz. that the Tabernacle was a meeting-
place between Jehovah and His covenant people. There
Jehovah was to be thought peculiarly present,^^ and therefore
peculiarly approachable. By the Jew the Lord God Almighty
was not to be sought in woods or fountains or vaUeys, but in
^ Heb. bayith.
^ Heb. ohel, translated in Authorized Version as tabernacle or tent.
' Heb. mishkan, from the root shakan, to lie down, and hence to dweU, trans
lated in Authorized Version by tabernacle, but more accurately rendered by
habitation or abode.
* Heb. mishkan haeduth. " Heb. oliel mned. .
« Heb. mishkan ohel moed. '' Heb. miqdash. " Ex. xxui. 19.
9 Ex. XXV. 9. '» Ex. xxvi. 36. " Ex. xxxviu. 21.
" Ex. xxvii. 21. " Ex. xxxix. 32. " Ex. xxv. 8.
" Compare Sehultz, Alttest. Theologie, vol. i. p. 204.

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 91
this house which He had appointed. The holy places of
Mosaism were a divine answer to the prayer of Job : " Oh that
I knew where I might find Him, that I might come even to
His seat ! " ^ In a synagogue or in a church God is wor
shipped, and thus becomes present ; in the Tabernacle, Jehovah
was present in a remarkable manner, and therefore was wor
shipped. The correctness of the inference that the Tabernacle was a
divinely-appointed place of meeting between Jehovah and the
chosen nation, is borne out by the express words of the Penta
teuch. " And there I wUl meet " are the words of the Lord at
the ordinance of the perpetual burnt-offering at the door of
the Tabernacle — " and there I wUl meet with the chUdren of
Israel, and the habitation shall be sanctified by My glory.
And I wiU sanctify the tent of assembly, and the altar : and I
wiU sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to Me
in the priest's office. -And I wiU dwell among the children of
Israel, and wiU be their God." ^
But the injunctions classified in the preceding chapter
remind us that the essential significance of the Tabernacle as
a place of divine residence, and therefore as a place of meeting
between God and man, must be quaUfied by a counter truth.
Approach to Jehovah was conditioned by the terms of the
Sinaitic revelation. Whilst, therefore, the Tabernacle as the
dweUing-place of the Most High, was by the divine con
descension a place where God and the Jew might come
together, that contact was arranged in accordance with the
characteristics of the Mosaic dispensation. The whole
structure was a place of assembly where man and God could
congregate ; but it was in the Court only that the common
Israelite could approach Jehovah, and that by mediation in
the person of the appointed priestly representatives : in the
Holy Place, to which the priests alone had access, the wor
shippers also approached the throne of Deity by mediation,
being admitted, so to speak, to the anteroom of the divine
audience-chamber by the adoration of their chief; whilst to
the high priest alone, and that after solemn preparation, was
it permitted on one day in the year to pass within the veil,
1 Job xxiu. 3. " Ex. xxix. 42-45.

92 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
and gaze unhindered upon that mercy-seat, aglow with gold,
where rested the shadowy cloud of the shechinah.
Further, if the Tabernacle was the appointed sanctuary
where man might meet with God on the fulfilment of certain
conditions, be it noted that the several altars were, so to sp6ak,
the points at which those conditions could be best fulfiUed.
Every square inch of the sacred enclosure was a place of
meeting between Jehovah and His people, according to the
terms of the divine revelation ; but it was at the altar of
burnt-offering in the court that the non-priestly worshippers
approached most nearly to their God; it was at the golden
altar in the Holy Place that the priests were admitted to closest
access ; and it was as he approached most nearly the space
beneath the outstretched wings of the cherubim, that the high
priest drew nearest to the throne of intercession. The several
altars were the shrines, so to speak, of the several sanctuaries,
in which their essence was concentrated, and from which their
power radiated.
The essential significance of the pecuUar sanctuary of
Judaism lay, then, according to the testimony of the Penta
teuch itself, in the fact that, being the visible dweUing-place
of Jehovah, it testified to the possibUity of human approach
to God, so long as the conditions of the related laws were
observed, — these conditions being, so far at least as the theo
cratic status of the worshippers was concerned, that the
IsraeUte might come near to God in the person of His priests
in the Court, and especiaUy at the altar of burnt-offering ; that
in the Holy Place, and especiaUy at the altar of incense, the
priesthood might do homage to Jehovah as enshrined behind
the veil ; and that in the Holy of HoUes, and especiaUy at
the high altar of the mercy-seat, the high priest might, by
careful obedience to the prescribed conditions, occasionaUy
regard that cloud by which the Almighty condescended to
reveal and at the same time to conceal His presence.^
1 Only a cursory allusion needs be made to those other meanings of the Taber- .
nacle which have been advocated with insufficient deference to the statements of
the Pentateuch. Philo, Josephus, and many of the Jewish Eabbis and Christian
Fathers regarded the Tabernacle as a pattern of the universe ; Luther, as a Uke-
ness of man as created in the divine image ; Maimonides, and many of the later
Eabbis (who have been foUowed by Spencer), as a royal palace. Each of these

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 93
In the words which were first addressed to Moses from
Sinai, the significant promise was made by the Most High,
that the whole people should be " a kingdom of priests ; " ^ and
when subsequently, in merciful consideration of the sense of
unfitness and fear aroused by the voice from the Mount as
of a trumpet and thunder, the promise was fulfiUed in a
modified form, and the tribe of Levi was consecrated for divine
service, the Aaronites were selected to be " priests." Now,
what was the essential significance of this promise so made
and so fulfilled ?
The essential significance of the priesthood cannot be
deduced from the etymology of the Hebrew word thus trans
lated, since that is not clear ;* nor is the extra-Levitical usage
of the word so restricted as to afford an unequivocal solution
of the question. A direct declaration of the Mosaic conception
is, however, given in connection with the Korahitic rebelUon,'
which hinged indeed upon a dispute as to the very point
before us : " Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath,
opinions has found its modem advocates. The view that the Tabernacle received
its significance from the fact that it was, as it were, a royal residence or palace
for the King of kings, has been asserted with much iUustration by Hofmann,
Weissagung und Erfiillung, vol. i. p. 139. Luther's singular interpretation has
been defended at considerable length by Friederich, Symbolik des mos. Stiftshiitte,
who has not shrunk from finding in the Court, Holy Place, and Holiest, represen
tations of the human body, soiU, and spirit; and in the wooden framework and its
coverings, the bony skeleton with its flesh and skin. Then the opinion that the
Tabernacle symbolized the heavens above and the earth beneath was expounded
with great learning and acumen by Dr. Bahr. Another view, equaUy unwar
ranted by Scripture, was advanced by Hengstenberg, Beitrage zur Mini, in's
A. T., vol. iu. pp. 628-652 (who has been foUowed by KeU, Archtiologie, vol.
i. pp. 94-98, and Commentar, Exodus (translated in Foreign Theological
Library) ; Knobel, Exodus, p. 249 ; Kurtz, Studien und KrUiken, 1844, p. 315;
and Tholuek, Commentar zum Hebrderbrief, ed. 2, p. 312), that the Tabernacle
symbolized the Jewish theocracy. It should be added that Bahr had already
modified his views in his work upon the Temple (Der Salomonische Tempel), and
that in his second edition, just published, he adheres on scriptural grounds to
the view given in the text.
' Ex. xix. 7.
2 See a valuable note by Kalisch, for example, on the significance of kohen
in the unabridged edition of his Commentary on Leviticus, vol. i. pp. 559, 560, in
which he classifies the several etymologies, Arabic and Hebrew, which give as
meanings — (1) interpreter or representative, (2) soothsayer, (3) administrator or
servant, (4) prince or noble, (5) one who is near God, (6) an assistant, and (7)
one who bends or makes genuflexions. ' Num. xvi.

94 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of EUah,
and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Eeuben, took men, and rose
up before Moses with certain of the children of Israel, two
hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the con
gregation, men of renown; and they gathered themselves
together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto
them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing aU the congregation
are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them ;
wherefore, then, lift ye up yourselves above the congregation
of the Lord ?" From these words, and the question afterwards
asked by Moses ("Seek ye the priesthood also?"), it wUl be
seen that the marks of a valid priesthood recognised by the
rebels were, — first, that holiness possessed by the nation in
common ; and, secondly, that privUege of divine access which
the whole nation shared. With what correctness the sequel
shows : " And when Moses heard, he feU on his face ; and he
spake unto Korah and unto aU his company, saying. Even
to-morrow the Lord wUl show who are His and who is holy ;
and will cause him to come near unto Him : even him whom
He hath chosen wUl He cause to come near unto Him.'' In
other words, Moses said : " You arrogate the higher honours of
the priesthood ; to-morrow the Lord Himself wiU decide upon
the justice of your claim." It is unnecessary for our purpose
to continue the narrative ; in this important passage the notes
of the priesthood are given by Moses himself. Four attributes
are here advanced as those of a vaUd appointment — namely, a
divine choice or caU (" whom He hath chosen "), a right of
divine service (" who are His "), hoUness (" who is holy "), and
a right of divine access (" come near unto Him ") ; the priest
was one who, having been divinely selected, had accepted his
caU without reservation, and being possessor of an imputed
righteousness, was privileged to draw near the Majesty from ,
on High. A closer analysis might stUl further simpUfy this
Mosaic conception of priesthood. Of the attributes just
enumerated, it may without exaggeration be said that the
second, the right of divine service, and the fourth, the right of
divine access, are identical ; then the first and the third, the
holy character and the divine election, rather belong to the
prerequisites of priesthood than to its essence. The essential

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 95
significance, therefore, of the priesthood, may be stated to lie /
in its privUege of divine approach.^ It wUl thus be seen that
in a Umited degree every Jew was, as the primary form of the
Covenant announced, a priest ; nevertheless the right of divine
approach, restricted as it was to the court of the Tabernacle,
was so meagre as to be unworthy of the name of priesthood.
It was to the Aaronites, with their more tangible privileges of
worship before the veil, that the name seemed more especiaUy
applicable ; whilst to the officiating high priest alone was it
permitted to occasionaUy enter within the veil and participate
in that highest access, in that most exalted priesthood, which
was possible to Judaism. Guarded by so many restrictions,
and rising through such gradations, how lofty the dignity,
how sublime the privUege, of standing in the presence of the
Holy One of Israel to worship and petition !
The essential significance of the priesthood may be other
wise stated. For, if it be remembered that the privUege of
divine approach carried with it the privilege of representing
others to whom such approach was denied, it may be said
that the essence of the priesthood was mediation, that of the!
ordinary priests being indirect, and that of the high priest \
immediate. Again, the essential attribute of the high priest,
the privUege of access to the Holy of Holies, implying the
purpose for which that access was made, the essence of the
high-priesthood, may be roughly described, as in some passages
of the New Testament, and in popular theology, by its excep
tional privUege of atonement.
If we now inquire into the essential significance of the
rites of purification, this wiU be easily arrived at when we
have deduced the Mosaic conception of " uncleanness." Un
cleanness, as we have seen in the previous chapter, arose from
contact or association with a human or animal corpse, from the
normal or abnormal action of the generative organs, from
leprosy or association with a leper, and from certain offices
connected with the day of atonement and the slaughter of the
red heifer, the ashes of which were employed in removing the
^ Upon this essential significance of the priesthood there is comparative
unanimity among the more recent expositors.

96 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
contamination of death. Under one or other of these classes
aU the numerous rites of cleansing may be placed.
Now, the first characteristic which suggests itseU upon a
comparison of these several classes, is that " uncleanness " was
not the immediate consequence of deliberate wrong-doing, hut
was, as far as the subject of it was concerned, involunta/ry, or
at any rate so interwoven with the present constitution of
things as to deserve the name of involuntary. For example,
chUdbirth was in the nature of things; so were the other
functions and disorders of the organs of reproduction. A man
could not help it if leprosy attacked him. To minister to the
dying and the dead must be the duty of some one. And as
regards the marriage relations, it must be borne in mind that
the ideal of the Jew was neither a virgin nor a chUdless hfe,
but a Ufe where chUdren played upon the hearth. The curious
thing, then, about this Levitical " uncleanness," was that it was
contracted in ways never declared by the Law to be flagitious :
astonishment arises not that the predisposing acts or states
were removed from the catalogue of sins, but that these several
instances of " uncleanness " themselves should have rendered
ineUgible for divine worship. To be unclean was to become
defiled not by deliberate wrong-doing,but in the course of nature,
Add to the fact that "uncleanness" resulted from the
constitution of things, the further fact that it was incidental
to those natural or ceremonial processes which, according to
the Mosaic revelation, stood in most intimate connection with
sin, and the Levitical conception of " uncleanness " has been
whoUy stated. " Uncleanness " was the remote, not the im-^
mediate, consequence of sin. Those who sinned with intent
became parents of children who unintentionally sinned. In
proof, the foUowing examples may be cited. The several rites
of cleansing were reducible, as we have seen, to four classes
— those which concerned contact with the dead, the action of
the generative functions, leprosy, and certain prominent sin-^
offerings. Of the last nothing needs be said, inasmuch as the
scapegoat and the red cow were so manifestly regarded as the
bearers of human sin. Then as to leprosy, living death as
it was, it was always considered by the Jew as an awful
embodiment of the very nature of sin, and bore that meamng

ESSENTIAL .SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS." 97
the more evidently, inasmuch as the laws of leprosy aU conduced
to deepen such an impression. And as regards the contact of a
corpse and the legal impurity of childbirth, had not the curse
pronounced in Eden constituted an ever memorable precedent
for regarding the accidents of birth and death as the appaUing
consequences of the FaU ? The Levitical doctrine of unclean
ness was, in fact, the Old Testament form of original sin, and
uttered in pathetic forms of exclusion and isolation the truth
that sin could not be approached even by the innocent
without defilement. Ceremonial uncleanness was the Mosaic
recognition of natural depravity .¦'^
Defining their legal uncleanness as a state of unfitness for
divine worship resulting not from criminality, but from
certain natural and legal processes indirectly connected in the
Mosaic revelation with crime, the essential signfficance of the
rites of purification wiU be seen in the removal of " unclean
ness." Legal purification was the divinely instituted method
during the Old Testament dispensation for counteracting
original sin.
Two ideas lie at the root of the essential significance of the
Mosaic sacrifices, — viz., the Mosaic idea oi presentation, and that
of atonement.
' Very opposite views have been held concerning the ultimate significance of
the Mosaic purifications — views resulting, for the most part, from the varying
standpoints assumed by investigators. The Rationalists, for example, find in
these Mosaic injunctions sanitary regulations simply, — e.g., Michaelis, Mosaisches
Recht, vol. iv. p. 220 ; Schmidt (J. J.), Bibl. Medicus, p. 653 ; Saalschtitz,
Mosaisches Recht, p. 217 ; and Maimonides and Spencer ; whilst many of the
advocates of Comparative Eeligion see in these purifications ecclesiastical methods
of obtaining influence (see Gramberg, Religionsideen, vol. i. p. 364). Nor has
there been unanimity amongst those who have adopted the bibUco-theological
standpoint. Bahr regards these purifications as attached to the commencement
and end of this mortal life, which is thus contrasted with the immortal life that
is absolutely holy (Symbolik, vol. u. p. 459) ; but such a theory lea;ves unex
plained some of the facts of the case, and explains others falsely. How, on such
a theory, can the uncleanness of involuntary seminal emission be explained ? and
how is it, on such a theory, that it is the mother and not the new-born babe
that is unclean? Sommer, Bibl. Abhandlungen, vol. i. p. 201, first clearly
enunciated the view stated in the text ; and he has been foUowed by KeU,
Archaologie, vol. i. p. 277; Kurtz, Alttest. Opfercultus, § 213 ; Leyrer, article
"Reinigungen," in Herzog, vol. xii. p. 629 ; and Fairbairn, Typology, vol. ii.
p. 420. G

98 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
Upon the idea of presentation (or giving to God, as it has
been otherwise termed), the fundamental idea of aU sacrifice,
little additional needs be said after the exposition in our
introduction and in our chapters on the patriarchal doctrine.
The Mosaic system of worship, like the patriarchal, was based
upon the fact that man might approach God so long as his
hands were not empty. As Adam worshipped in Eden by
the surrender of time and strength in obedient performance
of the divine wUl, and possibly by the presentation of some
of the fruits of his labour, or Abel brought of the firstUngs of
his flock, the acceptance of his gift opening a way to God which
the patriarchs were not slow to foUow ; so, in the law given
upon Sinai, the Jew was bidden to come near his Maker and
Preserver, gifts in hand. Offerings of toil became means of
grace ; things eloquent of cost were channels for what was price
less ; pledges of human sincerity in appeal were transmuted
into pledges of divine earnestness in reply; gifts from men to God
brought gifts from God to men. From a study of the reUgious |
actions of mankind, presentation seems to be an instinctively
adopted method of divine worship ; but we have not to do
with phUosophical solutions : at any rate, worship by pre
sentation was the prominent method of Mosaism.
Unlike the preceding idea, which belonged to every
sacrifice of whatever name in some measure or other, the idea
of atonement belonged simply to sacrifices of blood, and a few
analogous cases which wUl be more expressly mentioned in
our next chapter but one. This idea of atonement, never
expressly alluded to in the pre-Mosaic ceremonial, although
beyond a doubt everywhere latent, we must carefuUy extract
from the Law, — our only instruments, of course, being the
etymology and scriptural usage of the Hebrew original. They
who would obtain the scriptural conception of the matter in
hand by an analysis of at-one-ment or attune-ment, seem to
forget that the Old Testament was not revealed in EngUsh.
Now that process which has received the technical name of
atonement is, as has been shown in our first Appendix, " a
covering of sin," and a covering in such a way that God
regards it as neutraUzed, disarmed, inoperative to arouse His
anger. " To make an atonement," if we probe the Hebrew figure

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 99
to the bottom, was to throw, so to speak, a veil over sin so
dazzling that the veU and not the sin was visible, or to place
side by side with sin something so attractive as to completely
engross the eye. The figures which the New Testament uses
when it speaks of the " new robe," the Old Testament uses
when it speaks of " atonement." When an atonement was made
under the law, it was as though the divine eye, which had been
kindled at the sight of sin and foulness, was now quieted by
the garment thrown around it ; or, to use a figure much too
modem, yet equaUy appropriate, it was as if the sinners who
had been exposed to the Ughtning of the divine wrath had been
suddenly wrapped round and insulated. The idea of atone
ment was the so covering the sinner that his sin' was in this
sense invisible or non-existent, that it coiUd no longer come
between him and his Maker. To use the words of a German
theologian : " When sinful souls approached the altar of God,
where dwelt His Holiness, their sinful nature came between
them and God, and atonement served the purpose of covering
their sins, of cancelling the charges on which they were
arraigned." ^ It should be stated that the effects of atonement
are clearly stated to have been either forgiveness of sins or
cleansing, — in other words, the forgiveness of sins contracted
deUberately or unintentionally.
Now to every sacrifice the name of gift or presentation was
appUed,^ and therefore in every sacrifice ordained by the law,
whether animal or bloodless, the idea of presentation — the
approach to God by means of an offering, the approach to
God with the visible representation of so much labour and
thought — was contained. And in a large class of offerings,
namely, all those which had no element of effusion of blood,
this was the leading idea. SymboUzing each in its appro
priate way some religious fact, every bloodless sacrifice was
at least a sacrifice — a gift by the presentation of which the
offerer was permitted to approach the Most High. In this
idea of presentation every meat-offering, every tithe, every
cake of shew-bread, every pinch of salt, every hin of oU, had
its ultimate significance. ^ Kiiper, Das Priesterthum des A. B., p. 120.
^ See Appendix I.

10.0 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Over and above the idea of a gift, to every sacrifice of
animal life there was the idea of atonement superadded. This
idea of atonement is deliberately associated with blood in
one important passage in the Leviticus : ^ " For the soul of
the flesh is in the blood ; and I " (the Lord) " have given it
you upon the altar to be a covering over your souls : for the
blood, it atones by the soul." That is to say, the blood of
every animal sacrifice has been appointed by God as a means
of atonement for a human Ufe, because that blood itself is the
very life of the animal sacrificed.^ '' Life for Ufe " is thus the
motto of blood sacrifice, and wherever blood is shed atone
ment is made. Whether atonement was made in any other'
way is another question, and may be reserved for the present.
AU we draw attention to now is, that the Jew knew of a
surety, by the word of the very law which bade him offer
blood, the essential significance of that blood as a means of
atonement. Carrying, then, in the mind these two conceptions of
^ Lev. xvii. 11 (Heb.). The importance of this passage for the comprehen
sion of the nature of atonement was recognised by De Wette in his weU-known
De Morte Jesu Expiatoria, 1813, cap. iii. § 6 ; reprinted in his Opusculis,
1830. '' The exact significance of this verse has been much disputed ; and as it will
be necessary to refer to it again and again, it wUl be weU to examine the several
interpretations onoe for aU. It is the closing words of the verse which have
alone caused difficulty. According to Bahr, Delitzsch, Fairbairn, KeU, Knobel,
Kurtz, and Oehler, these closing words should be translated : "For the blood
atones bannephesh, — by, by means of, through, the soul." A second translation
is that of the Septuagint, — iir) ¦^ux''' — " the blood atones/or the soul," — ^which,
has been followed by the Vulgate (pro animce piaculo), the Authorised English
Version, Luther's Version, and by Ebrard. Hengstenberg gives another transla*
tion, viz., "the blood atones the soul;" and Bunsen, Hofmann, and Kliefoth
give yet another; "the blood atones as the soul." The whole question is
settled by the grammatical construction of kipper which obtains elsewhere (see
Appendix I.). The .construction with the preposition b' never signifies what is
covered, as Hengstenberg would have it : this is signified either by the simple.
objective case, or by the preposition at or badhj nor does it ever signify the
thing on behalf of which the covering is made, as in the translation of the
Septuagint,— to convey which the construction with al or badh would also be
employed. It never implies, as Hofmann would have it, the character in which
blood makes atonement, although this is nearer the mark: the construction.
with V always signifies either that ^V which the covering is effected, or else the
place where atonement is made, and the latter significance cannot be appropriate
in the passage before us.

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 101
presentation and atonement which the very language of the
Law associates with every animal sacrifice, the names and
express statements concerning each variety of such sacrifice
wiU enable us to add their distinguishing to their general
characteristics. The burnt-offering was at once a sacrifice and an atone
ment ; but it was the element of presentation which was
brought by it into especial prominence. The burnt-offering
was a whole offering.'' It is true that, in accordance with the
principles of the Mosaic revelation, it had something to do
with the covering of the sin of the offerer ; still this was a
subordinate feature. The burnt-offering atoned in order that
it might be an offering at all. Its existence as a species
depended on the fact of its signal expression of the fact of
completeness of presentation ; whatever the attribute of pre
sentation in any form conveyed, the burnt-offering conveyed
in richest measure. Hence, as has been remarked by many,
the burnt-offering was pre-eminently the sacrifice of worship ;
for presentation being the medium of divine worship, and
the burnt-offering being the most vivid form of presentation
(which might be offered, too, alone, because of its element of
atonement, as no meat-offering or drink-offering could), the
burnt-offering was necessarily the sacrifice of worship par
excellence. From the. testimony of the Pentateuch, — the name
which the Pentateuch invariably employed and its invariable
usage, — the burnt-offering, whilst embodying both the legaUy
indissociable facts of presentation and atonement, laid stress
upon the entirety of presentation and aU which that complete
ness impUed. The burnt-offering was the holocaust, the com
plete, the unreserved animal sacrifice.
The peace-offering resembled the burnt-offering in the
relative insignificance which it attached to the fact of
atonement; it differed in laying stress upon quite another
affinity, which might exist between God and man. As the
burnt-offering provided a means of individual worship, the
peace-offering provided a worship that was social. The
peace-offerings were, as their name ^ implies, the sacrifices of
friendship, and were presented by those who either desired,
' See Appendix I. " See Appendix I.

102 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
or Uved and rejoiced in, the sense of an established friendship
between themselves and their Maker and Preserver. If
Abraham could prepare a feast and look on whilst the angels
of God partook, the Jew who enjoyed the fuU privileges of
the Law could make a feast and caU God Himself to share
with him and his family of the provided bounty. It is
noteworthy that in even these sacrifices of communion there
was an associated element of atonement ; to parallel what has
been said in the preceding paragraph, the peace-offerings
atoned that they might be offerings, they were not offerings
that they might atone. In fact, just as the burnt-offering
concentrated attention upon the act of union with God, the
peace-offerings emphasized divine communion; and whether
the offering was brought in gratitude for the divine mercy,
or whether it was the spontaneous prompting of a heart
yearning for the cementing of divine fellowship, or whether
it was a fulfilment of an avowed celebration for the consecra
tion of a household, each of which forms of the sacrifice is
expressly mentioned in the Leviticus, every peace-offering
was a gift to God which, having paid due attention to the
necessity of atonement even for the most joyous expression of
heart, culminated in a eucharistic feast. It was its festal
character which distinguished this class of sacrifices.
In the sin and trespass-offerings the student of Jewish
antiquities is confronted with a different genus of sacrifices to
the two just mentioned ; in these it is the fact of atonement
itself which is emphasized. These varieties of animal sacrifice
were presentations that they might atone.
The sin-offerings, as their name implies, were offerings for
sin.'' But it is necessary, in order to appreciate the part
they played in the Mosaic economy, to consider for what sins
they were commanded to be offered. " Sin-offering " is used
in varying senses, and it is weU, therefore, to ascertain precisely
the characteristics of the species the word includes. The
sin-offerings of the Mosaic injunctions may be divided for our
purpose into three classes: those which were presented in
processes of purification ; those which had to do with the expia
tion of precise sins, whether committed in church or state, by
' See Appendix I.

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 103
priest or ruler or common IsraeUte ; and those which had to
do with the expiation of undefined sins. It is with the
singular and general sin-offerings, as they may be caUed, we
are at present concerned, — the purificatory sin-offerings having
been already passed under review, when it was seen that they
might be defined as offerings presented in atonement for original
sin or its effects. The essential significance of the singular
offerings may be deduced from the laws which regulate them.
They could not be presented for any sins, however enormous
or wUful, but only in certain well-defined cases, which are
divided by the arrangement of the law itself into two distinct
categories, — sins of ignorance, and some other analogous sins.
To be more expUcit, on the one hand the high priest who
sinned through ignorance in the discharge of any official func
tion, the entire nation when it had broken through ignorance
any of the divine commands, the ruler who had committed
through ignorance some dereUction of Mosaic duty, and the
ordinary IsraeUte who had infringed the Levitical injunctions
through ignorance, — any one, in short, who sinned through
ignorance against any of the commands of the Lord, had to
present a sin-offering; and, on the other hand, sin-offerings
were also to be presented in the three foUowing cases, which
are sufficiently simUar to be classified with the preceding, —
viz., when a man had withheld evidence in a criminal cause,
when there had been an unintentional defilement with a
corpse, and when rash vows had been made only to be
broken. These various instances of sin-offering may be
subsumed under one definition. For, what is the significance
of bishgagah, — that is to say, through ignorance, in error ?
Evidently sins committed bishgagah included those infringe
ments of the law of which the doer became conscious
subsequently to the deed, whether that consciousness arose
from a neighbour's expostulation or personal reflection. But
the phrase has also a wider meaning : it sometimes refers to
sins comnutted rashly, unawares, without deliberate intent, sins
resulting, as would be said to-day, from physical or moral
weakness; for example, the modern distinction between
murder and manslaughter was exactly conveyed by bishgagah,
— a man who killed another bishgagah was one who kiUed

104 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
without animosity, without deUberate intent, accidentaUy.
Further, sins committed " through ignorance " or " in error,"
were legaUy contrasted with sins committed with a high
hand and in haughty rebeUion against the Divine Lawgiver ;
with " sins of presumption," as Magee puts it, " that is, with
such as proceeded not from human frailty, but from a
deliberate and audacious defiance of the divine authority." ^
"The ignorance intended cannot have been of a nature
absolute and invincible, but such as the clear promulgation of
their law and their strict obligation to study it day and night
rendered them accountable for, and which was consequently
in a certain degree culpable."* The phrase, "through ignor
ance," is used " of acts against the divine law which have
been committed without a consciousness of their illegaUty,
and which have only subsequently been recognised as sins * —
for example, of sins done unbeknown to the congregation ; " ^
but it is also used " of iUegal acts which have followed upon
weakness or inattention,® or have proceeded from some un
toward incident,' and especiaUy of unintentional sins as
opposed to sins done violently or deUberately, which were
punishable with death,* and could not be atoned with sacri
fice." ' These sins " of ignorance " being therefore sins of
the flesh (as such sins are frequently termed), — being faults
in which the man is overtaken, not in which he is the
conscious, foreseeing, and deUberate agent, — it is readily seen
that the three specified cases with which the fifth chapter of
Leviticus opens are reducible to the same category ; for uncon
scious defilement is manifestly a sin of ignorance in the
narrower sense, the idle promises of a boaster are as certainly
the extempore effusions of a weak-minded man. who does not
invariably mean what he says; and, in the case of the
withholding of evidence in a criminal cause, this assuredly
refers, as the wording of the command signifies, to that
repression which arises from misplaced fear or from sympathy
1 Num. xxxv. 11, 22, 23.
" Discourses upon Atonement, etc.. Diss, xxxvii.
3 Magee, ib.. Diss, xxxvu. * Lev. iv. 13, 22, 27, v. 18, xxu. 14.
* Num. XV. 22, etc. e Lgv. v. 15.
'' Num. XXXV. 11, 15, 12 ; Josh. xx. 3, 9. 8 s-a-oi. xv. 27-31.
' Knobel, Lemticvs, p. 383.

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 105
with the wrong-doer,^ instances still of moral or physical
weakness. To sum up this discussion, then, it may be said
that the essential significance of the singular sin-offerings was,
that whilst at once gifts and atonements, their especial
purpose was to atone for sins of error or ignorance or weak
ness, whichever word may most suitably be employed for
the frequent lapses of depraved human nature. The general
sin-offerings which were presented on the prominent feast-
days on behalf of the whole nation, were not presented in
atonement for special sins, but were simply designated sin-
offerings without further specification of their purpose. They
would therefore appear to be supplementary offerings in
atonement for the inevitable sins — for all those unnoted sins
which produce the sense of sinfulness — of an inwardly weak,
not outwardly rebellious people. At once gifts and atone
ments, they were pre-eminently atonements for the innumerable
and almost unperceived sins of a nation received into divine
communion, but stUl sinning, through the fraUty of birth and
the force of habit. Sharply defined, therefore, the sin-
offerings were animal sacrifices offered in atonement for sins
of ignorance, which, according to the Mosaic conception, were
any sins which did not wUfuUy contravene the authority of
Jehovah. The trespass-offerings, sometimes included even in the Old
Testament under the wider name of sacrifices for sin or sin-
offerings, were notwithstanding a distinct class.^ Their differ
entia, it is true, has given rise to considerable discussion ; but
recent investigations have conclusively shown in what their
essential significance consisted. The trespass-offerings were
presented in atonement for sins against God or against man
which admitted of compensation. If tithes, for example, had
been withheld, atonement might be made " before the face of
the great Creator and Giver," by repaying the tithes and
presenting a trespass-offering. If a fellow-IsraeUte had been
defrauded, atonement might be made by recompensing him
with the amount of which he had been defrauded, together
with an additional sum by way of indemnity, and the presenta
tion of a trespass-offering. There was in every trespass-offering
1 Lev. V. 1 (Heb.). * See Appendix L

106 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the idea of retribution. The sin and trespass offerings were
both sacrifices for sin; but in the former the leading idea
was that of atonement, the expiation of sin by a substituted
life ; in the latter the leading feature was that of satisfaction,
the wiping out of sin by the payment of a recompense.'
Of the several species of bloodless sacrifices, nothing further
needs be said as regards their essential significance, than that
they are gifts pure and simple, without any element of atone
ment, and that they have for their aim to carry this funda
mental conception of worship by presentation into aU the
ramifying relations of Ufe. By the aid of the meat-offerings
and drink-offerings and their priestly analogues, the shew-
bread and oU and incense, God might be approached by the
produce of labour ; by the ransoms and first-fruits. He might
be approached in recognition of the gifts of child and beast
and produce of the earth ; even battle might be consecrated
by the presentation of spoUs. By gifts God could be approached,
and the sources of these gifts being various, the divine haUow-
ing might be as various.
Without minutely investigating the essential significance of
the various holy days of the Jewish calendar, it is sufficient to
call to mind that, amongst other uses, these holy days were
days for " holy convocation." They were opportunities spe
cially arranged for a more regular and continuous attendance
upon the means of grace provided by the Tabernacle and its
services. The very chapter which detaUs the various Sabbaths
and feast-days, again and again reiterates that these festal days
were " holy convocations."^ If sacrifice might be presented
to God every day in the year, the numerous high days from
the first month to the last were more especiaUy God-given
days for a more detaUed and unanimous sacrificial worship.
Nor need we seek further for the essential significance of the
Mosaic sacrificial times and seasons, except in two instances in
which, the ritual being altogether novel and characteristic, we
are led to ask whether the law does not hint at some especial
^ So substantiaUy DeUtzsch, Fairbairn, Hengstenberg, KeU, Kiiper, Kurtz,
Oehler, Riehm, Einck, Wangemann.
^ Lev. xxiii.

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 107
meaning to be attached to each. At aU other feasts and high
days the ordinary round of animal and vegetable sacrifices,
somewhat adapted to the varying circumstances by special
injunctions, sufficed. At the Passover and on the great Day
of Atonement, something of an altogether different and unique
cast was ordained. What, then, was the essential significance
of the Feast of the Passover, and the ceremony of the Day of
Atonement 1
The names of both of these festivals will afford an answer.
The Passover recalled to mind, as the matter is commonly put,
the "passing over" of the angel bound. upon his mission of
death: as the eye of the angel fell upon the blood sprinkled upon
door-posts and lintel, the angel did not cross the threshold, but
" passed over; " and it was this " passing over " which filled
the mind of the several famiUes as they partook of their
paschal meal. Thus, in its primary celebration as well as
upon every subsequent observance, the thought uppermost in
the mind was the divine deUverance from judicial death, and
the reception by God of those He had delivered into a new
Ufe of feUowship with Himself. In its essential significance
the Passover was a sacrifice which spoke of the adoption of the
Jewish nation into the closest relationship with God, that
relationship being primarUy evinced by the forgiveness of sins.
The first Passover was the commencement of the special privi
leges of the chosen nation ; every subsequent Passover became
a pledge of the continuance of those privileges. So also, the
name appUed to the Day of Atonement reveals the essential
significance of that day. It was par excellence the day of
atonement. Throughout the previous year individuals had
obtained forgiveness for single sins of omission or light
trespass from day to day, and sin-offerings on behalf of the
nation had accompanied the principal festivals ; but this was
a day when high and low, rich and poor, priest and layman,
should receive atonement for their sins. There was not a soul
amongst those who were present in the court of the Tabernacle,
as the ceremony advanced to its climax, and the high priest
donned his ecclesiastical vestments of blue and gold and
precious stones, or even amongst those who pondered afar off
where the sound of beUs and pomegranates was inaudible, who

108 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
Would not know that atonement was being wrought for the
holy sanctuary, and the Tabernacle of the congregation, and
the altar, and the priests, and aU the people of the congrega
tion, " for aU their sins.'" If the Passover effected initiation
into the covenant relation, the Day of Atonement achieved
forgiveness for those sins of the initiated which would have
imperiUed that relation. These two rites throw into strong
relief the atonements necessary at the commencement and
during the course of a reUgious life-
Before plunging, therefore, into the mazes of Levitical
symboUsm or the mists of Mosaic typology, it has become
abundantly evident, from an examination which has not ex^
tended further than the Hebrew Onomasticon and the express
words of the Pentateuch, and which has not, therefore, touched
upon the debateable regions of possible inference or probable
suggestion, that there was much in the Mosaic injunctions of
the utmost value to the deepest religious wants of the Jew.
For the, times then present as weU as for subsequent ages,
spiritual guidance and satisfaction of a very high kind were
afforded by this worship of various sacrifice. Indeed, we have
been enabled to see that any Jew who thought upon the
language he habitually employed, or Ustened with any atten
tion to the words of the Law which it was the duty of the
Levites to recite, would have had a sufficiency of material for
faith, and that without any special theological training " the
wayfaring man, though a fool, could not err therein." In that
sacrificial constitution, upon which his eye could look every
day, were portrayed for any man who believed in God, and in
the possibUity of His reveaUng Himself, aU the essentials of
true religion. As the Jew regarded the sacred structure of the
Tabernacle, the eye whispered to the soul that God Most High
dwelt in the midst of His nation, and might be approached in
worship. As his attention was engrossed by the gorgeous vest
ments and busy ministrations of priests and Levites, he would
recognise a divinely appointed organization, by whose media
tion and intercession divine worship might be beneficially and
innocuously conducted. In the performance of the rites of
' Lev, xvi. 33, 34.

ESSENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 109
purification, the truth was palpable, that those hereditary taints
and personal faults which might intelligibly hinder approach
to God, however disqualifying in their nature, might be
neutralized. At the same time, the divinely arranged series
of animal and bloodless gifts would deUver the messages with
which they were divinely laden, the welcome and inspiriting
messages of the forgiveness of sins and a possibUity of uninter
rupted, or only momentarily interrupted, feUowship with God.
In the sin-offering he recognised the divinely arranged instru
ment for obtaining forgiveness for sins of weakness and
ignorance ; in the trespass-offering, a fitting retribution for
frauds against God or man : the burnt-offering was an aid
to consecration, the peace-offering a channel of communion.
In short, the Mosaic injunctions, if their essential significance
alone be regarded, brought into satisfactory prominence the
consolatory and instructive truths of the divine nearness and
approachableness, of human sin in its stupendous effects upon
the physical nature and the conscience, together with the
possibUity of atonement, forgiveness, and the restoration to the
divine favour. The Jew who could devoutly say, " I beUeve
in Jehovah, Maker of heaven and earth," could add to his creed
the further articles, " I beUeve in th6 shechinah, the Tabernacle
and priesthood, the communion of saints, and the forgiveness
of sins ; " — no inconsiderable spiritual equipment !

CHAPTER III.
THE SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC
INJUNCTIONS.
" How natural in aU decisive circumstances is symbolic representation to
all kinds of men ! . . . An Almack's masquerade is not nothing. . . . But
what, on the other hand, must not sincere earnest have been ! . . . A whole
nation gathered in the name of the Highest, under the eye of the Highest;
imagination herself flagging under the reality ; and aU noblest ceremony as yet
not grown ceremonial, but solemn, significant to the outmost fringe ! " — Caeltle,
French Revolution, Vol. II. Book I. chap. ix.
BY means of what has been termed their essential signifi
cance, many of the Mosaic injunctions receive an adequate
explanation. For it follows that if the presence of God was to
be taught in the wilderness by a visible dwelUng-place, there
must have been a tent of some form, with its arrangements for
speedyremoval and expeditious erection — its coverings,its cords,
its sockets, its piUars ; and if the revelation of the divine pre
sence was to be accommodated to different grades of worshippers,
that the tent must also have been divided by some sucli three
fold disposition as into Court, and Holy Place, and HoUest.
Or if the several altars were to be the special meeting-places
between Jehovah and an adoring people, those altars must
have been adapted, according to precedent or convenience, to
the presentation of their appropriate sacrifices ; the incense
must have had its table, and the burnt-offerings their hearth.
So, if there was to be a selected class of ministrants, whose
whole time and attention were to be concentrated upon the task
of divine service, suitable provision must have been made for
their support, and fitting dweUings have been assigned for
their abode. And so also, if atonement was to be made by
the blood of domestic animals, those animals must have been
slain; and if presentations were to be made of their flesh, their

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. Ill
carcases must have been flayed. Indeed, a moment's thought
wiU convince that very many details of the Levitical ritual
were the immediate consequents upon the several features of
the essential significance of the Mosaic revelation. In the
essential significance, therefore, of the Mosaic injunctions, — that
is to say, in the dogmatic principles which the law expressly
laid down for its own interpretation, — a considerable advance
has been made towards the comprehension of the commands
imparted during the years of wandering.
But during the course of the preceding chapters, the reader
must ¦ have been struck by the singularity of the method by
which these dogmatic principles were conveyed. EeUgious
truths are represented under sensuous forms: "ideas are clothed,
as it were, with a bodily substance, and those things which are
comprehended by the intellect alone are brought before the
eyes in a kind of sensible delineation."' In this compUcated
legal system, divine worship is aUegorical without being ca
pricious, and sacramental without becoming idolatrous. The
supersensuous is taught by the senses, spirit is informed by
flesh. If the Jew is to learn the divine accessibility, a visible
sanctuary where the Omnipresent condescends to linut His
attributes is .placed before his eyes ; if he is bidden bethink
himself of the hoUness of the elect priesthood, white vestments
become aids to thought ; if he is urged to approach the Lord
God Merciful and Gracious in humble confession of sins or
heartfelt gratitude, sin-offerings and burnt-offerings are placed
in his hands. This sacrificial system was, in fact, minutely
symboUcal, — symbolical of things to come, and symboUcal of
things then present. It wUl be convenient, however, to restrict
the word symbol to that which is a sensuous representation of a
truth or fact already revealed, and to employ the word type for
a senmous representation of a truth or fctct yet to be revealed.
By the study of the symbolism of the Mosaic injunctions in
this narrower sense, another great step wUl have been taken in
the elaboration of the Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice.
The one canon for the accurate and precise study of the
symbolical significance of the Mosaic injunctions in this narrower
sense is this, that the spheres of the symboUcal and essential
1 Faber, Horce Mosaicce, The Bampton Lectures for 1801, voL ii. p. 234.

112 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
significance are co-extensive. The Mosaic injunctions are largely
symboUcal, inasmuch as they largely represent the dogmatic
principles which have been already classified as their essential
significance. That is but saying that the Umits of the inter
pretation of the Levitical symbolism are the limits of the
announcements of the Levitical revelation. It is as untrue to
say that the law does not provide an authoritative verbal in
terpretation of the symbolism of its numerous prescriptions,^
as to say that symbolical significance must be gained rather
from inference than express statement.^ The results of the
preceding chapter are a key to the long-sealed chambers. Of
course it must not be disguised that there are difficulties in
the use of this key. A syipbol is not a dogma exactly defin
able in so many words, but a visible sign, a sensuous representa
tion, the value of which Ues in its suggestive power. " Its
realm is darkness and twilight ; it is like a half-closed bud,
which contains within its cup the extremest beauty un
developed."^ Further, the suggestive power of the sjonbol is
conditioned by the mental and spiritual power of the onlooker.
Every man must have understood something of the essential
significance of the various Levitical commands ; but, within
the circle of ideas thus sharply delineated, the amount of
religious instruction and consolation derived would vary with
the spiritual receptivity and the mental culture of the worship
per. What different men saw in the Tabernacle and its ser
vices, would be as dissimUiar in intensity and breadth as what
men of the same culture and unlike capacity see to-day in a
landscape or starry night ; and, side by side with some common
place, unimaginative man, to whom a primrose was simply a
yeUow primrose, and who found in the Tabernacle an unmean
ing and needless pageant, a David might be upon his knees,
his heart and imagination fuU to overflowing, and the prayer
audibly issuing from his Ups : " Open Thou mine eyes, that I
may behold wondrous things out of Thy law." It was to those
who, like Joshua, meditated day and night upon it, that the Law
yielded its imaginative as well as dogmatic treasures ; and it
' Compare Davison, On PropJiecy, pp. 139-150; Primitive Sacrifice, p. 89.
' Compare Litton, Mosaic Dispensation, pp. 85, 86.
3 Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Volker, vol. iv. p. 641.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 113
was neither in the power nor in the inclination of every one to
so meditate. And the difficulties arising from the suggestive
character of symbolism, and from the receptive nature of the
onlooker, are enhanced for the modern student of the Old
Testament worship. For him to ascertain the symbolical bear
ings of the sacrificial worship of the Pentateuch, may be a task
for which he is unfitted by a personal deficiency of the requisite
poetical and spiritual faculty, but for which he must be partially
incapacitated by the fact that the Tabernacle and its services
exist only in the historical imagination. To resuscitate the
ancient symbolism is to resuscitate first the ancient rites and
then their symbolism. What once spoke to the eye as a
living faith, can only address itself now to the representative
faculty as a dead faith laboriously restored ; and to recaU the
suggestiveness of the spiritual Ufe of the Exodus, is Uke firing
the imagination with oriental skies one has never seen. Never
theless, to the task we must bend ourselves, and our labours
wUl not be fruitless if but an inkUng of the eloquence of the
Sinaitic faith seizes upon the mind. It is not an entirely
unknown language we are to study ; these hieroglyphics of the
past wUl yield their secret to him who knows the alphabet of
their essential significance.
But a further preUminary question caUs for solution, "Where
is symboUsm to be expected ? " If it be granted that the
spheres of the symboUc and essential significance are co-exten
sive, is every detail of the Mosaic injunctions symboUc ? and if
not, how is the non-symbolic to be eliminated ? Various
principles have been propounded to detect where symbolism is
latent and where not. One writer, whose now classic work
upon this subject has effected a revolution in the study of the
Old Testament ceremonial, contents himself with the vague
rule, that in every symbol that which constitutes it a symbol
must be accurately distinguished from that which is merely
subordinate and accessory ; ' but this is the very difficulty, to
decide what is subordinate and what accessory. Another
writer regards those featui'es of the Mosaic ceremonial as
unimportant and adventitious which were presented in other
' Kihr, Symbolik, Deutungs-regeln VI. vol. i. pp. 50, 51 ; ed. 2, p. 93.
H

114 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
forms in Solomon's Temple.^ Thus, in his esteem such detaUs
were manifestly non-symboUcal, as the acacia framework which
was afterwards superseded by cedar, and the laver which
became so greatly altered in form in the molten sea ; but this
principle, however valuable in itself, is far from adequate, and
labours, besides, under the disadvantage of deferring cer
tainty as to the extent of symbolism tiU the late date of the
erection of the Temple. Some, in the difficulty of the ques
tion, have denied altogether any symbolical significance in one
sentence to exemplify such a sense in the next." And others,
yet again, have faUen back upon a ciitical feeling trained in
Old Testament studies as the only possible umpire.* The
true solution of the question is a coroUary to what we have
previously laid down as the canon of symboUsm — the
co-extension of the essential and symboUc senses ; that corol
lary being — wherever any ritual injunction is not necessitated by
some feature of the essential significance, there look for sym
bolism. lUustrations of this principle may be found in any of
the classes of the Mosaic injunctions. The Tabernacle, for
example, is declared to be the only legal place of meeting
between Jehovah and His people : now, if there was to be a
visible sanctuary at aU under the conditions of the wUdemess
life, that sanctuary must be a portable tent ; for the signifi
cance, therefore, of a covering of skins, or of an elaborate
apparatus of cords and bars and sockets and tenons and
rods, aU necessary consequences of the prime idea, it is
unnecessary to look further. But the sacred tent was con
structed of other materials than those commonly employed;
its ground-plan was different, and its elevation was novel : in
aU such aberrations symbolism may be expected. Again, a
priesthood was speciaUy constituted for divine service. In
the facts that such an elected class must have food to eat, and
houses to dwell in, and clothes to wear, it is fooUsh to look
for symboUsm; but if a peculiar food, special cities, excep-
' Hengstenberg, Authentic des Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 631.
" E.g., Fairbairn, Typology, voL ii. pp. 238-241.
' E.g., Kalisch, Leviticus, A. ix.: "Though, therefore, some of the ceremonies
have a spiritual meaning, others cannot, without unprofitable playfulness, be
interpreted symbolically : a correct appreciation of the nature of the Law will aid
the judgment in fixing the distinction."

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 116
tional vestments are commanded, in such commands symbol
ism may be expected. Or, turning to the sacrifices them
selves, it is not in the fact of gifts being presented that any
symboUcal element is to be presumed, but in the nature of
the gift itself; it is not in the fact of presentation that we
suspect symbolism, but in the ritual in which that presenta
tion is arrayed. In fine, as in nature design is looked for not
in the sequence of cause and effect, but in coUocations of
causes and coincidences of effects, so in the Mosaic injunc
tions symbolism — that is to say, a designed correspondence of
matter and thought — may be expected not in details necessary
to the very existence of the Mosaic revelations, but in unex
pected coUocations and coincidences super-essential.
Again, as in the two preceding chapters, the caution is
necessary to proceed little by Uttle, advancing from the sim
pler elements of the ritual to the more complex. Instead, for
example, of endeavouring to enunciate the symbolical refer
ences of so intricate a ceremony as the ritual of the Day of
Atonement, or even of the daUy service, with aU its diversified
detaU of popular presentation and priestly procedure, it wiU
greatly conduce to the ease and success of our investigation
if the method previously adopted be still adhered to, and we
develope, in the first place, the symboUc significance of the
special place of sacrifice, then of the sacrificial ministrants,
next of the purifications and sacrifices, afterwards of the legal
enactments of the entire calendar.
The thoughts which fiUed the mind of the inteUigent
Israelite as he regarded the sacred tent of Jehovah, have been
deduced in the preceding chapter. The Tabernacle was to the
Jew, unless he discredited what he beUeved to be the voice of
Jehovah Himself, the one place where Jehovah condescended
to meet with His people ; and it consisted of various parts,
because of the conditions under which that meeting took place.
These articles of the Jewish creed were taught to the intel
lect by the express revelation of God Himself; they were
conveyed to the eye by metalUc lustre, gorgeous colouring,
imposing and awful adjuncts. Symbolic detaUs relieved by
their brilUant setting the jewels of the Sinaitic faith. Apply
ing the test just enunciated to the various injunctions of the

116 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
Tabernacle, S3rmboUcal elements may be supposed to lie in the
materials of which it was constructed, the plan on which it
was buUt, and its several articles of furniture.
The materials of which the Tabernacle was commanded to
be made were, as has been already seen, the wood of the acacia
vera, — gold, silver, and brass, — three coverings of skins, and
one of parti-coloured tapestry. Of these the three coverings of
skins are the common coverings of Eastern tents, and mani
festly have their purpose in protection : they therefore caU for
no further notice ; it is in the extraordinary the symbolical
resides. The other materials are exquisitely adapted for
sj'mboUcal representation. The acacia is the lignum imputra-
bile of the Orientals, incorruptibility itself, the facile defier of
putrefaction.' Gold, from its proud pre-eminence amongst
even the noble metals, must ever be the emblem of all that is
glorious and beautiful, the fitting ornament of kingly palaces,
the appropriate adornment of a divine residence. Brass retains
something of the suggestiveness of gold, although the lesser
brUUancy of its colour and the lesser brightness of its gleam
speak of a gold that is dulled.^ Silver wiU always the wide
world over be eloquent of purity.* And when we come to the
richly woven tapestry hangings for palaces, did not its white
speak of hoUness,* its blue of the vault of heaven, the footstool
of the Almighty,* its purple of regal splendour,* and its scarlet
of a fuU and free and joyous Ufe,' such as is the attribute of
God ? were not its cherubim a secure body-guard ?
The symboUsm of the ground-plan lay in the position the
sacred structure invariably occupied relatively to the camp.
On the pitching of tents the Tabernacle was ever the centre
of the entire assembly ; and whilst the priests and Levites
formed an immediate cordon round it, the tents of the entire
' The Septuagint renders shittim by xcti^rrlt, the v/nrotting tree, x«t' ilax^'
(e.g. Ex. xxvi. 32, 37, xx., xvi. 34). It is noteworthy that the cedar which was
subsequently employed in the construction of the Temple is often designated
irnTrit (see Theodoret on Ezra xvii. '22).
« Compare Isa. Ix. 17. 3 Compare Isa. i. 22.
* Lev. xvi. 4 ; comp. Isa. Ixi. 10. » Ex. xxiv. 10.
* Compare Esther vui. 15 ; SoL Song iii. 10 ; Dan. v. 7, 16, !29 ; 1 Mace x
20, 22, 64, xiv. 43 ; 2 Mace. iv. 38.
' Compare 2 Sam. v. 24 ; Sol. Song iv. 3 ; Lam. iv. 5.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. - 117
assembly suiTounded them — Judah, Issachar, and Zebulon to
the north ; Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh to the south ;
Dan, Asser, and Naphtali to the east ; and Eeuben, Simeon,
and Gad to the west. The encampment, indeed, presented
the appearance of a gigantic wheel, — the Tabernacle and tents
of the priests forming its box, so to speak, and the lines
between the several tribal encampments the twelve spokes.
Thus, to every tribe the Tabernacle was equaUy visible; in
other words, Jehovah was no respecter of persons, and He
visibly dwelt without partiaUty in the midst of the whole
nation. There was a beautiful and expressive symbolism also in the
furniture of the Holy Places, — the points caUing for express
notice being the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, and the
general form of the altar in the Holiest. Many conjectures
have been made as to the purpose of the four altar horns,
some supposing them to have been intended to tie the sacri
ficial victims' to when .refractory, others seeing in them handles
for those who sought sanctuary, others aids for transport,
others trophies of the bodies consumed upon the altar, and
others emblems of power or empire, dignity or exceUence.^
The purpose to which the horns were always put, as is signi
ficantly enough seen in the ritual of the sin-offerings, sug
gests another meaning. The horns would appear to have been
regarded as the quintessence of the altar. If the altar was
earth or rock " raised " a little, as the etymology of the word
implies, the horns were the altar itself " raised." If to sprinkle
blood upon the altar was to present it before God, to sprinkle
blood upon the horns was pre-eminently to bring it into the
divine presence. The horns pecuUarly presented the essential
significance of the altar in symboUcal form. As to the sjrm-
bolism of the ark and the mercy-seat, it was exquisitely
adapted to its end. The ark was but an ornamental box to
contain the tables of the law, the mercy-seat a gold plate
with overshadowing golden cherubim; but what a fund of
mysterious aUusion there was in this artistic combination !
In the Holy of Holies the . Almighty had, so to speak. His
audience-chamber, and this plate of gold was His throne ;
1 See Spencer, De Legibus Hebrews, Book III. Dissert, i. §§ 2 and 3.

118 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
over it hovered the shechinah, the visible symbol of the
divine presence in the times of its revelation ; the wings of
cherubim, the divine executive of ministry, sheltered it ; when
blood was sprinkled before it, it was sprinkled, as it were,
before the very eyes of God ; that throne, too, was estabUshed
in righteousness: for the decalogue was its foundation, and the
observance of those ten commands the condition of its occu
pation. Singularly harmonious, therefore, with the idea of the
Tabernacle as a place where the great God condescended for a
time to dwell was its body-guard of cherubim, its lustre of
brass and sUver and gold, and its brilliant colouring. Where
Jehovah was, glory must be; and it was fitting that His blessed
attributes should be symboUzed to rude and callous natures by
aU the pomp and splendour which surround a throne. If the
Jew was conscious that beneath that rugged tent-cloth Deity
had humbled Himself to reside, the flttings and ornamentation
aU enhanced the idea, and he saw a dwelUng-place eloquent
of His exalted rank. His spotless purity. His rich and flowing
Ufe. The position of the sanctuary would teU its tale of
equaUty of national privileges ; and when the Jew regarded
the Umitations under which God had promised to reveal Him
self, he would also recognise that the entire plan, construction,
and appurtenances of the Tabernable were so arranged as to
sjonboUze those Umitations. The glow of gold and the gleam
of colour would teU that every square inch of the sacred
enclosure was consecrated ground ; but the several divisions
of the sacred area woiUd suggest, by the variety of detail
employed, as weU as by the appropriate utensUs, the grades of
access appointed by Jehovah. In the Court the Jew could
approach Jehovah not directly, but in the person of His
appointed representatives ; the Court was thus the meeting-
place of least honour ; appropriately enough, therefore, in its
construction white linen and valuable metals are employed, but
at the same time the curtains are simply white, and the metals
are the least valuable, namely, brass and copper and sUver.
Then at the altar of burnt-offering, where the significance
of the Court had its highest expression, the sentiment made
itself felt, that, notwithstanding that this was a spot somewhat

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 119
nearer to God, and struggUng apparently in the horns, like the
spire of some Gothic church, to surmount the lower structure ;
yet, after all, this altar was but a convenient apparatus of
wood and copper for raising mother earth or native rock a
little above the ordinary terrene level In the Holy Place
the priests could serve and worship — not directly, it must still
be said, but by participation in the adoration of their chief,
and by their approach to the anteroom, so to speak, of the
divine audience-chamber : the Holy Place was thus a spot of
higher, yet not the highest honour ; and again, appropriately
enough, its pure white was threaded with brUliant colouring,
and its metallic fittings were of gold : the altar of incense,
which was not far off from the glory within the veil, was also
appropriately made of gold artistically wrought. But it was
within the HoUest, where once a year the high priest came,
after solemn preparation, and gazed unhindered upon the cloud
which enshrined the Deity, that symbolism reached its most
perfect expression : there reigned grandeur and gloom ; the
whole was of perfect cubical form ; cherubs worked in bright
colours stood out from the white tapestry ; every hook was of
gold ; and, as on a throne of burning gold, which was also the
high altar, the symbol of the divine presence rested beneath
the wings of symboUc angels. Assuredly that priest who
could approach the mercy-seat, even by aid of the blood of
atonement, without fear and trembling, must have been either
superhuman, or utterly devoid of imagination and the sense of
the subUme.
Again, the essential significance of the priesthood lay, as
has been seen, not in the native holiness or super-eminent
fitness of its members for their exalted position, but in four
attributes, — its divine election, its attributed hoUness, its
nearer access, and its official service. These characteristics
were also represented sensuously; the eye was enlisted on
behalf of the spirit in those privileges, prerequisites, habits,
consecration, duties, and vestments which have been previously
detailed at sufficient length. In fact, a most minute and
varied symbolism had been invented by which to convey to
the duUest mind the high regard in which the entire order of

120 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the , priesthood was divinely held, and by which to impress
upon the coarsest nature within the hierarchy itself the purity
of character and act divinely demanded of the priest. Would
one learn the holiness of the appointed ministrants ? Their
characteristic of holiness was sensuously represented by their
faultless physical constitution, their mature age, and their
stern and secluded habit of Ufe. Having been appointed to
divine service, they were to know no distracting cares in the
tiUage of land or bodily labour : "I am thy part and thine
inheritance among the chUdren of Israel, saith the Lord."
What could speak more plainly of the solemnity of their
approach to God than their serving barefoot ? Then their
official attire uttered its message with more potency than
words : the pure white and the cleanly linen — " the robe of
righteousness," as it is caUed in the Psalms — spoke of outward
holiness ; and the coloured girdle, with its inseparable associa
tions with the rite of dedication, was immediately recognizable
as connected with the Holy Place. In the ceremonial of
consecration the whole of the attributes were beautifuUy dis
played : the exclusion of those who had physical defects was a
subtle form of divine election ; as the process of purification
proceeded at the laver, when the novice was clad in his
official robes, when the sacred oU of anointing was poured
upon the head, there spoke as articulately as acts could speak
the cleansing and setting apart for divine service ; and when
the newly-instaUed priest offered his triple sacrifice, the sin-
offering was a sign of the forgiveness of his sins, the burnt-
offering was a sign of the entireness of his consecration, and the
peace-offering emblematized his oneness with the Master whom
he served. Whatever feature of the priesthood be regarded,
it wiU be seen that the symbolic significance deepens the
impression of the essential significance.
Exactly the same attributes were visible in the high priest
in an intensified form ; and in an intensified form his privileges,
his rules of conduct, the extended rites of his consecration,
and his official vestments are symboUc. His was a stricter
cleanUness, his was a more solemn consecration, his was ' a
more elaborate investiture. If the ordinary priest wore
four official garments, he wore twice as many, as priest Kar

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 121
efoX'fj'. " Holiness to the Lord " was conspicuous upon his
mitre. His divine caU was consequent upon his birth. His
dedication to the Lord was apparent in every official act. His
privUege of divine access, ordinarUy seen in his daUy ministra
tions at the altar of incense, was most plainly witnessed in the
solemn ritual of the Day of Atonement. And what could more
conclusively bespeak his exceptional mediation than his daily
passage (to say nothing of his yearly passage into the Holiest),
with the breastplate and its twelve representative stones gUt-
tering in the Ught, within the curtain of the Holy Place ?
So also the whole of the ceremonial of purification was pro
foundly symbolic, stamping deeply upon the mind the dogmatic
significance of these cleansing rites. We shall pass these rites
over hastUy, as the vast provinces of the symboUsm of the
Tabernacle and priesthood have been hastily traveUed over, in
order that we may come the more speedily to the symbolism
of the sacrifices proper ; but the exigences of our plan demand
some gUmpses. How beautifuUy, for example, is the act of
cleansing itself symbolized by washing with water ! How
exquisitely are the contaminating effects of original sin pre
sented to the eye by the multitudinous occasions which demand
purification ! To show, however, the power of symbolism to
convey reUgious truth, we select the rites for the purification
of the leper as an astonishing instance.
The leper, by reason of his disease, had to submit to a
double estrangement, — ^in the first place, from the covenant
nation ; and in the second, from the national sanctuary. The
rites of his purification had reference to this double ban, and
consisted of two separate services. The earlier ceremony had
to do with the restoration of the convalescent leper to the
theocratic privUeges from which he had been excluded by his
disease. After he had been pronounced sound and weU by a
priest who had examined him without the camp, two birds,
together with a Uttle cedar wood, a shred of scarlet cloth or a
thread of scarlet wool, and a little hyssop were brought, and
the rite commenced. One of the birds was kiUed in such a
way that its blood mingled with some fresh spring water con
tained in an earthen vessel. The Uve bird, the cedar, scarlet,

122 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
and hyssop were then dipped into the reddened water, the
healed leper was sprinkled seven times with the purifying
mixture, and the bird was let loose, — an exquisitely symboUc
act of reinstatement, the full purport of which, in its deep
typical significance, was not within the reach of the Jew.
StiU the Jew could see that the death of one bird was the
cleansing of the other, the blood of the one the instrument of a
restored life to its fellow. It was apparent enough that the
bird let loose into the open country was a symbol to the leper
of himself; and as he regarded the method by which release
was obtained from the social ban under which he laboured, what
food was there for thought as weU as thankfulness ! It was
he who was first cleansed by water and blood, and it was he
who subsequently rose as from death into a free and unfettered
life — a life, too, the significance of which was intensified by
those symbolic accompaniments, the incorruptible cedar, the
detergent hyssop, and the fresh fuU life of which the scarlet
spoke. The second ceremony, by which the leper was rein
stated in his religious privileges, was equally expressive. On
the seventh day the entire body was shaved and bathed, and
the clothes washed — a reiterated purification by way of pre
liminary to the coining rites. The eighth day brought a
sacrificial expiation. The leper and his offerings having been
solemnly presented before God at the altar of burnt-offering,
the atoning and sanctifying rites commenced. First a lamb
and oil were waved before the Lord, and the lamb was
offered for a trespass-offering — that is to say, for a restitution
to Almighty God for the sins of omission throughout the long
course of enforced banishment from the divine presence. The
slaughter of this lamb was followed by a most singular cere
mony : some of the blood was smeared by the officiating priest
upon the tip of the leper's right ear, the tip of his right thumb,
and the great toe of his right foot, and then upon the same
spots oil was smeared ; it was the atonement of ear, foot, and
hand, and their consecration thenceforth to the service of
Jehovah. The remainder of the oU was then poured upon the
head of the worshipper, and the whole man consecrated to the
Lord. A sin-offering foUowed in atonement for sins of com
mission, this sin-offering presenting yet more forcibly the fact

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 123
of the divine forgiveness. Afterwards came a burnt-offering
and a meat-offering, thus closing the ceremony with a beauti
fully symbolic expression of the fact of restoration to the
privileges of divine worship.
Then how eloquent and suggestive was the entire ritual of
sacrifice !
What could more forcibly delineate the desire to approach
the Deity in the way He had Himself ordained, than to bring
the appropriate victim to the altar of burnt-offering and there
present it before the Lord? To select the victim from its
fellows, to lead it by a halter across the sacred threshold of
the Court, to enter the sacred precincts of the place where the
Lord God, Who had made bare His arm in Egypt to destroy,
now, made bare His arm in the Tabernacle to save, to present
the he-goat or the lamb to His chosen servants the priests, —
what was aU this but most expressively to objectify the desire
to come near to God ? To present an animal at the altar of
burnt-offering, was symboUcaUy to approach the Most High in
sacrifice. And how emphatic was the rite of the imposition of the
hand ! When the animal had been presented, " the offerer
forcibly laid his hand upon its head — his hand, not his slave's ;
his hand, not his substitute's, nor his wife's, but his own
hand;"^ and the act was pecuUarly expressive. As the
chUdren of Israel laid their hands upon the Levites to dedicate
them to that service of the Lord which was the duty of the
whole nation ; ^ as the involuntary hearer of blasphemy, pol
luted by the unintentional overhearing, laid his hand upon the
blasphemer to reUeve himself from his accidental participation
in the crime by devoting the criminal himself to bear the lawful
doom ; ^ as Moses laid his hand upon Joshua to dedicate him
to the high office of leader in his place,* so the offerer of
every animal sacrifice laid his hand upon the creature's head,
to dedicate it to the purpose for which it was brought. The
1 "Imponit quisque manum suam, non manum servi ; manum suam, non
manum vicarii sui; manum suam, non manum uxoris suse. "-^Outram, De
Sacrificiis, chap. i.
2 Num. vui. 10. ' Lev. xxiv. 14. ' Num. xxvii. 18.

124 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
imposition of the hand was a visible devotion of the victim to
the purposes of animal sacrifice.^
In the aspersion of blood upon the altar, the bringing of
the atoning soul of the victim into the divine presence is
symboUzed, as wUl be at once understood from the classic
passage which has been already quoted : " For the soul of the
flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you upon the altar
to atone for your souls : for it is the blood that atones by the
' Upon the right understanding of this act the interpretation of Mosaic sacri
fice largely turns ; or perhaps it may be more rightly said, the interpretation of
this act is a crucial test of the vaUdity of any theory of Old Testament sacrifice.
Two classes of expositions have been, for the most part, advocated. On the one
hand, it has been aUeged that the imposition of the hand was simply expressive
of the transference to the victim of that special intention in which the offering
was brought : that intention being sometimes the recognition of sin, but some
times of gratitude or rejoicing. This is the opinion of Delitzsch, Commentar zum
Heb)-derbrief (translated in Foreign Theological Library, vol. ii. p. 452) ;
Ewald, Alterthiimer, p. 58 ; Hengstenberg, Die Opfer, p. 15 (Ecclesiastes, p.
378) ; Keil, Archaologie, vol. i. p. 206 ; Neumann, Die Opfer des A. B., p. 343 ;
Oehler, Herzog, vol. x. p. 627, and Theologie des AU. Test, (translated in
Foreign Theological Library), § 126 ; Eitschl, Die christliche Lehre, vol. ii. p.
191 ; Sykes, Essay on Sacrifice, p. 25, etc. ; Tholuek, Das Alt. Test, in N. T.,
§ 3, 6th ed; p. 92 : it is a phase of the same opinion which Kalisch advocates,
when he says that the act in question indicated "the personal and intimate
relation between the worshipper and the victim " (Leviticus, A. x. 4); On the
other hand, it has been maintained that this act of the ritual signified at every
time and in every place a transference of sinfulness : so Ebrard, Die Lehre v. d.
stellvertretenden Genugthuung, p. 48 ; Fairbairn, Typology (T. & T. Clark),
vol. ii. p. 312 ; Kliefoth, Liturgische Abhandlungen, vol. iv. p. 51 ; Kiiper,
Das Priesterthum, p. 115 ; Havemick, Vorlesungen iiber d. Theologie des AU.
Test., p. 190 ; Magee, Discourses upon Sacrifice and Atonement, Dissert, xxxii. ;
Stockl, Das Opfer, p. 246 ; Thomson, Atoning Work of Christ, p. 68 ; and
commonly amongst Jewish Eabbis (see Ugolino, Thesaurus, vol. ii. p. 860, etc.).
This second view is unscriptural and contradictory. To speak of the imposition
of the hand as symbolical of the transference of sin, is to open wide the door to
frequent contradictions ; if the victim, for example, carry the sins of the offerer,
how can that sacrifice be termed, as it so often is, "holy," "most holy"? how
can its blood be sprinkled upon the altar, the dwelling-place of God? The
principal argument relied on to prove that imposition was symboUcal of the
transfer of guilt is that, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest laid his hand
upon the head of the goat which was not slaughtered, thus placing upon it the
sins of the people (see Lev. xvi. 21). But the cases are not analogous. It is
forgotten that before "this undoubted act of transference of guilt" the hand of
the priest Imd been already laid upon the head of the slaughtered goat. If that
first act of imposition — .which alone paraUeled the common sacrificial rite —
signified the transference of the guilt of the people, how came it that those sins
still remained upon the people, and could be placed a second time upon the head
of the second goat? Nor is the other view — that which sees in the act of

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 125
soiU;"^ in other words, sacrificial blood atones, and atones
inasmuch as it symbolizes the soul or Ufe of the sacrificial
victim.'' Blood is Ufe in compendio^ and so atones. " It was
a fundamental axiom : ' The Ufe of the flesh is in the blood ; '
or, ' The blood is the soul : ' soul and blood were correlative
notions; hence dying was expressed by 'pouring out the soul;'
to ' shed blood ' meant ' to destroy Ufe ; ' the blood and the
soul of the murdered were said aUke to cry to heaven for
vengeance ; ' pure blood ' became synonymous with ' a pure
sotU ;' and even the combination, ' the soul of pure blood,' was
formed to denote a guUtless person." * In the priestly sprink-
Ung, therefore, of the blood in any recognised way upon the
altar, we have the chosen mediators approaching Jehovah and
presenting before God the means of atonement He had Him
self ordained. In the altar of burnt-offering — and the same
is true mutatis mutandis of the other altars — we have the
place where Jehovah condescended to meet His people in
sacrifice ; in the priest, the ministrant especiaUy selected for
divine approach ; in the blood of the animal slaughtered, the
appointed means of atonement ; and thus, in the sprinkling of
the blood by the priest upon the altar, the due presenting to
God of an atoning Ufe.
There are stUl two acts of the general sacrificial procedure
remaining ; for, from our previous analysis, it wiU have been
seen that the whole procedure common to the various sacrifices
might be summarized as follows. On any motive inciting
thereto, the offerer, whether priest or layman, having selected
the victim in obedience to the legal prescriptions, brought it to
imposition not the transference of guUt, but the transference of the predominant
feeling of the worshipper — any more scriptural ; for this there is even less
plausible evidence than for the view just discussed. So, too, Kurtz is no nearer
the mark when he maintains the imposition of hands to symbolize the transfer
ence of the punishment due to the offerer's sins, instead of the transference of his
sins. &ea Alttest. Opfercultus, §§ 36-42, p. 72 (EngUsh Translation, pp. 82-101).
The imposition of the hand symbolized — as Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis, vol. ii.
p. 246 ; Knobel, Leviticus, p. 354 ; and Sehultz, Alttest. Tlieologie, vol. i. p. 248,
have said — a dedication of the victim to the double purpose of atonement and
sacrifice. Erroneous views upon this point are the infaUible consequences of
erroneous views upon Mosaic symbolism generaUy. See Part III. chap. iv.
1 Lev. xvii. 11. ' ' See note 2, p. 100.
' Kahnis, Die Lutherische Dogmatik, etc., voL i. p. 272.
¦• Kalisch, LevUicus, Essay A. § ix. 7.

126 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
the altar, laid his hand forcibly upon its head, and slaughtered
it : there the duties of the layman ended. A priest then
coUected the blood of the animal in a basin, and applied it to
the altar wholly or partially, sometimes in one way and some
times in another, according to the nature of the sacrifice (in
certain cases the blood was also applied to the altar of
incense or the mercy-seat) ; afterwards he flayed, dismembered,
cleansed, and burnt the carcase wholly or partiaUy, in most
cases retaining the skin as his perqiusite. The burnt-offerings
alone were holocausts ; in the peace-offerings, the remainder,
after the separation of certain portions which fell to the
officiating priest, constituted a sacrificial feast for the offerer
and his family; in the sin-offering or trespass-offering the
remainder was either burnt without the camp, or, as in other
cases, eaten by the priests in the holy places ; with the burnt-
offerings and peace-offerings meat and drink offerings were
united, but with the offerings for sin and trespass never.
From this summary of the ritual, it wUl be seen that there
were certain general features common to every animal sacri
fice ; these general features were the selection of the animal,
the presentation, the imposition of the hand, mactation, the
reception of the blood, the manipulation with the blood, flay
ing, cleansing, dismembering, the combustion, the feasting : of
which the selection, the mactation, the reception of the blood,
the flaying, cleansing, and dismembering are as manifestly
necessitated by the essential signiflcance of animal sacrifice as
the remaining processes are symboUc.
The act of combustion upon the altar-hearth, whether partial
or complete, was also exquisitely representative of the idea of
sacrifice. Atonement, the peculiar aim of animal sacrifice,
having been made by the blood, the gift of the flesh, the
further purpose of animal sacrifice, was to be made, and it was
made before the very eyes of the worshipper. As the divided
portions of the carcase were arranged in the heaven-bom fire,^ —
for the sacred fire upon the altar had first issued forth from
the divine presence at the ceremony of the consecration of the
Tabernacle, and, like the flame of the candlestick, had never been
permitted to go out, — it was seen to burn, to become refined and
' Lev. ix. 24, compare vi. 13.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 127
etherealized, and to rise into the blue heaven accompanied by
a sweet-smelling savour. Was there not here pictoriaUy
portrayed, in the laying of the flesh upon the altar, its
presentation to God as a gift, and in the combustion the
divine acceptance of the gift ? ^
The last feature of the general ritual to be noticed, is that
of the concluding meal, whether it was made by the priest
hood, as in the more common cases, or by the laity, as in the
peace-offerings. If the act of burning the carcase of the victim
was the visible sign of the divine acceptance of the proffered
gift, the restoration of part of the gift to priest or people was
the divine provision in mercy for human rejoicing in the act
of worship. This feast was a caU, as every Oriental mind
would especiaUy reaUze, to feUowship and friendship. It
prepared the way for joyous reunion. It is the reception, so
to speak, of the prodigal who, having returned to his Father,
and having been sanctified by atoning blood, is now to be
feasted with the fatted calf. It is Jehovah taking the sinner
to His house, preparing him a feast, and eating and drinking
with him at His table. As has been weU said : " Just as the
sprinkling blood hetokenei justification, and combustion sanc
tification, so the sacrificial meal told its tale of the unio
mystica." ^
Thus, in every animal sacrifice that he offered, the Jew,
who by the light of the express teaching of the Law entered
into the meaning of his combined act of atonement and wor
ship, would see in the presentation at the Tabernacle a
material expression of his desire to* approach the Almighty,
Who there revealed Himself ; in the laying on of the hand, the
deUberate dedication of the victim to the purpose of sacrifice ;
in the aspersion of its blood, the "covering" of his sin
before the face of God ; in the burning upon the hearth of
' Michaelis, Entwurfder typischen Oottes-gelahrtheit, § 20 ; De Maistre, Soirees
de St. Petersbourg, vol. ii. p. 234, and others, supposed this burning to be a sur
render to the punishment of hell. If so, the burning of incense symbolicaUy
represented that the Most High met prayer with heU-fire ; and the smoke of
sacrifice, so frequently described as divinely acceptable, is in reaUty the smoke
of hell ! Since the time of Bahr, the opinion in the text has been generaUy
adopted. 2 Kurtz, Alttest. Opfercultus, § 79, p. 133.

128 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
earth, the acceptance by Jehovah of the presentation made ;
and, when a meal of any kind succeeded, he would see God
his Saviour adding to His merciful reconcUiation the privUege
of feUowship with Himself.
And in the investigation of the symbolical significance of
the several species of animal sacrifice, the dogmatic signifi
cance attached to each by the Law was expressly emphasized
by sensuous representation. Inasmuch as, whenever a series
of sacrifices was presented, the sin-offering always came first,
the burnt-offering next, and the peace-offering as the conclu
sion of the whole,^ logical connection, as weU as the ritualistic
details of each sacrifice, suggests that commencement be made
with the sin-offering.
The differentia of the sin-offering was its purpose of atone
ment. As a sacrifice it was pre-eminently atoning. Now
the leading features of its ritual were, to recapitulate what
has been previously recounted at length, that the offerings
varied according to the status of the persons presenting them,
that the manipulation with the blood of the slaughtered
victims was brought into strong relief, and that the fatty por
tions only of the carcase were burnt upon the altar, the
remainder being in some cases burnt without the camp, and
in others falling to the priests. Each of these features
symboUzed in some respect the dogmatic significance of this
variety of offering. Thus it foUowed, from the very nature of
the sin-offering, that a more valuable offering should be pre
sented the higher the theocratic status of the offerer ; if atone
ment was to be made by a gift, the sin of the noble must be
atoned by a gift more costly than the sin of the poor, the sin
of the priest by a more precious gift than the sin of the lay
man; and the gradation was seen in the she-goat for the
IsraeUtes, in the more valuable he-goat for a ruler, and in the
yet more valuable ox. for the high priest or the entire congre
gation. Then, again, there was something singiUarly expres
sive in the fact that the sin of the priest was to be marked
by the cremation of the whole carcase without the camp. In
the third place, the burning of the fatty portions only dis
tinctly characterized the general idea of sacrifice by presentation
' See Ex. xxix. ; Lev. viii. 9, 10.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 129
to be subordinate. But it was the ritual with the blood
which most clearly indicated the prominence of the atoning
element in this sacrifice. Atonement under the Law was
atonement by blood, and the special ritual enjoined emphati
caUy asserted the fact. If the burnt-offering culminated in
the complete combustion upon" the altar, if the peace-offering
had its climax in its festal entertainment, and the trespass-
offering in the money commutation attached, the acme of the
sacrifice in question undeniably lay in the aspersion of blood
upon the altar, — the presentation, so to speak, of atoning life
before the Lord. Even in the sin-offerings of the lowest rank,
the blood was not swung, as in the other oflerings, against the
four walls of the altar, — was not even sprinkled upon the
horns of the altar, — but, a more deliberate and careful method
being adopted, was cautiously smeared upon the horns with
the finger,^ " to bring the blood as near as possible to God,"
as has been expressively said.^ The same thing was done
with the offering for a ruler. In the offering for the congre
gation or high priest, a yet more solemn course was pursued ;
for the high priest took the blood into the Holy Place,
sprinkled the veil with it seven times, and besmeared the
horns of the altar of incense. In every case the surplus blood
was not dashed against the altar sides, but carefully poured
away at the foot. Without any further elucidation, every
detail of the ritual will be readUy understood from what has
been already said upon the dogmatic and symbolic significance
of the Tabernacle, priesthood, and the modus operandi of sacri
ficing. There was not an element in the ritual which did not
paint upon the eye what the dogmatic significance imprinted
upon the intellect.
By the pecuUar ritual of the trespass-offering quite another
truth was expressed. Its speciaUty was the valuation of the
sacrificial ram by the priest, the animal thus obtaining a fancy
value. As has been previously seen, these offerings were
made for sins which admitted of restitution or recompense :
whether, as in some cases, those sins were infringements of
the injunctions concerning the divine dues, when the appro
priate restitution was made to God ; or, as in others, social
1 Lev. V. 7, 18, 25, 30, 34. ' Oehler, article in Herzog, vol. x. p. 648.
I

130 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
relationships had been infringed, and restitution was made to
both God and man. The fancy value placed upon the ram
brought out in firm outline the nature of this sacrifice as a
restitution to God ; and when restitution was also made to
man, the payment of the debt and its superadded fine brought
out the same feature with respect to human liability. The
remaining ritual had no extraordinary feature. That the
trespass-offering was a sacrifice, all the remaining features
testified ; that it was an atoning sacrifice, the bloody rites
bore witness ; that it was a sacrifice of the nature of a ransom,
this special element of valuation emphasized.
In the burnt and peace offerings we have passed away from
the atoning sacrifices xar e^oj(fiv, and have come to those
sacrifices which werg offerings primarUy and secondarUy
atoning. This is very conspicuous in the ritual enjoined for
each. There is no special prominence given to the manipula
tion with the blood, as in the case of the sin-offerings ; nor to
any fancy valuing, as in that of the offerings for trespass:
they are quite other features which are mainly symboUzed.
Another feature altogether was displayed in the essential
significance of the burnt-offering, and to this telUng expres
sion was given in the ritual. The burnt-offering was not the
offering of petition or confession or communion, but peculiarly
the offering of worship, and this is clearly visible in its
symboUsm. There was the common process of atonement
by blood, but performed with no unusual prominence; the
individuality of this variety of offering was seen in the total
cremation upon the hearth. How gloriously affecting and
reassuring ! A sacrifice is made ; the Divine Being, all-power
ful and all-holy, is worshipped by means of a gift which is a
faint and insufficient emblem of self-surrender ; the divine fire
whoUy consumes the offering ; and the proffer of self is
graciously accepted. As the disparted flesh hissed into smoke,
the worshipper knew that his gift had been welcome, that the
savour of burning flesh had been a sweet savour to the Lord.
The remaining detaUs of the rite present nothing unusual.
The peace-offerings were offerings guibus pax cum Deo
fcvetur. This cementing of the divine friendship was con
spicuously evident in the ritual commanded. The presenta-

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 131
tion, the imposition of the hand, the manipulation with the
blood, and the burning of the fatty portions, had the common
significance ; it was the final meal which was the uncommon
element. Two points, however, in the introductory ritual caU
for elucidation— viz., the wave-breast and the heave-shoulder.
The word translated " wave " is used elsewhere for the move
ment of an axe,^ and of a threatening hand ; ^ and, quite in
harmony with this, the Talmud describes the motion as one
that passed backwards and forwards.^ A peculiarly significant
syTubol ! The swinging forward was manifestly a symboUc
presentation to God, a declaration by outward sign that the
object waved belonged to Him ; the movement backwards was
as manifestly a declaration that the Almighty returned as a
gift to His priest what actuaUy belonged to Himself The
heaving was very simUar, taking place, however, upwards and
downwards, as if towards the divine dwelUng-place in the
heavens. " The heaving points to God as throned in heaven,
the waving to God as Lord of earth, as one should say : ' If I
ascend into heaven. Thou art there ; if I make my bed in
Hades, Thou art there.' " * But, as has just been pointed out,
the essential element in the peace-offerings was the closing
feast. How beautifuUy such a feast reminded the offerers
of that feUowship which existed between themselves — -yea,
between thehiselves and their famiUes — and the covenant
God ! As plainly as emblems could speak, it was said, as
we have previously expressed, that the Father held high feast
with His chUdren.
In the symboUsm, therefore, bf each of the Mosaic sacrifices
of blood, there was, first, an atoning element, and then an
expression of some need of the spiritual Ufe. " The burnt-
offering, the most ancient and extensive in its import of all,
consumed wholly upon the altar, represented the general con
viction of sinfulness, which was part of the religion of the
pious Jew, and the felt duty of a complete surrender of aU the
powers and faculties to God, Who, notwithstanding the imper
fections of His servant, continued to him the privileges of the
covenant. In the peace- or thank-offering under its various
' Isa. X. 15. " Isa. xix. 16. ' Bahr, Symbolik, vol. u. p. 355.
* Hengstenberg, Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift., p. 42 (Ecclesiastes, p. 403).

132 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
forms, the feeling of sin is expressed in connection with par
ticular mercies vouchsafed by, or expected from, God ; in
accordance with a deep and true sentiment pervading both the
Old and New Testaments, that the loving-kindness of God, not
less, perhaps more, than His rod of chastisement, awakens in the
true IsraeUte a sense of his own unworthiness. In this species
of sacrifice, after atonement is made, man is seen in the enjoy
ment of perfect fellowship with God ; he sits at God's table ;
he is placed for the time being upon a level with the priests,
and with them partakes of the divine bounty. The sin and
trespass-offerings had reference to particular sins, by which,
though committed inadvertently (for wilful transgression no
atonement was provided), fellowship with God had been inter
rupted, and by sacrificial cleansing must be restored. To all
the atoning property belongs : in all the victim is slain, the
blood is sprinkled by the priest : and only after this preUminary
process, by which the person of the offerer was rendered accept
able, is communion with God enjoyed or recovered." '
Having thus sufficiently illustrated for our purpose the
symbolic significance of the animal sacrifices, a little space
must be bestowed upon a subject which has been intention aUy
kept out of view, — the symbolic significance of the vegetable
or bloodless sacrifices. Of what these consisted details have
been given in a preceding chapter.^ Offerings of the produce
of agriculture and wine-growing, the staple employments of
Palestine, were alone legitimate ; and these offerings always
accompanied either burnt or peace offerings, and were them
selves accompanied by oU and incense and salt, never by
leaven or honey. The fundamental idea of the minchah has
been seen to Ue in the fact that they were sacrifices pure and
simple : they were, Uke all sacrifices, gifts to God, and gifts
not only of personal property, but of food acquired in the
daUy avocation ; they differed from other sacrifices in being
peculiarly representative of the toil of the offerer. In this
aspect the remarks upon the minchah by one of the latest
investigators of Mosaic sacrifice (who, nevertheless, has not
escaped the toUs of the rationaUstic symbolism of Germany)
may be profitably perused. "Animals," he says, " of the higher
1 Litton, Tlie Mosaic Dispensation, pp. 97, 98. " See pp. 81 and 82.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 133
class, more especially domestic animals and cattle, stand
incomparably nearer to man than plants do ; their life rests
upon the same psychico-corporeal basis ; they are subjpct to
the same conditions of Ufe, they have the same bodily functions
and organs, and need the same corporeal food as man. All
this is wanting in the plant, — or rather, everything in it is pre
cisely the opposite. An animal, therefore, is far better adapted
to represent the person of a man, his vital organs, powers, and
actions, than plants can ever be. On the other hand, the
cultivation of plants, more especiaUy the growing of corn,
requires far more of preparatory, continuous, and subsequent
labour of man, and is more dependent upon him than the
rearing of cattle. The material acquired by agriculture, there
fore, was more suitable than the flocks to represent the fruit
or the res'ult of the life-work of man." ' That these bloodless
offerings always accompanied blood-offerings,' is readUy under
stood from the Mosaic principle that Jehovah could receive
nothing from man, unless atonement had first been made by
the shedding of blood ; that they never accompanied sin or
trespass offerings foUows from the essential significance of
those offerings. Oil and salt were mingled with the varieties
of meal, in harmony with the common symboUsm of those
things, — the former, to show that without a special consecration
no offering could be acceptable ; and the latter, " the salt of
the covenant of thy God," ^ to symbolize the divine compact
by the terms of which presentations might be made. Incense
was also added, according to the invariable symbolism, to
represent the prayers of the offerer which were to rise as a
sweet-smeUing savour./ Leaven and honey, on the other hand,
were rigidly excluded because of their fermenting and
destructive qualities— /so fitting an emblem of the tendency
to degeneration incident to humanity. The minchah of the
Holy Place will be readUy understood from the significance of
that place as the priestly sanctuary. As the Israelite, there
fore, added to his animal offerings at the altar in the Court
1 Kurtz, Alttest. OpfercuUus, § 24, p. 42 (Eng. Trans, p. 63).
2 The exception in Lev. v. 11 is only apparent. That offering was not a meat
offering, but a very exceptional sin-offering.
3 Lev. u. 13.

134 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.
those of meal and wine, he would see visibly expressed the
giving of his substance as well as himself to the Lord ; and
as those offerings rose in smoke, he woiUd know — now that
atonement had been previously made by the aspersed blood —
that, free as they were from the old leaven of sin and wicked
ness, sanctioned as they were by the salt of the covenant,
accompanied as they were by the oil of consecration and the
incense of prayer, these products of steady human toU were
acceptable to God. As, too, the priest presented in the Holy
Place the shew-bread and the oU and the incense, he would
be reminded that for him animal blood as an indispensable
preliminary was unnecessary, and that his offerings were
graciously permitted to be the incense of prayer, the Ught of
a consecrated life, and that holy bread, which, having been
solemnly presented to Jehovah, would be received back by
himself consecrated and blessed. A simUar symboUc signifi
cance, and a similar -Ulustration of the essential significance by
expressive emblems, was visible in the remaining bloodless
offerings of the Old Testament. It was just the same fact of
human surrender to God which appeared in outward form in
the voluntary offerings for the construction of the Tabernacle
and the attire of the priesthood, in the tithes, in the firstlings
of fruits and cattle, and in the several vows which were
voluntarUy made to God. " The burnt-offerings and peace-
offerings, in which the unity of the soul with God is expressed,
find their parallels in the gifts, the firstUngs, the first-born, the ,
'tithes, the shew-bread, the eternal fire on the altar of burnt-
offerings, the daily and festal burning of incense, the washings
before every sacred act of prayer or sacrifice, and in the vows
of the Nazarite and the Eechabite ; in aU these things the
desire is expressed to authenticate by outward acts the readi
ness to surrender oneself unreservedly to God." ^
Not many words wiU be required to Ulustrate the sym
bolical significance of the sacrificial times and seasons. The
ordinary daily sacrifices have been already sufficiently ex
plained in the preceding section. The one feature that
requires any elucidation is the connection of the extraordinary
3 Tholuek, Das A. T. in N. T., 6th ed. p. 87.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 135
sacrifices with the several festal times,— the employment, that
is to say, of sacrificial ritual to symbolicaUy intensify the
essential significance of those times. Even of this point a
very brief examination wUl suffice. With a beautiful adapta
tion, the sacrifices enjoined for the several extraordinary days
of the Jewish calendar were specially adapted to express the
essential significance of those days. For example, the thought
that was uppermost in connection with the several Sabbatic
times — viz., the Sabbath, the New-moon, and the Sabbatic
Month — was the . recognition of God as the Creator of the
heavens and the earth, — of Jehovah Elohim ; the thought
which was expressed by the several more precisely festal
times — viz., the Passover, the Feast of the First-fruits, and the
Feast of Tabernacles — was the recognition not of Elohim, but
of Jehovah, the covenant God of Israel ; whUst the great Day
of Atonement was the distinct recognition of God as the
Saviour and Sanctifier. After what has been previously said,
the reader wiU readily see how beautifuUy these several ideas
were symbolicaUy expressed by the requisite sacrifices.
To deepen, however, the sense of the exquisite, fitness dis
played by this adaptation of rite to doctrine, let a few words
be bestowed upon the imposing and solemn ceremonial of the
Day of Atonement. That was the day when there was
granted to the chosen people the assurance of the divine for*
giveness for aU those sins of thought and word and deed
which stUl accompanied even their highest and truest acts of
worship. So important was the day to the reUgious Ufe of
the Jew, that the Eabbis in later times caUed the Day of
Atonement The Day, as if it absorbed as weU as represented
every other day in the calendar. The day was solemnly set
apart as a day of complete cessation from labour and abstin
ence from food : not a hammer was to be heard or bargain
driven under pain of death, not a form of food was to be pre
pared or eaten under the same dread penalty; the earthly
appetites were to be restrained most rigidly, and solemn pre
parations made in body and soul to experience the awfulness
of sin and the ecstasy of forgiveness. The high service com
menced by a solemn purification by blood of the high priest
and the Tabernacle — yea, of aU the paraphernaUa, human and

136 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
material, of the Mosaic worship ; for "holy " as aU were called
" to the Lord," by the demands of the law they must be none
the less cleansed. How significant the fact, and how expres
sive the process ! The high priest, now but a man, and
without official dignity, must lay aside his. official costume of
blue and gold and jewels, and in a dress of pure white, with
out even the adjunct of the parti-coloured girdle of the common
priesthood, approach the holy fane. He bathed his entire
body, as well as his feet and hands (which sufficed on ordinary
occasions of ministration), at the laver, and then presented
himself with a buUock for a sin-offering for himself and his
house, two goats for a sin-offering for the people, and a ram
for a burnt-offering before the brazen altar. Yes, the high
priest, clad in imputed righteousness, the chosen servant of
Jehovah, anointed with oU above his feUows, must be washed
with pure water and further purified by blood. The buUock
is duly slain, the goat is duly slain, and the blood of both is
sprinkled with impressive rites, with the anxious and prayer
ful prostration of the entire congregation, upon the altar and
floor of the Holy of HoUes, upon the altar of the Holy Place,
and upon the altar of burnt-offering. So the truth was pre
sented to the eye that atoning blood had been shed, had been
presented before the very throne of God, only visible to the
arch-officiator on this high day, and had been subsequently
sprinkled upon the appropriate places of worship for priests
and high priest and people. So, by awful ceremony and
eloquent ritual, the truth was uttered in the hearing and to
the faculties of aU, that atonement had been made in the
divinely appointed way for every section of the elect nation.
Then the reality of the divine forgiveness was symbolically
conveyed. In how vivid a manner ! The live goat stUl re
maining is brought before the altar, and the high priest, placing
his two hands upon its head, " confessed over him aU the
iniquities of the children of Israel, and aU their transgressions
in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat ;" ^
and all the sins of the nation having thus been symbolically
transferred, the goat was led away by a suitable messenger
into the wilderness, the abode of Azazel. In later times the
' Lev. xvi. 21.

SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 137
goat was conducted along a prepared pathway, amidst the
execrations of the multitudes assembled, to the wilderness, and
there driven headlong from a rock and killed. Whether the
destruction of the goat formed any part of the earlier ritual,
we have no evidence for deciding. Thus, before the eyes of
the people, their sins were borne away for ever to him who
was the father of sin. The rites of atonement for himself, his
house, the holy places, and the people ended, the high priest
resumed his official vestments, and offered the ram for a
burnt- offering, consecrating himself anew to the divine service;
afterwards any offerings of the assembled people were slain
and presented. But for the fact that such a ceremony must
be repeated "year by year continually," what a fund was
there in this annual fast for thought, for gratitude, and for
humble recognition of the divine goodness !

CHAPTER IV.
THE SACEAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS.
"It is as if there were a cross unseen, standing on its undiscovered hUl, far
back in the ages, out of which were sounding always just the same deep voice of
suffering love and patience that was heard by mortal ears from the sacred hill of
Calvary." — Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 31.
IT wiU have occurred to the reader of the preceding pages
that the Mosaic Sacrifices might be divided into two
classes, according to the purposes which impeUed their presen
tation, — whether, on the one hand, the motive was a sense of
sin, or, on the other, a feeling of grateful self-surrender. It
will also have occurred to the student of the Comparative
Science of Eeligion, as a peculiarity of the Levitical cultus,
that even this twofold division is not logically tenable, inas
much as the eucharistic offerings themselves were also by
their own or by their accompanying rites expiatory. Accord
ing to the Sinaitic injunctions, it was iUegal for the populace
to approach the Holy Places under any circumstances whatever
without a visible recognition of sin, and the Holy Places were
themselves unclean untU their impurity had been atoned by
the sprinkling of blood. Now, what was the significance of
that atonement without which every sacrifice, even of praise
and self-consecration, was sinful, every priest unholy, every
sacred place carnal and unclean ? This question, but briefly
answered as yet, requires fuUer and more sequential iUustration
than it has hitherto received.
Again it is necessary to remark that we must not, lest we
invaUdate the method previously pursued, overstep the bounds
of the early Jewish thought. Educated in the conception of
Christianity, and enjoying the advantage of its clear light,
there is needed both an exercise of restraint to put aside our

SACEAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 139
Christian beliefs, and a difficult constructive effort, a laborious
sympathetic synthesis, to revivify the intellectual and reUgious
views of those whose only monitor was the substance of the
Pentateuch. Nevertheless, it is to sin against truth, as weU as
to miss the invaluable lesson of history, either to ignore or
misrepresent the several stages of religious development. The
aim of this chapter is to bring into strong relief, in the first
place, the relations of the rites of Mosaism to the forgiveness
of sin, and, in the second place, the relation of the same rites
to the general reUgious Ufe ; or, if it be aUowable to introduce
the theological distinctions of later times, it is our present
aim to elicit the^ justifying and sanctifying relations of the
Mosaic sacrifices.
The former of these questions may be stated thus : What is
the significance and import of that atonement of which mention
is so frequently made in the Thorah ? What is that atonement
in itself 1 how was it effected 1 whom did it concern ? was
the effect produced permanent or transitory, once for all, or
day by day and year by year ? In any treatise which pre
tends to deal with ancient Jewish sacrifice, some space must
be given to the nature, method, extent, and efficacy of the
atonement wrought.
Upon the sense attached in the law to the word atonement,
nothing more needs be said. The idea expressed by the
Hebrew original of the word translated atone was cover and
covering, not in the sense of rendering invisible to Jehovah, but
in the sense of engrossing His sight with something else, of
netitralizing sin so to speak, of disarming it, of rendering
it inert to arouse the righteous anger of God. To atone sin in
the Hebrew conception was so to cover it over that God could
neglect it. " To atone (literaUy, to cover up) does not mean
to cause a sin not to have been committed, for that is impos
sible ; nor to represent it as non-existent, for that would be
opposed to the earnest spirit of the law ; nor to pay and com
pensate it by any act ; but to cover it before God— that is, to
deprive it of its power to come between us and God."
One feature of the, method by which the law asserted
atonement could be effected, is sufficiently evident after the
^ Kahnis, Die Lutherische Dogmatik historisch dargestellt, 1861, vol. i. p. 271.

140 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
two preceding chapters ; that feature was the correct mani
pulation of animal blood, correctness depending on an obedient
adherence to an appointed ritual, eminently adapted to express
symbolically that the life of a victim physicaUy immaculate
was vicariously bearing the punishment of death du6 to the
offerer ; or, if we pass over altogether the pathetic symboUsm
of the ritual (the words of the Law being precise, that atone
ment was effected for human sin by the effusion of animal
blood), loudly eloquent of the fact that life had been atoned
by Ufe, blood by blood. The sin of the Jew was neutraUzed
when the blood of his sacrifice touched the altar.
If the question be asked, by way of discrediting the invari-
ableness of this objective element in the forgiveness of sins,
whether the law did not recognise other objective and even
subjective means of atonement, the reply must be in the
affirmative, but the inference must be denied. It is true that
the law does speak of atonement by other means than the
effusion of sacrificial blood. Wlienever a census was taken
of the tribes, every Israelite was bidden give half a shekel,
neither more nor less, — " the rich shall not give more, and the
poor shaU not give less," — to make an atonement for their souls}
So, when the warriors returned from the sanguinary slaughter
of the Midianites and numbered their forces, they gave of
their spoils — their bracelets, their earrings, their golden chains
— to atone for tlieir souls? In both of these instances the
express words of the Pentateuch assert that atonement was
made by a payment in gold or money of the estimated value
of the life. Sometimes religious acts are described as atoning.
The day after the melancholy death of Korah and his com
pany, Moses bade Aaron avert the plague, which was beginning,
by waving incense from the Holy Place amongst the congre
gation, saying : " Take a censer . . . make an atonement for
them . . . there is wrath gone out from the Lord."^ Nor
would one forget in this connection the affair of the golden
calf, when Moses, deeply moved at the popular transgression,
betook himseU to the Lord with his " peradventure I shall
make an atonement for your sin." * In the former case, again,
1 Ex. xxx. 10-16. ! Num. xxxi. 48-54.
' Num. xvi. 46. i Ex. xxxii. 30.

SACEAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 141
human sin was covered by priestly intercession, in the latter
by the prayer of a righteous man. These facts are indisput
able, not so the inferences from them. However weighty such
statements are in the discussion of the efficacy of sacrificial
atonement (and we shall give them their due weight presently),
they do not invaUdate the conclusion that the objective method
appointed under the law for the remission of sins was that of
animal sacrifice. For a Jew or a Jewish priest to rely on
prayer or a presentation of money to achieve the forgiveness
of sins, would be for him to contravene what he regarded as
the direct command of God. It is indisputable, that although,
in certain cases which it itself dictated, the Law recognised
other means of atonement, and by its perpetual approbation
of the deeds of Mosfes regarded it as possible that one endowed
with the prophetic office should himself be above the law,
nevertheless the only method to which recourse could be had
at any time for purification and absolution was the legal
offering of animal life.
But the law also recognised a subjective as well as objective
constituent in the method of atonement, and this subjective
element requires emphasis. It does not consist with the
statements of the Pentateuch to assert that, " although page
after page in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy is filled with ceremonial directions, there is not
a word to remind the man who has brought his sin-offering
to the priest, that the atoning efficacy of the sacrifice wiU
depend either on his penitence' or his faith." ^ No doubt
these subjective features of the Mosaic worship are more or
less latent, — it was one of the - purposes of that worship to
arouse rather than to demand the accompaniment of religious
feeling ; none the less, that there were subjective conditions
of acceptable sacrifice for sin, is abundantly evident. Mosaism
would have been a retrogression, indeed, if its approved ideal
of divine service was a mechanical obedience which made no
demands upon the spiritual nature, and was equally efficacious
whether performed with the ¦whole heart or without any heart
at aU. Passing by, however, as an anachronism at this stage
of our inquiry, the argument of the apostle, that " he was a
¦¦ Dale, The Jewish Temple and Christian Church, p. 273.

142 THE. MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
Jew who was one inwardly," and not even pausing to insist
that if the Mosaic sacrifices were unaccompanied by " peni
tence " or " faith," the very motive of symboUsm is denied, it
wiU suffice to demonstrate that the Pentateuch does clearly
acknowledge the potency of its worship in some degree to
have depended upon the mental attitude of the worshipper.
The priests were to approach their sacred functions with their
faculties unaffected by excess.-^ On the destruction of Nadab
and Abihu by fire, Moses saw a sufficient excuse for Aaron's
neglect of official duty in his spiritual unpreparedness.^ Ee-
ferring to the sacrifices offered by individuals, many were
voluntary, and the wUl of the offerer must therefore have been
taken into account.^ With respect to the sin-offerings, they
were commanded to be made when sins catne to the offerer's
knowledge,* — it must have been a singular knowledge which
prompted obedience without kindUng a spark of regret. On
the Day of Atonement, the rigid command was made that aU
should "humble their souls," ^ that is, outwardly fast and in
wardly bow in repentance, the penalty being appended to the
command, that " whosoever shaU not be bowed in that same
day, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." Then,
it is significant that for open rebellion against God, for sins
done with a high hand and in wilful rejection of the divine
authority, there was no atonement possible under the law.^
Eabbinic tradition has even maintained that, whenever an
offerer laid his hand upon the head of any victim he was
about to slaughter, he audibly confessed, as Outram trans
lates : " Obsecro, Domine, peccavi, deliqui, rebellavi, hoc et
iUud feci, nunc autem poenitentiam ego, sitque (hostia) hsec
expiatio mea ; " — " I implore Thee, 0 Lord, I have sinned, I
have gone astray, I have rebelled, I have done so and so, but
1 Lev. X. 9. ' Lev. x. 16-20.
' Lev. i. 3, vii. 16. ^ Lev. iv. 14, 23, 28.
'> Lev. xvi. 29, 30, xxiii. 17, 29, 33 ; Num. xxix. 7.
* Lev. V. 6 ; Num. v. 7, xv. 17-21. What is meant by sinning with a high
hand is thus paraphrased by Maimonides, Moreh Nevochim, Pt. III. cap. xii :
"He sins with a high hand who casts off shame and sins openly. Such a
person transgresses the law not merely because he is hurried into forbidden
things by the impulse of his unbridled passions and corrupt desires, but
because he denies the authority of the law, and determines to openly resist it."

SACEAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 143
now I repent, and let this be my atonement." ^ At any rate,
there is the testimony of the law itself that confession of sins
accompanied various expiatory offerings ; ^ and Moses, who
' gave the ritual injunctions, dwelt as fuUy as any moral teacher
could desire upon the necessity of moral as well as ceremonial
service.^ Further, there is no reason to conclude that the
assembled worshippers did anything unusual when they accom
panied Zacharias' priestly offering of incense by their prayers.*
An interesting scene in this connection, which may be men
tioned here, although related in a post-Pentateuchal book, took
place in the war of extermination against the Benjamites : At
first the chUdren of Israel went up to the house of God and
asked counsel : they were defeated ; then they went up and
wept and asked counsel : they were again defeated ; a third
time the whole nation wept, sat before the Lord for hours con
tinuously, fasted, offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings :
then, both objective and subjective conditions being complete,
success attended their arms.* But, as has previously been said,
although such facts as have been mentioned unquestionably point
to the necessity of subjective elements in avaUing sacrifice,^
that necessity is rather latent in the Law than expressly stated.
Further, insist though the Law undoubtedly did by letter and
spirit upon the necessity of approaching God Most High with
penitence and faith and hope, the teaching of prophets and
holy men, as wiU be seen later on, intervened between the
giving of the law and the proclamation of the gospel, for the
very purpose of urgently pressing the end of the subjective side.'^
But to what extent did the Mosaic sacrifices atone ? What
1 Outram, De Sacrificiis, Dissert, i. p. 170. ' Lev. v. 5 ; Num. v. 7. ,
3 E.g. Deut. vi. 4, 5, x. 12. * Luke i. 10.
* Judg. XX. 18-48. Compare Hengstenberg, Oeschichte des Reiches Gotten
tmter dem AU. Bundes, 2nd period. Part III. § 3 (translated in Foreign Theo
logical Library, vol. ii. pp. 17, 18).
6 " The Old Testament Scriptures nowhere teach that sacrifices are acceptable
to God without reference ^to the disposition of the offerer." — Hofmann, Der
Schriftbeweis, voL ii. p. 215. To which testimony may be added this of Steudel,
Vorlesungen ilber die Theologie des A. T. : "The objective side (das Aeussere)
itself became extinct when the subjective (das Innere) faUed; or, if the objective
side simply was observed, it made its inadequacy sensible enough. "
7 Compare Kalisch, Leviticus, Essay A. x. 4, on the verbal utterances which
accompanied the imposition of hands in sacrifice.

144 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
was the degree of validity which they possessed in the divine
government ? Having seen what they were as means of justi
fication, and how they were supposed to work that spiritual
state, what was the justification so supposed and wrought ?
Two very opposite views have been propounded upon this
point. On the one hand, it has been asserted that the atone
ment wrought by the Mosaic sin-offerings neutralized the Ul
effects of all sin, moral as weU as ceremonial, so long as sacri
fice was presented without that open defiance against God
which was a sufficient proof that there was no real faith in
the heart, and produced the remission of sins as efficaciously
as the blood of Christ did in the economy of the New Testa
ment. On the other hand, the opinion has been advanced by
many, that the fulfilment of the sacrificial law had no power
to remove the ill effects of moral, simply of ceremonial, offences,
and some few sUghter cases of moral transgression speciaUy
excepted for particular reasons. It is but a modification of the
former view if it is declared that sin was not removed once
for aU by any sacrifice under the law, but simply for a time,
— say from the interval of one sin-offering to another, or from
one day of atonement to another. According to the one view,
the legal sin-offerings were divinely appointed means of obtain
ing a forgiveness of sins, which should be regarded as vaUd
in the eternal counsels of Jehovah ; according to the other, a
forgiveness of sins valid alone in His temporary earthly govern
ment. The former opinion regarded the atonement as rein
stating the Jew in his position as an adopted child of God ;
the latter, as reinstating him in his position as a citizen. It
is possible for these two opposite views to be so stated as to be,
as in many another warmly debated controversy, very much
the same, a reinstatement in the earthly theocracy being
identical in the Mosaic dispensation with a reinstatement in
the theocracy of heaven. Still, since either view, when carried
to an extreme, leads into considerable error, — the one tending
to regard the Jewish system of sacrifice, as does the Arminian
theology, as possessing as powerful an operation in the divine
government as the sacrifice of Christ ; and the other, as having
no power beyond restoring an offender by an analogous cere
mony to the payment of a fine or penalty in modern law, to

SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 145
the civil status from which he had been outlawed by his crime,
— we must precisely state what the Law itself regarded as
the effect wrought by its sin-offerings.
The first criticism which suggests itself with respect to
the two opinions just quoted is that, however convenient the
distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws may be in
a classification of the numerous statutes, such a distinction is
unknown to the law itself. To argue from any such distinc
tion, is to argue from a mere human arrangement of the code.
In the Mosaic law, what we are accustomed to regard as
ceremonial acts are considered as in the truest and deepest
sense moral acts, and the temporary government of God as a
necessary section of His eternal government. In its esteem,
a breach of its commands is so fearful as to be visited by
hereditary punishment ; and even an unconscious breaking of
its commands is so far from venial that it incapacitated the
transgressors for acceptable worship, and, if unrecognised by a
suitable sacrifice when the transgressor became conscious of his
error, was to be visited by excision and death. To speak of
a ceremonial atonement for a ceremonial offence, meaning by
ceremonial something that was a ceremony and nothing more,
is foreign to the teaching of Mosaism. " Such a division
of the law into ceremonial and moral, however famiUar to us,
can at any rate be nowhere estabUshed from the law, which,
indeed, has received into the fundamental code of the deca
logue the ceremonial command as to the observance of the
Sabbath." ^
And when we turn to the Law to see what it considered to
be the effects of sacrifices which were offered for sin, or for
that inherited original sin which is caUed uncleanness, we find
that the effects are always stated to be the forgiveness of sins
and the removal of uncleanness? To purify oneself by sacri
fice as enjoined, was to remove the curse of that guUt which
was operative in our very bodies as death and disease: to
atone for any transgression in the legal form, was to obtain
the forgiveness of that transgression. The conscience which
was oppressed with sinfulness or special sin, was assured that
1 Tholuek, Das Alt. Test, in Neu. Test., Part II. § 8, p. 91.
» See pp. 95-97. K

146 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
its sin was removed. And the reality of the forgiveness
vouchsafed may be seen by turning to the actual catalogue of
sins which are expressly enumerated as having been forgiven.
All sins of fraUty and incon siderateness were atoned by the
sin-offerings, whether they were done knowingly or unwit
tingly;^ by the trespass-offering such sins as lying, theft,
fraud, perjury, debauchery, were atoned ; * and, coming to the
great Day of Atonement, forgiveness was then obtained for the
transgressions of the children of Israel in aU their sins.^ For
sins done with a high hand alone was no atonement provided,
attention being caUed, as we have previously said, by such a
provision to the necessity of obedience as weU as sacrifice.
Eecurring, therefore, to the etymology of the word atone, it
may be said — declaring for neither of the opinions discussed
— ^that aU sins for which offerings had been legaUy made were
" covered," — that is to say, were not obliterated, but by some
means rendered powerless to arouse the divine judicial anger.
But by what means 1 The question arises as to what the
Mosaic law regarded as the actual instrument of procuring
the forgiveness of sins ? Wherein, in other words, lay the
potency of that blood which " covered " ? Did it " cover'' by
its inherent power, or did its efficacy Ue in some valid sacri
fice which it foreshadowed, and to which it pointed? The
law gives no direct repUes. It arouses the mind by many a
piece of inconsequent reasoning ; it seems to suggest a possible
solution of the difficulty in the far future ; it tells a mystic
and eluding tale to the imaginative and spirituaUy-minded ;
but it has no express statement to be read of aU, and mastered
almost without preparation. The time was not yet come when
the grace and truth of the gospel should accompany the grace
and truth of the law. If, then, we ask ourselves how the Jew
believed it possible that animal blood could atone sin, we are
compeUed to admit that the probabUity is that the majority
who craved atonement rested simply in an unquestioning
obedience to the revealed laws. Further, were there here and
there amongst the unreasoning mass of worshippers one more
pious and speculative than the rest, there would be no diffi
culty to such an one as to the subjective conditions of sacri-
^ Lev. iv. and v. 1-13. ' Lev. vi. 1-7. ' Lev. xvii. 16, 30, 84.

SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 147
fice ; it would seem appropriate that penitence should precede
an aUeviation of the consequences of guUt. But what would
he make of the objective conditions of sacrifice ? He might
weU ask himself with Cato, " Moritur cur victima pro «w ? "
How comes it that forgiveness depends upon the blood of an
innocent animal, not only unsinning and unrepentant, but
incapable of moral feeling of any kind ? Nor would the
explanation that " the blood atones through the soul " ^ be a
sufficient solution of his difficulty. The sacrifice of his own
soul might, in his belief, faintly atone for what he had done ;
but it was incomprehensible that the soul of an uninteUigent,
unconsenting animal should be a vaUd substitute. To the
question that agitated his mind, he could return no other
direct reply than this, that " so God had wUled." That repent
ance was an insufficient atonement was clear enough, that the
insufficiency of repentance was suppUed by animal sacrifice
¦wa^ also clear ; but, in order to explain how this shedding of
blood became an adequate complement, there was no resource
but the words of the Sinaitic revelation : " I have given " the
blood " to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your
souls."* Should he desire to penetrate further into these
divine mysteries, two courses were open to him. If he
were acquainted with the modem habit of criticising and pro
nouncing upon the divine declarations, he might refuse to have
anything to do for his part with such a God ; or if, on the
other hand, he distrusted his own judgment in the conscious
ness of the lack of some of the most important data, he might
maintain an attitude of humble suspension of judgment, and
set himself to discover some reason underlying this divine
revelation. What the result of his inquiry would be, we have
no means of ascertaining. It might have been that, as the
patriarchs probably did, he coupled this spiritual deliverance
by sacrifice with the tale of a deliverer so famiUar from the
promises made to his fathers. Indeed, the early prophecies
had been expanded during his own days, for a Balaam had
spoken of a star and a sceptre which should go forth from
Israel ; ^ and Moses had foretold a coming prophet Uke him
self, who should be qualified by obedience as weU as audience.*
' Lev. xvii. 11. ' Lev. xvii. 11. ' Num. xxiv. 17. * Deut. xviu. 15.

148 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
At any rate, there was sufficient to convince him that his was
a preparatory dispensation, and that, as a wise man, his course
was to be thankful for the present and eagerly await the
future ; — ^but we are forestalling our next chapter. In exam
ining into the rational rather than the actual efficacy of the
atonement wrought by legal obedience, there was much that
caUed for implicit trust in the divine power and mercy, and
but a little which spoke to the inquirer of the manner in
which that power and mercy really worked.
Now, in the words of the Augsburg Confession, " a sacrifice
is something given to God in adoration : anything in which
God grants to us what His love has promised is a sacrament." ^
Adopting, therefore, this convenient theological distinction, it
may be said that the nature of the relation between the aton
ing sacrifices of Mosaism and the forgiveness of sins was sacra
mental. When the law offered to the Jew forgiveness for his
sins by the slaughter of some domestic animal, or by the pre
sentation of a mere handful of meal, it was not that these
things achieved by their inherent merit the spiritual results
which foUowed; it was that they were sacraments as weU
as sacrifices, and proclaimed on the house-tops what had
already been whispered in the ear : " I the Lord have given
you this blood upon the altar to make atonement for your
souls." '
It further remains to investigate the bearings of the residuary
section of the sacrificial ritual upon the religious life of the
offerers. Here, again, the sacramental nature of these rites
comes to the front. It was not alone that the sacrifices of the
Law in all their variety became by the mercy of God, and not
by any works of their own, the channels of assurance of the
divine forgiveness ; but these very sacrifices also became by
the same mercy, and not by any inherent power, the channels
of every spiritual blessing. As in the Patriarchal Age, so in
^ "Saorificium est opus quod nos Deo reddimus ut eum honore affloiamus ;
sacramentum opus, in quo nobis exhibet Dens hoc quod offert promissio."
" It was the great merit of the work of Sartorius, Ueber den Alt. und Neu-
testamentlichen Cultus, to have dwelt with commendable force upon the sacra
mental character of Old Testament sacrifice (see especiaUy pp. 51-59).

SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 149
the age immediately-succeeding, sacrifice was the one appointed
means of access to the Father, to which the son, who was
ever beneath the parental roof, as well as the returning pro
digal, had glad recourse. Indeed, the distinguishing feature
of the Mosaic faith was not that its predecessor preached a
method of worship fundamentally different, and different in
detaUs, but that the Mosaic faith, remaining the same in
principle, exceUed its forerunner just in the matter of detail.
So it happened that, by this later sacrificial worship also,
ample provision was made for aU the spiritual needs of the
Jew. Whatever the feeling with which he regarded the God
of his salvation, the expression of that feeUng the worship of
his people adequately supplied. Most exquisitely adapted to
the deeper and more persistent needs of the spiritual nature
of man was this Sinaitic worship. It added to the forgive
ness of special sins by allaying that aU-pervading sense of sin
which is the lot of man ; it satisfied the desire so deeply
rooted in the heart to do something to attain salvation; it
met half way the yearning for a filial relationship with the
Father of Spirits ; it granted an assurance of the communion
of God with man, as well as the communion of man with
God ; it sanctified self-surrender ; it atoned momentary defec
tion ; under its sacrificial teaching the beautiful blossom of
spiritual desire bore the rich fruit of spiritual satisfaction.
The corn-field, by the presentation of first-fruits, became the
corn-field of the Lord ; the children in every home, as the
first-born was ransomed, were the acknowledged gifts of God ;
not a Passover but told its tale in the family, not a festival
but had its message for the nation : there was, in short, not a
vocation or event in Ufe which this sacrificial worship could not
haUow by its sacramental opulence. Of course it does not follow
that what the laws of Moses coiUd do, that they necessarily did :
upon the exact influence produced upon the conscience of each
worshipper, it is impossible to pronounce. It is of the very
nature of a sacrament to affect different minds with varying
intensity. It is perfectly clear that by the offering of the appro
priate sacrifices, the Israelite who had by disobedience or neglect
forfeited or ignored his theocratic privileges, was restored to
those privUeges, his offerings of atonement making restitution

150 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
for his errors, and those of consecration enabling him to par
ticipate in the advantages of the Covenant ; it is also clear that
the public offerings of atonement and consecration effected for
the nation what the private offerings did for individuals.
Apparently, too, whenever a sin or trespass offering was
brought, the sense of forgiveness would be felt for the special
sin which prompted application for forgiveness, and whenever
a burnt or peace offering was presented the sense of acceptance
or feUowship was felt for a time at least ; apparently, also, the
pubUc offerings would impart a general sense of security from
the divinely-announced anger against wrong-doing. Thus it
would appear that a faith which was transient and blind, and
which neither demanded nor received satisfaction in the
reason, was the special privUege of the Jew. On the other
hand, unless it blended with its knowledge something more
than the sacrifices themselves conveyed, the faith of the Jew,
deep and fervent although it might be in the inercy and
wisdom of Jehovah, could never reach that stage when faith
became that higher trust which rested at once upon the know
ledge possessed of God and upon a satisfied reason — a faith
perfect " as pertaining to the consciousness." ^ What know
ledge the Jew possessed of a future world as dependent upon
the present, or of a future existence at all, it is also impossible
to decide ; and, as a consequence, it is impossible to decide
what sense of an immortal Ufe was fostered by the national
worship. Without endorsing the premises of the famous argu
ment of Warburton, his conclusion may, however, be accepted
in a sense : the truth would seem to be that, by means of an
eminently suggestive religious and poUtical education, the
Almighty was arousing within the minds of the reUgiously
incUned thoughts intangible and incontrovertible upon the
eternal life. As has been truly said : " The typical concep
tion of the Old Testament has a wider rule than is commonly
recognised." ^
An answer may now be returned to the question with
1 Heb. ix. 9.
» Tholuek, Das AU. Test, in Neu. Test., Part L § 3, p. 29. Compare Davi
son, On Prophecy, pp. 88 and 93 nd Payne Smith, Prophecy aPreparcUimfor

SACRAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 151
which we commenced the second chapter of this part, as to
what it was possible for the pious Jew to comprehend con
cerning the purpose of the compUcated and manifold cultus
ordained at Sinai. Approaching the Law with a heart bur
dened and perplexed by aU the reticulated spiritual ramifica
tions of aUenation from God, he would see in its injunctions
a partial solution of the great problem of sacrffice. He would
be able to see that, by obedience to the several prescriptions
of the law, it was possible to some extent to offer acceptable
sacrifices to God. He was not permitted, it was true, to come
directly into the divine presence as of old, but he was per
mitted a certain approach in the ordained ceremonial. The
tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrificial rubric would be
understood to be divine replies to the spiritual cravings of
his soul. And each section of the prescribed injunctions
would deUver its individual burden of instruction. In the
Tabernacle he would recognise the place where the Most High
would meet His people under prescribed conditions, and with
assured resvUts. In the priesthood he would behold the
chosen ministers of God, at once the flower of the religious
Ufe of his nation and the pledge of his personal reUgious
destiny. In the wide range of purification and sacrifices, he
would acknowledge a diversified series of reUgious services
eminently adapted to arouse and satisfy aU the necessities
of his spirit, since they embodied in outward form, in addi
tion to those two universal principles of worship, — the general
desire for forgiveness, and the desire for adoration, — now con
fession of special sins and now thanksgiving, at one time a
renewed consecration of body, soul, and spirit, and at another a
penitent restitution of things in which God or man had been
defrauded. In the several festivals he would also aUow that
Jehovah had provided for many a pause in his secular Ufe,
when, in blended humiUation and rejoicing, he might caU
upon the name of the Lord, and mingle his voice with the
national abasement or exaltation. All these rites and cere
monies had been revealed to him, he was aware, as a detaUed
Christ, p. 210; "Moses did not clearly teaoh the IsraeUtes the doctrine of a
future judgment and of an eternal state of rewards and punishments. Pe did
set it forth typically."

152 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
series of sacraments, which, weak as they were through their
materiaUsm,^ yet brought heaven to earth, and transported
man, as it were, to the dweUing-place of God. Nor could he
miss the significance of these injunctions ;, for that significance
was directly revealed in the Law itself, and, eye aiding mind,
was rendered pecuUarly impressive by an elaborate and
eloquent symbolism. Eom. viii. 3 : iv ^ Mivu }ia Tns ffupxis, etc.

CHAPTER V.
THE TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC
INJUNCTIONS.
" Si la loi et les sacrifices sont la verity, U faut qu'ils plaisent i, Dieu, et qu'Us ne
ui d^plaisent point. S'ils sont figures, il faut qu'ils plaisent et d^plaisent. Or, dans
toute I'Ecriture, Us plaisent et ddplaisent. " — Pascal, Pensies, Des Figures.
IN the essential, symboUc, and ; sacramental significance of
the Mosaic injunctions, the pious Jew would be rejoiced
to find much of the meaning clear of the revelation made to
him by the instrumentality of Moses, and sufficient at aU
events to aUay mental inquiry in the Ordinary conditions of
life. His was a religion divinely given, divinely interpreted,
and divinely accredited, which therefore differed toto ccelo from
the religions of heathendom, however simUar their method,
however analogous their symbolism. But when the currents
of life ran more deeply and silently, and meditation upon the
causes of things invaded more subtle and unusual spheres,
would the same inward satisfaction be felt ? In such moments
the Tabernacle remained the dwelUng-place of God, the priest
hood was as truly the divine executive, the sacrifices were
then as ever the divinely appointed media of divine approach ;
but facts will not always satisfy (and are very apt to lose
their cogency) unless their causes are apparent, and the ques
tion might be reasonably asked, how such things as metal
and wood, meal and cattle, became instruments of mercy in
the divine hands; what virtue these things possessed, that
they were endowed with a sacramental efficacy ? This Taber
nacle, what was it in the ultimate resort but a structure of
wood and skin ornamented ? This priesthood, wherein lay
the vaUdity of its imputed hoUness, and its right of exclusive
service? These sacrifices of flesh and fowl, these purifica
tions of water and blood, how came they to be avaiUng with

154 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
Him, Whose were all the beasts of the forest, and Who
created the sea? Granted even that these material things
became sacramentAUy spiritual by the wUl of God, was there
no ultimate reason for this voluntary selection on the part of
Deity ? In spite of aU the advance that has already been
made towards a solution of the problem of Mosaic sacrifice,
there was a fundamental difficulty, which has not yet been
touched, in the reconciUation of the two facts so patent in the
Law — of the spirituality of the Jehovah whom the Jew knew
and served, and of the materiaUsm of that worship which that
same Jehovah had imparted and enjoined. What solution
was it possible for the Jew to obtain of this further difficulty ?
Just this, — the solution that naturally followed the know
ledge of the transitory nature of Mosaism. " The learned re
searches of modern times have made it more than probable
that the reUgions of antiquity were all symbolical in character,
or so framed as to convey under sensible images the ideas on
which they were respectively based ; but no one would think
of caUing the rites of heathenism types : they were a species
of acted hieroglyphics which reached the understanding through
the senses, and here their use terminated." ^ The Jewish
sacrificial rites, on the contrary, stood out in clear relief from
all other ancient or modern symbolical ceremonies, just by
this one fact, that they had a reference not simply to truths
imparted at the time of their announcement, but to other
truths also which were to be subsequently imparted. The
religion of Sinai was typical as weU as symbolical.^
Many have objected to the theological doctrine of types for the
most part for one of two reasons. On the one hand, a severe
reprimand has been deUvered for departing from the scriptural
sense of the word type, and giving it a technical sense of its
• Litton, The Mosaic Dispensation, pp. 82, 83.
' Compare Outram, De Sacrificiis, Dissert, i. cap. xvui. : " The teriR symbol is
equally appMcable to that which represents a thing past, present, or future ;
whereas the object represented by a type is invariably future. So that all the
rites which signified to the Jews any virtue that they were to practise, ought to
be called symbols rather than types ; and those rites, if there were any, which
were divinely appointed to represent things both present and future, may be
regarded as both symbols and types : symbols as denoting things present, and
types as indicating things future. "

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 155
own. One writer of this class, for example, has strongly
blamed " divines " for constructing a system of theological
types instead of a system of Scripture types, and chronicles
his firm assurance that, " had they kept to the Scripture use
of the term, instead of devising a theological sense, they would
have been saved from much extravagance, and have evolved
much more truth." ^ Without retorting with the argumentum
ad hominem, that the writer in question seems to have over
looked the fact that his own use of the word " type " is equaUy
unscriptural, it is sufficient to reply to such objectors that the
word " type " has no precise significance attached to it in
Holy Writ ; and that therefore, as there is no danger of con
fusing any precise bibUcal idea, the theologian has as perfect
a right as any other investigator to take this or any other
inexact word in common parlance, and by a process of spe-
ciaUzation to give it a restricted meaning, if by so doing he can
advance the interests of his science: the chemist might as fittingly
be censured for adapting the word " salt," or the physicist the
word " force," as the theologian for adapting the word " type."
Such objectors would do well to ponder the weighty words of a
scholarly and exact writer, who says : " The language of Scrip
ture being essentially popular, its use of particular terms
naturally partakes of the freedom and variety which are wont
to appear in the current speech of a people ; and it rarely
happens that words are employed, in respect to topics requir
ing theological treatment, with such precision and uniformity
as to enable us, from this source alone, to attain to proper
accuracy and fulness. The word ' type ' (tutto?) forms no ex
ception to this usage. Occurring once at least in the natural
sense of mark or impress made by a hard substance on one of
softef material,* it commonly bears the general import of
viodel, pattern, or exemplar, but with such a wide diversity of
appUcation as to comprehend a material object of worship or
idol,^ an external framework constructed for the service of God,*
the form or copy of an epistle,^ a method of doctrinal instruc
tion delivered by the first heralds and teachers of the gospel,*
* M'Cosh, Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation, p. 509.
' John XX. 25. ^ Acts vii. 43. * Acts vu. 44 ; Heb. viii. 5.
» Acts xxui. 25. " Eom. vi. 17.

156 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.
a representative character, or, in certain respects, normal
example.^ Such in New Testament Scripture is the diversified
use of the word type (disguised, however, under other terms
in the Authorized Version)." * The usage of the word in Scrip
ture being thus unprecise, we are at Uberty to employ the
word to express what we consider a most important distinc
tion. On the other hand, it has been argued, and the argu
ment has laid hold upon popular reUgious thought, that the
innumerable extravagances and conceits with which the past
history of typology has been strewn demonstrate the futility
of the study. Typical expositions are denounced in common
with the speculations of Talmudists and Eabbis as " playful "
and " futile," " approaching the very boundary even of fantas
tical adaptation ; " they are said to be " pious plays of ima
gination and wit." ^ Now, we do not for a single moment
think of defending the luxuriance of Origen, Ambrose, and
Hilary, or the more limited indulgence of Augustine in typi
cal interpretation ; nor even of defending the scarcely less
irrational expositions of Coccejus and his numerous conscious
and unconscious followers, who could seriously debate, for
example, in what sense Christ was square, like the altar of
burnt-offering, — quadratus quomodo Christus fuerat. But
abuti non tollit uti ; in fact, the very struggles of successive
ages, ridiculous as they may be, to dig in some field of truth,
usually testifies to the existence of important ore, whether
already struck or not. It is possible to repeat too often the
saying of Luther, that " the greater adept a theologian is in
imagining typical interpretations, the more learned he is
esteemed." The typical teaching of the Oriental Fathers, and
the more modern typology of Cock, erred on two grounds,-^^
first, because these investigations lacked a true conception of
the mutual relations of the Old and New Testaments ; and,
secondly, because they were based on no clear definition of a
type. Avoiding these errors, let us lose not a jot of the
fundamental truth these typologists grasped so firmly.
It was, there need be no hesitation in aUeging, a most
1 Eom. V. 14 ; 1 Cor. x. 11 ; PhiL iii. 17 ; 1 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. v. 3.
" Fairbairn, Typology, vol. i. p. 64.
' Compare Kalisch, Leviticus, A. §§ 9-11.

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 157
valuable and fertUe distinction which lay at the basis of the
theological instinct concerning types. Having apprehended
that the divine revelations to the human race had been made
at successive times and by successive stages, the doctrine of
types gave utterance to the further apprehension that these
revelations were not incongruous and disconnected, but by
numerous links, subtle in their location, and by concords pre
arranged, were inseparably interwoven. To the belief that
holy men had spoken things beyond the Umits of human
thought, the doctrine of types superadded or testified to the
addition of the belief that these holy men were moved by
one Spirit, their utterances having mysterious interconnections
with each other, this explaining that, and that completing
this. Where the ' stamp of individuality was visible upon
biblical writings and biblical systems, theologians thus ex
pressed their conviction that there was in a similar cast of
thought and identical revelations the stamp of a common
origin. It is painfuUy true that theologians have often faUed
to define in accurate terms this biblical fact which they have
vaguely caught sight of, and that they have egregiously blun
dered when they have proceeded to argue from their prepos
session ; none the less had they caught a glimpse of a fact,
none the less was their prepossession true. As surely as the
Scriptures reveal a gradation in their contents and an indi
viduality in their systems, so surely do they reveal in every
gradation a fundamental resemblance, and in each individu-
aUty an unmistakeable agreement. It is this community of
system, this fundamental resemblance under different forms,
which the doctrine of types aids us to apprehend. Nor,
when once the conception of the historical development of
the Scriptures has been seized, is it any longer difficult to fix
the precise significance of a type. Type and antitype convey
exactly the same truth, but under forms appropriate to diffe
rent stages of development. " The conception of types is
inseparable from that of a theological development in which
the present is pregnant with the future." ^ Type and anti
type are no casual exponents of a religious truth, — things
1 Martensen, quoted by Van Oosterzee, The Theology of tlie New Testament,
Eng. Trans, p. 33.

158 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
which happen by coincidence or chance to edibody the same
spiritual fact ; it is essential to their idea that they should
have been divinely prearranged to announce the fact they
each in their peciUiar way express : " To constitute one
thing a type of another, something more is wanting than
mere resemblance : the former must not only resemble the
latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter ; it
must have been so designed in its original constitution ; it
must have been designed as something preparatory to the
latter ; the type as weU as the antitype must have been
preordained, and they must have been preordained as con
stituent parts of the same general scheme of divine providence."'^
Thus it may be said that the purpose a type has to fulfil is
rather prospective than present : " The aim ... of the type
is, at a certain stage of the divine revelation, to strengthen
the faith for the moment in the Divine Spirit and Word
through the exhibition of preparatory witnesses, and at the
same time to arouse a susceptibUity for the higher stages." ^
A type is thus neither a prophecy nor a symbol nor an aUe-
gory, yet it has relations with each of these. A prophecy is a
prediction in words, a type a prediction in things. A symbol
is a sensuous representation of a thing, a type is such
a representation having a distinctly predictive aspect. " A
tji^e,'' to quote the apt words of Eivetus, " is something
extracted from the Old Testament, and so extended as to pre-
signify and adumbrate something in the New ; an aUegory is
when something out of either Old or New is so expounded
and accommodated by some new sense as to conduce to spiritual
teaching or practical enforcement." ^ A type is an enacted
prophecy, " a kind of prophecy by action," * a non-counterfeit
and predictive aUegory, a prophetical symbol. A type has three
distinct quaUties : it adumbrates something, it adumbrates some
future thing, and it is especially designed by God to adumbrate
that future thing. A type, to give as concise a definition as pos
sible, is a sensuous representation of some fact or truth yet to
' Marsh, Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 371.
' Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, § 35.
' Quoted by Tholuek, article " Vorbilder," Herzog, vol. xvii. p. 39?.
' Warburton, The Divine Legation, Book IX. chap. ii.

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 159
be revealed, or, as Outram puts it, " a symbol of somethinor
future."^ From what has been said, it follows that types occupy a
very different position and fulfil a very different purpose
before and after the appearance of their antitypes. The doc
trine of types having for its aim to draw attention to the
scriptural fact that God had been pleased to convey the same
spiritual truth by different means at different times, — at one
time teaching by symbol, and at another without symboUcal
intervention, — it is an immediate consequence of such a
doctrine, that, whilst before the advent of the antitype the
type should be important according as it heralded approach,
after such an advent its importance would lie in minute
features, by which the reaUty of the truth which both con
tained should be estabUshed. Before their fulfilment, tjrpes i
had to create an attitude of expectancy, of aspiring content ;l
after their fulfilment, they had to convince of historic con-
tinidty. This important distinction has not been recognised
as it should ; and hence the aim of those who have betaken
themselves to the elucidation of the Scripture types has not been
to show how the typical contents of the Old Testament have
prepared the way for the contents of the New, but rather to
show how the contents of the New Testament have fulfiUed
the expectations raised by the Old. An example wiU make
the point before us clear. The Jewish Passover had for its
aim not sitnply to convey certain truths of extreme religious
value at the time, but also to make straight the way for that
Passover of which the apostle rapturously spoke to the Corin
thians. Now before the coming of Christ, the Jewish Passover,
in its extra-symboUcal aspect, was important in the scheme of
divine revelation in so far as it enabled the Jew to think, and
to think with concentration, upon the time and facts to come,
— was important, in short, from the elements of prophecy it
contained ; after the death of Christ, the attention becomes
fixed on quite other features of the Passover ; and, perhaps, as
a proof that it was divinely ordained as a figurative exhibi
tion of the sacrifice offered on Calvary, no single element in
the ritual is of more moment than the command, " A bone
• Outram, De Sacrificiis, Dissert. I. cap. xviu., Eng. Trans, p. 215.

160 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
shaU not be broken." ^ It is the oversight of the very diffe
rent purpose which the types of Scripture have for the Jew
and the Christian, which has given rise to the frequent asser
tion that a type is incomprehensible without the antitype.'
Now, it is quite true that " it is Christ who holds the keys of
the type, and not Moses," * so long as it is only intended to
convey by such a statement that aU the inner and preordained
resemblances between type and antitype can only be known
by a study of the New Testament ; it is untrue if it is meant
to assert that types had no purpose at all to fulfil before the
sealing of the new covenant. If they were " Uke things
opaque in themselves, which waited to shine by the reflec
tion," * their opacity itself emitted a clear and steady Ught of
its own. The tongue of the types was not dumb ; denied the
musical and various tones of expUcit speech, it yet possessed
a pecuUar eloquent monotone.
Now, with the circumstantial relations between the sacri
ficial types and their antitypes, we are not at present con
cerned, inasmuch as the Pentateuch contains no detailed
explanation of the significations of its typical contents; all
we have to do as yet is to ascertain whether there was not a
typical element in all these things, recognisable even in the
times to which they were adapted, — whether, in fact, in
addition to being symbolical for the times theii present, they
had not a prophetical element pointing to the times to come.
Our present question is, whether there are not grounds from
the Pentateuch itself for saying that the Mosaic institutions
distinctly represent themselves as preparatory to a dispensation
to be revealed.® As pagan festivals were commemorations
of the past, is there not reason to conclude that the Mosaic
' It is the overlooking of this distinction between the aim of types b^ore and
after their fulfilment which has led so many to say with Owen, Exposition to the
Hebrews, Exercitationv. on the Priesthood of Christ : " The original institution
of aU expiatoiy sacrifices . . . was merely to prefigure the sacrifice which Christ
was to offer, without which they would have been of no use nor signification,"
thus ignoring the entire essential and symbolical significance.
' Davison, On Prophecy, p. 99.
' Delitzsch, Commentar zum Hebrdern, translated in Fordgn Theological
Library, vol. ii. p. 450.
* Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 390.
^ It wUl be understood that if such a question be answered in the affirmative,

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 161
festivals, for example, were, and stated themselves to be, em
blematical of future events ? ^ Did not Mosaism declare
itself to be transitional, and so postpone to a later time the
solution of the difficulties inseparable from the manner in
which its revelations were conveyed ?
Side by side with the assertion, that " of the prophetic
meaning of the types no hint is given in the law," ^ the
counter assertion may be placed that many such hints are given.
One argument for the transitional nature of Mosaism, which
even the contemporary of Moses might employ, may be found
in the fact that the Mosaic dispensation was no sufficient
fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham and his sons.
" In thy seed shaU aU the nations of the earth be blessed,"
were the words of Jehovah to Abraham ; but so far from
Mosaism being a universal advantage, it was so exclusive that
the stranger at the gate could enjoy but a few of the blessings
of its worship ; and with its central Tabernacle and expensive
ceremonial, it was an impossibiUty even for the Jew, when
once the wUderness life was at an end, to avaU himself, iu
the pressure of his daily avocation and social duties, except
at the festal celebrations, of sacrificial forgiveness and sancti
fication. If Jehovah was veracious, the fulfilment of the
promise had not yet come.
A simUar argument may be adduced from the terms of the
Sinaitic covenant, which is not without cogency to prove the
point at issue. A divine announcement had been made to the
entire congregation, " Ye shaU be unto me a kingdom of priests,
and a holy nation ; " and what was the fulfilment which the
law of Moses presented ? So far from being " a kingdom of
priests," the priesthood belonged to a privileged class, selected
the edge of one large class of objections urged against the typical nature of Old
Testament revelation is completely turned. Kalisch, for example, is altogether
beside the mark when he so caustically writes : " Were (the sacrifices) understood
as types ? Could they possibly be recognised as such ? If the former alterna
tive be supposed, aU individual IsraeUtes were prophetically inspired ; if the
latter, the typical relation must so clearly, so organically and inherently Ue in
the sacrificial laws, that it occurs spontaneously to the mind. But the one
assumption is a paradox . . . the other a palpable faUacy." — Leviticus, Essay
A. ix. 11. •
' Faber, HorcB Mosaicce, voL ii. p. 235.
' Litton, The Mosaic Dispensation, p. 79.
L

162 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
from a smaU section of the nation ; and so far from being " a
holy nation," every feature of their imposing ritual had been
exquisitely constructed to excite a sense of sinfulness. As
the pious Jew entered within the gates of the Court and saw
the priests, barefoot and clad in white, entering the Holy
Place, thoughts must be aroused, in remembrance of the divine
promise, of a time when, atonement and distance being no
longer necessary in the Court, he might be permitted to enter
the Holy Place and present his offerings of prayer and light
and labour; but as yet in the Tabernacle of God no such
priestly function was his. Either Jehovah was not veracious,
or His covenant was not yet fulfiUed.
Then, leaving these more general considerations, advance
may be made to the argument in favour of the preparatory
purpose of the Levitical institutions, and especiaUy of the
Levitical sacrifices, to be drawn from an examination of the
whole paraphernalia of worship. Must it not have struck any
thoughtful worshipper that there was a tremendous contrast
between what the several portions of the cultus were, and
what they were supposed to be ? Ideally perfect, what must
have been his thought concerning the insufficiency, the
degradation, the materiaUsm of the reaUty ? Were aU these
things superstitions, valuable for the education of the masses,
but hindrances to a warmer and more rational spirit ? Were
they instances of a divine toleration of idolatrous practices for
the attainment of some ultimate good ? To offer the former
solution of the difficulty, would have been to ignore the divine
origin of these institutions ; to offer the latter would have
been to hold a creed utterly consistent with the revelation of
the nature of Jehovah contained in the first and second com
mandments of the decalogue. What, then, was the meaning
of these forms and ceremonies made according to the divine
pattern in the Mount ? Must ilot these material things,
symbols as they were of spiritual things, have had it for their
aim, it might be rationally argued, to suggest a time when
both form and substance should be adequately united ? The
formal insufficiency of the Mosaic rites meets us at every side
of our subject. It is seen clestely enough in the Tabernacle
and its furniture. The Tabernacle was said to be the dweUing

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 163
of Jehovah ; — ^it was a moveable structure of precious metal
and wood and skins, which could be a dweUing-place for the
Most High only by the lowUest condescension. Who, it may
be confidently asked, that had entered into the significance of
the revelation of the divine nature made at the burning bush,^
could regard without amazement Bezaleel's edifice, and know
that there Jehovah dwelt ? SUver and gold and fine linen
and tapestry and cherubim might be eloquent symbols of the
glory of a divine residence, but who that had assimilated the
precious lessons of the descendants of Abraham, could find in
these things a fitting and eternal abode for Abraham's God ?
And what was the nature of this divine residence with man ?
Was it such as the promises might have aroused an expecta
tion of enjoying? It was not a visible revelation of the
divine glory ; it "was not even such a revelation as Moses
received when he was placed in a cleft of rock, God shading
his eyes, whilst His glory swept by : the Holy of Holies was
bift the throne-room as of some Eastern potentate, who, him
self remaining invisible, transacted aU the affairs of state by
his viziers, — nay, in this case, the viziers themselves knew no
more of the ruling majesty than was visible in the shroud of
cloud. Perhaps nothing showed more clearly the manifest
accommodation in aU these sacred things than the fact that,
before their recognition as divine accessories, they needed con
secration. The formal inadequacy of the priesthood was just
as conspicuous. The priests had been appointed because of
their especial holiness and fitness to act as mediators between
God and the Jew. And what were these boasted moral
qualifications ? A something imputed by the mercy of God,
and invisible in actual Ufe. If a book were written of " The
Lives of the Priests," it would contain a few cases of eminent
piety and chastened public spirit, many of ecclesiastical arro
gance, wilful disobedience, and rebellious irreUgion, and the
majority of a bigoted conservatism and a Uteral interpretation
of the priestly functions which bordered on idolatry. Nor
were they better quaUfied as mediators ; for, partakers though
they manifestly were of the humanity and sin of their fellow-
countrymen, there was nothing either in their origin or their
' Ex. ui. 6.

164 THE MOSjVIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
history which gave them the sUghtest right to represent
to humanity the God of their salvation : so far from
being divine, they were grossly human ; and so far from being
representative of the best of their nation, they were often
foremost in circumventing and persecuting the noblest and
most prominently spirituaUy-minded. Then, when we come
to the ritual of sacrifice, words can scarcely express the dis
proportion between the symbols and the things symboUzed.
Without entering into the numerous detaUs which have
already been sufficiently repeated, and simply regarding the
main feature of sacrificial worship, that of atonement, how can
the process of accommodation be described which was evidently
pursued therein, when a domestic creature of pure parts,
without having any voice in the matter of its own, endures
the penalty denounced upon human guUt, and becomes an
acceptable and holy substitute ? Or what can be said when,
in cases of extreme poverty, the sin of the offerer was ex
punged by a handful of meal, without the presentation of an
animal substitute 1 The argument, then, is this : Seeing the
disproportion between the Mosaic sacrificial symbols and the
things symbolized, such symbols could have had no recogni
tion, certainly no authorization, at the hands of the Jehovah
of the Jews, as even the Jew himself woiUd recognise, unless,
¦ in addition to their spiritual suggestiveness, they had been
intended,, in connection with the promises made to the chosen
people, to arouse an expectancy of a time when the contrast
between ideal and real, form and substance, should be no more.
Symbols were employed by God as a method • of teaching
important truths by illustration as it were, by scenic representa
tion, although those symbols were inadequate embodiments of
those truths and might possibly mislead ; but those symbols,
from their very insufficiency, had an element of prophecy
which pointed to a future time, when, the day of figurative
representation having passed, those same truths should be
painted upon the eye of man by forms adequate and expression
proportionate. Again, the argument for the typical import of Mosaism
may be strengthened by the fact of the frequent, nay, the
common, impossibiUty of compUance with the legal precepts.

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 165
Every Israelite was bound by the law ; but it was impractic
able for every IsraeUte to keep the law. Having regard to
the single command that every sacrifice should be offered in
one place, at the altar of burnt-offering, was it not impossible
that an inhabitant of Dan or Beersheba, or even of a more central
town, to say nothing of every dweUer in the camp or on the
mountains in the days of the wanderings, should repair, each
time he became conscious of some sin of ignorance or indiscre
tion, to offer his sin-offering at the Tabernacle ? Could every
mother after chUdbirth, every leper upon cure, every man
during impurity, cleanse himself in the appointed way ? Was
it even possible that the duties of agriculture, trade, or citizen
ship could be abandoned three times a year, as the law
appointed as its Ughtest grade of performance, or even once
a year, as custom interpreted the law, whUst every male pre
sented himseK at the feasts ? Why, then, were these rigorous
prescriptions made only to be broken ? To render conscious
of sin is an insufficient reply. It is also insufficient to
say that they were enjoined in order that aU might take to
heart the truths which those symboUc representations en
shrined. It is true that, if aU could not offer these sacrifices
of atonement or sanctification, the truths were for aU, that
atonement by the spilUng of the life of a substitute was
within reach, and that the privUege of all was a sanctification
unto God ; but the question remains, " Why were these truths
sensuously taught? why, when the truths themselves were
commonly received, were the sensuous representations stUl
ordained?" The argument to be found in the impracticabiUty
of obedience to the legal prescriptions in behalf of the typical
nature of Mosaism, again recurs ; — these truths were sensu
ously taught, these sensuous representations were incessantly
enjoined, in order that the national outlook might be directed
by the comparatively unfulfiUed promises of God to a time
yet to come, when types and shadows would end in antitypes
and reaUties.
Thus, granting the premises, which the Books of Moses
themselves demand, that the covenants made with Abraham
and his descendants were actuaUy arranged and concluded by
that Jehovah, the " I AM " of Whose revelation gave proof at

166 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
once of His power and deliberateness in doing what He would,
we must conclude that the insufficient fulfilment given in
Mosaism to the promise to Abraham and to the Israelites at
Sinai, coupled with the contrasts tolerated by the Law between
the sacred symbols and the things symboUzed, and between the
law and its practice, would irresistibly point the mind of the
inquirer to some subsequent fulfilment for which these things
of sense were preparing the way. If the letter of the divine
word was to stand, if the products of the divine mind were not
to be convicted of unworthiness, ceremonial and symbol must
be but shadows of realities yet to come. The Law itself must
have suggested to any thoughtful mind that, if the word of
God stood sure, the Tabernacle and its rites would one day
pass away like stars at the rising of the sun. It wUl be seen
in our next part how this conviction was taken up and
deepened by the strains of prophecy.
It might have been added, that the words of the Law also
afford iUustration to the reasoning of Pascal, with which this
chapter has been headed, that the Mosaic ritual could not
have been intended to last for ever, inasmuch as it is described
as at once pleasing and displeasing to God ; but we do not
dweU upon this, because we must presently insist upon this
feature of Old Testament testimony.
In conclusion, the words of a well-known and eloquent
writer may be repeated : " You deny, or in confessing you
neutralize, any typical import, any prospective atonement.
Mark, then, the mysteries that emerge on your supposition.
The whole spiritual system of the Hebrew Scriptures is made
up of two elements, entwined with the most intricate closeness,
yet absolutely opposite in character. You are, then, to answer
how it was that every particular of a long and laborious
system of minute and often very repulsive sacrificial observ
ances is found united in the same volume with conceptions
of God that surpass, in their profound and internal spirituality,
all that unassisted man has ever elsewhere imagined, — nay,
aU that our modern refinement is able to emulate. What
miraculous mind was it that combined these singular contra
dictions ? Where is there a real paraUel to this mysterious
inconsistency ? Who is this strange Instructor, or series of

TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOSAIC INJUNCTIONS. 167
instructors, that now portrays the form of an everlasting
essence, hid in the veU of attributes that are themselves un
fathomable, and now issues minute and elaborate directions as
to the proper mode and the tremendous obUgation of slaughter
ing a yearling lamb ; and this as the duty of him who would
approach the Eternal Spirit ? Who is He that at one moment
enounces the simplest, subUmest code of human duties in
existence; at another, — nay, in the same page, the same
sentence, — exhorts with equal earnestness to the equal necessity
of drenching the earth with animal blood as the appointed
path of human purification ? Here, then, in the texture of
the Old Testament and its polity, is a mystery greater than
any you can escape by denying its predictive import. It is
altogether impossible on any supposition but the one, the
supposition which alone can elevate ceremonies to the dignity
of moral obligations. Judaism with a typical atonement may
be a miracle or a chain of miracles ; but Judaism without it
is a greater miracle stUl." ^
' Archer Butler, Sermons, p. 192. ,

CHAPTER VI.
GENEEAL EEVIEW OF THE MOSAIC SACEIFICIAL
INJUNCTIONS.
" The main source of knowledge in regard to it is the Canonical Scripture of
the Old Testament: its basis is a special revelation ; its character, monotheistic;
its form, theocratic ; its worship, symbolico-typical ; its design, purely moral ;
its standpoint, that of external authority, but, at the same time, of conscious
preparation for a higher development." — Van Oostekzbe, The Theology of the
New Testament, Eng. Trans, p. 28.
WE have now completed our examination of the Mosaic
doctrine of Sacrifice, so far as it was exhibited at its
first institution, and in its early practice ; and although we
have not exceeded the five books of the Law, — that is to
say, have confined ourselves to the study of the sacrificial
worship of the Israelites during the forty years of wandering
in the wUderness of Sinai, — the results obtained have not
been unimportant. A summary of these results it wiU be
convenient to present in their bearing upon the wider doctrine
of scriptural Sacrifice.
It may have seemed to some that we have omitted in our
inquiry one of the most indispensable preliminaries to a satis
factory result, and that by not determining beforehand the
date of the authorship of the several books of Moses, or at
any rate their relative ages, we have vitiated every conclusion
at which we have arrived. But the fact is, as was stated at
the outset, that aU these so-caUed critical questions are beyond
the sphere we have marked out for ourselves. Our study is
the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice., We have not plunged,
therefore, into the interesting and yet abysmal controversy
concerning Jehovist and Elohist, nor have we sketched in
outline the settlement of the facts adduced in that controversy ;
the standpoint assumed has rendered all such apologetic studies

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICIAL INJUNCTIONS. 169
needless.'^ We might, it is true, have prefaced our researches
by what in our case would have been a threefold refutation
of the theory of the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch,^
from the internal evidence of the Mosaic authorship, from the
almost unanimous external evidence, and from the insufficiency
and irreconcUable variations of the counter hypotheses ; but,
having undertaken a scriptural inquiry, we felt it best and
most profitable to adhere to what the Pentateuch itself advances
concerning its origin. The book of the Law, which, from its
singularly homogeneous and consistent plan, leads us of itself
to infer that it proceeded (of course, with the exception of the
closing verses of Deuteronomy, to the different authorship of
which the book itseK points) from a single hand, distinctly
states that it proceeded as one complete book^ from the pen of
Moses ^ himself. Our path was therefore clear. AU we had
to do was to take the book at its word.
When the chUdren of Israel had, by the divine might and
guidance, made their way to the Sinaitic desert, a revelation
was given to them on the summit of the Mount, whence
Jehovah spake from His garment of flaming cloud, and arrange
ments were commenced for the concluding of a solemn covenant.
" If ye wiU obey my voice indeed," was the one provision of
the covenant ; the other provision was : " Ye shaU be a pecuUar
treasure unto me above aU people : for aU the earth is mine :
and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy
nation."* The elements of obedience thus made the condition
of blessing were then imparted after a three days' national fast,
and consisted, in the flrst place, of the decalogue, and afterwards,
in greater detaU, of the general features of the civU, social,
and reUgious aspects of the Mosaic constitution. After the
sealing of the covenant by a national sacrificial service, and the
idolatrous defection during the absence of Moses upon the
Mount, the religious features of the covenant were stUl further
expanded, and the detaUs were imparted of the one sanctuary
1 Compare, however, chap. iv. in Part III.
' The unity of the Pentateuch is asserted in Deut. xvii. 18, 19, xxviii. 58-60,
xxix. 19-26, xxx. 10.
3 The Mosaic authorship is stated in Deut. xxx. 9-11, 24-26.
* Ex. xix. 5, 6.

1.70 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
henceforth to be the distinctive element of the Old Testament
dispensation, and of the Aaronic priesthood; these religious com
mands being subsequently supplemented by the laws concerning
the sacrifices, the consecration and duties of the priesthood,
the various purifications and the festal seasons, promulgated
from the shechinah above the ark of the covenant. Thus the
chosen nation was singled out from the nations of the earth
not alone by the divine favour which brought them forth from
bondage, but by the impartation of a minutely revealed system
of worship. The Cretans might boast of Minos, the Spartans
of Lycurgus, the Locrians of Zaleucus ; the lawgiver of the
IsraeUtes was pre-eminent amongst them aU, since the code
which he proclaimed was no product of human intelUgence or
juristic skUl, but an express divine revelation. Thenceforth
the patriarchal system of worship, equally applicable to any
servant of the Most High, whether IsraeUte or non-Israelite,
was to give place amongst the descendants of Abraham to a
compact, exclusive, national, and divinely ordained cultus.
The reUgious worship divinely instituted in the desert,
undoubtedly fulfilled several minor purposes. It tended to
divert the attention from the sensuous attractions of the
idolatry with which the people had been associated in Egypt ; ^
it had a considerable influence in preserving the sense of
national unity ; ^ it constituted an invaluable code of sanitary
regulations;^ it even fostered the preservation of genealogies;*
but none of these were its primary aim. To offer a buU in
sacrifice, unquestionably prevented the offering of sacrifice to the
buU itself, as in Egypt ; the laws of purification prevented the
heedless disregard of the conditions of health so common in
large communities ; and the restriction of aU sacrificial worship
to one place must have fostered a splendid esprit de corps : the
' It was this feature which, with all his rationalistic tendencies, it was the
honour of Spencer to have contributed and iUustrated once for all in the study
of Mosaism (see Part iu. cap. iv. ).
* One of the most politic acts of Jeroboam for securing the rupture of the tribes,
was the institution of a rival sanctuary at Bethel.
' The sanitary and police precautions of the Mosaic law have suggested the
favourite point of view of Mosaism of some rationalistic writers (see Hess, Oe
schichte Mose's, p. 374; Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, vol. iv. § 207 ; Saalschiitz,
Mosaisches Recht, p. 21).
* Lowman, Rational of the Hebrew Ritual, p. 190.

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICIAL INJUNCTIONS. l7l
singularity of the Mosaic law was, that none of these things
were directly aimed at, — they were secondary effects of causes,
the primary purpose of which was the culture of the reUgious
Ufe. " Seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness ;
and aU these things " (civU and social) " shaU be added unto
you," might have been taken as the motto of Judaism: Church
and State were so united in Judaism, that the very purposes
of government were best furthered by attention to the duties
of reUgion.-^ What the reUgious import of the Mosaic cultus
was has already been seen.
It pleased Jehovah to command the consecration of a care
fully devised Tabernacle as a place of worship, and a rigorously
selected class from the tribe of Levi to officiate in that
sanctuary. It also pleased Him to convey commands for a
detaUed system of worship, consisting of a sacrificial ritual of
varied forms, accurately adapted to the expression of individual
and national needs, and so diversified as to refiect, as the year
ran its course, the various emotions aroused in the heart by the
remembrance of the goodness of God in creating, preserving,
redeeming, and sanctifying the people He had selected as His
own. Of the detaUs of the ordained place of sacrifice, of the
sacrificial ministrants, of the bodUy and spiritual preparations
for sacrifice, or of the sacrificial times and seasons, treated at
a tedious, if insufficient, length in the preceding chapters,
nothing more needs be said.
A single glance at this elaborate reUgious constitution assures
that it was a ritual of the sjonboUc class. Whatever truth it
had to convey was conveyed under material forms : the eye
was made the gateway to the spirit ; the nerves of sense were
made to thrUl, that some faint wave at least might touch the
soul; adjuncts of gold and colour were employed to speak of
God ; gorgeous vestments and precious stones proclaimed the
sanctity of a priesthood ; washing with water betokened the
' Compare Lowth, Lectures on Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, vol. i. lect. 8 :
" The religion of the Hebrews embraced a very extensive circle of divine and
human economy. It not only included aU that regarded the worship of God; it
extended even to the regulation of the commonwealth, the ratification of the
laws, the forms and administration of justice, and almost aU the relations of
civU and domestic life. With them almost every point of conduct was connected
either directly or indirectly with religion."

172 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
cleansing of the heart ; the fire that consumed the sacrifice
told its tale of divine acceptance. Wherever the divine com
mands were obeyed, reUgious worship was rituaUstic.
This symbolism, so mysteriously selected and permitted for
spiritual ends (as those are apt to think who have been trained
under a faith which takes as its cardinal principle that God is
a Spirit), fulfilled a double purpose. It taught reUgious truths
which verily constituted a divine revelation, and at the same
time prepared the way for a further revelation, in which the
same truths coiUd be conveyed in a clearer, more convinc
ing, and more direct manner. Its symbolism was at once a
symboUsm proper and a typology.
The Mosaic cultus was evidently adapted, in the first
place, to disclose a knowledge of certain great reUgious truths
of the highest importance in eliciting and" developing a truly
spiritual Ufe. Gathering together the hints scattered here and
there throughout the ritual injunctions, and using them as a
guide in the study of the infinitely suggestive symbolism of
the ritual itself, we were enabled to ascertain with tolerable
distinctness what elements of religious knowledge and feeUng
this new edition of the old covenant gave to the Jew indeed.
What these truths were in the main, has been stated in the
second and third chapters of this part. We wUl not) repeat
the conclusions arrived at, but content ourselves with saying
that ample provision was made to convince of the love and
justice of God, the nature and heinousness of sin, the forgive
ness of sins, and the satisfaction for those cravings after closer
communion, and those spontaneous outbursts of self-surrender,
which characterize a right state of mind towards our Creator
and Eedeemer.
At the same time that the Mosaic worship acted as a
discipline for the sinful spirit of man, and imparted to him the
facts of divine pardon and sanctUying power, the very form
in which these things were conveyed, combined with the views
imparted concerning the veracity and spirituality of God,
drew on the attention almost imperceptibly to the belief in
the preparatory nature of these religious aids. The Jew who
studied the Law must have learnt much about the nature and
purposes of Jehovah, but also much of the transitional and

GENEEAL EEVIEW OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICIAL INJUNCTIONS. 173
temporary nature of his own faith. A more successful system
of religious education has never been seen. It satisfied, ex
panded, and corrected the spiritual cravings of its worshippers ;
it also prepared the way for the more spiritual and reasonable
worship of the future. Its work was to arouse longings, some
of which it could, and some could never, allay.
As a consequence of the- symbolic and typical aspects of
the Mosaic sacrifices, it foUowed that these prescribed rites
were sacramental. They became channels of blessings they
were powerless in themselves to produce. Types and shadows,
by the mercy of God, wrought the wonders of antitype and
realities. But, if sacramental, these rites made many a caU upon
the spiritual nature of the worshipper. The Levitical sacra
ments were not opera operata. To every objective act there
was a subjective side of accompanying feeling. Nor was it
enough to obey as weU as sacrifice ; obedience was to be with
the whole heart. So far from being purely mechanical and
a gross routine, as some describe, Judaism demanded wide-
reaching qualifications of deep feeUng in aU acceptable service.
Thus in a language as of nature or poesy, and at the same
time of prophecy, were presented to the Jewish mind some
of the deepest truths which the human heart can receive ;
and it is not wonderful that many inteUigent observers should
approve of this Sinaitic faith. To say with MUman, " The
fundamental principle of the Jewish constitution, the purity
of worship, was guarded by penal statutes, and by a religious
ceremonial admirably adapted to the age and geiuus of the
people," ^ is but cold and hesitant commendation. Even to
say that, " surveying the Levitical system of sacrifice, we are
bound to admit that, as a whole, it is judicious and thought
ful, simple yet comprehensive, clearly and plainly symbolical,
broad and inteUigible in its principles, coherent and con
sistent, and skUfuUy adapted both to the requirements of
individuals and of a theocratic community," ^ is insufficient.
" Whoever shall consider the laws of Moses and rites of the
Hebrew worship, as enacted by the authority of Jehovah and
^ MUman, History of the Jews, 4th ed. vol. i. p. 150.
' KaUsch, Leviticus, A. § 20,

174 THE MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
given for the use of the seed of Abraham, .will easily con
clude they are such rules of religion and constitution of
worship as are fit for the wisdom and goodness of God to
choose and appoint for the use of a favoured people, called
to be a holy nation to Himself, who were to serve and to
worship Him in a manner more honourable than the other
nations of the earth ; in such manner as should promote the
perfection and happiness of their own minds in every part
of true religion, or in all sobriety, righteousness, and good
ness, piety and godUness, — that is, in every virtue human,
social, and divine." ^ The Psalms of David are the best
panegyric of Mosaism; the Lamentations of Jeremiah, its
noblest elegy.
But we must not overlook the necessity of a comparison
of the religion of Moses with that of the Patriarchs, in order
to ascertain the advance that has been made in the Old
Testament doctrine of Sacrifice. The problem to be solved
by any doctrine of Sacrifice was, so to counteract the infiuence
of human transgression as to as nearly as possible restore
that fearless and trustful relationship of man to God, in
which he could give his whole self — body, soul, and spirit — to
the divine service. The patriarchal faith gave (as we saw
in the first part of this book) but a very partial solution.
Divine permission was granted for sacrificial worship on the
fulfilment of certain objective and subjective conditions ; but,
notwithstanding that the subjective conditions were a sense of
penitence and self-surrender, the one objective condition was
but the presentation of animal sacrifice, the ritual of which
was little developed, and the inner significance so slightly
apprehended as to give no intellectual rest beyond a trust in
God. Now, the Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice gave no more
encouragement than the patriarchal to an approach to God
in entire self-surrender without the intervention of animal
sacrifice : the sacrifices it enjoined were stUl symboUc ;
nevertheless, it showed a considerable advance both upon the
objective and subjective sides, and bore upon its surface
distiiicter marks of the purpose of its institution. If the
patriarchal worship was divinely suggested, the Mosaic was
^ Lowman, Rational of Hebrew Ritual, p. 23.

GENERAL REVIEW OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICIAL INJUNCTIONS. 175
divinely commanded ; hence divinely arranged adaptations for
special ends supplant the tentative additions which characterize
a human development, and, at the same time, those special
ends themselves become a subject ibv express revelation.
The various detaUs in which the Sinaitic doctrine exceUed
its predecessor, wUl at once occur to the reader.. If we regard
the ritual employed in the presentation of sacrifice, the
difference between the two dispensations is most striking.
We seem to have passed from chUdhood, when the highest
constructive efforts result in houses of cards or structures of
sand which a touch of the hand or the rising tide wUl
disintegrate, to the gigantic architectural efforts which the
wear of time or sudden convulsions can alone destroy.
There is a magnificent sanctuary where any heap of stones
formerly served; a richly endowed and carefuUy trained
priesthood, where the father of a family formerly did duty for
his own, a prince for his people, or any man for himself; a
ritual of a thousand precepts to excite and express the devo
tion, for which a few precedents and any improvised ritual
formerly sufficed. The gain was manifest. The religious
nature may be approached by many channels, and delights in
a diversified service ; and, provided sufficient attention is paid
that ceremonial delivers up its spiritual significance, religious
ceremonies may, in a certain state of ciUture, be a useful
means to a valuable end. This was most certainly the case
in the Mosaic dispensation ; for carefuUy adjusted precautions
were taken to ensure the religious effect of the ceremonial by
appropriate teaching. In this interpretation also of its sym
boUsm, Mosaism was a considerable advance upon the worship
of the Patriarchal Age. Whilst Abraham and his sons had
to rest in their sacrificial rites upon a sense of the divine
approval, their descendants, in presenting their more elaborate
sacrifices, were permitted to comprehend some of the reasons
of that divine approval. Sacrifices which, under the Patriarchs,
were but symbolical of the mental state of the worshipper, —
or if symboUcal of aught else, so imaginatively that there was
oiUy room for hope and conjecture where the soul yearned
for assurance and knowledge, — have become, under the later
revelation, emblems not alone of spiritual feeUngs, but of

176 THE MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
objective grounds for those feelings. We never read of
" atonement " in patriarchal times. The fact was there, but
the assurance of it rested simply upon a conviction of the
divine mercy: when remission of sins was assured to the
righteous offering of animal blood, there was a great gain to
the sinful soul in clearness of view, and therefore in intel
lectual content. AU was not solved-, but much was. Then
the Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice pointed onwards to a more
complete and satisfying faith in the future ; and here also
there was a reUgidus benefit to the heedful. From its more
detaUed ritual, from the greater demands which that ritual
made upon the spiritual nature of the worshipper, from the
truths which that ritual more clearly inculcated concerning
the nature and purposes of Jehovah, materiaUstic and tem
porizing as the Mosaic ritual was, it was nevertheless most
exquisitely adapted to the religious education of the Jewish
race, and a great step taken towards " pure and undefiled
religion." But Moses was before his time, or, as we should rather
say, the religion entrusted to him. to estabUsh was too mature
for the stiff-necked people he was leading ; and it was only
after a lengthy discipUne of pain and precept that they
appreciated and assimilated this divine gift to the nation.
Before we can estimate the influence exercised by the Mosaic
doctrine of Sacrifice upon the Jewish race, we must know the
process of its assimUation, and be made aware of the methods
pursued to bring home those essential features only too
Uable to be overlooked. This process of the assimilation
and development of the Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice, as far as
it can be deduced from the Scriptures, will form the subject
of the next part of this book.

PAET III.
THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE,

" Qui jugera de la religion des Juifs par les grossiers, la connoitra mal. EUe
est visible dans les saints livres, et dans la tradition des prophHes." — Pascal,
Pensies, "Des Juifs," xi.

CHAPTER I.
THE NATIONAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC
SACEIFICE.
"Ad curandi rationem nihU plus confert quam experientia." — Coekelito
Cblsub, De Medidnd, prcefatio.
THUS far. we have been occupied in our study of the post-
patriarchal times with the description and significance
of the Mosaic injunctions, and have seeii, what a strict
examination undoubtedly shows them to contain, an imme
diate satisfaction for the reUgious wants of the Jewish people,
and, at the same time, a system of elementary religious
education, — a painful alphabet, — to be taught and reiterated
untU the nation could read the divine purpose without
blundering. These injunctions of the Levitical rubric
remained in force from the days when they were made tiU
the period of the Old Testament closed. Whole pages might
be fiUed with the catalogue of minute features of the law
which are incessantly appearing throughout the subsequent
historical, poetical, and prophetical books, whilst undesigned
coincidences innumerable continuaUy suggest the conviction
that the ceremonial law, as revealed to. Moses, was the
source and stimulus of aU the genuine spiritual Ufe of the
people. But not having to controvert the numerous assertions
of the several " rationaUstic '' and " critical " schools of com
mentators, — such controversy being foreign to our expressed
purpose of ascertaining, and not criticizing, the contents of
Scripture, — it is unnecessary to accumulate instances to prove
this continuity.
A scarcely less important epoch now opens before us, — the
times of assimUation and development of the Sinaitic reve
lation. Divine light had entered the mind of Moses like

180 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
lightning ; but what Moses saw at a glance, the nation could
only perceive Uke a dawn stealing to meridian. The seed
given at Sinai must grapple with cUmate and soU, and we
must trace its history tiU it gives lodgment to a people. Or,
again changing the figure, if the sacrifice of Abel be Ukened
to the birth of a larva, the Patriarchal Age to its days of
grovelUng life, the residence in Egypt to its chrysaUs stage,
and Sinai . to the bursting of the moth, then, developing the
iUustration, it may be said that we have now to trace the flutter-
ings of the imago amidst acanthus and rose, by night and by
day, in poverty and in plenty, untU it too droops, and, as in the
ancient fable, a more ethereal growth starts from its corpse.
The period of ' assimUation and development of the Mosaic
concfeptions of sacrifice, which extends from the giving of
the Law on Sinai to the coming of Christ, is characterized
by three distinct movements, each of which wiU demand a
separate chapter, — namely, the assimilation effected by .the
national history, the assimilation effected by the example and
writings of men of extraordinary piety, and the assimUation,
and development effected by the prophets. In this chapter
we have to see the process of assimUation during the stages of
the national history.
It is the peculiarity of the historical books of the Old
Testament that they are not complete catalogues of the his
torical facts of the period of which they treat, nor even complete
descriptions of sections of human history, but compUations
made from these wider fields according to distinct principles.
We shall be understood if we adopt a modem distinction,
and say that the Old Testament histories do not contain
history as such, but a selection of historical facts made in
accordance with a determinate philosophy of history. It was
the privilege of the chosen people to be conscious from the
first of the purport of their national vicissitudes, and, instead
of placing faith in the erratic, wheel of Fortuna, or in the Fates
" which rule both gods and men," to beUeve in a Providence
who not only held aU the threads which made up the pattern
of their Ufe, but who • had also revealed to them the general
features of that pattern. The words of the original covenant
made amidst flame and trumpet and Ughtning, had been fre-

THE NATIONAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 181
quently reiterated; and they knew that national misfortune
indicated national wrong - doing, and national prosperity a
national obedience to the divine commands. "If ye wiU
obey my voice indeed, ... ye shaU be a peculiar treasure," ^
were the words of the primary compact ; " Behold, I make a
covenant: before all thy people I wiU do marvels; . . .
observe thou that which I command thee,"^ were the words
in which, after the fracture of the golden calf, the covenant
was renewed ; and, as the boundary of the Jordan was crossed,
to the same effect came the divine proclamation : " Behold, I
set before you this day a blessing and a curse ; a blessing, if
ye wUl obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which
I command you this day : and a curse, if ye wUl not obey
the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside
out of the way." ^ To Joshua also the Almighty had said,
at the outset of his career : " Only be thou strong and
very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according
to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee :
turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that
thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book
of the law shaU not depart out of thy mouth; ... for
then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou
shalt have good success." * Thus pain became indissolubly
associated in the Hebrew mind with error, and pleasure with
righteousness. Thus the national history became, by its
annals of intermittent adversity and success, both a powerful
stimulus to the legal performance of sacrifice, and a strong
deterrent from its iUegal performance. The national experi
ence was a most potent agent in the instruction of the Jews
in the necessity, nature, and value of the Mosaic worship.®
No sooner had the primary Sinaitic covenant been sealed by
' Ex. xix. 5. " Ex. xxxiv. 10, 11.
3 Deut. xi. 26-28. ¦• Josh. i. 7, 8.
<> Let it be noted that there is authority in the Hebrew arrangement of the
canon for the distinction above drawn between ordinary history and history so
written as to convey and iUustrate certain reUgious truths ; for some of the his
torical books are classed among the prophetical books because of their didactic
element, whilst others form a section of the more purely Uterary productions of
the Hagiographa. It is with the contents of the former — viz., the Books of
Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings — that this chapter is more
immediately concerned.

182 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the solemn act of public sacrifice, and divinely ratified by the
vision of glory ^ vouchsafed to the elders, than the trial of
faith, which ever foUows in Scripture a time of exceptional
revelation, commenced, During the absence of Moses upon
the Mount, Aaron cast a golden calf, in imitation of the Egyp
tian conception of the buU as representative of the power of
nature, before which an altar was buUt and sacrifices made ;
the divine anger was aroused, and slaughter and plague^ burnt
into the heart of the nation the sin of idolatrous sacrificing.
That experience was supplemented by the consequences which
attended the lapse into idolatry at Moab, when twenty-four
thousand feU by the hand of the Lord.^ In the Korahitic rebel
lion* against the ordained priesthood, the importance of another
prominent feature in Mosaic sacrifice was stamped by the awful
issue, as with a searing iron, upon the popular consciousness.
In the glorious days of" the leadership of Joshua, the fruits
of obedience to the Sinaitic injunctions so richly reaped
became a most luminous precedent. His was evidently " pro
sperity and good success," as the Lord had said, because he
was " strong and very courageous to observe and do according
to aU the law which Moses commanded." Immediately upon
Joshua's assumption of leadership, the miraculous parting of
the Jordan before the ark of the covenant* spoke of the divine
approval of the respect paid to the Mosaic appointments ; and
this mark of favour was speedUy foUowed by the fall of the
waUs of Jericho,* in which the priests and Levites took so
prominent a part. In after times the days of Joshua were
remembered as an age when Jehovah signaUy honoured His
people for obedience to His laws, and the Tabernacle at Shiloh'
was regarded as the centre of an ardent religious Ufe and an
abundant prosperity.
In the time of the Judges — " the heroic age of Hebrew
history"* — the attractions of legal and idolatrous sacrificing
divide the national attention. The inevitable consequences
foUow. A considerable portion of the extant history of that
time is occupied with the narrative of the punishments which,
^ Ex. xxiv. 9, 10. = Ex. xxxii. 25. » Num. xxv.
* Num. xvi. ^ Josh. iu. 10, iv. 10-14. « Josh. vi. '
' Josh, xviii. ^ MUman, History of the Jews, 4th ed. voL i. p. 238.

THE NATIONAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 183
in the course of divine providence, foUowed dereUction of
religious duty, or of the removal of those punishments which
was immediately consequent upon a return to the path of
Mosaic rectitude. The pictures of the age which remain
resemble a series of dissolving views, which, retaining the
same background of the Tabernacle and priesthood^ as the
centre of the theocratic Ufe, now present in the centre of sight
a people mechanicaUy religious, with tendencies towards
heathenism, who are being severely scourged by soine hostUe
inroad, and now a people enjoying the very sweetness of the
divine favour as they obediently foUow the leadership of some
hero whose originality of address is only. paraUeled by his
reUgious conservatism. The whole period is a series of alter
nations. On the one hand, religious feeUng such as was
displayed in the song of Deborah,^ the career of Gideon,^ the
Nazarite vow of Samson,* and the prayer of Hannah, receive
visible proof of the divine approbation in national or indi
vidual prosperity ; on the other hand, such absence of true
reUgious feeling as resulted in the worship of Baal and Ash-
teroth,*' the vow of Jephthah,® the rival sanctuary at Dan,'^ and
the sacrUege of the sons of EU,^ was visited by severe marks
of the divine displeasure. " And the chUdren of Israel did
evil in the sight of the Lord, and served BaaUm : And they
forsook the Lord God of their fathers. . . . And the anger
of the Lord was hot against Israel, and He deUvered them into
the hands of spoilers. . . . Whithersoever they went out, the
hand of the Lord was against them for evU, as the Lord had
said, and as the Lord had sworn against them. — Nevertheless
the Lord raised up judges. . . . And when the Lord raised
them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and
delivered them out of the hand of their enemies aU the days
of the judge. . . . And it came to pass, when the judge was
dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves more than
their fathers." ^

' The author, of course, does not touch upon the doubts thrown by " critical "
expositors upon the existence of a central sanctuary and a Levitical priesthood
in the times of the Judges.
¦ 2 Judg. V. ' Judg; vi.-viii. * Judg. xvi. 7. *• Judg. u. 11-23.
6 Judg. xi. ' Judg. xvii.-xxi. ^ I.Sam. u.-iv. ^ Judg.,ii. 11-19.

184 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
The same divine displeasure fell upon Saul. In his case
the necessity of strict obedience to the Law was most terribly
inculcated ; for having, in the absence of a priest, personaUy
offered a burnt sacrifice to the Lord, the stem sentence imme
diately foUowed : " Thou hast done fooUshly : thou hast not
kept the commandment of the Lord thy God which 'He com
manded thee : for now would the Lord have estabUshed thy
kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shaU
not continue."^ By his ritual irregularity his sins had reached
a crisis, and the sceptre had passed from his descendants.
The days of the undivided monarchy under David and
Solomon were the. palmiest days of the Hebrew history. In
David the nation had been granted another Joshua, who, by
the divine blessing upon his sanctified generalship and lowly
royalty, carried to completion that labour of conquest and
statesmanship commenced at the first division of the land.
For our purpose it is only necessary to note that these glorious
days of King David, which afterwards became the national
ideal of a polity, were days of the most faithful adhesion to
the Mosaic forms of worship. No Jew coiUd thoughtfuUy
ponder upon those prosperous days, and not remember that
the son of Jesse inaugurated his reign by burning the Philis
tine images at Baal-perizim,^ sanctified his capture of the strong
hold of Zion by making it the central sanctuary,* brought the
ark to its resting-place with songs, sacrifices, and dances,*
cove'ted beyond conquest the honour of transforming the Tent
into the Temple of witness,' completed the organization of the
priestly service which Samuel had begun,* elevated the leading
priests' to a seat at his councU,^ mingled his tears at leaving
his beloved sanctuary with those which were wrung from him
by the rebeUion of Absalom,* and laid his genius and experi
ence under contribution to provide psalms, which, as we shall
see in the next chapter, perpetually testified to his joyful
recognition, of the spiritual advantages of the tabernacle ser
vice.' Nor was the reign of Solomon wanting in testimony to
1 1 Sam. xiu. 9-14. " 2 Sam. v. 21.
' 2 Sam. V. 7, vi. 16. ^ 2 Sam. vi. 12-18 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 3.
' 2 Sam. vii. ; .1 Chron. xvu. xxii. xxviii. « 1 Chron. xxiv. 11-19.
' 2 Sam. vui. 14-18 ; 1 Chron. xviu. 17. ^ 2 Sam. xv. 24-30.

THE NATIONAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 185
the pre-established harmony between prosperity and fidelity
to Mosaism. The most ready association with the brilUant
reign of the typal Prince of Peace, when Judah and Israel
" dwelt safely," was the building of the Temple,^ at the con
secration of which the thousands of peace-offerings^ brought the
"sense of divine feUowship into thousands of hearts and homes.
A cloud, however, gathered across the horizon at the close of
Solomon's Ufe, and, for his sacrifices to strange gods, the rule was
snatched from his posterity.* " For more than three hundred
• years the evU seed scattered by Solomon bore evU fruit."
In the time of the divided empire, we seem to have alighted
upon a second epoch of the. Judges. The whole period is
again a series of alternations of Ught and gloom, according as
the Mosaic institutions were remembered or forgotten. The
punishments denounced upon the descendants of Solomon
were not long delayed. Civil and foreign wars, social and
spiritual degeneracy, an open practice of the flagrant idolatries
of the surrounding nations, were the common features of the
times, these painful annals being occasionally interspersed
with the holy endeavours -of God-fearing kings, or the wide
spread revivals initiated by prophetic appeal.
It was the kingdom of Israel in which the' consequences of
reUnquishing the old paths were depicted in most startUng
characters. Jeroboam had commenced his reign with the
erection, apparently from poUtical motives, of two golden
calves,* — the one at Dan, the northern limit of the kingdom ;
and the other at Bethel, the southern limit, — intending, it would
appear, not so much to introduce a system of idolatrous wor
ship as to foUow the example of Aaron, whose words he quoted
at the consecration, and symboUcally represent the Deity who
had brought the nation forth from Egypt.® Jeroboam had
' It is unnecessary to enter into a detaUed description of the Temple of Solomon,
since the Temple was but an enlarged and immoveable Tabernacle. The sym
bolism was the same in both, differences occun-ing in detail, not in theological
signiiicance. Compare Bahr, der Salomonische Tempel, 1848 ; Keil, der Tempel
Salomo's, 1839; Merz, article "Tempel zu Jerusalem," in Herzog, vol. xv.;
and, ablest and most recent of aU, the exposition of the 6th and 7th chapters of
1 Kings, in Thenius, Commentar zu der BB. der Konige, 2d ed. 1873, pp. 56-124. '
« 1 Kings viu. 62-64. « 1 Kings xi. 4-13. ^ 1 Kings xu. 26-33.
* Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, 1770, p. 255.

186 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
also, from the same motive of poUcy, expeUed the Levites his
territory, and constituted a new priesthood from the popular
ranks. These infringements of the Mosaic ritual were signaUy
punished. In the very act of consecration, the altar was rent
and the king's arm withered;^ and when the policy thus
rashly commenced was persisted in, the penalty subsequently
took the severer form of the death of Jeroboam's only son.^
From that time on, in the "nine dynasties and nineteen
kings," * it was plainly seen that no shechinah rested upon
the new sanctuaries, but that, by faction fights in which kings'
were overthrown and their famUies murdered, by horrible
anarchy, by the harassing inroads of the dweUers on the
marches, and the overwhelming invasions of the great Asiatic
monarchies, by plague, locusts, and earthquakes, by human and
physical instruments of various kinds, the penalties that had
been decreed were faUing. Once on the plane of decadence,
everything seemed rushing with increasing momentum to the
final issue. The worship of the calves loosened the sluices
which inundated the land with the sanguinary and unchaste
worship of Baal and Astarte ; and the sins of the house of
Jeroboam being eclipsed by those of the house of Omri, these
in turn paUng Before the iniquities of the house of Jehu, the
divine wrath not only became more clearly pronounced in the
warnings of the successive prophets, but the several reigns
themselves appeared to the observant eyes of the elect increas
ingly fraught with the elements of destruction. Indeed, in
the general disasters which had faUen upon church and home
and state, it is refreshing to catch an occasional glimpse of a
few peaceful and standstill days under such an one as an Ahab,
or of the less declared and more poUtic iniquity of a Jehu.
At length the ten tribes succumbed to the might of Assyria,
and, in accordance with the custom of Asiatic conquerors,
were transplanted into Assyria and its tributaries, Dan and
Bethel standing thenceforth as imperishable monuments of the
widespread forgetfulness of the divine law and the unfiinching
severity of the divine judgments.
In the kingdom of Judah the course of events was not so
1 1 Kings xiu. 1-6. 2 1 Kings xiv. 12, 13.
3 Oehler, Theologie des A. T., vol. iL p. 55, § 171.

THE NATIONAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 187
uniformly detrimental, and times of precious revival were
more frequently distributed amidst the periods of irreUgion.
The changes in Judah were reformations and not revolutions.
The dynasty of David never became extinct, and during all
vicissitudes the Temple at Jerusalem, with its inseparable
and potent associations, uttered a protest against the national
degeneracy. Yet, although Judah was free from the deadly
feuds which distracted Ephraim, she was not free from
Ephraim' s sin. Idolatry in its most detestable form com
peted successfuUy with the religion of Jehovah for the hearts
of the people ; the licentious sacrifices of the groves rose into
the air with the sacrifices from the altar of burnt-offering ; at
times the sacred precincts of the Holy of Holies itself were
poUuted by the emblematic regaUa of strange gods. More
tender, however, was the treatment of the Divine Father,
because more frequent was the fitful adherence of Judah to
His worship. When the idolatries of an Abijah were suc
ceeded by the iconoclasm of an Asa, Asa marched victoriously
against invading Egypt. The national annals, teUing as they
do of the godless reigns of an Athaliah and a Jehoram, are
also brightened by those of a Jehoshaphat, a Joash, and a
Hezekiah, the days of Jehoshaphat being eloquent of the
deUverance from the Assyrian, those of Joash of the defeat of
the Syrian, and those of Hezekiah of the retrogression of the
dial in answer to importunate prayer. Nevertheless, the judg
ments so long deferred at length feU. The armies of Babylon
encircled Jerusalem, and,, after making it tributary during the
reign of Jehoiachin, first carried a part of the inhabitants
with their king Jehoiachin captive, and subsequently trans
planted the entire community to the rivers of Babylon. The
streams of sacrificial blood no longer flowed in the court of the
Temple : the Temple itself lay in ruins.
To the later features of the bibUcal history, which more
appropriately belong to our next chapter, a few words may
beneficiaUy be given. "One of the most mysterious and
momentous periods in the history of humanity was that brief
space of the exUe. What were the influences brought to bear
upon the captives during that time; we know not. But this
we know, that from a reckless, lawless, godless popiUace, they

188 • THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
returned transformed into a band of Puritans." ^ " What all
the better kings and prophets had never been able, with even
tolerable success, to effect in Israel, was accomplished in a
few short years, without much aid from man, by the, inflexible
earnestness of that Ufe on a foreign soil." * The furnace of
affliction had at length indeUbly branded upon the national
heart the sense of the paramount importance of the Mosaic
worship : and no sooner were the captives restored to their
native land than their first deed was to rebuild the Temple ;
and although, to quote the Talmud, this Temple of Zerubbabel
wanted five things which constituted the glory of that of
Solomon,— namely, the ark, the sacred fire, the shechinah, the
spirit of prophecy, and the oracle, — none the less were the
foundations laid with shouting, and the topstone brought forth
with joy.^ From the days of the renewal of the covenant by
the princes, Levites, and priests " to walk in God's law, which
was given by Moses the servant of God," * the lesson had been
adequately learnt, that in other gods and in idolatrous sacri
fices there was no avaU. Thenceforth there was no return to
the heathen propensities of their fathers, and during the
dreary days of the Persian, Macedonian, and Eoman supremacies,
when scholarship took the place of inspiration; and sects
argued where prophets had intuitively seen, it was quite
another lesson, as we shall presently see, which was being
enforced — that of the traiisitory nature of Mosaism itself.
^ Emanuel Dentsch, Literary Remains, p. 12.
' Ewald, Oeschichte des Volkes Israel, 3d ed. vol. iv. p. 30.
3 Ezra iii. 10, 11. * Neh. x. 24.

CHAPTER II.
THE HAGIOGEAPHIC CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC
SACEIFICE.
" It is natural to believe in great men." — Emerson, Representative Men.
IN addition to the book of the Law written by the divinely
inspired Moses, and those historical books professedly
written by the prophets to enforce a theocratic view of the
current of Hebrew history (written with an unconcealed bias,
it may aUowably be said), it was the privUege of the chosen
people to possess a literature in the narrower sense of the
word. This fact was distinctly recognised in the formation of
the Hebrew canon ; for, whilst the first division of that canon
consisted of the Law, and the second of the Prophets (con
taining, be it remembered, those historical books which have
formed the subject of the preceding chapter, as weU as the
predictive books which wiU form the subject of the next), there
was also a third division, the Hagiographa or Holy Writings,
— a literature, as has been hinted, in the narrower and more
frequent sense of the term. This Uterature was partly history
and partly poetry, — that is to say, it consisted in part of facts
so selected and pieced together by conscious or unconscious
art as to be powerfuUy representative of certain given epochs
or events, and in part of expressions under some appropriate
form of the inner Ufe of highly gifted men. One peculiarity,
however, severed the Jewish literature from the Uterature of
other nations — these writings were pre-eminently Holy Writ
ings. As, generaUy speaking, it may be said that the genius
of Greece lay in the sense of the beautiful, and that of Eome
in the sense of the poUtical, so, generaUy speaking, the Jewish
genius may be said to Ue in the sense of the spiritual It was

190 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
not the sensuous relations between the mind of man and the
glories of the outer world which occupied the chief place in
the studies of the Jewish sage, though these were not unfelt ;
nor was it the gregarious and governing instincts which form
man into societies, though these were not unknown : a David
and a Solomon principaUy occupied themselves with the
mysterious relations between man and the unseen universe.
This common bent of Jewish genius is very evident in the
Hagiographa. AU the books of the Old Testament are con
cerned in some way or other with the culture of the reUgious
side of humanity : the Hagiographa differ from the law and
the prophets, inasmuch as they teach rather by example than
precept, and relate the reUgious life either of individuals or
epochs as that was displayed in the ordinary course of provi
dence rather than in direct divine communications. To speak
more accurately, the Kethubim or Hagiographa differ from the
Thorah and Nebiyim, inasmuch as the inspiration of the
former is seen indirectly in the narrative or experience of
inspired lives of men and peoples, whereas the inspiration of
the law and prophets is seen directly in express divine
announcements. Now these holy books had considerable
influence in assisting the national assimijation of the Mosaic
law. It is therefore needfiU to inquire at this stage of our
inquiry, what is the teaching concerning sacrifice to be found
in these holy books.
The historical books of the Hagiographa consist of the
Books of Euth, the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and
DanieL Of these the prophecies of the Book of Daniel,
which fitly find their place in this coUection, since their
remarkable predictions are after aU but incidental to the
historical contents of the book, wUl be more advantageously
examined in our next chapter, and the Books of Euth and
Esther have nothing relevant to our inquiry. The remaining
books may weU call for investigation; for one prominent
feature of them is the leading position everywhere ascribed
to the Mosaic cultus, and the reverence its commands are
everywhere described as obtaining. So conspicuous, indeed,
is the place which the Levitical worship occupies in the
Books of the Chronicles, that some rationaUsts and critics

HAGIOGRAPHIO CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 191
have not hesitated to assert they were Written by Levites in
the ecclesiastical interest.^
The poetical books of the Hagiographa are the Books of
Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, the Song of Songs,
Ecclesiastes, and the Lamentations. Of these the Book of
Job describes too primitive a time to render any aid, and the
Canticles have no direct reference to our subject. The Books
of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, cursory as their
aUusions to sacrifice are, are of importance from their expres
sion of the individual views of their authors. The Psalms
are also of incomputable value, from their overflowing fulness
of experience. These Psalms, indeed, attributed to such
authors as Moses, David, Solomon, and Isaiah, are sacred
lyrics, which, from the almost idolized reputation of their
composers, from the contagious glow of their sentiments, and
the reUgious tone of that instruction which, better far than
any didactic poem, they contrived to convey, miist, from their
frequent use in pubUc worship, as well as their intrinsic
Uterary merit, have played no inconsiderable part in the
fashioning of the spiritual life of those who were capable of
profiting by their teaching, and have had incalculable influ
ence in stamping the leading features of the Jewish faith
upon the popular mind.
In turning to the historical books of the Hagiographa, to
ascertain what elements of example and teaching they con
tain which could aid the national assimilation of the sacrificial
injunctions given by Moses, it is noticeable, in the first place,
that they acknowledge throughout the reUgious satisfaction to
be found in the sacrificial enactments of Mosaism. We do
not aUude to the evidence that the Mosaic law was in force ;
we have before said that such evidence is, from our stand
point, unnecessary. We aUude to the overwhelming proof
of the fact that, whenever cravings after divine communion
arose in crises in individual or national Ufe, those cravings
'¦ " These books are the first to show us that, amid all the transgressions of the
law and the greatly aboimding idolatry, the worship of Jehovah was stUl kept
up on the whole as the Pentateuch prescribed, in spite of occasional brief periods
in which it was almost entirely neglected." — KeU, Lehrbuch der historisch-krit.
Einleitung in die canon. Schriften des A. T., 2d ed. 1859 (translated iu
Foreign Theological Library), § 140.

192 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
were aUayed by the divinely appointed services of the Taber
nacle or Temple. The ordinary chronicles of the Jewish
nation are full of instances where exceptional men, at excep
tional times, rejoiced to direct the popular eye to the abundant
satisfaction they had in worshipping God in His own pre
scribed way. As the ark of the testimony was brought to its
resting-place at Zion, David sacrificed with joy and dancing,
thus publicly testifying to his sense of the spiritual privUeges
he was permitted to share.^ At the consecration of the Temple,
itself a visible witness to the joyful participation of David
and Solomon in the Mosaic ritual, king and people, so glad
were they and merry, brought their thousands of burnt-
offerings and peace-offerings.^ Subsequently, at the solemn
dedication of Zerubbabel's Temple, the nation " kept the feast
of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy : for the Lord had
made them joyful." ^ Or, turning to examples of another
class, we find David, in the hour of his terror at the rapid
spread of the plague, offering sacrifice to avert the divine
anger;* and Jehoshaphat, in despair at a dreaded invasion,
standing in the court of the Temple, and crying, " 0 Lord God
of our fathers, art Thou not God in heaven?"* But it is
needless to multiply instances. The historical books teem
with such examples ; and it is very evident that one great
element in effecting the popular assimUation of the Mosaic
injunctions, lay in the lasting example of men Uke David,
Hezekiah, and Ezra, and in the lasting remembrance of great
crises such as the dedication of the Temple, when, after re
course to the divinely instituted method of divine approach,
the " arm of the Lord was made bare."
Another feature which is very prominent in the historical
books under examination, and which must also have exercised
considerable influence in the ready assimUation by the people
of the Mosaic cultus in its entirety, is the frequent recognition
of the necessity of what we have caUed the subjective side of
sacrifice. If great men and great events drew the gaze of the
populace to the inestimable treasures they possessed in the
Law, not less clearly did those great men and great events
^ 1 Chron. xvi. * 2 Chron. vu. 4-10. « Ezra vi. 22.
* 1 Chron. xxi. 26. ' 2 Chron. xx. 3-5.

HAGIOGRAPHIO CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 193
draw the attention of all to the inward character of true
reUgion. If David appointed the sons of Aaron to offer
sacrffices in their due season, he reminded them that their
duty was " to stand every morning to thank and praise the
Lord, and likewise at even." ^ It was when the trumpeters
and singers made one mighty sound of praise, "For His
mercy endureth for ever," as weU as when the priests
slaughtered their offerings, that the Temple was fiUed with
the glory of the Lord Uke a cloud.^ Fire came down from
heaven when Solomon completed his sacrifice by prayer.**
The secret of Hezekiah's prosperity lay in the fact that aU
the work he did in the service of the house of God and the
Law, " he did with aU his heart." *
If we now peruse the poetical writings of the Hagiographa,
we find, in the first place, that language has never expressed
more forcibly the craving after some form of reUgious worship ;
and, further, that language has never recognised more clearly
the abundant satisfaction of that craving to be gained in the
sacrificial enactments of Mosaism. The same book that con
tains those exquisite devotional outbursts, " 0 God, Thou art
my God ; early wiU I seek Thee : my soul thirsteth for Thee,
my flesh longeth after Thee," * teUs of a spiritual rest that
can prompt the words, " I wiU fre,ely sacrifice unto Thee, . . .
for it is good." * In one place we read the confession of the
Psalmist : " As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so
panteth my soul after Thee, 0 God ; " ^ in another there is
the rejoicing cry : " I wiU go into Thy house with burnt-
offerings : I wiU pay Thee my vows, which my Ups have
uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble.
I wiU bring Thee fat calves, with the sweet savour of rams :
I wiU offer ' buUocks with he-goats." ^ As that cry of the
Psalmist, more loud than the waiUngs and immolations of
heathendom, is wrung from his heart in that secret chamber,
where, with his awakened conscience, he is alone with God :
" For Thy name's sake, pardon mine iniquity ; for it is great," ®
from afar the singers of Zion may have been heard sending
> 1 Chron. xxui. 30. ^ 2 Chron. v. 13, 14. ^ 2 Chron. vu. 1.
* 2 Chron. xxxi. 21. ' Ps. bdu. 1. " Ps. Uv. 6.
7 Ps. xiu. 1. ' Ps. kvi. 13-15. = Ps. xxv. 11, comp. U. 1.
N

194 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
forth their refrain : " Bring an offering, and come into His
courts." ^ In many forms of language the spiritual value of
Mosaism is urged. Now, with dramatic power the nation is
represented as praying for its king : " The Lord . . . remember
aU thy sacrifices, and regard thy burnt-sacrifices as fat ; " ^
and now, with equal dramatic force, the Lord is represented
as commanding His angels to " gather His saints ; those who
have made a covenant with Him by festal-offering.'' * At
one time sacrificing is spoken of as a means of spiritual
renewal : " But He, fuU of compassion, covered their iniquity
and destroyed them not ; " * at another time, as expressive of
consecration after renewal : " Hear, 0 Lord, when I cry with
my voice. "... Then will I offer in His Tabernacle jubUant
thank-offerings ; I wiU sing, yea, I wiE play the harp unto
the Lord." * " I wUl offer to Thee thank-offerings," * is the
exclamation of the Psalmist as he remembers the wonders of
the divine deliverance ; " Oh that men would praise the Lord
for His goodness ! " he exclaims, as the conviction grows that
that deliverance is universally displayed, " and let them slay
thank-offerings." ' " Honour the Lord with thy substance,
and the first-fruits of thine increase,"^ says the writer of
the Proverbs : " He that keepeth the Law, happy is he ; " ®
" Fools make a mock at a trespass-offering." ^^
The poetical section of the Hagiographa also speaks with
stern and uncompromising severity of the foUy and tre
mendous consequences of iniqidtous sacrificial observance.
Like a death-kneU, for example, sounds the waU of Jeremiah
from amidst the ruins of Jerusalem : " I caUed for my lovers,
they deceived me : my priests and my elders gave up the
ghost in the city, whUe they sought food to relieve their souls.
. . . The punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my
people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom.
. . . The stones of the sanctuary are poured out in every
street. ... He hath violently taken away His Tabernacle, as
if it were a garden : He hath destroyed His places of assembly :
¦ Ps. xcvi. 8. " Ps. XX. 3. 3 Pa. 1. 5.
* Ps. Ixxviu. 38. = Ps. xxvu. 6. e pg_ g^yj ij
' Ps. cvu. 21, 22. " Prov. iu. 9. » Prov. xxix. 18.
'« Prov. xiv. 9.

HAGIOGRAPHIO CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 195
the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and the Sabbaths to
be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of
His anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off
His altar. He hath abhorred His sanctuary. . . . The Nazarites
were purer than snow ; their skin is withered : it is Uke a stick." ^
But if the poetical books of the Hagiographa everywhere
recognise the importance of what we have caUed the objective
side of sacrifice, they no less emphaticaUy teach the necessity
of the subjective side. " Who shaU abide in Thy Tabernacle ? "
asks one of the Psalms ; " He that walketh uprightly," ^ is the
reply. " I wUl wash my hands in innocency," sings the wor
shipper : " so will I compass Thine altar, 0 Lord." ^ . " 0
send out Thy light and Thy truth ! " is David's cry in dis
tress : " let them bring me to Thy holy hUl, and to Thy
Tabernacle."* If the Psalmist would depict the divine
regard of the slaughtered victims presented by priests, " WiU
I eat the flesh of buUs or drink the blood of goats ? " are
the words he puts into the mouth of the Almighty : " Offer
unto God thanksgiving ; " * " Offer the blood sacrifices * of
righteousness."^ In his deepest contrition David whispers
to his harp : " Thou desirest not sacrffice, else woiUd I give it :
Thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The blood sacrifices of
God are a broken spirit." * And at another time : " None of
the round of sacrifices dost Thou desire ; mine ears hast Thou
1 Lam. i. 19, iv. 6, iv. 1, u. 6, 7, iv. 7, 8. = Ps. xv. 1, 2.
3 Ps. xxvi. 6. ' * Ps. xliu. 3, 4. » pg^ i_ 12-14.
^ The author has not thought it advisable to crowd his notes by referring to
the numerous passages in this and the following chapter,, in which he. has felt it
necessary to deviate from the Authorized Version ; nor has he given, except in
very exceptional instances, the exegetical reasons for the translation he has
adopted. He would say,, once for all, that wherever the Authorized Version has
not, in his esteem, concealed important turns of phrase, he has not gone out of
his way to insert minute shades of meaning, which have more to do with style
than doctrine ; and in such cases he has been satisiied with the Englishman's
Bible. The author would also add, that he has not referred to the numerous
commentaries by means of which he has formed, corrected^ or matured his
exegetical opinions. He cannot refrain, however, from gratefully acknowledging
the valuable assistance he has received in his Old Testament studies from the
commentaries of Hitzig and Knobel, DeUtzsch and Hengstenberg ; and, quite
apart from the critical views of that distinguished OrientaUst, the author would
also express his grateful appreciation of the sympathetic translations of Ewald of
the Old Testament poets and prophets.
' Ps. iv. 5. ^ Ps. U. 16.

196 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
opened : neither burnt-offerings nor sin-offerings dost Thou re
quire. . . . Lo, I come." ^ And conspicuous among the proverbs
are such as these : " The blood sacrifice of the wicked is an
abomination to the . Lord ; " ^ "Better is a dry morsel, and
quietness therewith, than a house fuU of festal offerings with
strife ; " ^ " To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to
the Lord than blood sacrifice." * " Be more ready to hear," is
the abrupt advice of the cynical preacher, " than to give the
blood sacrifice of fools." ®
There is another feature of the doctrinal substratum of the
Psalms which must not be entirely passed over — namely, what is
customarily designated their Messianic conceptions. As in the
Patriarchal and Mosaic Ages, so in the post-Mosaic the gospel
of deUverance by sacrffice and the gospel of deUverance by
a coming Messiah still run side by side. This Messianic
element it has been the earnest endeavours of the contra-pre
dictive school of expositors to eUminate or minimize. They
have made it their special aim to discover — we had almost
said, to ferret out — any historical events or circumstances
which might be supposed to form the starting-point of the
so-caUed Messianic Psalms, hoping thus to render an ade
quate explanation of those Psalms, if but a Uttle poetic Ucence
be also aUowed. The result has been not only to stimulate
a closer study of the historical aUusions everywhere contained
or assumed, and thus to foster a more vivid apprehension of
these holy writings, but also to demonstrate more and more
convincingly the impossibility of getting rid of the Messianic
interpretations. Eecent studies have compeUed the relinquish
ment of some Psalms which had previously been regarded as
prophetic of the coming Deliverer, only to bring into stronger
and more indisputable prominence others which unquestion
ably have such a reference. The conclusion has also been
increasingly forced upon the mind, that this Messianic element
is not to be seen in isolated passages and aUusions so much as
in an aU-pervasive, interpenetrating atmosphere, surely present,
yet subtly indescribable. The Psalms, it is being recognised,
transport the sympathetic reader into the quietude of the
> Ps. xl. 6. " Prov. XV.. 8. ' Prov. xvii. 1.
? Prov. xxi. 3. * Eccles. v. 1.

HAGIOGRAPHIO CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 197
Messianic hope, as the poetry of Wordsworth transports into
the quietude of nature; they act by a communicative sug
gestiveness, verbally incommunicable. As has been weU said
by the present Dean of Canterbury, the composition of the
Psalms " may have begun with man, but it ends with God ;
it may have begun with some event or person belonging to
the preparatory church, but it moves onward and rises to a
fuUer and nobler— yes, and a truer — meaning. Psalms occa
sioned by some temporary occurrence, prayers bursting from
hearts overcharged with emotions arising from present mercies,
narratives and persons in strictest harmony with their times, yet
leave constantly those times far behind, and suggest thoughts
of Christ, and shed light upon His office and work for us. If
it were. mere spirituaUzing, — a far-fetched or forced interpreta
tion, — it would have no argumentative force, however capable
it might be of adaptation to pious uses. If this occurred once
only, or twice, or ten times, you might say it was chance
work. But the interpretation is natural, obvious, plain. It
is so general a rule, . . . that you do not get rid of its force
by hunting up with petty minuteness some present occurrence
to which the declaration . . . may in some few cases here and
there possibly refer." ^ An iUustration of this Messianic sug
gestiveness of the Psalms has been neatly put by Lowth in
his celebrated Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews:
"The subject of the second Psalm is the establishment of
David upon the throne, agreeably to the Almighty decree,
notwithstanding the fruitless opposition of his enemies. The
character which David sustains in this poem is twofold, literal
and aUegorical (typical). If on the first reading of the' Psalm
we consider the character of David in the literal sense, the
composition appears sufficiently perspicuous, and abundantly
iUustrated by facts from the sacred history. Through the
whole, indeed, there is an unusual fervour of language, a brU
Uancy of metaphor ; and sometimes the diction is uncommonly
elevated, as if to intimate that something of a more subUme
and important nature lay concealed within, and as if the
poet had some intention of admitting us to the secret recesses
of his subject. If, in consequence of this indication, we turn
' Payne Smith, PropJiecy a Preparation for Christ, p. 246.

198 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
our minds to contemplate the internal sense, and apply the
same passages to the allegorical David, a nobler series of
events is presented to us, and a meaning not only more
sublime, but even more perspicuous, rises to the view.
Should anything at first appear bolder and more elevated
than the obvious sense would bear, it wUl now at once appear
clear, expressive, and admirably adapted to the dignity of the
principal subject. If, after having considered the subjects
attentively apart, we examine them at length in a united
view, the beauty and subUmity of this most elegant poem wUl
be improved. We may then perceive the vast disparity of
the two images, and yet the continual harmony and agree
ment that subsists between them, the amazing resemblance, as
between near relations, in every feature and lineament, and
the accurate analogy which is preserved, so that either may
pass for the original whence the other was copied. New light
is reflected upon the diction, and a degree of dignity and
importance is added to the sentiments, whilst they graduaUy
rise from humble to more elevated objects, from human to
divine, till at length the great subject of the poem is placed
in the most conspicuous light, and the composition attains the
highest point of sublimity." ^
So much for the existence of Messianic Psalms. A detaUed
examination of these Psalms would be out of place ; for this
reference may be made to any more recent commentary. Nor
is it necessary to describe the gradual growth of the Messianic
ideas as that may be traced in the extant Psalms, — an im
possible task, it must be admitted, untU unanimity has
crowned the attempt at solving the perplexing questions of
their authorship and chronology. All it is necessary to our
argument to do, is to draw attention to the fact that, amidst
numerous aUusions to the office of the Messiah, which only
subsequently receive their adequate explanation, the most pro
minent feature of the Messianic teaching of the Psalms is the
Kingship of this Anointed One. The coming DeUverer is
everywhere placed in the forefront as " great David's greater
Son." Thus, whatever influence heroic example, historical pre-
' Lowth, vol. i. Lecture xi.

HAGIOGRAPHIO CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 199
cedent, and exceptional literature exercise upon national and
private Ufe, that influence, as we have now seen, was exer
cised in the assimUation of the Mosaic ritual. The recital of
cherished tradition, the reading of written chronicles, and the
choral worship of the sanctuary, each did its part. Whenever
the Psalms were sung, or the Hagiographer perused ; when
ever parents told the national exploits to their children, or
orators to their audience, a subtle and immeasurable agency
was at work in recaUing to mind the injunctions of the Law,
and how the wisest and greatest had not only advocated an
incessant obedience, but attributed their outward and spiritual
prosperity to that obedience.

CHAPTER III.
THE PEOPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC
SACEIFICE.
"It were much to be wished that we could agree upon a chronological
ai'rangement of the Old Testament, which would approach more nearly to the
true order in which the books were written than that in which they have been
handed down to us. Such an arrangement would throw great light on the
interpretation of prophecy." — Jowbtt, The Epistles of Paul, vol. ii. p. 283.
HAVING treated in the preceding chapters of the assimi
lation of the Mosaic injunctions effected by the national
history, and by the example and writings of men of extra
ordinary piety, we now advance to the third movement which
characterized the interval from Moses to John the Baptist,
and investigate the assimilation and development effected by
the prophets.
It was one of the main tasks of prophecy to take the two
paraUel rays of the sacrificial teaching of Mosaism and the
Messianic teaching, and by bringing them into a focus to pro
ject upon subsequent ages one beam of intense light. From
the days of Abel two revelations had been given with increas
ing clearness, — the one of salvation by sacrifice, and the other
of salvation by a promised DeUverer ; but although the forms
in which these two revelations had been conveyed had
pointed to the future for their adequate explanation, nothing
had as yet indisputably shown that they were indissolubly
connected, nothing had shown that the anticipated deliverance
would be deliverance by an antitypical sacrifice. Even in the
Psalms, which speak so exultantly of the regal and priestly
status of the Divine Deliverer, these two cardinal truths of
pre-Christian times are 'not so presented as that their hearers
must unquestioningly beUeve in a Saviour who should give
Himself a potent and eternal sacrffice for man. Suggestions

PROPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 201
many the Psalms contain, assurances never. It was prophecy
which conducted the Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice through this
new phase.
In that mental product to which the name of prophecy has
been applied, the most extraordinary achievement of pre-
Christian times is witnessed. The Jewish prophet was neither
a Demosthenes, swaying the multitudes by a briUiant expres
sion of poUtical views which revealed acumen and talent for
government without any admixture of the supernatural ; nor
was he a Pindar, who roused his feUow-countrymen by the
recitation of epics daring in their fancy and subUme in their
execution, yet none the less never transcending the limits of
human genius : his special gift was supernatural in its source,
and had the supernatural for its subject ; he was a speaker
with God, — an interpreter of the divine mind} who, having
been chosen to utter messages from heaven, knew no medium
so fitting as lofty eloquence and rich poetry. A prophet is
etymologically " a speaker out, — one who reveals the mind
and sayings of another who never speaks ; just as a dumb
man or a recluse must have some one to speak out for him
and declare his intentions, so God, who is dumb to the multi
tude, must have a messenger or an interpreter divinely com
missioned to speak the divine wiU." ^ " The idea of a nabhi
is not Umited to the functions of a seer and predictor of
future events; neither does the term denote (as many in
modern times suppose) every poet or teacher of the people ;
it conveys the notion of an interpreter between God and
man, — a confidant, as it were, of God,— one to whom Jehovah
manifests Himself in order to announce to men that which
He desires that they shaU know, referring either to future
events, or to the disclosure of divine mysteries, or even to
instruction in moral laws." ^ " A prophet as regarded in the
1 See the Hebrew word nabhi, which may be translated spokesman or inter
preter, or, better stiU, a speaker who is simply the organ of another. Compare
Ewald, Ausfuhrliches Lehrbuch der Hebraischen Sprache, §§ 124. a, and 149. e,
2, 8th ed. pp. 329 and 388 ; and Oehler's article, " Propheten des A. T.," in
Herzog, vol. xu. p. 210. Ufafrirvis, the Greek word of the Septuagint, is an
unexceptionable equivalent.
" Ewald, Die Propheten des. Alten Bundes, 1840, p. 6.
3 Bleek, EinleUung in die heil. Schrift des A. T., Eng. Trans, vol. ii. p. 6.

202 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
light of Scripture, was simply the recipient and bearer of a
message from God ; and such a message was of course a
prophecy, whatever might be its more specific character, —
whether the disclosure of some important truth, the inculca
tion of an imperative duty, or a prospective delineation of
future events." ^ " The prophet, then, was the representative
of God under the theocratic government, — the vizier or deputy,
whose business it was to speak in God's name." ^ " The word
which the prophet reveals can be ascribed as Uttle to natural
refiection as to such human instruction or direction as obtained
in the schools of the prophets ; and if the prophet in the assur
ance of his divine mission encountered an Ahaz and a Jezebel,
an Ahab, a Jehoiachin, a Zedekiah, — yea, the whole multitude
of his opponents, — with the strongest opposition, and fearlessly
invoked the powers of heaven to assist him, aU this must be
attributed to his innermost assurance that he was the organ of
God." ^ If it be asked how the prophet became conscious of
this his exalted function, the response must be : " The prophet
knew himself as the organ of the divine revelation, by virtue,
on the one hand, of his divine caU which had fallen upon him
with overpowering conviction, and was immediately recog
nisable as such ; and, on the other hand, by virtue of his pre
paration by the Spirit of God, which enlightened, sanctified,
and strengthened him." * This honour of being the privUeged
receiver and promulgator of the divine revelations was con
fined to no special family or tribe (like the office of the priest
hood), but wherever God willed, the caU to the prophetical office
feU; and sometimes by the medium of dreams or of that visionary
state in which, the eyes being closed, the seer simply regarded
the things revealed to his inner consciousness, sometimes by
the immediate impartation of truth, the divine caU was ratified
and consummated.
From the biblical conception of the nature of prophecy just
deduced, a consequence foUows which at once brings that con
ception into strong reUef, and facUitates the comprehension of
' Fairbairn, On Prophecy, p. 5 (T. & T. Clark).
* Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, p. 71.
3 Kiiper, Das Prophetenthum des Alten Bundes, 1870, p. 16.
< Oehler, Theologie des A. T., vol. U. p. 172, § 206.

PEOPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACEIFICE. 203
what would otherwise be a startUng discrepancy in the Old
Testament teaching upon sacrifice. The Mosaic law strictly
enjoined, under capital penalties, that sacrifices should never be
offered except at the Tabernacle and by the Levitical priest
hood ; but the prophets, nevertheless, are represented as sacrific
ing without priestly assistance and in places remote from the
Court. One notorious instance is Elijah's sacrifice at Carmel.
That the prophets in such cases did no wrong, the divine
sanction sufficiently testifies. The reason is clear. The law
was primarily given through the prophet Moses, and every
subsequent prophet was a law to himself. By virtue of his
divine vocation, the prophet could obey the wUl of God as
revealed within, the priest as revealed without. The prophet,
in fact, occupied an analogous position to that of the angel
whose command legalizied the sacrifices of Gideon^ before his
own door. In short, from his direct intercourse with the
Most High, the prophetic conscience was as authoritative as
the Sinaitic commands. In Ulustration of this position,
another remarkable fact may be adduced, — viz., that no change
was ever legitimately made in the Mosaic law, except upon some
such revelation as constituted the very essence of the pro
phetic office. When changes were first made in the Aaronic
and Levitical arrangements, they were made by Samuel : ^
every feature in which the Temple of Solomon differed from
the Tabernacle, was authorized by divine revelation to David ; ^
and the pecuUarities of construction in the second Temple had
their source in Haggai and Ezekiel.*
Adam was the first prophet; and from that time onwards
occasional outbursts of the prophetic spirit are met with in
Jacob, Balaam, and Moses, untU, in the days of Samuel, the
gift was so richly bestowed that it was continued uninter
ruptedly in poorer or more lavish measure untU the canon of
the Old Testament closed. It is undoubtedly true that we do
not possess the complete utterances of the prophets, since the
didactic teachings of a Samuel, an Elijah, and an EUsha (to
say nothing of the lesser Ughts of the "schools") are not
extant. But it was in the days of the divided empire, so
1 Judg. xiu. 16-20. ^ 1 Chron. ix. 22.
3 1 Chron. xxviu. 19. * Ezek. xl.-xlvi., and Hag. i. 8.

204 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
important in the spiritual history of the Jews, and especiaUy
in those days when the accumulated sins of the nation were
about to be punished by the hosts of Assyria and Chaldea,
that prophecy flourished ; and extended records of those times
have been preserved to us. From the writings of Obadiah
and Joel ; from the productions of the contemporaries Jonah,
Amos, and Hosea, who prepared the way for the nobler Isaiah;
from the remaining pre-exUian prophecies of Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah; from the important
prophecies of the exUe emanating from Haggai, Ezekiel, and
Daniel; and from the final utterances of Zechariah and Malachi,
the main contents of the prophetic teaching may be deduced.
In the study of the prophetic writings with reference to
the subject of this treatise, the first fact that , strikes one is
that a considerable portion of those discourses is intentionally
devoted to the enforcement of what had already been more or
less clearly taught in the Law and national Uterature.^ The
Hebrew prophets were conservative liberals, who, while they
predicted and prepared the way for the golden age ahead, made
it' a large part of their endeavours to gather and refurbish
the good things of the past. This aspect of the prophetical
writings has been too much neglected, such neglect having been
the cause of the current misconception which makes scriptural
prophecy synonymous with prediction. " Prediction is part of
prophecy ; for, as the past and the future are both present to
God, one in whom God spake would be raised above the
Umits of time, provided that this elevation were needed by
that portion of God's truth which he was commissioned to
deUver ; but if, as was often the case with the prophets, their
office related to the present state of God's church, no predic
tion would be spoken." ^ Predict the prophets did that they
might teach, and predict they did concerning sacrifice ; but
their teaching was not confined to prediction: prophecy was
also concerned in emphaticaUy reiterating the doctrine of
Sacrifice previously given.
^ " If we take up the prophetic volume, we find it readily distinguishes itself
into two parts, which may be caUed the Moral or Doctrinal, and the Predic
tive." — Davison, On Prophecy, 6th ed. p. 28.
' Payne Smith, Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, p. 41.

PROPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACEIFICE. 205
The prophets frequently reiterated the importance of the
Mosaic injunctions as a means of reUgious worship. " 0
Judah,'' cries Nahum, " keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy
vows : for the wicked one shall no more pass through thee ;
he is utterly cut off." ^ " And the word of the Lord," says
Zechariah, "came unto me, saying. Thus saith the Lord of
hosts : The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the
fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth,
shaU be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful
feasts ; therefore love the truth and peace." ^ Haggai exhorts
to the rebuUding of the Temple with such words as these :
" Thus saith the Lord of hosts : Consider your ways. Go up
to the mountam and bring wood, and build the house, that I
may take pleasure in it, and that I may be glorified, saith the
Lord. Ye looked for much, and, lo, there came Uttle ; and
when ye brought it home, I blew it away. Why ? saith the
Lord of hosts. Because of mine house which is waste, whUst
ye run every man to his own house. Therefore the heavens
over you are stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from
her fruit." ^ But the most astonishing repetition of the past
is the emphasis laid upon the Mosaic injunctions in the vision
of Ezekiel concerning the new Temple to be buUt on the
ruins of the old.*
The prophets painted in lurid colours the consequences of
iniquitous sacrificial observance. "Hear this," is the passionate
denunciation of Amos, " 0 ye that swaUow up the needy, . . .
saying. When wUl the new moon be gone, that we may seU corn?
and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the
ephah small, and the shekel great ? . . . The Lord hath sworn
by the exceUency of Jacob, Surely I wUl never forget any of
their works ;"* — " I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I wUl
not smell in your solemn assembUes. Though ye offer me
burnt -offerings and your meat-offerings, I will not accept
them ; neither wUl I regard the peace-offerings of your fatted
calves. . . . Have ye offered unto me the whole round of sacri
fices in the wUdemess forty years, 0 house of Israel ? But
ye have borne the tabernacle of your king, and the car of your
¦' Nah. i. 15. ' Zech. viii. 19. ' Hag. i., 7-10.
' Ezek. xl.-xlviu. * Amos viu. 4-7.

206 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.
Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond
Damascus, saith the Lord, Whose name is the God of hosts." ^
" My people," writes Hosea, " ask counsel at their stocks, and
their staff declares unto them. . . . They sacrifice upon
the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the
hills, under oaks and poplars and elms. . . . Ephraim is
joined to idols : let him alone." ^ " What profiteth the graven
image," is the Lord's reply to Habakkuk, "that the maker
thereof hath graven it ; the figure of a mould, and a teacher
of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make
dumb idols ? Woe unto him that saith to the wood.
Awake ; to the dumb stone. Arise." * Or, more melancholy
than any verbal denudation, is the matter-of-fact description of
the desolateness which fell upon that Temple which had so
often witnessed the idolatries and hypocrisies of priests and
people : " Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the
month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard,
which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem, and
burned the house of the Lord, and the king's house ; and aU
the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men,
burned he with fire : and aU the army of the Chaldeans, that
were with the captain of the guard, brake down all the waUs
of Jerusalem round about." *
Tenderly or with threatening, the prophets dwelt upon the
necessity of what has been so frequently called the subjective
side of sacrifice. " Gird yourselves, and lament," is the
exhortation of Joel, " ye priests : howl, ye ministers of the
altar : come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my
God." ^ " Take with you words," is the advice of Hosea to
sinful Samaria, — " Take with you words, and turn to the Lord :
say unto Him, Take away aU iniquity, and receive us graciously;
and let us render the calves of our lips." * " Wherewith," asks
Micah, " shaU I come before the Lord, and bow myself before
the God of heights ? shall I come before Him with burnt-
offerings, with calves a year old ? WiU the Lord be pleased
' Amos V. 21-27. '' Hog. iv. 12-17. ' Hab. u. 18, 19.
* Jer. Iu. 12-23. » Joel i. 3. e Hos. xiv. 2.

PROPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 207
with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ?
shaU I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of
my body for the sin of my soul ? He hath showed thee, 0
man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with
thy God ?" ^ " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove
the foreskin of your heart" ^ is the cry of Jeremiah to Judah.
Then with no faltering voice did the prophets pronounce
upon the transitional nature of Mosaic sacrifice. Zephaniah
writes : " Therefore as I live, saith the Lord of hosts, the , God
of Israel, Surely Moab shaU be as Sodom, and the children of
Ammon as Gomorrah. ... The Lord will be terrible unto
them : for He wiU bring to nought aU the gods of the earth ;
and all the isles shaU worship Him, every one in his own place." ^
Joel places in the divine mouth promises of satisfaction for
those religious desires which were unmet in Mosaism, saying :
" Judah shaU dweU for ever, and Jerusalem from generation
to generation. And I wiU cleanse their blood that I have
not cleansed : for the Lord dweUeth in Zion." * Haggai en
courages the buUders of the second Temple by reciting the
tale of the joy that shaU yet be seen within its waUs : " Who
is left among you that saw this house in her first glory ? and
how see ye it now ? is it not in your eyes as nothing ? Yet
now be strong, 0 Zerubbabel, saith the Lord ; and be strong,
0 Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest ; and be strong, all
ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work. . . . For
thus saith the Lord of hosts : Yet a Uttle while, and I will
shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry
land ; and I wUl shake aU nations, and the noblest of all
nations shall come: and I will fiU this house with glory,
saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall
be greater than that of the former, saith the Lord of hosts : -
and in this place wUl I give peace." ^ Zephaniah even
speaks of a sacrifice which the Lord has prepared for the
day of His grace : " The day of the Lord is at hand : for the
Lord hath prepared a festal offering. He hath bid his guests." *
It was also part of the prophetic teaching to intensify that
• Mic. iv. 6-8. " Jer. iv. 4. ' Zeph. u. 9-11.
* Joel iu. 20, 21. ' Hag. u. 3-9. « Zeph. i. 7.

208 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
ray of divine Ught which had first rendered visible to man the
distant image of a Eedeemer. From the earliest history of the
race,, it had been the task of isolated prophecies to fiU up by
firmer and minuter strokes the general outline of the paradisaic
Protevangelium. Indeed, forestalling somewhat for the sake
of convenience the contents of this present chapter, we have
already seen that primeval promise limiting itself to the de
scendants of Shem, Abraham, Jacob, and Judah ; we have heard
the heathen Balaam teUing of a great King, in whom the
kingdom of Judah should find its fuU and final reaUzation, and
the meek Moses of a greater Prophet than himself, who should
be the mediator of better promises ; and in the Psalms we
have discovered forecasts of a regal Messiah. This teaching
of the Pentateuch and the Psalms was expanded by later
prophets, who, in accordance with their characteristic habit of
unfolding the typical aspects of things, announced their eager
expectation of a noble Scion of David's royal Une, a world-wide
Euler and a world-wide blessing. For the present we restrict
ourselves to the Messianic testimonies of prophets prior to
Isaiah. A Hosea teUs how " the chUdren of Israel shall abide
many days without a king, and without a prince, and without
a blood sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod
and teraphim;" but "afterward shaU the chUdren of Israel
return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their King, and.
shaU fear the Lord and His goodness in the end of the days."^
A Joel, after his announcements of heavy impending judg- ,
ments and his caU to repentance, teUs of a divine mercy which
shall consist, first, in the coming of a Teacher of righteousness,
and, next, in the abundant descent of the Spirit : " Be glad,
then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God :
for He giveth you the Teacher of righteousness; and then He
poureth down upon you rain, the former rain, and the latter
rain for the first time. . . . And it shaU come to pass after
ward, I wUl pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." ^ An Amos,
after unfolding the doings of the divine displeasure upon the
chosen people, adds : " In that day will I raise up the Taber
nacle of David that is faUen, and close up its breaches and
raise up its ruins, and I wiU iDuUd it as the days of eternity :
^ Hos. iu. 4, 5. 2 Joel ii. 23, 28.

PROPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 209
that they may possess the remnant of Edom. and of all the
heathen, upon whom My name is caUed, saith the Lord that
doeth this."^ And a Micah, after giving circumstantial predic
tions of the woes about to descend upon Samaria and Judah,
tells how the sun shaU break through the storm, the dominion
return to the house of David, and an eternal King be born in
Bethlehem : " And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, too Uttle to be
among the districts of Judah, out of thee shaU He come forth
unto her that is to be ruler tn Israel ; whose goings forth are
from the times of old, the days of eternity."^
But, as has. been before said, it was one of the pecuUar
tasks of prophecy to gather the two intensified rays of the
sacrificial and Messianic teaching of the Old Testament, which
had hitherto appeared as parallel, as in a mirror, that thence
forth they might be projected upon the obedient and studious
mind as one blazing beam. Prophecy was to predict the
advent of One Whose regal glory should eclipse the glowing
visions of a conqueror worthy of the Davidic stock, and Whose
vicarious sufferings should fulfil the anticipations of the
Mosaic sacrifices.
It was the eternal honour of the calm and majestic Isaiah^
to be the first to enunciate that these two doctrines of the
past were but different phases of the same truth. Isaiah
Uved in that critical age of the Hebrew history when the whole
kingdom was dismayed by the threatened invasion of Senna
cherib, and previously by the issue of the Syriaco-Ephraimitic
war ; and these two events became the starting-points of his
prophetical announcements.* He was divinely commissioned
to proclaim to his countrymen, who were chewing the bitter
cud of their experience, that direr punishments for transgres
sion were in store than the disasters infiicted by the iniquitous
alUance of Israel and Egypt, and a more signal deliverance
1 Amosix. 11, 12. " Mic. v. 2.
^ It is no part of our labours, from the standpoint everywhere assumed, to take
cognizance of that "criticism," the foundations of which were laid by Koppe,
Dbderlein, Justi, EosenmiiUer, Eichhom, Bertholdt, and Paultis, and the elaborate
superstructure by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Ewald. The unity of the Book of Isaiah
is everywhere assumed. Isaiah is not to us an anthology.
* Compare Drechsler, Der Pj-ophet Jesajaa ilbersetzt und erklart, vol. i. pp.
1-35. 0

210 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
than when, before the breath of the angel of the Lord, eyes
waxed heavy, and the " might of the Gentiles melted Uke
snow." With the much debated analysis of the prophecies of
Isaiah we need not concern ourselves. Nor need we, in the
study of the predictions of the future deliverance, endeavour
to coUate all the passages which have any reference to that
event ; it will be enough for our purpose to select here and
there, so as to obtain the specific teaching of Isaiah upon that
point. Let, however, the principle common to all prophecy
be borne in mind — of progressive development. Whether it
was rendered imperative by the slender assimilating power of
either prophet or people, or whether it was dictated by the
continuity of the divine plan, the fact is unquestionable, that
the vanishing point of the prophetic perspective tends to be
come less remote, and the object viewed, therefore, more and
more distinct. This development is visible not only in the
utterances of the several prophets, but also in the several
utterances of the same prophet. It need cause no surprise,
therefore, that the prediction which it was the crowning fame
of Isaiah to have spoken, was not revealed to him at the out
set of his career, but only as the keystone, after a firm basis and
laborious superstructure had been raised by previous revelations.
The earUest prophecies of Isaiah attach themselves to those
given by his official predecessors. In a time of deep spiritual
distress, he tells of an age when the filth of Jerusalem shall
be washed away, and the Lord shall more visibly lead those
who shaU be saved : these things being accompUshed by One,
the Branch, whose very Ufe originates in God : " In that day
wiU the Branch of Jehovah be for honour and for glory, and
the fruit of the earth for exceUence and ornament to the
redeemed of Israel. And it wUl come to pass, that he that is left
in Zion, and he that is spared in Jerusalem, will be caUed
holy, every one that is written to life in Jerusalem : when the
Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion,
and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst
thereof by the spirit of right and the spirit of burning. And
Jehovah wiU create over every spot of Mount Zion, and over
her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the brightness
of flaming fire by night : for over aU the glory there shaU be a

PEOPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACEIFICE. 211
covering. And a tabernacle shall be for a shadow by day
from heat, and for a refuge and covert from storm and from
rain."^ This Deliverer, the Branch of the Lord, is afterwards
announced as the Son of a virgin, before whose birth the two
Hebrew kingdoms shaU have ceased to be monarchies : "Behold,
the virgin conceives, and bears a Son, and caUs His name
Emmanuel."^ Upon this announcement of the divine character
and human birth of the nation's hope, there foUows a noble
passage, in whieh these two elements are combined with the
previous prophecies of a regal Messiah, the Son and Successor
of David : " For unto us a ChUd is born, unto us a Son is
.given : and the government is upon His shoulders, and His name
is caUed Wonder, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace ; to the increase of government and to peace
without end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom,
to establish it and support it by justice and righteousness from
henceforth and for ever."^ Further prophecies foUow, which
reiterate and expand these selected features of the personal capa
cities, the divine and Davidic origin, and the righteous, peaceful,
universal, and eternal rule of the coming Prince.* A new song is
now heard. Thus far prophecy has been concerned with the
characteristics of the King and kingdom of salvation ; but
nothing has been directly heard, although much has been
incidentaUy suggested, concerning the foundation of the regal
prerogative or of the subjects' rights. That there shall be a
King we know: that that King shaU exercise universal sway
over Jews and GentUes we also know; but how the King
shall ensure the general recognition of His claims, and how the
people shall obtain the peacefulness and righteousness of which
we have read — these things we have not been told. To the
previous features of the regal and divine Messiah, Isaiah now
adds another, of the Messiah who suffers vicariously for human
sin. This is the burden of what has been called the second
part of the second book of the prophecy^ — what we might justly
call the second drama in the magnificent TrUogy of salvation
' Isa. iv. 2-6. 2 Isa. yii. 1^-16. ^ iga. ix. 6-8.
* Isa. xi. xii. xvi. 5, xviii. 7, xxv. 6-8, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 13, xxviii. 16, xxix.
18, 19, xxxu. 1-3, 17-20, xxxv. xiii. 1-9.
^ Viz., capp. xlix. -1 vii.

212 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
— in which we are introduced to Him whom kings shaU see
and princes worship, as One, nevertheless, " Whom man de-
spiseth," " Whom the nation abhorreth," " a Servant of rulers,"^
and Who, without rebeUion, " gave His back to the smiters.
His cheeks to the pluckers, and hid not His face from shame
and spitting."^ "Behold," this brUliant prophecy runs, —
" Behold, my Servant wUl act wisely ; He wUl rise up and be
exalted, and be very high. Just as many were shocked at Thee:
so marred was His face more than man's, and His form than
the sons of men ; so wiU He sprinkle many nations ; kings wUl
shut their mouths at Him : for they see what has not been told
them, and perceive what they have not heard. Who beUeves
our report ? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ?
He grows up like a layer-shoot before Him, and as a sucker
from dry ground : He hath no form nor comeliness; and we see
Him, but there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He
is despised and forsaken by men, a man of griefs and well
acquainted with disease ; and Uke one from whom men hide
their face ; despised, and we esteemed Him not. But He bears
our diseases and pains ; He takes them upon Himself; and we
esteem Him stricken, smitten of God and a£9icted. He is
pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities ; the
chastisement of our peace is upon Him; and by His wounds we
are healed. All we like sheep go astray ; we turn every one
. to his own way ; and Jehovah makes the iniquities of us aU to
fall upon Him. He is oppressed, and though He bows himself.
He opens not his mouth ; like a sheep brought to the slaughter,
and like a lamb dumb before his shearers, and He opens not
His mouth. He is taken from oppression and from judgment ;
and His generation, who can think it out ? For He is cut off
out of the land of the Uving ; for the transgression of My
people the punishment came upon Him. And they gave Him
His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death;
because He had done no wrong, neither was any deceit in His
mouth. And Jehovah is pleased to bruise Him, to afflict Him
with disease. When His soul hath made a trespass-offering.
He wUl see seed. He wiU prolong His days, and the pleasure
of the Lord wUl prosper through His hand. Because of the
1 Isa. xUx. 6, 7. 2 iga. i. 5^ g.

PROPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 213
travaU of His soul He wUl see. He will be satisfied : by His
knowledge. He, the Eighteous One, my Servant, wUl justify the
many; and He wUl bear their iniquities. Therefore I give Him
a portion in the many, and He wUl divide the spoU with the
strong ; because He has poured out His soul unto death, and
aUowed Himself to be numbered with the transgressors ; and
He bears the sins of many, and makes intercession for the
transgressors." ^ In such words — "the golden passional of the
Old Testament evangeUst written, so to speak, beneath the
cross upon Golgotha " — Isaiah has declared in the vicarious
suffering of the Branch, the secret of the Messianic sway.
Many are the features of intense interest, theological and
ethical, possessed by this prophecy ; the one feature, however,
upon which we would fix attention, is the fact that at length
the dumb sacrificial types have begun to speak. We have not
to do with the numerous minute features which betray the
preordained connection between this prophecy and its fiUfil-
ment ; nor with the distinct enunciation of the doctrine of the
forgiveness of sins by a vicarious bearing of their punishment ;
nor with the relations so clearly portrayed between Jehovah
and His Servant, and the Servant and faUen humanity : the
important thing for us in the prophecy is the deUberate descrip
tion of the work wrought by the Servant under sacrificial
language. The soul of the Servant is caUed a trespass-offering,
a fact in itself sufficiently astonishing ; and not only so, but
throughout the passage, as may be judged from the forms of
phrase now and again cropping up, the sacrificial aspect is
everywhere present. It is visible almost at the outset of the
prophecy, where the technical term for the priestly act of
" sprinkling " either the water of purification, or the anointing
oU, or the blood of atonement, is appUed to Him whose visage
was marred, and whose appearance was appalling : " So wUl He
'sprinkle'^ many nations." The same truth appears in the
' Isa. Ui. 13-Uii. 12.
2 Yazzeh, the 3d future hiphil of nazah. Various interpretations have been
adopted by commentators in order to avoid the sacriiicial reference. The usage
of the Old Testament having been neglected, recourse has been had to etj'mology,
and the form in kal hasbeen supposed to possess a parallel in an Arabic verb,
signifying "to leap." Yazzeh has thus been made to mean "to cause to leap."
According to this etymology, the phrase in question has been translated by

214 '' THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.
frequent expressions about " bearing our sins," " bearing our
iniquities," "bearmg our sorrows," "bearing our diseases."^
And it is deserving of notice that the central truth of Mosaism
— of atonement by the blood or soul — is set forth in the
affirmation, " when his soul hath made a trespass-offering." In
this prophecy concerning " the suffering Servant," in fact, the
Old Testament has made its noblest utterances, and, whilst
foreteUing the glorious kingdom which should be established in
the end of the days, has predicted that the regal right of its
Eternal Monarch wUl rest upon His having been at once Offerer,
Priest, and Victim in the making a sufficient sacrifice for the
different authors as follows: — Gesenius in his Thesaurus, who h.TS been followed
by Ewald and Beck, has : " He will cause many nations to rise and do Him
honour." Eichhom, Hitzig, Oehler, and Thenius render : " He will cause many
to start with astonishment." Gesenius in his Commentary, Hendewerck,
Paulus, and Winer say: "He will cause many nations to leap for joy;" and
Cheyne, Clericus, Delitzsch, Diestel, Knobel, Maurer, EosenmiiUer, and Umbreit
give: " He wiU cause many nations to start with wonder." But, unfortunately
for these several versions, they are not even plausible. The analogy of cognate
dialects, ever requiring caution in application, can have no place where the usage
is invariable ; and the hiphil form of nazah is invariably used in the Old Testa
ment to signify the priestly act of sprinkling. Now it is used as the technical
expression for the " sprinkUng " of water at the consecration of the Levites, or
for the sprinkling of oil in the consecration of the Tabernacle, or for the sprink
ling of blood and oil at the consecration of the priesthood (see Ex. xxix. 21 ; Lev.
viii. 1 ; and Num. viii. 7). At other times it is used for the aspersion of the
blood of the sin-offering, and of water in the purification of the leprous ; it is also
the expression used for the ceremonies of aspersion accompanying the slaughter
of the red heifer, and the ritual of the Day of Atonement (see Lev. iv. 6, 17, v. 9,
xiv. 7, 16, 27, 51, xvi. 14, 15, 19 ; Num. xix. 4, 18, 19, 21). In every case but
this, which is in dispute, it is considered that the w^d in question signifies the
priestly act of sprinkling either in the process of purification or atonement. Is
it consistent to find any other meaning here ?
' See Isa. liii. 4, 11, 12. In these verses the idea of "bearing " is conveyed by
two verbs — viz., sabhal and nasa, the former of which has the meaning of " bear
ing, as a burden, " and the latter of ' ' bearing, as a punishment. " Nasa is the
much more common word, and is quite a technicality of the law. Sabhal only
occurs nine times, and five of these are in Isaiah. From the paraUel jphrases in
the fourth verse of this fifty-third chapter, "He bears our diseases and pains,"
and " He takes them upon Himself; " and from the paraUel phrases in the
eleventh and twelfth verses, "And He wiU bear their iniquities," and "He bears
the sin of many, " the two verbs would appear to be used here as synonymous.
Now nasa, when connected with sins, iniquities, etc. , always means the bearing
their punishment, whether that be death or pain or theocratic excision, and
is of course a preliminary to sacrifice for sin (see Lev. v. 1, 17, xvu. 16, xx. 19,
xxiv. 15 ; Num. ix. 13, xiv. 34, xviii. 22, xxx. 16. Compare Num. xiv. 32 ;
Job xxxiv. 31; and Ezek. xxiii. 35). According to this usage, the vicarious

PEOPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACEIFICE. 215
sins of His subjects.^ The remainder of the prophecies of
Isaiah are for the most part occupied with the glories of that
new kingdom which shall be founded on the attractive power
of love unto death.
In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, no advance is
made upon the sacrificial teaching of Isaiah, although occa
sional expressions suggest acquaintance with that teaching.
Thus, Jeremiah speaks of the Branch ;^ of a regal Priest who
will offer eternal sacrifices ; ^ and of a new covenant, when,
sin being no more remembered, the divine law will be written
in the inward parts.* Ezekiel writes of a new covenant which
shaU be everlasting, founded upon a perpetual forgiveness ; ^
of the planting of a twig from the lofty cedar of Judaism, the
growth of which wiU be so luxurious that fowl of every wing
wUl dwell beneath it ; * of a sanctifying of the divine name,
and a sprinkling of water poured upon the ashes of the eternal
sin-offering ; ^ and of an eternal sanctuary which wiU be buUt
when the Servant David is Prince for ever and ever.® A pro
fitable study in this last aspect may be found in the vision of
the holy waters.'
In the visions of Daniel, we possess just those predictions
which were necessary to render the Old Testament doctrine of
Sacrifice complete. As it was the honour of Moses to announce,
by virtue of his prophetical office, the sacrificial cultus itself;
and the honour of Isaiah to unite the two streams of prophetic
teaching, and utter one comprehensive and consolatory truth
of a Messiah whose glorious and world-wide kingdom should
be inaugurated by an act of sacrifice : so it was the honour of
Daniel to predict the exact time when that eternally signifi
cant sacrifice should be presented. Having narrated the vision
which he saw by the river of Ulai, of the ram, the he-goat, and
"bearing" of the sins of others, would be either the bearing of the merited
punishment of those sins, or the offering up an adequate sin-offering for them. As a
substantiation of this statement, see the singular passage. Lev. xvii. 10, where the
vicarious bearing of sin on the part of the high priest is regarded as equivalent
for the making atonement for sin.
' See Appendix III., on the Intepretation of Isaiah liii.
' Jer. xxiu. 5-8, xxxiii. 13, 16. ^ jer. xxxui. 17, 18.
' Jer. xxxi. 30-34. * Ezek. xvi. 60-63. « Ezek. xvii. 22-24.
7 Ezek. xxxvi. 23-25 ; comp. Num. xix. 17-19. * Ezek. xxxvU. 24-27.
8 Ezek. xlvii. 1-12.

216 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
the little horn which magnified itself against the Prince of the
hosts of Heaven,^ and removed the daily sacrifice ^ (so circum
stantially fulfiUed when Antiochus proclaimed that his officers
should "forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifice, and drink-offer
ings in the Temple, and that they should profane the Sabbath
and festival days " '), Daniel next committed to writing the
remarkable prediction concerning the seventy weeks. He
teUs how — ^in the first year of Darius, the sixty-ninth of the
Babylonian captivity, understanding from the prophecies of
Jeremiah that the desolations of Jerusalem should continue
seventy years — he turned his face, about the time of the
evening oblation, towards the holy city, and besought by
prayer and fasting the meaning of this thing ; and how, whUe
he was yet speaking, his strong (frying and tears being heard,
Gabriel touched him and imparted this celebrated prophecy :
" Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon
thy holy city, to finish the transgression, to seal up sins, to
atone iniquity, to bring eternal righteousness, to seal up vision
and prophecy, and to anoint a Holy of Holies. Know there
fore and understand, from the going forth of the word to
restore and buUd Jerusalem unto Messiah, a Prince, are seven
weeks and sixty-two weeks ; the street shaU be buUt again,
and the waU, even in troublous times. And after the sixty-
two weeks Messiah wiU be cut off, and there is not to Him ;
and the city and the sanctuary, the people of a prince that
shaU come wiU destroy ; and it wiU end in the flood, and to
the end there is war, decree of ruins ; and He wUl confirm the
covenant with many one week, and the middle of the week
wUl cause all the round of sacrifices to cease, and for the
overspreading of abominations He shaU make it desolate, even
unto the consummation, and that determined shaU pour down
upon the desolate places." * Thus, in answer to Daniel's
prayer for deUverance, a prediction was announced to him,
describing in the first place the nature, in the second the time,
1 Dan. viii. " Dan. viii. 11. ' 1 Mace. i. 45.
* Dan. ix. 24-27. In the above translation it has been the aim of the
author, as in the preceding translation of the fifty -third of Isaiah, not to
translate into idiomatic English, and stUl less to paraphrase, but to give a bare
and Uteral rendering of the original.

PEOPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACEIFICE. 217
and in the third a chronological division of the time of de
liverance. With respect to the nature of the promised deliver
ance, Daniel was informed that, on the one hand, it will be
" a shutting in," " a sealing up," " a covering of sin ; " and, on
the other hand, it wiU be the divine initiation of eternal
righteousness, the consecration of a Holy of Holies worthy of
the name, and thus the placing of the seal of silence and
inutUity upon the provisional prophetical order. The method
by which such results shaU be accomplished is subsequently
stated, in the chronological analysis of the seventy weeks, to
be the "cutting off" of the Messiah. The time for this
annulling of present disabUities and the restoration of the
rigime of Eden, is stated to be, as far as the Jews are con
cerned, the course of the seventieth week from the issuing of
the command to restore and buUd Jerusalem. If, then, we
can ascertain the date of this command, we shall also possess
the testimony of the Old Testament as to the exact date of the
abrogation of the Mosaic sacrifice and the offering up of the
Messiah. That these weeks are septennia scarcely merits
discussion, when once it is remembered that the prophet has
been seeking the meaning of the seventy years of the desola
tion of Jerusalem, and has received in reply that those deso
lations shaU extend not to seventy years, but to seventy weeks
(of years, it is a matter of course). The one question, there
fore, is the terminus a quo of these seventy septenma. Now,
we read of an edict in the second year of Darius Hystaspes,^
and also of an edict of Cyrus ; ^ but neither of these can be the
one in question, since they simply refer to the buUding of the
Temple, and not "to the restoration and building of Jerusalem;"
indeed, the city is stiU unbuUt in the days of Ezra and Nehe
miah,^ and Daniel was himseU in deep affliction for his exiled
feUow-countrymen two years after the edict of Cyrus.* There
is, however, but little difference of opinion amongst those who
beUeve in the exact chronological reference of these seventy
weeks, as has been weU said and insisted on by Hengstenberg :
" Of aU the current chronological calculations in relation to
this period of time, there is not a single one whose results
1 Ezra vi. 1-12. * Ezra i. 1.
3 Ezra ix. 8 ; Neh. i. 3, ii. 3, 5, iu. 34, iv. 1, vu. 4. * Dan. x. 1-3.

218 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.
differ more than ten years from the statements of the pro
phecy,"^ — as interpreted by himself, that is to say. This
difference of a decade has arisen from the fact of there having
been two occasions when commands were issued of the tenor
" to restore and build Jerusalem ; " the first when the restora
tion was entrusted to Ezra, and the second when it was
entrusted to Nehemiah. The question, therefore, for decision
is, whether the royal letters furnished by Artaxerxes to Ezra
in the seventh year of his reign,^ or the permission granted by
the same king to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of his reign,
is the genuine terminus a quo. Now, whilst the wording of
the injunction to Nehemiah is verbally more favourable to the
view tha,t the reference is to the edict granted to him, a variety
of considerations, not the least important of which is the posi
tion assigned to the instructions of Ezra in the history of the
time, point to the mission of Ezra as the desiderated starting-
point. The credentials granted to Ezra were assuredly the
most prominent command " to restore and build." The time
of the great Messianic deliverance is thus stated to be the
course of the seventieth septennium from the return of Ezra
to Jerusalem (457 B.C.).'
But this period of nearly five centuries is split, in the com
munication of the angel, into three periods of seven, sixty-two,
and a single week's duration ; which three periods are again
classified as a period of tribulation, lasting seven and sixty-
two weeks, and a period of deliverance by the hand of .Messiah
lasting one week. This subdivision of " the troublous times "
into an incipient stage of seven weeks may possibly be under
stood from the fact that the lives and labours of Ezra, Nehe
miah, and Malachi extended over about half a century, and
constituted a broad line of demarcation from the subsequent
times when "there was no open vision." The remaining
years conduct us to A.D. 26. It wag. in ,ihe foUowing year,
according to the prophecy, that the Messiah should commence
' Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T., translated in Foreign Theological
Library, vol. ui. p. 223.
2 Ezra vii. 11-26.
3 Compare Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel (The Prophecies of Darnel and the
Revelation of St. John viewed in their Mutual Relations, T. & T. Clark), pp.
109-131.

PROPHETICAL CONCEPTION OF MOSAIC SACRIFICE. 219
to confirm the covenant with many, the work of confirmation
continuing for one week — that is to say, tiU A.D. 3 3 ; whilst in
the middle of the week, namely, during a.d. 30,^ the Messiah
should be cut off, and sacrifice of the Old Testament form for
ever cease. By this proclamation, which was permitted to be
made by Daniel, the leading features of the Old "Testament
doctrine of Sacrifice were completed.^
The prophecies of Zechariah have often been called obscure,
perhaps because the key to them is not yet in the possession
of the Christian Church. They are, however, sufficiently
understood for our purpose ; and an attentive study wiU be
rewarded by the discovery of numerous predictions, some of
which are manifestly Messianic, and some of which have been
declared to be such by their singular fulfilment in history.
Still, as it is foreign to our method to employ the New Testa
ment to decipher the Old, we put the latter on one side, and
take no note of such prophecies as that of the coming of the
King of the Jews upon an ass,^ the thirty pieces of silver,*
the wounded hands,^ and the penitential regards of the pierced
One.* There are, notwithstanding, some predictions which aid
the study of the Old Testament doctrine of Sacrifice, — expan
sions, for the most part, of the previous intimations of Isaiah.
We read, for example, of " a fountain that shaU be opened for
sin and uncleanness to the house of David, and to the inhabi
tants of Jerusalem,"^ the streams of which shaU be more
potent than the holy water which contained the ashes of the
red heifer; for, in the days of its sprinkling, not only the
crown of the high priest should bear the motto, " HoUness to
the Lord," and the sacrificial basins which contained the blood
of atonement be regarded as holier than the common utensUs
of the sanctuary and the home, but the distinction itself
between the sacred and the profane should be abolished,
' This is, according to the best calculations, the year of our Lord's crucifixion.
Compare Wieseler, A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Eng. Trans.
p. 353. The year 26 would thus be the year preceding the commencement of
our Lord's ministry, and the year 33 the date of the martyrdom of Stephen,
after which the gospel passed to the GentUes.
' See Appendix IV. , on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel!
3 Zech. ix. 9. * Zech. xi. 12, 13. ^ Zech. xiii. 6. « Zech. xu. 10
7 Zech. xiii. 1 ; compare Num. xix. 9-22.

220 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
degrees of hoUness should be unknown, and the beUs of the
horses and the commonest saucepan should bear the hier
archical motto.^ Nor is the means of effecting this great
change undiscovered. The new Temple in which Jehovah
shaU be truly worshipped will be built by the Branch, at once
Priest and King, who in one day wUl remove the iniqmty of
the land, and repel the sneers of Satan by replacing the filthy
garments of priests and people by raiment new and fair.^
Even the denunciatory address of Malachi is not without
its gleams of atonement ; for it speaks of a righteous offering ^
which will one day be possible, and assures the faulty adherents
of Mosaism that " from the rising of the sun even unto the
going down of the same " the name of God " shaU be great
among the heathen, and in every place incense and a pure
offering shaU be offered." * With Malachi prophecy ceased, until
the Baptist startled the wastes of Judaea with his "Eepent: for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
¦ Zech. xiv. 20, 21. = Zech. iu. and vi. 9-15.
3Mal. iii. 3. "Mal. i. 11.

CHAPTER lY.
OTHEE THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE
EEVIEWED.
"The same tendency which led PhUo and Origen, Augustine and Gregory
the Great, to see in the plainest statements of the Jewish history a series of
mystical allegories, in our own time has as completely closed the real contents
of the Bible to a large part both of reUgious and irreligious readers, as if it had
been a collection of fables." — Stanley, The Jewish Church, vol. i. preface,
p. ix.
HAVING now completed our survey of the Old Testament
contributions to the inquiry we have undertaken, it is
advisable, before summarizing the results arrived at, and
putting the finishing touches to that platform from which as
from a point of vantage we shaU enter upon the examination
of the doctrine of the New Testament, to cast a comprehensive
glance at other theories upon the same subject. The history
of thought is a considerable aid to thought, and the knowledge
of scriptural doctrine may be augmented and rectified by a
knowledge of what others have held to be such doctrine.
Indeed, as we have previously remarked, an invaluable
criterion and organon of truth is overlooked by those who,
whether in the study of Holy Writ or any other domain of
science, neglect the accumrdated treasure of fact and theory
and experience stored in the garners of the past. A survey
of previous opinion should be of especial value in determining
the relative worth of different methods. Let it be again
repeated, that the sole test of the vaUdity of any- theory at
present permissible is its conformity with Scripture.
The various doctrines which have been maintained con
cerning Old Testament sacrifice have more or less resulted
from the appUcation of four principles. They may hence be
roughly classified as the Jewish, the allegorical, the rational-

222 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
istic, and the biblico-theological. The Jewish interpreters,
denying any typical import in the Old Testament dispensation,
— or, more correctly, denying any typical import which has been
fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, — concentrated their gaze upon
the essential and symboUc nature of the Mosaic worship, and
maintained that the religion of Judaism was alone divinely
ordained amongst the reUgions of the world, and was alone
eternal. The rationalists, — including under that common name
the large and diversified class of commentators who decide
upon the trustworthiness of Scripture by its congruity or
incongruity with certain first principles deduced from sources
external to the Bible, — whilst regarding equaUy with the Jew
the Old Testament worship as symbolic, and as stoutly denying
any typical import, differed from the Jewish expositors, inas
much as they considered that worship to be a development —
under the guidance of a master mind, it might be — from the
religious habitudes of the past, itself irrevocably to fade away
with the times that had given it birth. The aUegorical
expositors, blinded by the briUiancy of the Ught which
Christianity projected upon Him who was at once the fulfU-
ment and abrogation of the Law, passed over the symbolic
aspects of the Old Testament entirely, and found their one
delight in tracing connections, sometimes fanciful enough to
sound blasphemous to modern ears, between "the dim shadow"
and the " glorious substance," as they respectively designated
the Old and New Testaments, — " the gross body " and " the
ethereal spirit." The biblical theologian knew no first axiom
but the fact that the Bible deserved study, and therefore set
himself, without any preconceived opinions, to ascertain the
actual contents of the sacred books in the same manner as he
would ascertain the contents of any other Uterary production.
More briefiy, the Jew started with the assumption that the
Old Testament, the aUegorist that the New Testament, was
the only reUable source of divine truth 5 the other classes of
interpreters, consciously or unconsciously adopting the postu
late that both Testaments must be resorted to in forming their
theological opinions, made these Testaments their special study,
the biblical theologian accepting the dictates of Scripture
without question (with certain exceptions to be subsequently

OTHER THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE EEVIEWED. 223
mentioned), the rationalist regarding the dictates of his own
reason as a superior source of information to the dictates of
Scripture. In many commentators, of course, now one prin
ciple, and now another, quite irreconcUable with the former,
would appear to have exercised an alternating influence.
Now, of these several classes of opinions we may at once
dismiss from our notice the Jewish and the rationalistic ;
because, the former not conceding the claims of the New
Testament to be consulted in the matter, and the latter not
conceding the claims of the Holy Scriptures in both Testa
ments to be alone consulted, they militate with the postulate
assumed throughout this work. It is no part of an inquiry
essentially biblical to controvert facts and arguments which
can only be successfuUy met by facts and arguments extra-
biblical. In the statement and . criticism, however, from our
pecuUar standpoint of the allegorical and biblico-theological
views, a little time may be very properly and profitably
spent. The basis of the allegorical interpretation of Mosaism has
never been more clearly stated, nor its principles more con
sistently carried to their logical issues, than by Origen Ada-
mantios. That remarkable man, who, for learning, for inteUect,
for spiritual insight, for imflagging seU-sacrifice, prominent in
goodness as in error, has justly been regarded one of the
piUars of the Church catholic, both ardently conceived and
ardently appUed the hermeneutic principles we are about to
consider. In the fourth book of his treatise Be Brincipiis} a
manual of speculative and dogmatic theology, and the most
orderly expression of his religious opinions, he thus enunciates
his views upon the interpretation of the Old Testament. In
support of the thesis that the Scriptures are inspired, " written
not by human art or mortal communication, but (if the phrase
may be allowed) in the elevated style of Deity," he has just
adduced, in what some have termed the first chapter of that
book, the arguments to be derived from the speedy and uni-
' The quotations from Origen are translations either from the extant Greek
original, or, where that is wanting, from the extant Latin versions. The author
has used, for the most part, the Benedictine edition of the Abbe Migne, Origenis
Opera Omnia, Patrologice Orcecce tom. xi.-xvu.

224 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.
versal adoption of the Scriptures, and from the numerous cases
of fulfilled prophecy. He then proceeds, in what some have
caUed the second chapter, to show that many have slid into
heresy from faUing to comprehend the Scriptures in their
spiritual sense. Jews have demanded proof, for example, that
the Christian Messiah did actuaUy eat butter and honey as
Isaiah foretold, because they have overlooked this ^iritual
sense; heretics who have refused to recognise the goodness
and justice of a God who is described as " repenting " and
" creating evil," have also erred from ignorance of the spiritual
sense. This spiritual sense is Origen's great panacea for aU
apparent discrepancies in the sacred records, the infaUible
harmonizer of all seeming contradictions. "If any one," he
explains, " should object to me concerning the immoraUty of
Lot's daughters, or the bigamy of Abraham, or the two sisters
who married Jacob, and the two handmaids who bore him
sons, what other answer could I give than this, that these
things are mysteries not commonly understood by us ? ^ And
when I read about the erection of the Tabernacle, I hold it
for certain that these descriptions are figures of hidden facts,
very difficult, it may be, if not impossible, to unveU and
disclose. And aU that descriptive narrative of the Old
Testament which apparently refers to nuptials and begetting
chUdren, and battles and other historical facts, what else can
these be beUeved to be but images and figures of hidden and
sacred things," — " enigmas and dark sayings,"^ — "to be under
stood according to their soul and spirit " ? Origen concedes
that there are many difficulties to be overcome in ascertaining
these latent spiritual meanings ; but then, as he says a Uttle
farther on: " It is not he who would fain solve the Bible by a
tap of the foot who can expound it, but he who has given
himself to such studies with aU purity, sobriety, and vigUance,
in the hope that he may perchance discover the mind of the
Spirit so deeply hidden." If the question be asked, where
' Murr^fitc if' «,kw» ,«« moifitra, translated by Rufinus, " Sacramenta qusedam et
formas spiritualium rerum, a nobis tamen ignorari cujusmodi sint," — ' ' Impression
and outlines of spiritual things, not readily comprehensible by us." — Migne,
Patrologice Orcecce vol. xi. pp. 359-362.
^ Aiinyftura xcci trxoTtlva.

OTHEE THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE EEVIEWED. 225
this spiritual sense is to be expected, Origen is perfectly clear;
his reply is, wherever we meet with statements contrary to
reason or to fact :^ " No precept bf the Law can stand according
to the letter, the reasonableness or the possibiUty of which
cannot be granted." Thus, by the aid of the spiritual sense
to which he could always have recourse when things seemed
opposed to his personal view of the correctness of things.
Scripture became to him, to use his favourite simile, Uke " a
treasure hid in a field," which he alone could hope to possess
who approached the subject with " that deeper and more pro
found spiritual understanding." Of these spiritual senses, the
world has heard a good deal since the days of Origen.
To what results this spiritualizing of the Mosaic worship
(amongst other things) led Origen, may be readily and ad
vantageously seen by turning to his Homilies? In the ninth
homily upon the Book of the Exodus, we have his spiritual
interpretation of the Tabernacle. Having caUed up before
the eyes of his audience in a few graphic words the Holy
Sanctuary as it stood in the wilderness, gleaming with bright
colours and precious metals, and surrounded by the curtained
enclosure of the Court, he proceeds to draw instruction from
these things. The Tabernacle is the Christian Church; the
uprights of the Court are the apostles, who, as the connecting
rods testify, are extending their right hands to each other in
mutual support, and, as the silver with which the uprights
are overlaid bears witness, are winning their way by their
sUvery eloquence. Somewhat inconsistently with the preceding
explanation, the sUver of the capitals signifies Christ, the
Apostolic Head, and the silver of the sockets, the prophets,
the apostoUc foundation; the curtains of the Court are the
congregation of beUevers, " who hang upon the cords of faith."
Casting an eye upon the materials and colouring of the sacred
structure, — the Church in hieroglyphics, as he regards it, —
he thus deduces the foUowing notce ecclesice : The word, the
invisible basis and support of the whole fabric, is saving
knowledge; the brass of the altar and the Court, is godly

1 Tif aXayos n ciiimTos, " irrationabUia et impossibUia, " PairoZos'JCE GVoecie vol.
. pp. 383, 384.
^ Migne, Patrologice Orcecce vol. xii.

P

226 THE POST-MOSAIC .DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
patience ; the sUver which shimmers here and there, is the
eloquence of preaching ; the gold which covers the wood and
forms t^he glory of the altar of incense, the candlestick, and
the holy ark, is faith in Jesus ; virginity is the white byssus,
confessorship the scarlet, charity the purple, hope the hyacinth.
It would appear, indeed, that what Origen says in so many
words of the Mosaic laws of uncleanness, " that they were
observed amongst the Jews in a manner sufficiently inappro
priate and useless," was his deUberate opinion concerning the
literal interpretation of any portion of the Law. In the
homily upon the vestments of the priesthood,^ there are
some further curious results of this spiritual method : the
high priest is of course the High Priest of our profession ; the
two tunics which the High Priest wore, were the one His
carnal, and the other His spiritual ministrations ; the double
girdle of the priesthood and the ephod signffied respectively
the being girt with the virtues of the Spirit, and the being
excluded from aU corporeal vitiation; the breastplate be
tokened wisdom ; the mitre, the intimate knowledge of God
which Jesus possessed ; the anointing oU poured out in the
ceremony of consecration, was the oU of gladness He had
above His feUows ; the injunctions to the high priest never to
touch the dead, materially expressed his separateness from
sinners ; and, not to enter upon the lengthy and curious
exposition of the characteristics of the high friest's wife,
most singularly of aU, the convocation of the people by
Moses to witness the solemn investiture of Aaron and his
sons, was the assembUng of " aU the virtues of the soul,"
that " whilst talk is held about the priestly sacraments, aU the
virtues may be wakeful and intent, that nothing of wisdom
or knowledge or industry may be absent, but the whole
multitude of senses arrayed to comprehend the signfficance of
the high priest and anointing and investiture." In a simUar
manner the Levitical laws of sacrffice are expounded.*
Having fervently ejaculated the beatitudes : " Blessed are the
eyes that see the Divine Spirit hidden beneath the veU of
the letter," and, " Blessed are they who bring the clean ears
of the inner man to hear these things," he proceeds to state
* In LevUicum, Homilia vi, ' Ibid. Homilia i.

OTHER THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE REVIEWED. 227
his opinion that it is foUy to think that the Law would
prescribe different sacrffices for different persons, — one for a
man, another for a high priest, and another for a ruler : by a
man the human race must be meant ; by a spotless calf, the
fatted calf which the Father slew for the returning prodigal ;
by a young buUock from the herd, a descendant of the
Patriarchs ; by a spotless male victim, one Who is not defiled
with women ; by the sons of Aaron who are to pour out the
blood of the sacrifice, none others, he thinks, can be intended
than Annas and Caiaphas ; and, not to multiply examples,
the command that the sacrffice be slain at the door of the
Tabernacle refers to the fact that it must be slain not within-
but without the door, — that is to say, "without the gate."
The ritual of sacrifice comes in for its share of a Uke treat
ment : the priest who removes the skin of the victim removes
the veU of the letter, and reveals the inner spiritual meaning ;
to divide the members, is to rightly divide the word of truth ;
to place the severed pieces upon the hearth, is to implant the
truth in hearts which are the altar of God, and wherein the
divine fire is ever burning ; then, strangely enough, he is
said to place wood in order for the sacrifice who mingles
in his speech the divine and human attributes of Christ !
Again, speaking a little further on of the various offerings
which might be presented under the Law, Origen explains
these numerous detaUs by saying that a calf was brought by
him who conquered carnal pride, a buUock by him who kept
under irrational emotions, a goat by him who overcame lasci-
viousness ; he gave a pair of doves who allied his mind in
holy meditation with the word of God ; his was an offering
of bread who gave himself unreservedly to his Maker in
whatever position of Ufe he had been placed, whether he were
a farm-labourer, a saUor, or what not ; whUst those sacrifices
were mingled with oU and incense which were accompanied
by penitence and meekness. When the priest is bidden
sprinkle blood seven times before the Lord, what is that,
Origen asks, but to designate by a mystery the sevenfold
oTace of the Spirit which he should display ? ^ So, in his
esteem, the four horns of the altar of burnt-offering are the
' In Leviticum, HomUia iu.

228 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
four gospels.'^ But we refrain from further Ulustration.
Surely it is such spiritual senses, and not the literal acceptance
of words, which have tended, as Origen aUeges, " to the sub
version and hindrance of the Christian Church " ! ^ Surely
it is better to beUeve that " the omnipotent God is made
propitious by frying some things in a pan, and baking others
in an oven, and broiling others on a gridiron," as he sarcas-
ticaUy summarizes the perfectly intelligible and reasonable
injunctions for the meat-offering, than that it is He who has
given to Christianity this gift of spiritual understanding !
This allegorizing tendency which Origen, logically as we
beUeve, carried to such conclusions, has been displayed more
or less by the larger majority of expositors in all ages of the
Christian Church ; and not only has the tendency been
prevalent, but, until the recent awakening of the historic
sense in relation to bibUcal hermeneutics, it might be termed
aU-prevailing. It tinged the arguments of the ApostoUc
Fathers in their controversy with Judaism ; it was the ruling
principle of the later Fathers in the East and in the West ;
not even the cold inteUectualism of Scholasticism eliminated
it, for it was adopted and elaborated, albeit in more temperate
forms, by men like Isidor of Hispala, the venerable Bede,
Hugo St. Victor, and Abaelard ; it flourished when the Eefor-
mation prompted an increased study of the Holy Bible, as the
extant writings of Calvin, Melancthon, and ZwingU abundantly
testify; and to-day it irresistibly crops up in the famiUar
spiritualizing of popular preachers and unscientific expositors,
for whom " to find Christ everywhere in the Bible," in their
own shallow and materialistic sense, is more attractive than
truth. But for occasional gleams of a deeper intelligence in
men like the author of the Clementine Recognitions, Alcum and
Bonaventura, the whole history of the study of Mosaism until
quite recent times would have been a history of research under
false lights and with distorted vision.
The origin of the allegorical method is inteUigible enough.
Allegorizing arises from a misapprehension of the relation
which the Old Testament bears to the New. Christ being
the Way, the Truth, and the Life, He must always have been
^ In Leviticum, Homilia iii. '^ Ibid. Homilia v.

OTHEE THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE REVIEWED. 229
SO, it is argued ; and therefore, without looking for any deeper
sense in which the Eternal Word is revealed in the Old
Testament, without appreciating the astounding anticipation
of " the times of the end " which is thus effected, without
even a faint apprehension either of the insuperable difficulty
or the ridiculous nullity of the task thus attributed to the
Jew, the aUegorist at once concludes that every feature of
the New Testament revelation was minutely and exactly
given in the material representations of the Old. The Law
was a hieroglyphic Gospel, it is assumed. Instead of recog
nising the enormous importance of the distinction between
the utility of types befoi-e and after the appearance of their
antitypes (to which we have already given some attention,
and shaU give more), the order of things has rather been
reversed, and the New Testament facts have been treated a^
types, and the Old Testament figures as antitypes. A dim
prophetic evidence has been regarded as a prophecy as clear
as its fulfilment. A system of worship essentially educa
tional and suggestive has been designated psedagogic, it is
true ; but the psedagogue was as fully instructed as the master
to whom his tuition was preparatory. To interpret any
difficult allusion in the details of the Mosaic law, an aUegorist
simply watches for some corresponding feature in the Christian
dispensation, being guided in his search sometimes by express
statements, and sometimes by fancied' analogy; and then,
having ascertained all the minutiae of the antitype he
imagines he has discovered, he further sets his imagination
to work to find resemblances to these same minutiae. He is
in search, perhaps, of the meaning of the Jewish Passover in
aU its details ; he does not ask himself what the Jew could
have seen in that institution by the Ught of the Law ; he does
not inquire what he himself can see to be harmonious in that
festival with the beliefs of those early and uninstructed
times : no, he finds in St. Paul's Epistles the phrase, " Christ
our Passover," and without looking any further for the signi
ficance of the apostolic words, without seeking for a funda-
mentum analogies which underlies both Jewish festival and
Christian fulfilment, perhaps passing a hard judgment upon
the stubbornness of the Jew who so materiaUy interpreted

230 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
the feast, the aUegorist contents himself with saying that the
Passover was a type of Christ. Well and good if he stayed
there ; he would have missed the symboUc aspect of the
subject altogether, but he would have attained the typical.
The evU is that he does not stay there, but, from his know
ledge of the detaUs of the offering of Christ, he dogmaticaUy
asserts that all the details of the Passover are now explained ;
a typical symbolism he converts into a symboUsm of the
antitype ; the lamb is Christ, its age is this attribute of
Jesus, the roasting is that feature of His sufferings, the leaven
and the tearmg Umb from Umb in the process of eating, each
refer to some element in the believer's appropriation of Christ.
Possibly the New Testament contains no express aUusion to
some fact in the Old ; any resemblance, however remote or
imaginative, may then suffice to constitute preordained con
nection : to tell the tale of Joseph, envied by his brethren,
becomes the pre-Christian method of speaking of Christ and
Pilate ; the sale of Joseph for twenty pieces of sUver foreteUs
the treachery of Judas ; his entrance upon life at the age of
thirty, spoke of Him who should enter upon a wider sphere
than carpentry at Nazareth at the same age, etc. Is it not
time that this fanciful and mechanical method of studying
the divine revelation was at an end ? Whatever value it
may be supposed to have in practical appUcation from the
pulpit, should not the exponent of Scripture be on his guard
against any use of the sacred volume which sacrifices truth
to fix attention, and advances morals by bringing the Bible
itself into ridicule ? That there is a deep-lying and pre
ordained system of type and antitype, the author knows so
weU that he is anxious lest that system be forgotten in
parodies. He has already penned one chapter upon the
typical aspect of Mosaism, and wUl pen others in his second
book ; but he would caution the reader against the exaltation
of the typical aspect of the Bible by a concentration of the
imagination upon the antitype, to the exclusion of a patient
and inteUigent study of the symbolism of the type.
In characterizing the faults of aUegorizing as a method for
the interpretation of Scripture, it may be said, in the first
place, that the allegorical method — we use this name not at

OTHEE THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE REVIEWED. 231
aU as a stigma, but simply for convenience — errs by a failure
to grasp the importance of the lapse of time between each
divine revelation. AUegorizing is unhistorical. There is a
deep intention in the progressive knowledge of His relations
to the eternal world imparted by God to man. The Patriarchal
Age, Judaism in its various forms, and Christianity, have each
had a distinct and definite purpose in universal history ; and
we may be assured that if Christianity pure and simple could
have been taught at Sinai, divine proclamations would not
have been made from the cloud upon the Mount, or from the
shechinah in the Tabernacle. If there was " a fulness of time,"
there must also have been " an incompleteness of time." If
there was a speaking by the Son, the effulgence of the divine
glory, and the impress of the Divine Person, there was also
a speaking TroXuTjOOTrw? Kal iroXv/j.epai^, " by various methods
and in several sections." To ignore, therefore, or confuse this
development in the divine revelations, is to neglect the wiU
and wisdom of the omniscient and omnipotent God. The true
doctrine of types reaUzes that in each of these successive mani
festations from on high there are preordained resemblances; but
preordained coincidences are not, as the aUegorist practically
asserts, preordained and possibly pre-recognized identities.
The aUegorical method also errs, in the second place, by
constituting ingenuity a test of truth. According to its con
ception, there are perfect clearness and precise Umits in the
New Testament antitypes, whereas the types were expressly
constructed to foreshadow in unlabelled detaUs the features of
the antitype. Wherever the imagination, therefore, could
discover the faintest analogy, it was assumed that there was a
pre-estabUshed connection. Was it wonderful that the method
prompted excesses ? Uncertainty and caprice were of its very
nature. So long as the interpretations given to the Levitical
institutions, for example, Umited themselves to those things
which are expressly stated to be their counterparts in the
New Testament, as in the cases of the Passover, the sin-
offering, and the Tabernacle, a boundary flexible enough in all
conscience was placed to homUetical extravagance ; but when
these New Testament statements were exceeded, and the whole
cultus in its minutest detaU was regarded as " full of Christ,"

232 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
Ucence knew no bounds, and the most fanciful interpretations
were calmly propounded and enthusiastically listened to.
Thus, instead of there being one consistent view of a given
sacrificial institution, there were hundreds arrogating to be
scriptural; one expositor advanced one opinion, and one
another, untU the whole conception of Mosaism became dim
and unreal in the extreme. Indeed, it is the aUegorical method
which is largely responsible for the comnion opinion, previously
referred to, that " the Bible can be made to mean anything."
Thirdly, the aUegorical method erred most egregiously by
ignoring the express statements of the Pentateuch. In ad
hering to Scripture, as it imagined, it falsified the very testi
mony of Scripture. The Pentateuch deUberately propounded
the significance of the leadiijg features of its mstitutions ; this
revealed significance was smothered beneath quite another,
which these institutions were supposed to present. It is
unnecessary to repeat the lengthy Ulustration of this point
already given ; we simply refer the reader to the contents of the
chapter upon the essential significance of the Mosaic injunc
tions. Mosaism, by its own declaration, was a reUgion per se,
as truly as Christianity was, and this fact the method in
question absolutely missed.
But a yet more weighty charge may be brought against
this method, in the fourth place, — viz., that the one element of
truth which it was the honour of the allegorists to have
brought into prominence, was so vitiated and neutraUzed by
erroneous inferences as to be practically valueless. At least
the allegorical method, it may be contended, drew attention
to the typical nature of the Old Testament. It did, indeed,
but in so questionable a way that it would have been very
amazing if Trypho had deserted Judaism for the arguments of
Justinus. It wiU have long ago occurred to the reader that
the first essential to a convincing study of the typology of
Scripture must be a study of Scripture symboUsm ; this pre
liminary study was unknown to the aUegorists, and only occa
sionaUy entered upon by unconscious instinct. To possess
any truthful knowledge of scriptural types and antitypes, a
knowledge of the types must at any rate be the first step ;
the aUegorist changed the order of things, and made the study

OTHEE THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE REVIEWED. 233
of the antitype his first step, with this result, that although
for eighteen centuries the attention of the Church catholic
has been turned to the study of the typology of Mosaism,
that study has to be practicaUy recommenced to-day, without
any aid from the past, beyond the impregnable assurance of
the futUity of previous methods. A Columbus must saU
unknown seas to reach a new world; the new world in
theology has been discovered by saUing the same seas by the
aid of new methods.
The aUegorizing method first feU into permanent disrepute
at the close of the seventeenth century. When aU Europe
was disturbed by reUgious convulsions, — ^when Eome was
struggling with Jansenism, the Lutheran Church with the
pietistic movements which gave birth to the Moravian Brother
hood, Holland and the other countries where the Eeformed
Church was dominant with a great reaction against its Calvinistic
creeds, — ^it was no wonder that England became the scene of
many a theological and ecclesiastical trouble ; it was subject
for congratulation, however, that the inteUectual movements
which inaugurated the " seculum rationalisticum " ^ and the
reign of Deism, discouraged at any rate the popular spiritual
interpretation of Mosaism. The empiricism of Locke and
Bacon gave no countenance to the " spiritual sense " of Origen
and his followers, and in the steady advance of the scientific
spirit, upholders of revealed truth were compeUed to show
cause for their convictions by an analysis of Scripture frojn
quite other standpoints. Several works were the result, which,
whUe they threw discredit upon the aUegorical methods, also
made some permanent additions to bibUcal study. A brief
glance at the principal of these will form a fitting transition
to the bibUco-theological view of Mosaism.
A powerful and learned work upon the Hebrew ritual,*
1 Essays and Reviews, " Tendencies of Religious Thought in England. "
2 The first edition was published at Cambridge in 1685, under the title, De
Legibus Hebrceorum RUualibus et earum Rationibus, libri tres. A reprint was
issued at the Hague in 1686, and another at Leipsig in 1705. A posthumous
edition, containing a fourth book (of replies to the numerous controversial works
to which the book had given rise), was published at Cambridge in 1727. A
German impression, with a preliminary dissertation by C. M. Pfaff, was issued
at Tiibingen, 1732.

234 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
written with classic elegance and rhetorical fulness, and
teemmg with patristic and rabbinic quotations, by John
Spencer, the Principal of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge,
and Prebendary of Ely, feU in with the current theological
taste, and largely aided the temporary downfaU of " typical "
extravagance. The question Dr. Spencer set himself to
answer was. Why the Hebrew ritual had been given by God
at all ? what was the purpose (or purposes) which prompted
its revelation ? Before his time the reply customarUy returned
had been. To represent to the Jews by figure what the gospel
reveals to the Christian Church by fact. For such a reply
Dr. Spencer had little esteem. " For who," he asks, " that
has a little ounce of brain, can persuade himself that God has
appointed so many and manifold rites in order to represent
the few and simple mysteries of Christianity ? or has wished
to use those shadows and figures for foreshadowing the gospel
facts, which are so obscure and uncertain in meaning, that no
one has been skilled enough hitherto to unseal their mystical
senses by any sure method ? What mystery underlaid that
precept about throwing the intestines and feathers of birds
away only on the east side of the altar ? What mystery was
intended by the fact that eucharistic offerings were to be
accompanied by unleavened bread? that the hair of the
Nazarite should be burnt beneath the caldron in which the
sacrificial flesh was cooked ? that a red cow should be
slaughtered by way of expiation ? and, not to speak of many
other things, that at the Feast of Tabernacles thirteen buUs
should be slain, on the second day twelve, on the third eleven,
and so on down to seven, which were to be presented on the
last day ? These and many other institutes of the Law do not
present the least shadow of a more secret meaning, or of any
thing mysterious to be wrung from them even by torture. I
know that the genius of an alchemist can extract something
spiritual from the most arid rite, and turn the tiniest detail of
the Law into a sacrament ; but we should be very cautious,
when endeavouring to lay bare the inner senses of the' Law,
that we are not mistaken, and take a cloud to our bosom in
stead of Juno, a figment of our own brains instead of a divine
myslery." Eebuking those who " find material for philo-

OTHER THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE EEVIEWED. 235
sophizing in the poles, rings, and dimensions of the ark," and
" obscure the letter of the Law by expositions some centuries too
early," Dr. Spencer advances seven reasons for distrusting their
aUegorical interpretations : ^ First, it is due to this mistaken
method that the purpose and reason of so many Mosaic injunc
tions have, in spite of the exertions of centuries of investigators,
hitherto remained unknown. Secondly, this method throws the
door wide open to follies of all kinds, and, under the pretence of
unsealing divine mysteries, gives opportunities for " blabbing out
any exegetical nonsense." Thirdly, this method of allegorizmg
often causes no little trouble to good Christian people, who
become anxious that they are not adepts in betaking themselves
to the " glorious study of types," and that they have nothing
to draw with from this well of living water, " and the weU is
deep." Fourthly, aUegory has obscured the divine wisdom
and goodness as displayed in the Mosaic laws, not rarely sub
stituting for prescience of the highest kind " a futile and
twisted mystery colder than the ice of the Apennines." Fifthly,
this freedom in aUegorizing has been adopted from men of
but little note, and we ought surely to pause before interpret
ing Scripture according to the methods of heathen theologians,
Platonists, and Jews. Sixthly, such a method must result in
numerous utterly discordant interpretations of the very same
rite. And lastly, the belief that the Mosaic laws were mere
enigmas and mysteries couched in simple language, has in every
age brought the Uteral meaning of these laws into contempt,
and robbed them of any authority they might have had with
the common people. Dr. Spencer returned a reply to his
main question very different to these " aUegorical vapours "
concerning the purposes of the Mosaic injunctions.
Having stated in his preface that it was his intention, by
all means within his power, scriptural, historical, and patristic,
to restore to remembrance the reasons and origin of the Mosaic
laws, which had become lost through the lapse of time and
the mental dulness and superstition of their custodians the
Jews, and having pointed out in his prolegomena that there
must have been a divine purpose in the institution of those
laws which we are at Uberty to investigate. Dr. Spencer pro-
' Book I. cap. xi. § 5.

236 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
ceeds in his first book to state and support by argument what
he conceives that purpose to be. Confessing frankly that he
is unable to resolve every detaU of the Law, he considers it
sufficient, he remarks, " legum earum omnium causas generales
et prcBcipuarum causas speciales in apricum proferre," — " to
bring to light the general causes of all the laws and the
special causes of the most prominent." Dr. Spencer regards
the Mosaic laws and rites to have been instituted for two
reasons chiefly, a primary and a secondary} The primary
motive was to cure the Israelites of the idolatry to which they
were so prone ; the secondary motive was to image, so to speak,
certain moral and evangelical duties. Of this latter represen
tative purpose of the Sinaitic injunctions Spencer does not
treat at length. That the Mosaic ritual did serve " to adum
brate mysteries,'' he considered proved by the testimony of
Jews, Christians, and Scripture ; but what these mysteries
were which were thus foreshadowed, he describes in the
briefest possible manner.* Some of the Mosaic institutions
were, he thought, images of things in heaven, as Josephus
and the Book of Wisdom taught ; some, as PhUo imagined,
expressed certain secrets of phUosophy; some of the laws
were prophecies of evangelical truths, — the moral Law exhibit
ing, for example, those virtues which the New Testament
morality brought into clearer light, and the ceremonial Law
predicting some of the great facts of the gospel. It would
also appear, he imagines, that some features of the law sym
boUzed certain common facts of ethics, and certain common
events of history. But it was upon what he caUed the
primary aim of Mosaism that Spencer concentrated his
strength, thereby making a permanent contribution to the
study of Judaism. That the rites ordained at Sinai had their
raison d'&tre m the necessary conflict with the idolatrous
tendencies of the Jews, is the key-note of the entire work.
" Since the hard service and very indifferent manners of
Egypt had obliterated almost all traces of God and His wor
ship, and the Jews, from their long communication with the
Egyptians, had almost whoUy degenerated to their habits and
inclinations, God determined to recaU them to religion and
1 Book I. cap. i. 2 -Qqq\ i_ (^p_ -^{ especiaUy § 3.

OTHER THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE REVIEWED. 237
the primitive state from which they had miserably faUen, but
not immediately, nor by straight Unes, so to speak. The
IsraeUtes were so perverse, that they could be brought back
to their religion as weU as to their fatherland circuitously
only. Accustomed to sacrifices, expiations, purifications, and
reUgious acts of that, nature, they could not be led back to
the worship of the true God unless God tolerated in His
worship those same rites, and other simUar ones, by the use
of which their minds had been overcome, and amended and
adapted them to a more sacred use." ^
This primary purpose of the Mosaic rites, which he only
treats of generally in his first book, he discusses more speci-
caUy in the second and third, — in the former of which he
argues that the seductive effects of idolatry were neutraUzed
by deliberate prohibitions of certain idolatrous doctrines and
customs ; and in the latter, that the same result was produced
by a deliberate toleration of other idolatrous practices in them
selves harmless or useful. As Ulustrations of this counter
action by interdict, he instances, with laborious minuteness
•and detail, the ceremony of the Passover, the construction of
the altar of burnt-offering, and such inhibitions as that honey
should not be given in sacrifice or the price of unchastity,
that blood should not be eaten, that children should not be
passed through the fire to Moloch, that the flesh should not
be cut or the head shaven in divine service, and that worship
should take place in groves : aU of which injunctions were
directly opposed to heathen customs. As illustrations of this
counteraction by tolerance, he cites the opinion of- Chrysostom*
that the sacrifices of the Jews, their purifications, their new
moons, the ark, and the Temple itself, had their origin in the
crudeness of profane nations, and undertakes to fortify it by
eight examples : the Tabernacle, the horns of the altar, the
^ Book III. Dissert, ii. preface.
' "Neopineris Deo indignum esse, quod Magi per stellani vocentur. Ita
enim Judseorum omnia, sacrificia, purgationes, neomenias, arcum, templumque
ipsum, reprobabis ; siquidem hsec omnia a Gentium profanarum ruditate ori-
ginem habuerunt. Deus enim ad errantium salutem, per hsec quidem se coli
passus est, per quas gentes extranese Daemonas coluerunt ; ea tamen aUquantum
in melius iiiflectent, ut eos paulatim a consuetudine revocatos, ad altiorem per-
duceret sapientiam."

238 THE POST- MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
Unen vestments of the priesthood, the hair of the Nazarite,
the sacrificial feasting, the feasts generaUy, the offering of
first-fraits, and the offering of tithes, in each of which he
believes that there are instances of the adoption by Moses of
heathenish rites. He subsequently appUes the same hypo
thesis to explain other features of the Sinaitic ceremonial.
Thus, the Tabernacle is an adaptation of the tabernacle of
Moloch ; the vestments of the priesthood are imitations of
-the attire of the priests of Ammon, Isis and Osiris ; the horns
of the altar were the Phoenician symbols of exceUence and
strength. It is unnecessary for us to follow Dr. Spencer in
his elaborate examination of the Mosaic rites, nominaliter,
materialiter, modaliter, formaliter, finaliter, in each of which
he beUeves that he finds proof of his thesis. The preceding
• outline of his argument will suffice.
As an example of Spencer's method, no better instance can
be selected than his interpretation of the rationale of the
Passover.-^ Spencer does not deny that the circumstances of
the Paschal celebration had reference to the great Antitype
who is " Our Passover ; " but sUch reference is simply a
secondary effect of the promulgation of the law, a proof of the
wisdom and foresight of its great Originator : " By the wisdom of
the Highest Lawgiver, the Paschal Feast, than which the Hebrew
cultus had nothing more distinguished, was ordered to be
observed with various ceremonies, in order that it might refer
to times past, times present, and times future." The primary
aim of the Passover was the overthrow of idolatry ; and this
effect was produced in two ways, by tolerating some features
and prohibiting others of the Sabsean worship. Thus the
general idea of a religious feast, in which a whole family
might share, was an express importation from the reUgions of
heathendom. To admit, therefore, such a feast into the re
ligion of Jehovah, was to fight idolatry with its own weapons.
On the other hand, numerous detaUs of the Passover celebra
tion waged war to the knUe with the rites of Egypt, by deter
mined opposition and express disallowance. Upon the proof
of this latter point, Spencer bends his strength, and exhibits at
once the strength and weakness of his theory. He treats of
See inter alia, Book II, cap, iv. §§ 1-4,

OTHEE THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE REVIEWED. 239
this overthrow of idolatry by prohibition in five sections. In
the first he desires to throw Ught upon the command : " In
the tenth day of this. month, they shaU take to them a lamb,
according to the house of their fathers ... a male of the first
year." This command had its origin, he thinks, in the ram-
worship of the Egyptians : " To treat this sacred animal with
such contumely, by slaying it and sprinkling its blood upon
the door-posts, would effectually prevent a return to the
Egyptian custom." In his second section, he finds in the
fact that none of the Passover was to be eaten raw, a further
substantiation of his theme : such a command would prevent
those Bacchic rites which, according to Homer, Euripides, and
Plutarch, were so common amongst the Greeks and Eomans,
where raw flesh and blood were freely partaken of; rites too,
which, according to Herodotus and others, were directly intro
duced into Greece from Egypt. Further, in the face of the
indisputable evidence that the Sabseans boUed their sacrifices,
he imagines that he obtains additional testimony to his view
in the roasting of the paschal lamb. The fourth section
suppUes an additional argument from the roasting of the lamb
entire : to prepare the meal thus was to effectually prevent
recourse to the examination of the viscera in augury, a prac
tice extremely common amongst the ancient Orientals.
The ingenuity, labour, and learning which Spencer brought
to his task were unbounded ; the result has demonstrated the
futUity of his hypothesis. His great work, iiffiuential in its
own day for its consistent opposition to the allegorical tend
ency, remains to-day a storehouse of facts for the comparative
study of reUgion; his theory finds no serious supporter.
Yet the prominent theory of his book is not unmixed error.
Indeed, there is so large an element of truth in what he has
maintained so vigorously and so fuUy, that he has laid aU
students of the Mosaic laws under permanent obligations.
He assuredly recognised the symboUc and typical aspect of
the Sinaitic injunctions ; but at the same time he pushed his
leading hypothesis to such results as to invalidate, and indeed
annihUate, 'his recognition. True it is, as was said by Arch
bishop Magee, Spencer's work " has always been resorted to
by infidel writers to wing their shafts more effectively against

240 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
the Mosaic revelation.'^ The fault of Spencer was the urging
a true conclusion to unwarrantable and false issues. His
fundamental error was the regarding the representative nature of
Mosaism as but a secondary feature. Nevertheless, it must not
be forgotten that what Spencer represented as the primary cause
of the Mosaic revelation was undoubtedly a secondary effect.
Another important work,^ that of Outram or Owtram, the
learned Canon of Westminster, which was pubUshed a few
years before that of Spencer, was dictated by the exigencies
of the EvangeUcal controversy with Socinianism. Socinus
and his followers had denied that there was any reference
whatever, either in the Old Testament sacrifices or in the
New Testament statements, to a doctrine of vicarious sacrifice,
and Outram undertook an inquiry with the express purpose of
refuting these assertions. " While I was reflecting on these
things, it occurred to me that the Scriptures speak of Christ
as our High Priest, and of His death not only as the death of
a martyr and witness, but also as that of an expiatory victim
slain for the sins of mankind ; that the high priest shadowed
forth Jesus Christ our High Priest, and their expiatory victims,
to say nothing here of the others, represented Christ as our
Victim ; and, lastly, that it is beyond aU doubt that what was
shadowed forth by the types was really accomplished by the
Antitype, Being fully persuaded of this sentiment, I thought
it necessary to examine the sacrifices of the Jews, and care
fully to inquire what is the proper design of a sacrifice ;
what kinds of sacrifice were appointed by the laws of Moses ;
which of those kinds principaUy shadowed forth the sacrifice
of Christ ; what a very particular selection of every kind was
appointed by God ; to what persons each kind was either
enjoined or permitted ; on what accounts, with what cere
monies, and in what place, it was to be offered and kUled ;
what was the design of the sacred Tabernacle, of the Temple
at Jerusalem, of the consecrated altar, and of the sacred
table ; what were the respective parts of the priests, the
Levites, and the offerers in regard to the sacrifices ; and,
lastly, what opinions were held by the Jewish doctors and by
1 De Sacrificiis, published 1677. A translation by John Allen, slightly
abridged from the larger work, was published in 1817.

OTHEE THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE REVIEWED. 241
the heathen on their respective sacrifices, and by the ancient
Christian writers on both." ^ In the carrying out of this
plan. Dr. Outram made some valuable additions to the theory
of scriptural sacrifice. He divided his work into two parts,
the former of which was a dissertation upon aU the sacrifices
of the Jews, with scattered remarks upon heathen sacrificing,
and the latter a dissertation upon the sacrifice of Christ. It
is with the first dissertation that we are especially concerned.
After a statement of the two opposing views concerning the
origin of Sacrffice, which he does not venture to reconcile or
decide, and a preliminary investigation of the divine design
in enjoining the rite of sacrificing in any form, he proceeds to
discuss the entire Jewish ritual, treating in the first place
of the places appropriated to sacrifice ; in the second, of the
ministers of sacrifice ; and lastly, of the sacrifices themselves
and their rites. Under each of these divisions Dr. Outram
examines the testimony of Scripture and of the Eabbis. With
regard to the places used for sacrifice, he summarizes the tes
timony concerning the places themselves, — the sanctuaries,
courts, altars, rooms, and other parts which they contained, —
and concerning their nature and design. Under the head of,
the sacrificial ministrants, he classifies the various injunctions
of the Pentateuch and the Jewish commentators upon the
priests, theit duties, their consecration, the integrity of their
Ufe, their bodUy perfection, their family purity, and upon the
Levites. Then foUow the detaUs from the same sources con
cerning the meat-offerings, the selection of victims, the burnt-
offerings, the peace-offerings, the trespass-offerings, the public
sacrffices, such features of the ritual employed as the presen
tation and waving, the imposition of the hand and the accom
panying prayers, the slaughter, the sprinkUng of the blood,
the flaying, the burning of some portions, and the feasting
upon others. In fact. Dr. Outram passes most completely
through the entire range of injunctions as to the places,
ministrants, and varieties of sacrifice.
This book of Outram's was a very valuable contribution to
the study of Old Testament sacrifice, and it is matter for
regret that he only submitted this great and important subject
' Eng. Trans, pp. 4, 5,
Q

242 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
to review in order to meet the reqrurements of a temporary
controversy. Had he betaken himself to examine the Mosaic
sacrifices as a whole, and apart from any more immediate
motive, there is reason to beUeve that he might have rendered
much recent research unnecessary. To his classification of
the various injunctions little needs be added, except to bring
into greater prominence the purifications and the sacrfficial
times and seasons ; and with respect to the treatment of the
injunctions themselves, his only fault was the too ready
assumption of the identity of the worship of the Mosaic Age
and that of the Age of Christ and His apostles. Outram also
appears to have clearly apprehended the essential, symboUcal,
sacramental, and typical import of the Mosaic injunctions,
although he has nowhere elaborated either. As it is, however,
this work is a remarkable production, and is of considerable
value to-day from its accumulation of facts and quotations
relative to the subject in hand, extracted from rabbinical and
patristic writers.
In proof of the much more healthy tone which was being
infused into the study of the Old Testament, under the
influence of the revived attention which was paid at the close
of the seventeenth and the commencement of the eighteenth
centuries to the classic works of the early Christian and later
Jewish writers, and under the influence of men Uke Spencer,
Outram, Lightfoot, Lowth, Patrick, and Warburton, a less
known but more important work ^ (which has been frequently
quoted in the preceding pages), by the author of the famous
Argument to prove tlie Existence of God, may be cited.
" Being very sensible," Lowman says in his advertisement to
the reader, " fancy and imagination, how pretty, how ingenious
soever, are neither reasons nor arguments, therefore are not
to be given or taken as such," he has set himself to lay
before his readers " a fuU plan of the Jewish ritual," in order
that " the true reasons and uses of the whole might appear in
the harmony of all the several parts, centring in one view,"
and so " to promote virtue and true religion ; " for " if ever we
^ Moses Lowman, A Rational of the Ritual of the Hebrew Worship, in which
the Wise Designs and Usefulness of that Ritual are explained, and vindicated from
Objections, 1748.

OTHER THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE EEVIEWED. 243
hope to attain a knowledge of the true reasons of things, it
must be by considering things as they are, not as they are
not, in what manner soever we may imagine they ought to
have been." Having then decided, a priori, from a considera
tion of the state of the world and of the Hebrew nation when
the Law was given by Moses, that the characteristics of a wise
revelation would be, first, that it should "answer the true
ends of religion, in a manner best suited to these circum
stances of the world and the covenant of God with Abraham
and his seed as His Church ;" secondly, that it should " preserve
this Church from idolatry by a sufficient provision against the
great and many dangers of faUing into it ; " and thirdly, that it
should " answer both these ends by such ritual constitution
as should teach such moral instruction, and such principles of
religious reverence and obedience as should promote the great
ends of all true reUgion," and " prepare the way for that better
state of the Church to come," he proceeds to show how the
Mosaic ritual conformed to this ideal exceUence. To this end
he first passes the entire ritual — the ritual of the shechinah,
of the ministry of the shechinah, and of the worship of the
shechinah, as he classifies the entire ceremonial — under review,
and then directs attention to the wisdom and reasonableness
of the whole. His entire discussion is most able. In evidence
of the first end of a wise revelation to promote the essentials
of true religion, he quotes the opinion of Lord Herbert of
Cherbury, that the essentials of true reUgion are, first, that
there is a supreme God ; secondly, that the supreme God is to
be worshipped ; thirdly, that virtue is the best part of divine
worship ; fourthly, that men are to repent of their sin ; and
fifthly, that there are rewards and punishments in this lUe
and after it ; and then turns the tables upon the Deists, , by
showing that the Mosaic ritual fostered just these beliefs, —
the existence, unity, and providence of God, the necessity of
worshipping Him, the value of repentance and obedience in
divine worship, and the fact of a great moral government.
Lowman further conclusively demonstrates that the Hebrew
ritual was serviceable in preventing idolatry, and cUnches his
entire argument by showing that the whole ritual of Moses
was a shadow of the good things to come, and " a sketch of

244 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
that state of religion which was actuaUy brought into the
world when aU the nations of the earth were blessed in the
coming of the promised Messiah." In fact, although not
expressly so named, Lowman's entire reasoning assumes the
essential, symboUcal, sacramental, and typical significance of
the Mosaic injunctions. It is matter for regret that the
spread of the great evangelical movement at the close of the
last century, within and without the Episcopal Church of
England, caused so rational a view of the scriptural doctrine
of Sacrifice to fall for a time into the background, and the
temporary reinstatement in pulpit and academy of the displaced
aUegorical method.
The recent revival in England of an interest in the scrip
tural conception of Mosaism has been largely due to the
indirect as weU as direct influence of the biblical theologians
of Germany; and, inasmuch as the present condition and
future prospects of thought upon Old Testament sacrifice
cannot be understood without some knowledge of the labours
of these German explorers, amongst whom Dr. Bahr was
pioneer, and Keil, Ewald, Kurtz, and many others have proved
themselves able and judicious followers, a few words may be
profitably spent in characterizing the ceremonial branch of
Old Testament theology as far as that has been at present
scrutinized. It is now nearly forty years since Dr. Bahr committed his
great work ^ to the press, with the prayer " that God would'
grant that his labours . . . might contribute somewhat to a
deeper insight into bibUcal truth." Previous investigations had
confined themselves, as we have seen, to the typical aspects of
Mosaism for the most part, and had resulted in the wUdest
aUegorizing ; or, if in the intellectual unsettlement of the later
centuries the moorings had been slipped to the current Cal
vinistic and Lutheran creeds, bibUcal exposition had either
regarded the Leviticus as a reUgious code adroitly drawn up
^ Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus, 1st vol. 1837, 2nd vol, 1839. A second
edition is now passing through the press, the first volume having appeared
towards the close of 1874, In this fir.st Volume the 498 pages of the 1st edition
have become 602 pages by the addition of a critical examination of the objections
of opponents,

OTHER THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE REVIEWED. 245
on an eclectic principle from the rites and ceremonies witnessed
by Moses in Egypt, or had maintained a silence more eloquent
than speech occasionaUy broken to discourse coldly upon
" those interesting relics of a long-buried antiquity," or the
" sublime conception, in the midst of chUdish superstitions,
of the Hebrew Deity." It has been the lot of Dr. Bahr to
inaugurate a closer and more exact study of the Old Testament
worship, to witness this field of labour tUled by some of the
greatest theologians and exegetes of his time, and to hear
every co-worker, whether in the field of bibUcal archaeology or
bibUcal theology, gratefuUy acknowledge that, however much
he may personaUy differ from the conclusions of the Symbolism
of the Mosaic Worship in principle or detaU, he owes much to
that work for method, stimulus, matter, and suggestiveness.
Having apologized in his preface for the appearance of his
book, by saying that the Coccejan Typology had lived itself
out, and men were no longer satisfied in their study of the Old
Testament with the shell which they had so long mistaken for
the kernel, and that therefore there was a keenly felt and
widely expressed desire for an inquiry, comprehensive or
detailed, into the meaning of the Mosaic ceremonial, Bahr
explains in his introduction that he understands by the Mosaic
ceremonial that system of divine worship described in the
second, third, and fourth Books of the Pentateuch. That
system, he continues, is a complete whole. "It accurately
defines the place of worship (the Tabernacle), it appoints
special persons for the conduct of worship (priests), it prescribes
certain holy acts (sacrifices and purifications), and directs that
there shall be special times for worship (feasts):" the investi
gation must thus divide itself into these four parts. But,
before proceeding to this investigation, Bahr dwells awhUe
upon the general form of the ceremonial. It is, in the first
place, antipodal to the spiritual worship of the New Testament;
the entire ceremonial is representative ; " everything in it, from
the least to the greatest, is purely sensuous; the whole worship
is knit with externality." Secondly, it is representative in
this sense, that it is at once symboUcal and typical (symbolisch
und typisch). The Mosaic ceremonial was symboUcal, for it
gave a sensuous representation of reUgious ideas; it was typical.

246 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
that is to say, prophetically symbolic, for, in accordance with
the divine plan that the Law should prepare the way for the
Gospel, it was the lower stage of a religion to be more fully
developed hereafter. Having made this explanation, Bahr
then excludes the typical aspect of the Law from his inquiry,
and deals only with the symbolical aspect. For the study of
this symboUcal aspect, he then lays down certain rules. The
first, which he designates unquestionable, is that " the sym
bolic cultus represents both in its generality and its detail
such ideas and truths as harmonize with the known and
recognised principles of Mosaism." According to the second
rule, " the meaning of individual symbols is especially con
ditioned by an accurate knowledge of their nature." Thirdly,
" the meaning of many a symbol may be ascertained from its
name." Fourthly, " each symbol has but one meaning." The
fifth rule is, " that each symbol has always the same funda
mental significance, however different may be the connection
or association in which it stands." And the last is, that " in
every symbol, whether it be a thing or an act, that which
constitutes it a symbol must be accurately distinguished from
that which is accessory thereto, and has therefore simply a
subordinate and auxiliary purpose." By the aid of these
several rules — that the interpretations adopted be suitable
in time, nature, and etymology, that they be unequivocal in
themselves and in their use, and that they be not pushed to
extremes — Dr. Bahr conducts his long investigation. In his
first book he treats of the Tabernacle, its ground plan, the
materials of which it was formed, the colours and artistic
figures which characterized it, and the utensils of the Holiest,
the Holy Place, and the Court ; in his second book, of the
priesthood, its orders, vestments, and initiatory ceremonies ; in
the third book, of the sacrifices and purifications ; and in the
fourth, of the sacrificial times and seasons.
The pecuUar weakness and strength of the method of Bahr
can nowhere be more fitly seen than in his chapters upon that
portion of the Mosaic ritual most closely allied with our sub
ject. A brief review of the general features of the sacrfficial
worship having been sketched at the beginning of the third
book of his great work. Dr. Bahr at once proceeds to study the

OTHER THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE EEVIEWED, 247
essence and idea of the Mosaic sacrifices. Justly enough, he
finds this essence in the common designation qorban, which
signffies "nothing more than bringing a gift."^ If it be
asked, he contmues, how gifts can become means of grace, the
answer must be found in the nature of those gifts. Those
gifts were either blood or bloodless offerings ; but the blood
less offerings occupied quite a subordinate relation. It is in
the blood sacrifices, therefore, that we must look for the more
intimate idea of Mosaic sacrifices ; and the significance of these
blood sacrifices he rightly infers, from Leviticus xvu. 11, to lie
in their faculty of atonement. " The meaning of sacrificing is
therefore briefly this, that the psychical (sinful) essence (lUe)
is surrendered to God in death, in order to obtain the true
essence (holiness) through the union with God, the true Being,
and therefore the Holy One. The relation of the soul in the
blood of the victim to the soul of the offerer is therefore that
of a substitute, to denote which the words avTi, (avTi-^vxp)
and loco might be employed, aUen as they are to the usage of
the Pentateuch ; but this substitution is no formal exchange
of parts, no external and actual substitution, but one purely
symbolic, so that the act of sacrifice, if what it represented did
not actuaUy take place on the part of the offerer, appeared
void and fruitless. . . . This moment (of self- surrender) con
stitutes sacrifice a sacramental act, in which the blood appears
as the divinely appointed means of covering the sin of the
soul, of bringmg into union with Jehovah, and so sanctifying.
In the Law this sacramental character of sacrifice is pro
minently brought forward, as the passage which has formed
our text expressly states : ' I have given it ' (the blood) ' to you,
to make an atonement for your souls.' " * Two things are here
asserted, — the one, that the essential feature of sacrifice is
atonement ; and the other, that atonement is wrought by a
symboUc presentation to God of the soul of the offerer. These
two positions occur again and again in the course of the dis
cussions, and, being both unscriptural, vitiate the whole con
clusions upon the sacrificial rites. It wUl be sufficient to
iUustrate by excerpts from his analysis the second pomt as to
the nature of atonement. According to Bahr, the material
> Symbolik, vol. u. p. 196. ' Ibid. vol. u. pp. 211, 212.

248 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
presented for sacrifice, whether consisting of animal or vegetable
products, symboUcaUy represented the person of the offerer.
" The appropriate material for sacrifice was — from the animal
kingdom, oxen, goats, and sheep ; from the vegetable kingdom,
corn, oil, and wine ; salt and incense are mere additions. . . .
Now these three kinds of animals together form the peculiar
live-stock of the Israelites, aU breeding of cattle amongst
them having to do with these species especiaUy — yea, exclu
sively. . . . The three vegetable substances— corn, oil, and
wine — together form the next essential and most important
products of the soU of Palestine. . . . As, therefore, the first
division of the sacrificial material consists of the representa
tives of stock-keeping, so the second consists of the repre
sentatives of agriculture ; whilst both pursuits, the breeding
of cattle and the tilUng of land, together form the staple of
the Israelitish poUty. The external existence of the people is
inseparable from them, and conditioned by them, since Israel
was restricted by the Mosaic institutions from being a com
mercial, a mUitary, or a nomadic people. . . . What was
offered in sacrifice in Israel was the means of Israel's very
existence. . . . Sacrffice in its essence was the surrender
of what was peculiarly one's own, the surrender of the
individual self, of the nephesh — that. is, of the principle of
personality, or of the individual Ufe." ^ The presenting of the
victim at the altar was thus the presentation of oneself to
Jehovah.* The imposition of the hand is "the surrender of
the very self to Jehovah in death, the consecration to death
for Jehovah :" — " The hand, the Umb with which we hold and
give, is laid by the offerer upon the animal to signify that it
belongs to him, is his property ; but the hand is laid upon
the head to signify that the animal is consecrated to death, a
parallel to the common expression concerning the blood return
ing upon a man's head." ^ " In the mactation, we have the
completion of this readiness for entire surrender symboUcaUy
expressed."* With respect to the manipulation with the blood :
" If, as has been seen, the blood represents the soul of the
offerer, the sprinkUng of the blood on any of the holy places
1 Symbolik, vol. u. pp. 315-317. ' Ibid. p. 337.
Ibid. p. 341. « Ibid. p. 343.

OTHER THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE EEVIEWED. 249
can have no other significance than the presentation of the
soul at the places where the Holy Jehovah reveals Himself,
the soul by that means receiving an assurance of that hoU
ness, yea, becoming itself sanctified— that is to say, its sin
being exterminated, covered, atoned :" — "In the act of sprink
ling, the soul of the offerer comes into peculiar contact and
union with hoUness." ^
Now, it is no portion of our duty to analyze and weigh
minutely the detaUed examination made by Dr. Bahr of the
Mosaic worship, but simply to indicate those leading errors in
his method, or his results, which have vitiated his contributions
to the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice. Those errors are three
in number. In the first place, he has insufficiently brought
into notice the double character of Mosaic sacrifices. Firmly
as the element of atonement has been seized, the element of
presentation is regarded as of Uttle value. To the high
importance manifestly attached in the Law to the blood sacri
fices, he has given a one-sided interpretation, having altogether
missed the fact that the blood sacrifices were as evidently
presentations as they were means of atonement. It wiU have
already occurred to the discriminating reader that the doctrine
of Mosaic atonement is held in no scriptural sense ; but,
passing that by for the moment, there is no Levitical support
for the opinion that atonement was the paramount idea in
sacrificing. As has been seen throughout the course of this
investigation, the ideas of atonement and presentation exist
side by side, and with at least equal prominence in the Mosaic
ritual ; and to change this paraUel relation, is to introduce a
source of frequent misunderstanding and inevitable error.
The reader has only to compare Dr. Bahr's interpretation of
the common sacrificial ritual just given with the interpreta
tion which a sound and broad-eyed exegesis warrants, to
see the natural consequences of this narrowness of vision.
Secondly, by ignoring the necessity for the accurate deter
mination of what we have termed the essential significance of
the Mosaic injunctions, before proceeding to the study of the
symboUsm those injunctions sanction, Dr. Bahr has aUowed
an entrance to abundant caprice. Instead of restricting him-
' Symbolik, vol. ii. pp. 345, 346.

250 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE.
self to the interpretations which the Law itself afforded of its
manifold injunctions, and manfuUy declaring that he could
not profess to show the way where the Law did not lead, he
assumes that aU injunctions are symboUc which are not mani
festly auxiliary to the symbolic ; and he also takes for granted
that these symboUc injunctions may be interpreted by some
faculty of the human mind quite apart from the express
teaching of the Law. It has not occurred to Dr. Bahr that
there are some precepts of the Law purposely left unexplained,
in order to arouse and foster a conviction that in Mosaism the
final word had not been spoken concerning human redemption.
It is true that recourse is had time after time in the Symbolik,
and that according to rule, to the biblical name attached to
various symbols, and to the nature of the symbol as described
in the Pentateuch ; it is true, therefore, that what we have
caUed the essential significance is now and again called in to
solve the mysteries of the prescribed symbolism: what we
allege to be a defect is that any other method of solution is
at any time adopted. The sole key to the symboUc signifi
cance of the Mosaic injunctions, is to be found in the essential
significance ; and to suppose that any other keys wiU pass, is
to waste precious time and excite unreasonable hopes in the
trying of skeletons, which may fit isolated wards, and that is
all : there is scarcely a page of Dr. Bahr's book which is not
a commentary upon this statement. And this introduces the
third great source of error — viz., that by summoning to his
aid in the interpretation of Mosaism information extra-biblical,
there has been displayed " a wisdom above what is written,"
and interpretations have been imagined where none has at the
time been imparted. To take a crucial instance. How came
the learned author to say that the presentation of animal
blood symboUcaUy proffered the soul of the offerer ? This is
nowhere said or impUed in the laws of Moses. It is said that
" the blood atones through the soul ; " but that is but a state
ment of the fact that the blood of the substituted animal is
employed by divine command as a means of atonement for
the offerer. It is never said in any manner of circumlocution,
that the blood of the animal slain atones for the offerer by
symbolically representing the soul of the offerer. Unquestion-

OTHEE THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE EEVIEWED. 251
ably, the rites of blood were symbolic ; but of what they were
symbolic the Law nowhere states, nor did the Old Testament
untU the famous prophecy of the Servant of the Lord. Besides,
into what inextricable confusion are we plunged by such an
interpretation of the ritual of blood ! The symbolic repre
sentation of a man's self must be immaculate ! The sUghtest
physical defect wiU constitute the symbolic representation null
and void ! This symboUc representation of his own soul
atones by being brought into the closest contact with Jehovah !
That which symboUcally represents himself is " most holy " —
" a sweet-smeUing savour "¦ — to Jehovah ! The fact is, that
with all his profession of a double expUcation of Mosaism, a
symboUc and a typical, Dr. Bahr's explication is exclusively
symbolic ; and so far from confessing that there are features
in the Mosaic worship unintelUgible to the Jew, inasmuch as
they symbolicaUy represent facts not revealed to his age,
with astounding ingenuity worthy of a better cause, Dr. Bahr
set himseU to evolve from his consciousness and from heathen
literature the solutions of symbols which he assumes the Jew
must have known.
In the same year that Bahr's second volume was pubUshed,
Hengstenberg issued the third volume of his Contributions to the
Introduction to the Old Testament} in which some considerable
elucidations were attempted of the theory of Mosaic sacrifice. A
far less purely symbolic standpoint was assumed. Thus Heng
stenberg clearly saw the double purpose for which the Sinaitic
sacrffices were ordained, and brought into due prominence both
the element of atonement and the element of presentation.
Inasmuch, however, as many of his views subsequently under
went modification, as is evident from the Academic Lecture *
upon Sacrifice, which he afterwards pubUshed, we do not give
any analysis of his special theories. The leading points of
his special view were, the double purpose of animal sacrifice,
the interpretation of symbolism by the ex;press words of
Scripture, and the necessity of consulting Christianity for
' Beitragen zur Einleitung ins A. T., vol. ui. 1839.
" The Lecture was printed in the Evang. Kirchenzeitung for 1852, and was
subsequently issued as a pamphlet, entitled Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift, 1859
(translated as an appendix to his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, T. & T. Clark).

'252 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE.
the explanation of many symbols left unexplained in pre-
Christian times.
Under the influence of these two works of Bahr and Heng
stenberg, considerable impetus was given to the study of the
Old Testament worship, and a large Uterature speedUy
accumulated, which might be roughly classified according as
the authors sided with the one or with the other. Thus,
referring only to the leaders in the strife, Havernick, Tholuek,
Oehler, Neumann, Eitschl, Ewald, Knobel, Kalisch, Sehultz,
may be regarded as adherents to the purely symbolic stand
point of Bahr ; and Ebrard, Fairbairn, KeU, Kliefoth, Kurtz,
Kiiper, Thomasius, Wangemann, as adherents of the partly
symboUc view of Hengstenberg. But against all, without a
single exception, the objection may be urged which was urged
against Bahr, that, by the absence of some such precise
principle as that by which what we have termed the essential
significance was obtained, they have opened the sluices to a
very flood of unverifiable surmises. A more serious conse
quence of this omission has been, as wUl be more evident
during the course of the next book, the obscuration of the
relation of the New Covenant to the Old.
Even Kurtz, distinguished advocate as he is of the juridical
view of sacrifice, has not escaped this grave error of the extra-
bibUcal interpretation of symbolism. Kurtz has exhaustively
treated the Mosaic ritual in his great work upon the Sacri
ficial Worship of the Old Testament, issued as at once a
maturer form of an earlier work upon The Mosaic Sacrifice,
and the first instalment of a supplement to the second volume
of his weU-known History of the Old Covenant. This later
treatise was divided into four books, in the first of which a
preUminary investigation is undertaken into the general basis
of the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament, and such
questions are answered as by whom, where, and in what
different forms, sacrifices were made. It wiU be sufficient for
our purpose to extract his general theory of sacrffice. The
sacrffices themselves are divided into three classes,; — viz.,
levies for the support of the priests and Levites, consisting
of tithes and firstlings of fruit, cattle, and men ; holy gifts
for the endowment of the sanctuary; and altar sacrifice?

OTHER THEORIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE REVIEWED. 253
for the personal appropriation of the Deity, consisting of
blood offermgs of the four kinds, and the bloodless offerings
which were presented in the. court of the Tabernacle and
in the Holy Place. To the consideration of this third
class, alone in his esteem deserving of the name of sacrifices,
the remainder of the work is devoted, the blood sacrifices
being treated in the second book, the bloodless sacrifices
in the third, and certain modffications of the legal worship
seen at special times and under special circumstances in
the fourth. A word or two in passmg may be given to
the arbitrary restriction of view to what are caUed the
altar sacrifices. The Levitical laws countenance no such
distinction ; and a theory of the sacrfficial worship of the Old
Testament is convicted of incompleteness which does not treat
of such sacrffices, as we are warranted by the Mosaic injunctions
in calling them, as the tithes, the firstlings, and the gifts for
the construction and maintenance of the Tabernacle ; insignffi-
cant as such things appear, their presentation was a reUgious
act, and formed an important part of the sacrfficial system of
Mosaism. But it is a far more serious stricture which his
general views necessitate. The reply which is made by
Kurtz as to the significance of animal sacrifice is erroneous ;
his is an unscriptural theory of Mosaic atonement. His
general theory of atonement may be inferred from his remarks
upon the material used in animal sacrifice. Those animals,
he considers, were available for sacrffice which " stood in a
biotic relation to the offerer."^ "The choice of the materials ,
for the altar sacrifices . . . represented a personal seU-
surrerider to the Person of Jehovah; and if this self-surrender
of man to God was to find expression not merely ideaUy in
thought or verbaUy in prayer, but in a visible and compre
hensible act, and if, besides, as had been unalterably deter
mined (since the sacrifice of Abraham), this fact might not
assume the form of a real human sacrifice, nothing remained
but to employ some other thing as a symboUc representative
or substitute which seemed qualified for that purpose by close
and essential relations with the offerer ; for this purpose . . .
it was necessary that the offering shoiUd stand in a psychico-
' Alttest. Opfercultus, § 34 : "In einem biotisohen Rapport."

254 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
biotic rapport to the person of the offerer himself and his
vital powers."^ In brief, then, the animal sacrificed symboli
caUy personated, in the opinion of Kurtz, the life and labours
of the sacrificer. From this fundamental assumption, it
foUows that the imposition of hands is a dedication of the
victim to suffer the punishment due to the person it symboli
caUy represented, the slaughtering is the actual endurance of
that suffering, and the sprinkling of the blood is the bringing
before God the blood of the substitute. We need not proceed
farther ; in this view, atonement was effected by a vicarious
endurance of the punishment of death due to the offerer, the
vicarious suffering being borne by an animal, the symbolic
representative of the offerer. Thus we see Kurtz himself
gliding into the gigantic and irreconcUable error which vitiated
the valuable researches of Bahr ; and although in many places
he ignores his own conclusions, it can only be said of him, as
he himself has so caustically said of Keil, that he " repeatedly
recurs to the ecclesiastical and traditional view, and thus
strays into remarkable contradictions ; and it is to be regretted
that of these contradictions he is unconscious, or he would
assuredly have held fast throughout, and not merely in
isolated passages, to the old and weU-tried truth instead of to
his new and indefensible discoveries.''
But perhaps, before leaving the labours of the great
bibUcal theologians of Germany, a few words may be profitably
given to the so-caUed " Critical School," of which in more
recent times Knobel is the most distinguished exegete, Ewald
the most accomplished historian, and SchiUtz the most
scientific theologian. This school, the modern representative
of that revolutionary tendency in biblical theology which a
century ago found voice in the EationaUsts, is distinguished
from the more conservative investigators by their initial
rejection of miracle and prediction, by their consequent
assumption of the unreliableness of the scriptural records
upon any minute points since miracle and prediction form so
large a part of them, by their endeavour to reconstruct — after
the manner of Niebiihr and Mommsen in the history of
Eome — the true course of history from the extant myths and
' Alttest. Opfercultus, § 22.

OTHEE THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACEIFICE REVIEWED. 255
traditions, as they are pleased to call the scriptural books
which were written previously to the days of Saul, and by
their deduction of certain first principles, by the aid of their
" critical " method, concerning the approximate age and
probable authorship of the Old Testament books. Now, one
of the most constant declarations of this school is the late
origin of the Pentateuch, Ewald not hesitating to assign the
relative work of a first and a second and a third and a fourth
and even a fifth narrator; Knobel professing to mark the limits
of an original document, a book of laws, a book of wars, a
revision and interpolation of a Jehovist writer, and also of one
whom he names the Deuteronomist ; and Sehultz assuming
almost as axiomatic that the ten commandments, two other
verses in Exodus, one chapter in Leviticus, and parts of four
chapters in Numbers, are the only relics of the days of Moses.
It must be evident to the most superficial reader, if doubts
are thrown upon the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, and
many of the Levitical laws are ascribed to the Babylonian
period, what havoc such conclusions must work in any re
construction of the theology of Moses; and, when starting
from such premises, it is not surprising that Kalisch, for
example, should assert that " the Levitical laws of purification
were the result of many generations and the work of many
minds," and "were not moulded on a definite and pre
conceived plan," or that " for many centuries after Moses the
Levitical ordinances were neither practised nor known," or
that the festal times and seasons " attained their highest
and final form only during the time of Zerubbabel's Temple,"
and that the Day of Atonement, " the crowning stone of this
religious edifice," " demanded the incessant labours of a
thousand years," or that the tracing of the institution of
the priesthood to Moses " is absolutely agamst all historical
evidence." We are not even surprised that the same
author should aUege that the statements of the Exodus
concerning the institution of the priesthood "imply the
artful fiction of an author or authors, who attempted to
promulgate their own devices as divine or supernatural
arrangements, and thus to awe an impressionable nation into
their acceptance and reverential observance . . . they are both

256 . THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE.
a faUure and a fraud " . , , " the means of enthraUing the
entire Ufe of the nation and of individuals," We have no
intention of passing these opinions under lengthy review :
they are the outgrowth of a tendency, and the history and
criticism of a tendency can only be advantageously written
by the pen of a phUosopher after the lapse of time ; it is
enough for us to say, that, inasmuch as the Pentateuch describes
itself as a unity and attributes its composition to Moses,
such opinions mUitate against the fundamental assumption
upon which our whole inquiry has been conducted. A brief
criticism would be out of place, if not valueless.
To sum up our review of the contributions of the Biblico-
Theological School of Germany towards our special subject,
one great standing objection must be taken, in spite of their
ardour and scholarship, to the numerous foUowers of Bahr
and Hengstenberg — their Umitation of view. To a man they
display the inevitable blundering of the homo unius libri.
The transitory they have viewed as final, and the splendid
course of scriptural development as 'sharply defined and fuUy
mature. To have endeavoured to seize the saUent points
of resemblance and difference in the several stages of
the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice, would have afforded them
that breadth of view which transforms the pedant into a
phUosopheP, and would have saved them many a blunder and
much confusion. Had their gaze not been whoUy fixed upon
the Levitical constitution as it issued from the lips of its
founder, they would have seen, for example, what they have
otherwise almost ignored, the singular preparation of the field
in patriarchal times, they would have appreciated more
accurately the silences of Leviticus, they would have admired
the wonderful provision made for the assimilation of the
Mosaic code by the teachmg of holy men and the tangled ex
periences of a nation, they would have deUneated the slow
and sure advance of prophecy towards its final goal, and they
would have gained a more vital and true conception of the
relation of the worship of the Old Testament to that of the
New ; as it is, from a culpable narrowness of vision, they have
pushed the one true principle of the symboUcal signfficance of
the Mosaic inj.unctions to unwarrantable issues. The bibUcal

OTHER THEOEIES OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE REVIEWED. 257
theologians of Germany, and their numerous English foUowers,
who have undertaken the study of the scriptural doctrine of
Sacrifice, have added to the stores of bibUcal archaeology, and
have amassed almost cyclopaedic masses of facts from which
true conclusions may be formed ; most assuredly they have
not ascertained, nor endeavoured to ascertain, the scriptural
doctrme even of Old Testament Sacrifice.

CHAPTER V.
THE TEANSITION.
"Und ihr habt aUe guten Eigenschaften einer Elementarbuchs sowohl fiir
Kinder als fur ein kindisches Volk." — Lessing, Der Erziehung des Menschen-
geschlechts, § 50.
WE set ourselves to ascertain the scriptural doctrine of
Sacrifice ; and now that we have reached the close of
the Old Testament canon, it is advisable to recaU the leading
results of our investigation. Having repudiated as unscrip
tural the application of the theory of evolution to explain the
origin of sacrifice, we saw that the primary necessity for any
doctrine of Sacrifice at all lay in the FaU of Man. The
problem of sacrifice was seen, in fact, to be the restoration
of that ideal state of paradisaic sacrifice.
Towards the solution of this problem, we have seen two
currents of revelation incessantly converging — the one having
its sprmg in the original promise made to Adam ; and the
other, in the divine recognition of Abel's sacrifice.
Of the revelations concerning a future deUverer, it has not
faUen within our scope to speak at more length than sufficed
to indicate how, as ages passed by, the promise became more
and more defined, untU at length it told of One, at once the
Son of God and the Son of David, Who should estabUsh an
eternal kingdom.
Of the continuous enlargement of the scheme of sacrffice,
it has of course faUen to our lot to speak at length. From
the date of Abel's sacrifice — that extraordinary and memor
able feeUng after God if haply He might be found — a kind
of gospel had proclaimed itself, as we have seen, to man, that
the sacrifice of self and substance would be acceptable to
God so long as the method of presentation displayed in

THE TEANSITION. 259
outward form a recognition of that divine precedent upon
which Abel had so intelligently and trustfuUy acted.
We have also seen that this undifferentiated form of
sacrifice, in which the burning of an animal represented, and
at the same time satisfied, religious feeUngs the most opposite
and various, was continued with but sUght modifications
throughout the Patriarchal Age.
We have further traced how, after the transitional sacrifices
of the Passover and of the Covenant, the revelation con
cerning this Old Testament form of worship advanced another
stage, and how the patriarchal offerings were superseded by
an elaborate cultus, in which minute directions were divinely
given concerning the one legitimate place of presentation, the
one legitimate class of ministrants, the one legitimate ritual
of purffications and gifts, and the one legitimate calendar of
that ritual. The significance of that Mosaic system was then
passed under review, when we discovered that ceremonial to
have been at once symbolical and sacramental, — that is to
say, to have expressed in sensuous and inadequate form
certain spiritual facts which the Law itself unmistakeably
interpreted, and to have been the divinely appointed channel
of spiritual blessings which mere symbols could never have
bestowed. How, after these Mosaic injunctions, with aU their opulence,
had been confided to the reverent keeping of the nation, they
passed through a lengthy period of assimilation and develop
ment, and how, by the recital of the experiences of holy men
and the announcement of the divine messages made through
the mouth of prophets on the one hand, and on the other
by the continuous experiences gained during the course of
a national history unusuaUy chequered, the nature and the
importance of the Mosaic sacrificial worship were indeUbly
stamped upon the heart of the people, we have also narrated.
It has thus been seen that the pecuUarity of the whole
range of the post-paradisaic and pre-Christian sacrifices was
its materiaUstic garb. From first to last, we have observed
that the presentation of blood and bloodless sacrifices has
either been approved or commanded by God. At first sight,
this startUng fact seemed to stamp the Old Testament revela-

260 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
tion with inconsistency. If animal or vegetable offerings
were presented at aU, that they should be valuable for the
ideas they conveyed, and not for their intrinsic merit, was
sufficiently harmonious with the Old Testament conception of
the Most High ; and that animal and vegetable sacrifices, if
offered at all, should become instruments in the divine hands
for imparting manifold blessings, this also beautifully har
monized with the Old Testament revelation of an overarching
and aU-pervading Providence ; but that such material offermgs
should be made with the divine approbation and by the
divine command, there lay a difficulty. But, as we have had
to remark several times in our previous exposition, the Old
Testament rid itself of the difficulty by postponing its solution.
The Old Testament asserted, in fact, at first by subtle sug
gestion, then by necessary inference, and lastly by express
statement, the transitory and preparatory nature of its divine
economy. It is, as we have distinctly pointed out now and
again in the course of the precedmg discussion, the express
teaching both of the Law and the Prophets, that the patriarchal
and Mosaic rituals, whUst fulfilling immediate ends in the
times to which those rituals were more especially addressed,
had a preparative and predictive purport. Sacrffice and
Tabernacle, taken in conjunction with the word of Jehovah,
had an element of prophecy, and pointed to a Tabernacle and
Sacrifice yet to come; that eluding prophetic element was
caught, reiterated, iUustrated, expanded, intensified, made
current coin, in the burning and persuasive words of those
elect spirits, whose converse was with God ffi some miraculous
sense, and whose authority was popularly regarded as superior
to that of priest or judge or king. ,
But, as we have further elicited, the Old Testament did
not entirely postpone the solution of the difficulty that cannot
but be found in the divine ordmation of material sacrifices.
For a long time silent upon the purport of this worship by
blood and giving, it was not silent for ever. Just at this
unsolved point of sacrificial worship, the later prophetical
testimony attached itself If the rites of Abraham and
Moses imparted a dim prophetic evidence concerning their
innermost meaning, that evidence was rendered brighter and

THE TEANSITION, 261
clearer by the ejaculations of Isaiah and his successors. To
the fact which the Law itself announced, that the sacrificial
rites were typical, the prophet added the further fact that
they were in some way typical of Him, the Son of God and
the Son of David, Who should inaugurate a worthy kingdom
of God by the sacrifice of Himself for sin. From the time
of the prophecies of the evangeUcal Isaiah, the two currents
of revelation concerning the Messiah and concerning sacrifice,
were united into one broad stream, promising world-wide
beneficence ; and from the time of the prophecy of Daniel,
the very year of the ceasing of the old and the inauguration
of the new has been proclaimed. Not only does the Old
Testament explain its sacrificial system by pointing to Him
Who shall be a sacrifice indeed, but declares the time when
that true sacrifice shall be slain and the paradisaic sacrifice in
a measure restored.
Thus, under the teaching of the Old Testament itself, there
was that in aU these material arrangements of gifts with and
without blood, which, in moments of deeper insight, might
conduct the pious Jew into an almost infinite vista of thought,
the vanishing-point of which was ultimate truth and intel
lectual rest. At such times of insight the Tabernacle with
its structural divisions and degrees of access might seem to
present the stages of redemption "foreshortened," and to
intimate a threefold course for the history of salvation, in
which the more privUeged service of the priest should first
supersede the service of the court, and this priestly service
give place in its turn to the open vision as of angels before
the throne. Then, the visible and imperfect priesthood
might be suddenly lost to view in the prospect of a priest
hood truly holy and a mediation spirituaUy adequate : the
rites of sacrifice might sometimes become instantaneously
transformed, and in those domestic creatures which had been
reared by his own energies, — in " those most human offerings,"^
to adopt the felicitous phrase of De Maistre, — a human sub
stitute might appear, in the spotlessness of those victims, the
1 " On choisissait toujours parmi les animaux les plus innocents, les plus en
rapport avec I'homme par leurs instincts et leurs habitudes — les victimes les plus
humaines." — De Maistre, Les Soiries de St. Petersbourg, vol. u. p. 234.

262 THE POST-MOSAIC DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE.
sinlessness of that substitute, and in the pouring out of their
blood the vicarious suffering of that death decreed upon
human sin in Eden : then, in isolated moments of elevation,
it was a very Ught from the cross that streamed into the
sinful heart.
Briefly stated, therefore, the advance that the Old Testa
ment made towards the solution of the great problem of the
restoration of the blessed times of paradisaic sacrifice may be
said to be this, that the Old Testament, whUst itself satisfying
by sacrament and symbol the religious wants of the Jew,
announced and prepared the way for that solution of the
problem which the future should unfold. To that solution
of the future we proceed in the next book.

BOOK II.
PLEROMATIC.

"Behold the Lamb of God ! "—John i. 29.

CHAPTER I.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE
GENEEALLY CONSIDEEED,
"Tempore Veteris Testamenti Novum Testamentum occultatum ibi erat tan-
qnam fructus in radice. " — AuGtrsTiNE, Enarratio in Psalmum LXII,
TO pass from the doctrine of the Old Testament to that of
the New is to enter a changed world. It is as if we
had Uved through an Arctic winter, our long night occasionaUy
lit as by an aurora, or by stars the apparent revolutions of
which made the mobiUty of our own minds the more con
spicuous, and had suddenly chanced upon a warm and glorious
summer with its unsetting sun and nightless day. The age
of symbols is no more. Faint adumbrations of heavenly truths
under material forms have given place to the loud proclamation
of the same truths under those least material forms of speech
and Ufe. Jhiere is lessof sense, more of spirit ; man is not
now assured of saving truth by an elaborate education in a
complicated ritual of blood and gifts : " The light which
lighteth every man " is education enough for the full appropria
tion of the New Testament revelation. Something of the
intercourse and worship of Eden is restored. The fulness of
time is come : the race has attained its majority ; and, admitted
to the privilege of heirship, the sacred mysteries of our Uttle
interval between the eternity before and after are no longer
taught by covert allusion and minute law, Une upon line, pre
cept upon precept, but by the famiUar, loving, and respectful
communion as of father and son. " Now speakest Thou plainly,
and speakest no proverb," is the language of the disciple of
Jesus to his Master.
From the great mass of New Testament statement the teach
ing concei-ning sacrifice accretes around distinct nuclei, and

266 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF
lUtimately crystallizes into two weU-defined doctrines, — con
cerning the sacrifice of Christ, and the sacrifice of man. The
former is almost identical with what is called in theological
language the doctrine of the Atonement, or, more correctly, is
that doctrine under one of its aspects ; the latter has not re
ceived as yet sufficient attention at the hand of theologians to
have gained a precise name. By way of introduction to what
foUows, let us briefly pass under review the statements of the
New Testament which form the data of these doctrines.
The association of Jesus Christ with the sacrificial rites of
the Old Testament was clearly made by the Forerunner.
When John the Baptist, breaking the silence of centuries,
assumed the prophetic garb, and awoke in Pharisee and Sad-
ducee the conviction that the God of Israel was condescending
once more to speak through chastened human lips, it is
undeniable that those incisive cries from the wUderness,
" Eepent," " Wrath to come," " Prepare ye the way of the
Lord," were welcomed as an announcement that the glorious
days of David and Solomon were about to be eclipsed, and the
theocratic visions of Micah and Hosea to be fulfiUed ; is it not
equaUy undeniable that those stirring appeals pointed to the
fuffilment of the sacrificial visions of the prophets ? If John
took up the strain of ancient prophecy, and sounded the
reveille of that morning which was the birthday of the world
wide kingdom of God ; if his cry to repentance was justly
interpreted as the heralding of the greater and eternal Son of
David ; not less clearly did the Baptist take up the other side
of the prophetic revelation, and declare that the heavenly
kingdom should take its rise, as had been foretold by Daniel,
Zechariah, and Isaiah, in the atoning death of the King who
would be at once offerer, priest, and victim, and who would
rely on no authority more potent than the attractive power of
His own blood. That the erroneous chUiastic views of the
Jewish leaders, adopted as a one-sided interpretation of pro
phecy, had no countenance in the proclamations of the Nazarite
prophet, may be readUy seen from the fragments of his teach
ing which have reached us. One day, whUst baptizing, we
are told that John selected Jesus as the Lamb of God who
should bear the sins of the world : " Behold the Lamb of God,

SACRIFICE GENERALLY CONSIDERED. 267
Who taketh away the sins of the world ! " ^ Now it is not
enough to find here a representation of " that state of mind
for which aU aUke sigh, and the want of which makes Ufe a
faUure to most;"* "that confidence which had never been
disturbed, that stedfast peace which no agitations of Ufe could
ruffle ; " " that heaven which is everywhere, if we could but
enter it ; " that " royalty of inward happiness." Although that
mental state has somethmg to do with the figure employed,
the phrase has an unmistakeable reference to the Jewish sacri
fices ; and whether the aUusion be to Christ as the antitype
of the paschal lamb, or of the lamb of the daUy burnt-offerings,
or of those sin-offermgs in which lambs were brought, or
whether John is simply aUuding, in the general language of
sacrifice, to the famous prophecy of Isaiah, certain it is that
Jesus is here described under sacrificial terminology. The
announcement of John was that the time was at hand when
the prophecy of a sacrificial as weU as regal Messiah was to
be fulfiUed in Jesus of Nazareth.
But this announcement of John's concerning the sacrificial
Messiah is the burden of the New Testament, as may be
gathered from the numerous passages which any habitual
reader could at once suggest. Inadequately as the sacrfficial
language of the New Testament has been rendered in the
Authorized Version, the rendermgs of that may suffice for the
present to bring the fact before us. Jesus speaks of His
"blood" as that of "the New Testament" . . . "shed for
many, for the remission of sins." ' Elsewhere we read of the
" redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath sent
forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood ; " * of
" being justified by His blood ; " * " of joying m God through
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the
atonement ; " ^ of Christ's having " died for our sins ; " ^ of
His having given " Himself for our sins ; " * of Christ having
" reconcUed us in the body of His flesh ; " ' of our having
" redemption through His blood." ^^ In another place the a
> John i. 29. » Ecce Homo, p. 6.
» Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 24 ; Luke xxu. 20. * Rom. iu. 24, 25.
» Eom. V. 9. " Rom. v. 11. ' 1 Cor. xv. 3.
» Gal. i. 4. » Col. i. 21, 22. " Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14.

268 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF
fortiori argument is boldly stated : " For if the blood of bulls
and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh : how much more shaU
the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead
works to serve the living God ? " ^ The same writer adds in
another place, that " now once in the end of the world hath
Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself;"*
in yet another place he describes the body of Jesus as " one
sacrifice for sins for ever." ^ In another epistle we read " of
being redeemed, not with corruptible things, as sUver and gold
. . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb with
out blemish and without spot." * In the Epistle of John it is
said that " Jesus is the propitiation for our sins," ® and that
His blood " cleanseth from aU sins." * Further, as the veU is
momentarily withdrawn from the unseen world, ever and anon
there comes into prominence "the Lamb as it had been
slain," ' Who " loved us, and washed us from our sins in His
own blood," and " hath made us kings and priests."
Then, turning to another series of statements in the
Authorized Version, we further find that certain phases of the
Christian Ufe are described under the sacrificial language of
the Old Testament. "I beseech you therefore, brethren,"
writes Paul to the Eomans, " by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God,
your reasonable service."® The author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews writes : " By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice
of praise to^God continuaUy, that is, the fruit of our Ups, giving
thanks to His name. But to do good and to communicate forget
not : for with such sacrifices God is weU pleased." ^ " Ye also,"
says Peter to the Jews of the dispersion who had entered into
Christian feUowship, — " Ye also, as Uving stones, are built up a
spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Christ Jesus." ^^ Nor does Paid
hesitate to call the free-wiU offerings of the Church at PhUippi
1 Heb. ix. 13, 14.' ' Heb. ix. 26. » Heb. x. 10-12.
* 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 5 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10. « 1 John i. 7.
' Rev. V. 6, and i. 5, 6. ^ Rom. xu. 1. 9 Heb. xiu. 15, 16.
" 1 Pet. U. 5.

SACEIFICE GENEEALLY CONSIDEEED. 269
for his support " a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to
God." ^ ' '
To the concatenation and elucidation of the facts we have
just adduced, viz. that the Ufe and work of Christ and of His
disciples are described throughout the New Testament under
language borrowed from the sacrificial worship of the Old
Testament, and to the investigation of the affinity of these facts
to the sacrificial doctrine of the Old Testament, the remainder
of this book wUl be devoted. ' PhU. iv. 18.

CHAPTER II.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCEIPTION OF THE
WOEK OF CHEIST AS SACEIFICIAL.
" Die Uebersicht der auf das Opfer Christi sich beziehenden VorsteUungen im
Neuen Testament beweist, dasz mit Ausnahme von Jacobus und Judas alle
Schriftsteller an denselben betheiligt sind, und dasz, auszer dem Verfasser des
Hebraerbriefes, keiner in hbherem Maasze als die anderen dem Gedanken zuge-
wendet ist. " — EiTSOHL, Die christliche Lehre von der Reehtfertigung und Ver
sohnung, vol. ii. p. 185.
IT would be an insufficient elaboration of the method
hitherto pursued, if, in order to prove that the New
Testament describes the work of Christ under the sacrificial
terminology of Judaism, a few passages selected here and
there from the heterogeneous contents of the Authorized Version
were quoted. If a knowledge of the original is advantageous
in the study of the Scriptures, it is especiaUy valuable in the
subject before us, inasmuch as precision has been lost in the pro
cess of a double translation. A reference to the first appendix ^
wUl convince that it was with considerable difficulty that the
Septuagint interpreters managed vaguely to convey, with
many errors inexcusable, if not unavoidable, the scriptural
regulations and aUusions of Mosaism ; and, again diminishing
the advisabiUty of reliance upon any version, the vagueness
and errors of the HeUenistio translation have been vaguely and
erroneously rendered in the English New Testament. It there
fore behoves us to demonstrate the thesis of this chapter by
an examination of the New Testament as far as concerns our
subject, in the language m which it was originally written,
and, further, by a careful emendation of that language by a
minute comparison with the technicalities of the Hebrew.
But at first sight it would appear that no linguistic task
^ See Appendix I. B.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK OF CHRIST AS SACRIFICIAL. 271
could be more difficult than to compare the sacrificial termi
nology of the Old Testament, written as it was in the Shemitic
Hebrew, with that of the New in the Arian Greek. The
solution of the paradox is simple. It Ues in the fact, previously
hinted at, that we possess the Old Testament not only as it was
first written, but in the Alexandrine version, popularly known
as the Septuagint, of which, whatever questions there may be
as to its authorship or correctness in mmor points, or whatever
difficulty there may be in reconciling the testimonies of
Aristeas and Epiphanius, and in ascertaimng its exact text from
its various manuscripts, it may be justly said that it affords
invaluable lexicographic aid as an interpreter between the
Hebrew of the Old and the Greek of the New. It wiU there
fore be by the mediation of the Septuagint that we shall dis
cover and Uluminate simUar sacrificial references in Law and
Gospel. And this is the place to enter a protest against the practice,
as common as it is disastrous, of identifying in discussions upon
the Atonement, Hellenistic and Classical Greek. Of course, in
questions which concern the expression of ideas common to
the Greek and the Jew, an appeal to classical usage may be,
and an appeal to those later writers, such as Polybius and
Plutarch, who reflect the conversational language of their time,
must be decisive. But the sacrificial conceptions of the Greeks
were so utterly at variance with those of the Hebrews, that,
when Jews of Palestine or Alexandria, and Greeks of Athens or
Ephesus, made use of the same words, they meant things
entirely different. To say that " the very words by which the
sacrifice of Christ is described in the New Testament . . . are
borrowed from the sacrificial ritual of the Greeks," ^ is, to say
the least, to ignore the fact of the introduction of new associa
tions which invariably accompanies the process of translation.
It was only by a gigantic accommodation that words which
originally described heathenish rites, subsequently expressed
in the hands of translators ideas remote from heathenism. One
might as reasonably deduce the Homeric conceptions of sacri
fice from the Christian associations of the English sacrfficial
' Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement,
p. 100.

272 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE
terms in Lord Derby's translation, as endeavour to explain the
HeUenistio words of the same class by a reference to classical
usage. Undoubtedly the words of the Greek Testament are
of Gentile extraction, but their significance is essentiaUy Jewish;
and those but repeat the mistake of TertuUian and Ambrose
in deriving paschal from "Traa-^eiv in a more subtle form, who
interpret iXaarr]piov, Xvrpov, KajaWajr), or Bvaia from the
usage of Homer, Xenophon, or Dion Chrysostom. Philological
analogies to the New Testament sacrificial terms heathen
writers may supply — definitions, never. When the scriptural
doctrine of the Atonement can be obtained by an etymological
analysis of the EngUsh word atone, or a statement of its use in
Shakespeare or in Chaucer, we may hope to infer the same
doctrine from the Attic or Ionic use of such a word as tXaa/ioy.
The indispensable preUminary, we repeat, to an understanding
of the bibUcal doctrine of the Atonement, is a knowledge of the
significance of the words under which it is described, deduced
from the language of Leviticus.
Another postulate must be stated. It has been the fertUe
result of recent researches to obtain a truer insight into the
nature of the New Testament canon, by regarding the authors
of its several constituent books as contributing not simply
divine truth evidently bearing the impress of the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost, but divine truth stamped as surely with
the marks of human individuaUty. Instead of the passive
theory of inspiration, in which, aU natural and acquired powers
of mmd in abeyance, man became the irresponsive and unassist-
ing channel of divine revelation, we have come to beUeve in a
revelation to the imparting of which the mind of man and the
Spirit of God both contributed. As a logical consequence, the
recognition has gained ground of the existence of various (to
use the word in the biological and not the theological sense)
types of New Testament doctrine; and, as a further consequence,
equaUy natural, it must be allowed, statements concerning the
teaching of the New Testament are no longer proved by a
string of texts promiscuously selected, but by the consensus of
these modifications or types. It must therefore be our aim, by
an examination of the several modifications of New Testament
doctrine — the examination taking the form of a comparison.

WORK OF CHEIST AS SACEIFICIAL. 273
of the New Testament passages with those of the Old by
means of the Septuagint, — to show that the work of Christ
was regarded by Christ and His apostles, under many varieties
of speech and figure drawn from the Mosaic worship, as
sacrificial. The fact has aUeady been aUuded to, that, at the first pro
phetic announcement of the near approach of the new reUgious
epoch so long expected, John described Jesus as " the Lamb
of God that taketh away the sins of the world." From Old
Testament usage the meaning of this singular phrase is clear
enough. The Baptist, himself a Jew and addressing Jews,
described the future of this young man who had presented
himself for baptism, by employing a common legal technicality
about "bearing sins;" and aU would understand his words to
mean that in some way or other this " Lamb of God " shoiUd j
take away the sins of the world by bearing their punishment}
But what associations did the words, " the Lamb of God,"
arouse in the minds of his Jewish audience ? Lambs, as has
been frequently seen in the preceding book, were commonly
employed in the Levitical ceremonial, at the Passover, in the
daUy burnt-offerings, and in certain sin-offerings, — were aU or
any of these called before their minds by this astonishing
admonition ? Any reply must be based upon the fact that the
description itself is in terms too general to warrant the assump
tion that any single rite is referred to ; besides, no one sacri
ficial lamb more than another was considered by the Law as
John i. 29. The phrase is : "ISe o afivos rou Qtou o tttpuv tav afzapriav roZ y.off/jLov.
Much difficulty has been made concerning the significance of xlfm, some trans
lating it "takeaway," and others "bear." The precise translation adopted
matters little, so long as the reference to the Levitical law is preserved. Alfa
is the synonym of the Hebrew nasa, which, in connection with avon or cheta,
always means the taking away of sin by bearing its punishment. As Knobel,
Leviticus, p. 391, has tersely put it : "The expression nasa avono, to bear sin,
especially in its strength and reality, i.e. to suffer its consequences, and there
by prevent its, punishment from faUing, has quite a general reference; it is used
of any misfortune which God attaches to sin, such as chUdlessness, death, and
the difficulties of Israel in the wUdemess; it is also used of the capital punish
ment inflicted by men and of other criminal penalties. In Lev. v. 1 and else
where, the phrase is employed for the sacrifice by which atonement is made."
See also Keil, Biblischer Commentar, Leviticus, on Lev. v. 1 ; also Lev. vii. 18,
xvii. 16, xix. 8, 17, xx. 20, xxii. 9, xxiv. 15 ; Num. v. 31, ix. 13, xiv. 33,
xviu. 22. Compare note 1, p. 214. S

274 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE
pre-eminently designed for the removal of sin. The truth is,
John desired to suggest, " in a striking metaphor condensing
the whole sacrificial system into a burnmg word,"^ that Jesus
would occupy in the future some such place as the lamb
occupied in the past. Further, the connection between the
antitypical lamb and the remission of sins would undoubtedly
recaU the famous prophecy of Isaiah, in which the Lamb
brought to the slaughter bears our sins,^ is wounded for our
sins,^ bare the sins of many.* In one pregnant sentence John
preached Christ as at once the fulfilment of the most eloquent
features of the Jewish sacrifice, and of the highest imaginations
of Jewish prophecy.
And, according to the testimony of the Gospels, our Lord
Himself had recourse to the associations connected with the
Old Testament ritual in order to convey vivid instruction con-
cernmg His stupendous work. We do not rely for the proof
of this assertion upon the many covert Ulustrations which may
be extracted from the discourses of our Lord, nor upon those
suggestive words, so manUestly connected with the Temple
services, which the fourth Gospel describes as having been
spoken at Capernaum : " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and ^drink His blood, ye have no Ufe in you : " we con
tent ourselves with the proof afforded by one striking assertion
found in almost the same words in two of the synoptic Gospels,
and by the words used by our Lord at the institution of the
Lord's Supper. The assertion in question is, that " the Son of
man came ... to give His Ufe a ransom for many!' " The
ambitious request of Salome, that her sons might hold the
highest stations in the kingdom of God, had aroused an
indignant protest on the part of the remaining disciples, and
to queU the tumult Jesus had explained that by the law of
the coming kingdom he should be lordUest who was lowliest,
and his should be the coronet of highest glory whose had
been the cross of most persistent duty ; the Master had then
^ Reynolds, John the Baptist, Congregational Union Lecture for 1874, p. 871.
" Ovrst rccs afntfrins fi/^aiy fifu (Isa. liii. 4 ; compare ver. 6).
* Kai aiivos a/iapTias VakXZv avffviyxi.
' Matt. XX. 28; Mark x. 45: imxi riif i^i';^ni' scvrw \vrpn itri xoXXu—

WORK OF CHRIST AS SACRIFICIAL. 275
clenched His exposition of the law of heavenly inheritance by
adducing His own example, for even He who should be Lord
in the kffigdom of heaven came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to "give His Ufe a ransom for many." This
word ransom or redemption was familiar to every Jew. Under
the Law, the method of commutation by the payment of a
ransom was employed in all cases where things were due to
God which from some ineligibiUty could not be themselves
presented. Sometimes this ransom was a payment in money
and sometimes in kind. The male first-born, who had been
spared in Egypt, and whose lives were therefore forfeited to
God, were " ransomed," " redeemed," by silver shekels ; the
first-born of unclean cattle, which were legaUy unquaUfied for
sacrifice, were " ransomed " by the payment of their value or
by the substitution of a clean animal. There were also in
stances of the ransoming of human Uves under the Law ; and
when our Lord spoke of the ransoming the lives of many by a
gift of Ufe, His hearers would understand His words by the
analogy of those national customs in which they had been
bom and bred. However difficult the appUcation of Christ's
words, and the comprehension of their mysterious suggestions,
the meaning of them would be clear enough to the disciples.
They would understand that there were many first-bom whose
lives would be spared because His life would be surrendered,
or, as in the case of the man whose ox had gored a Hebrew to
death,^ there were many forfeited lives which should be restored,
because His Ufe should vicariously bear their punishment and
be taken away.** The very word ransom or redemption (lutron)
would recaU a host of associations connected with the Mosaic
idea of " redemption," — itself a conspicuous variety of blood
less sacrifices.
A further proof that our Lord deUberately associated His
work with the Old Testament sacrffices, is found in the accounts
of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. With sUght variations,
so trffiing as to be unimportant, the three synoptists represent
our Lord as saying of the cup that it was " the blood of the
' Ex. xxi. 30.
" Compare Dale, The Atonement, Congregational Lecture for 1875, pp.
76, 77.

276 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE
covenant." ^ But these are the very words used by Moses at
the seaUng of the covenant of Sinai : " Behold the blood of the
covenant."^ The words of Christ Himself, therefore, at the
first celebration of the great Christian sacrament, immediately
recaU that scene in the desert, when, in ratification of the
first covenant, the great lawgiver sprinkled the blood of the
sacrifices, half upon the altar and half upon, the assembled
multitude. If the first covenant had been sealed with the
blood of oxen, the blood of Jesus was to seal the new.
Without concerning ourselves at present with the further
elucidation of these passages, or with their manifest reference
to the prophecy of Jeremiah,^ it is enough to draw attention
to the evidence they afford that Jesus Himself described His
death under a sacrificial aspect.
Turning to the apostoUc testimony, it should surprise no
one that direct mention is not made of the Christian sacrifice
either by James or Jude. The subject was foreign to the
purpose with which they wrote. James felt it no part of his
duty to explain what were the grounds of that " faith of our
Lord Jesus Christ " * of which he speaks, but to exhort by all
manner of argument and iUustration that that faith be no
matter of the inteUect, like that of " devils who beUeve and
their hair stands on end," * but living and vitaUzing, the
regenerating principle of heart and mind and wUl. James
^ See Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24; Luke xxu. 20. In the Authorized Ver
sion, Matthew has, xai ?.a^uv <ro ^oryiptov . . . mUTO yap iim ro aifjia ft-ov, to
tUs xxiyij! iixHxns ; Mark has the same, with the omission of ydp after rmTo; Luke
has, Tovro TO ^oT^ptav, n xaivii ita^Tixti h rSl a*i/iav4 /iov. But, as might be anticipated
from the fact that so important a narrative is found in more than one Gospel,
considerable controversy has arisen as to the correctness of these readings. In
Matthew, Tischendorf and Alford omit to; Tischendorf omits xams, whUst
Alford marks it as doubtful. In Mark, Tischendorf and Alford omit both to and
xxivtis. Upon the words of Luke there is no difference of opinion. Referring to
Tischendorf's editio octava, vol. i. pp. 180 and 374, for the data for the decision
of these various readings, it would appear that there is a preponderance of
evidence in favour of the reading in Matthew and Mark, to aJ/id fiou t'ks
iiaHxus (" my blood of the covenant ") ; and in Luke, " the new covenant in
my blood."
' Comp. Ex. xxiv. 8, where the LXX. has to al/iot t?j iiaUxus. Singularly
enough, Alford, although he expressly mentions this passage in Exodus, explains
the blood of the covenant by the blood of the paschal lamb.
' Jer. xxxi. 31-33. * Jas. ii. 1. » Jas. u. 19.

WORK OF CHEIST AS SACEIFICIAL. 277
neither developes nor systematicaUy treats of the doctrines of
Christ and the Holy Spirit, stUl less does he touch upon that
aspect of Christ's work to which the ancient sacrifices cor
respond; rather, taking for granted the common grounds of
Christian obligation, does he dweU on " bridling the tongue," ^
" checking covetousness," ^ " doing the law." ^ It is signi
ficant, however, that in his many references to the ancient
Law he never once alludes to the duty of obeying the ritual
injunctions : his sUence would thus imply that the coming of
the Lord had somehow fulfiUed the purposes of the Jewish
ceremonial, and had rendered that ceremonial obsolescent.
The same practical tendency is seen in Jude, who, never
theless, somewhat significantly for the subject before us,
advocates at the outset of his Epistle stem opposition to those
false teachers who were foUowers of Cain, Balaam, and Core,*
all of whom, be it noted, sinned in the matter of sacrificing
and did not adhere to the faith deUvered to the saints once
for aU, and at the close utters his magnificent doxology : " To
the only God, our Saviour, who can present us (living sacri
fices, so to speak) without blemish (by no false, heathenish
rites, but) through (that is to say, by the mediation of the
great High Priest) Jesus Christ our Lord." ®
In the Epistles of Peter, the utterances concerning the
sacrificial nature of the work of Christ are seen at a glance.
As the Israelites were chosen by God at Sinai to keep His
covenant, and were sprinkled with blood in solemn ratification
of their vows, so Peter designates his audience in the opening
salutation of his First Epistle : " Elect unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus."® A Uttle further on, in
his exhortation to those who are conscious of the privUege of
adoption, to display in their approach to God due reverence
and fear, Peter has recourse to the figure of the Passover lamb
1 Jas. iu. 2. 2 Jas. v. 1. ' Jas. ii. 18.
* Jude, V. 11. ' Jude, vv. 24, 25.
* 1 Pet. i. 2 ; compare Ex. xxiv. 8. Some have found the original of Peter's
figure in the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb, others in the sprink
ling of the impure with water (see Num. xix. 7). The former opinion ignores
the fact that the blood of the paschal lamb was sprinkled upon doorposts, not
upon people ; the latter forgets that the sprinkling of which Peter here speaks
was with blood, not water.

278 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCEIPTION OF THE
as an expressive form of describing the unparaUeled obligations
under which Christ has laid His followers ; he bids them " call
to mind " that they were not " redeemed " from death, as was so
often the case in the Law, " by corruptible things, by silver or
gold," but, Uke the first-born, whose lives were spared by the
destroying angel in Egypt, " with precious blood as of an
immaculate and spotless lamb," even with the precious blood
of Christ.^ Further, in his apostoUc exhortation to servants
in the second chapter of the same Epistle, Peter adduces the
example of Christ as worthy of imitation. Who did not return
evU for evU, Who, " when He was reviled, reviled not again,"
but, as was prophesied by Isaiah, patiently " bore our sins,"
like the sacrfficial victims of the past, and that too as on an
altar, for He suffered " in His own body on the tree." ^
Elsewhere, speaking of the sufferings of Christ under the
figure of a sin-offering, Peter writes of Christ as of Him " Who
once suffered as a sin-offering, the just for the unjust, that
He might bring us to God." * In his Second Epistle also,
Peter has something to say of " the redemption with the
precious blood of Christ," for he speaks enthusiasticaUy of
the Master who " bought " us in the world's great mart by the
gift of His own life.*
Advancing from those Epistles, where the bent of the writers
' The author considers that the word " redeemed " conclusively points to the
idea of redemption from death by the sprinkUng of the paschal blood, but his
argument does not require this specialization. If this passage, as many maintain,
has but a general reference, like the announcement of John the Baptist, to any
sacrificial lamb, the phrase being likewise suggested by the terms of Isaiah's
famous prophecy, still there can be no doubt that Peter describes the work of
Christ under language borrowed from the Old Testament worship. The blood
of Christ is assuredly designated in this passage a lutron, and is as certainly
likened to some sacrificial lamb, and this is enough for our argument. Huther's
objection (Meyer, Kritisch-Exegetisches Handbuch, 3d ed. 1867, in loco) to the
idea of a reference here to the paschal lamb, that its propounder (Hofmann, who
has been foUowed by Alford) is mistaken in assuming that the paschal lamb had
anything to do with the redemption from Egypt, is simply an argumentum ad
hominem; the paschal Iamb did " redeem," not from Egypt, it is true, but from
death, and this is apparently the allusion here. This view is substantiated by
the fact that all first-born sons, including those spared in Egypt, were redeemed
under the Law " by corruptible things as silver and gold."
' 1 Pet. ii. 24 ; compare the Septuagint version of Isa. Uii. 12. In vv. 23
and 25 of this same chapter, there are manifest references to Isa. liu. 5 and 7.
' 1 Pet. ui. 18. See Appendix LB. * 2 Pet. ii. 1 : to» iyopxcmtTa.

WOEK OF CHEIST AS SACEIFICIAL. 279
is the more evidently towards Old Testament aspects of truth.
to those where the contrast between Judaism and Christianity
is more pronounced, we see in the Epistles of Paul an equaUy
undeniable assertion of the sacrificial nature of the death of
Christ. Eeviewing the Epistle to the Eomans, the most
systematic and thorough exposition of the gospel as it pre
sented itseU to the experience and thought of the apostle, it
is evident that Paul aUudes to the sacrifice of Jesus as the
turning-point of his Ufe and the basis of his teaching. After
the opening salutation^ and the passionate expression of his
desire to preach the gospel even at Eome," the apostle pro
fesses that he glories in this gospel, because it reveals to the
beUever that righteousness which is of divine character as weU
as of divine origin ;* " I am not ashamed," he -m-ites, " of the
gospel of Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that beUeveth ; for therein is the righteousness of
God revealed." He then proceeds to show, by an appeal to
experience, that no such righteousness was -s-isible either in
the heathen, who possessed the law wiitten in the conscience,*
or in the Jew,* who possessed the objective Law. Having
then shown, by an appeal to facts and also to passages in the
Old Testament, that tlie righteousness God demanded had been
nowhere visible in pre-Christian times, he goes on to say tliat
" now tlie righteousness of God is manifested without the law,
as is testified by the law and the prophets ; that is to say, the
righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ imto
aU and upon all them that beUeve : for there is no difference :
for aU have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ; but
are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that
is in Christ Jesus." " In other words, the apostie writes that
the righteousness the Old Testament ever demanded, but
never wrought, is effected by faith in that divine exhibition
of grace which is seen in the ransom paid by Christ. Now
the important thing for us is, not to unfold the Pauline ideas
of righteousness, grace, or faith, but that of redemption. What
is this act which is designated apolutrosis ? As we read
> Rom, i. 1-7. " Rom. i. S-15. '^ Eom. i. 17.
* Eom. i. 1S-S2, comp. iL 15. ' Rom. ii-iu. 20.
* Rom. iu. 21-26 : 5i« tiw itvKuTfi»rt»i Tns 1» X^rri 'Iirrow.

280 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE
further, it becomes evident that the apostle regards this act
as in some way connected with the Old Testament sacrffices.
Christ is, in his esteem, a Eedeemer, because His blood is " an
atoning sacrifice." ^ The word translated in the Authorized
Version propitiation (better, as we have just said, atoning
sacrifice) is used in the Septuagint to convey the distinguish
ing feature of the mercy-seat. A more conclusive argument
could scarcely be found for our present thesis than this fact,
that the blood of Christ is said to possess in the New Testa
ment the same atoning characteristic as the mercy-seat in the
Old. Other expressions may also be found in the same Epistle
which substantiate the point before us. Thus the apostle
several times speaks of Christ as a High Priest : he gives
thanks to God " through Jesus Christ ;"^ he says that God wiU
judge the secrets of men under the gospel by Jesus Christ as
He did by Aaron under the law ;^ he dweUs upon the fact
that Christ has obtained " access " into the holy mysteries.*
Then it is " the blood of Christ " which, in the view of Paul,
^ The word that has just been translated atoning sacrifice, Ixaarnpiov, is a
neuter adjective used absolutely (compare Buttmann, Or. Orammatik, 21st
ed. vol. ii. p. 412). Its associations are with Ixarxo/ixi and i^ikiiofocci, the
equivalents of the Hebrew kipper, and may be best translated, in order to pre
serve its connection with the Old Testament technicality, by some form of the
word atone. The word Ixarr^pioy is sometimes found in the LXX. without a cor
responding noun, the word with which it tacitly agrees being sometimes irlh/ut
and sometimes iu/ta or Itpiy. Hence two opinions have been advocated as to
the significance of the word, the one maintaining Sxntrnpioy to mean a place of
atonement, and the other an atoning sacrifice. On behalf of the former opinion
there is the common usage of the LXX., where, with or without Wihfut, Ikxcr-
Tviptov stands for the mercy-seat ; also the usage of the New Testament in one
passage, Heb. ix. 5, and of PhUo in one passage. Cremer, Biblisch-Theologisches
Worterbuch der Neutestament. Grdcitat (translation published by T. & T. Clark),
finds also in the analogy with axpour^piov, itxaar^pioy, xxSiffTvipio*, a mark that
l\atTTripioy is a nomen lod. On the other hand, the context conclusively shows
that, in this passage at any rate, iXxrTipiot must agree with itlfix (or some such
word) understood; to say, "whom God hath set forth as a, place of propitiation
through faith in His blood," would be an inadmissible admixture of figures.
And for such a significance the usage of later Greek writers (the word is never
found in classical Greek) may be aUeged — e.g., Dion Chrysostom (Moses Stuart,
Commentary on the Romans, p. 153), Nonnus, Hesychius, and ApoUonius
Ehodius (see Meyer, Des Paulus Brief an die Romer, in loco, 5th ed. p. 162).
As to Cremer's argument, xafixpTzpiov, ^apiffn^pto*, and aurnptot are instances where
analogous words are assuredly not nomina loci.
' Rom. i. 8. ^ Rom. u. 16. * Eom. v. 2.

WORK OF CHRIST AS SACRIFICIAL. 281
justifies US, an expression manifestly suggested by the atoning
rites of the old covenant.^ And coUateral evidence may be
found in each of the Pauline Epistles. Thus, the First Epistle
to the Corinthians has suppUed some of the most popular
phrases for describing the sacrificial work of Christ; for,
after speaking of the " cross of Christ " as the essence of the
gospel,^ and declaring that in the erection of a bodily temple
to the Holy Ghost, " other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, Christ Jesus," ^ Paul further describes the Lord
as " Christ our Passover," * and speaks of the beUever's " com
munion m the blood of Christ." ® So, in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, there are numerous descriptions of sacrificial
epithets to the work of Christ ; for example, the Old Testa
ment idea of redemption is tersely spoken of as " the redemp
tion through His blood;"® m another chapter Christ is said to
have given Himself for us as " a sacrifice and an atoning
sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelUng savour;"^ and in yet
another chapter the apostle glories in the " blood that brings
near " and " the Priest by whom we have access." * The phrase
found in the Epistle to the Ephesians is repeated in that to
the Colossians concerning " redemption, the forgiveness of
sins," whether or not we add, with the Authorized Version,
" through His blood." ' To Timothy Paul writes of the " one

' Eom. V. 9. « 1 Cor. i. 17. ' 1 Cor. ui. 11.
* 1 Cor. V. 7. '1 Cor. i. 16.
^ Eph. i. 7 : Triy axeXvTpuffiv S/a TOU aifiXTos avTotj. Compare pp. 274, etc., on
the idea of ransom or redemption ; also Appendix I.
' Eph. V. 2. The phrase, rporfopi xxi lurix, is the Hellenistic equivalent of
the common Hebrew phrase, Tzevach uminchah.
' Eph. u. 13, 18. Harless, Commentar iiber den Epheserbrief, 2d ed., ex
pounds Eph. V. 26, 27 according to the sacrificial ideas of Mosaism. This is a
manifest error. The figurative aUusion concerning Christ and His church is
taken from the bridal, and not the sacrificial ceremony. Harless has been misled
by the word Xourpoy, which he regards as the laver, and by the word xfoa/ios.
But XovT^p and not XouTpoy is the word in the LXX. for the laver ; and as for
aiit.!iifios, although it is frequently appUed in the LXX. to sacrifices, its accom
panying words irirrxos and puris are quite foreign to the sacrificial phraseology.
Aoi/rpov is only found twice in the LXX., and both times in the Canticles. The
figure throughout has to do with the bath and beauty of a bride, not with the
purification and spotlessness of a sacred offering.
' Col. i. 14. Alford and Tischendorf omit Jii too x'ifixros xl/rou, and the MSS.
authority is unquestionably against the reading.

282 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCEIPTION OF THE
mediator, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom
for aU," ^ thus combming in a single sentence the truths that
Jesus of Nazareth was, Uke the high priest of old, the one
mediator between God and man, and the sacrificial means of
ransom for the entire race. To Titus, his other youthful
foUower, the apostle speaks exultantly, under the combined
figures of purification and redemption, of Him " Who gave
Himself for us, that He might redeem us from aU iniquity
and purify unto Himself (as the Old Testament rites had
promised, but never performed) a pecuUar people,^ zealous of
good works." May we not say, with the learned Dr. Pye
Smith, that it would be " presumptuous and nugatory to
attempt any addition to the strength and clearness of these
testimonies"? ,
And the cogency of the proposiUon of this chafer, that the
New Testament writers describe ''^He work oTCkist under the
same language as the Mosaic saci'i'ifices, is increised, when we
turn from the Pauline to the JohaiJnine type ofjdoctrine. In
the first part of his First Epistle, spe^ng y^rSft'the theme that
God is light, John lays down the principle that those who
walk in the light ..." the blopd of Jesus Christ cleanseth
from aU sin : " ' the aUusion is njlanifestly to the rites of puri
fication of the Levitical law, when, as in the case of the leprous,
the taint of original sin was removed by a sacrifice of blood ;
the Christian is, so to speak, a convalescent leper, and the
blood of Jesus Christ daUy cleanses him from aU his former
spots and diseases. In another passage of the same Epistle,
John gives utterance to a second feature of Christ's work, and
says He is " the atonement for our sins : " * " Herein is love,
' 1 Tim. u. 6 : ivTiXuTpoy vmp irxyrm. . Compare pp. 274, etc., and Appendix I.
' Tit. ii. 14 : Xmov -xipioiitioy. Compare the same phrase in Ex. xix. 5 (LXX.) ;
Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18.
^ 1 Johni. 7: TO ailiu 'lyjffou TOW utov ailTou xaixpi^u fifiias aoro icxii9\s .u/Aaprias (mSS.
authority is against the reading of the Textus Receptus : to xT/tx 'Imou Xpifrov).
Some have interpreted this passage to signify the cleansing wrought by baptism;
but the use of the present tense is sufficient refutation : the act to which John
refers is going on synchronously with the walking in the light, the act is
a continuous one. The allusion is not difficult to decipher. THaSxpi^oi is the
Hellenistic equivalent for taher or tiher, the legal technicalities for the rites of
purification. * 1 John ii. 2, and iv. 10 ; xxi xbrog ikxruos ivn irspi tojv xfixpnuy hf-uy ; and

WOEK OF CHEIST AS SACRIFICIAL. 283
not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His
Son to be an atonement for our sins." It is but another
expression for the same thought when the apostle repeats the
words of John the Baptist, and says that Christ " was mani
fested that He might take away our sins by one great act." ^
The sacrfficial ceremonies of purification and atonement also
afford a clue to the significance of the singular passage which
has so exercised the ingenuity of the commentators in all
ages: "This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus
Christ." ^
Valuable materials for the proof of our present proposition
are also to be gleaned from those battle-fields of New Testa
ment interpretation, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book
of the Eevelation. From the Epistle to the Hebrews, the aim
of which is to discover the analogies between the religions of
the old and new covenants, the difficulty is to select. The
words " blood " ' and " high priest " * are perpetuaUy recurring;
they are the theme and refrain of this great didactic poem.
Without entering upon the mtricate argument of the Epistle,
it may be said without fear of contradiction, that Jesus is
described throughout as the antitypical high priest, who has
obtamed eternal redemption not by the blood of bulls and
goats, or any insufficient and sacramentally efficacious offering,
but by the gift once for all of His own precious Ufe : " For
Christ having appeared, a high priest of the good thmgs to
come, through the greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not
made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet
through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own
blood, entered once for aU into the Holy Place, and obtained
eternal redemption for us."° So in the Book of the Eevelation
xxt xviffTiiXtv Toy V4oy xvtou IXxtrfioy ^tpi tuv XfJixpriuy iifjiuy. ^IXxffcSs is the im
portant word. It does not often occur in the LXX., but in one place it is the
synonym of asham or trespass-offering, in another of chattath or sin-offering, in
another of kippurim or atonement, and in two others of selichah or remuneration.
Waffios is the verbal substantive of Ixxu, and is thus nearly related to Ixxirxofixi
and iliXxo/ixi, the Hellenistic equivalents of kipper. See Appendix I.
* 1 John Ui. 5 : 'Ivx txs xftxpTixs xpri. The aorist is emphatic.
2 1 John V. 6. 3 Heb. ix. 11-14, 26, x. 5-10, 11-14, xii. 24, xiii. 10.
• Heb. u. 17, iu. 1, iv. 14, vi. 20, vu. 16, vii. 24-28.
s Heb. ix. 11, 12.

284 THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE
it is the sacrificial Lamb that occupies the prominent place.
When the first gUmpse is caught through the open door of
the heavenly throne, encircled by its emerald rainbow, from
(Jut of which came lightnings and thunderings and voices, and
before which rolled the sea of glass, lo ! in the midst of the
mysterious assembly stands the Lamb as it had been slain,
and the song of creation, "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God
Almighty," changes into the song of redemption, " Worthy is
the Lamb that was slain." ^ This same sacrificial Lamb is the
centre of that antitypical Feast of Tabernacles, where all
nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues, clothed in
white robes and with palms in their hands, cry salvation to
our God and unto the Lamb.^ It is " the blood of the Lamb"
that overcomes the accuser.* It is the " Lamb " that over-
cometh in the gigantic struggles with the powers of this
world.* It is the " Lamb " that is the bridegroom of the
white-robed church.® It is the " Lamb " whose throne eternally
shines in the New Heaven.*
Gathering, therefore, into one the threads of the several
phases of New Testament teaching which have been reviewed
in this chapter, it may be said that the entrance of Christ
upon His pubUc ministry was heralded by a distinct announce
ment by the Baptist that His work would be in some sense
sacrificial ; then, that Christ Himself did not shrink from
making the same claim for His life and death ; and further,
that, having regard to the apostoUc testimonies, as far as they
have been preserved in the New Testament, not only do those
of the apostles whose bent lay towards Old Testament methods
of presenting truth, but that even Paul and John, who dwell
more emphaticaUy upon the differences than the agreements
between Judaism and Christianity, exhibit distinctly a sacri
ficial aspect of the works of Christ ; that, in fact, not only
portions, but the whole New Testament — ^not only the New
Testament teaching, but any type of that teaching — must be
cast aside unless it be accepted that the work of Christ was
in some sense or other rega.rded as a sacrffice. As was said
by Archbishop Magee : " They who would reject the notion of
^ Rev. iv. and v. ' Eev. vii. 9. ' Rev. xii. 11.
* Eev. xvU. 14. ' Eev. xix. 7-9. ' Rev. xxii. 1-3.

WOEK OF CHRIST AS SACRIFICIAL. 285
Christ's death as a true and real sacrffice for sin, must refine
away the natural and direct meaning of (many New Testa
ment) passages ; or, in other words, they must new model the
entire tenor of Scripture language before they can accompUsh
their point." ^
' Discourses on Sacrifice and Atonement, Dissert, xxvii. Even Warburton,
with aU his rationalizing tendencies. The Divine Legation of Moses, Book IX.
cap. ii., said : " One could hardly have thought it possible that any man who
had read the Gospels with their best interpreters, the authors of the Epistles,
should ever have entertained a doubt whether the death of Christ was a real
sacrifice."

CHAPTER III.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF THE
WOEK OF CHEIST.
"Jesus, c'est-k-dire Sauveur . . . Comment est-il Sauveur? Par son sang.
. . . Vous qui vous etes scandalises autrefois de voir couler le sang de mon
maitre, vous qui avez cru que sa mort violente etait une marque de son impuis-
sance, ah ! que vous entendez pen ses mystferes ! La croix de mon roi, c'est sou
tr8ne ; la croix de mon pontife, c'est son autel. Cette chair dechiree, c'est la force
et la vertu de mon roi ; cette raSme chair dechiree, c'est la victime de mon
pontife. Le sang de mon roi, c'est son pourpre ; le sang de mon pontife, c'est
sa consecration. Mon roi est installe, mon pontife est consacre par son sang ; et
c'est par ce moyen qu'il est le veritable Jesus, I'unique Sauveur des hommes." —
BossuET, Premier Sermon pour la FHe de la Circondsion.
AS the result of the inquiry just concluded, it has been
seen that the New Testament substantiates the pro
position that the work of Christ was in some sense a sacrifice.
There is the precedent of the entire New Testament for saying
that, in some way as yet unexplained, the same language was
appUcable to the work of Christ as to the prescribed offerings
of the Jewish dispensation. The great question now is as to
the nature of this resemblance in diversity, this common
element in things apparently irreconcilable. What constituted
the work of Christ a sacrifice ? The only course is to define
terms, which may be done in two ways, by defining either
subject or predicate. If we would know what the Scriptures
imply when they describe the work of Christ as sacrificial, the
required knowledge woiUd be obtained if we were aware either
of what the Scriptures assert to be the work of Christ, or of
what the Scriptures regard as the equivalent sacrffice to the
work of Christ. The latter course is ineUgible. The whole
of the preceding book has been occupied with the signfficance
of Old Testament sacrifice, and the most prominent results
attained have been, in the first place, quite a catalogue of

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF THE WORK OF CHEIST. 287
diverse sacrffices ; and, in the second place, the conviction that
these diverse sacrffices, all the Patriarchal and Mosaic sacrifices
of whatever kind, were but shadows of completer offerings
which the future would reveal. With«aU the reUgious know
ledge imparted by the sacrificial prescriptions of the Old
Testament, with all the consolatory eloquence of the central
doctrine of Sacrfficial Atonement, there was blended, as we
have seen, so much of mystery and uninterpreted prophecy
that these types and figures can scarcely be expected to afford
the requisite cleamess of reply. Manifestly, therefore, if we
would know the meaning of the sacrifice of Jesus, turning
from the inadequate portrayals of the past, that work itself of
the Eedeemer must be discussed. An answer is desiderated
to the question. What do the writers of the New Testament
teach with respect to that work of the Lord Jesus which they
designate sacrfficial ?
In accordance with the method everywhere pursued in this
inquiry, a reply wUl be sought, first, by an exammation of the
several apostolic types of teaching ; and, secondly, by a com-
bmation of those types, as far as is practicable, into a mutually
corroborative whole. Be it noted, however, that, in our analysis
of the doctrinal statements of the several writers of the New
Testament, we have not to do with the logical and connected
statement of the entire doctrinal system of any apostle ; ^ we
have not even to debate whether any such system can be
reconstructed at the present day from the extant materials.
Further, we have not to do with the individuaUty, the psycho
logical bent and bearing, displayed by the apostles, influ
ence though it undoubtedly must their doctrmal systems.
We have not to determine' whether their style was classical or
conversational, urban or provmcial ; the direct sententiousness
1 The reader who is curious upon this matter of apostoUc doctrinal systems,
may refer with advantage to the foUowing works : upon the doctrinal system
of Peter, to Weiss, Lehrbuch der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855 ; on that of John,
to Frommann, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinem VerhdUnisse zur gesamm-
ten biblisch - christlichen Lehre, 1839 ; and on Paul, to the second volume of
Reuss, Histoire de la Thiologie ChrUienne, 3d ed. 1864 (Eng. Trans, by Annie
Harwood, and edited by R. W. Dale, 1874), where, the views of the author being
much less tinged than usual with " critical " prepossessions, a valuable mono
graph wUl be found.

288 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE
of James, the fervid admonitions and consolatory experience
of Peter, the emotional and logical vivacity, the interpretative
self-portraiture of Paul, and the unruffled repose of John, are
equaUy beside our mvestigation. Our occupation is to classify
isolated thoughts and single turns of expression, so as to
deduce the apostolic trains of thought upon the subject before
us. It wUl be convenient if in this chapter we deal with the
apostoUc doctrine of the work of Christ in aU its generaUty,
and treat subsequently of that smaUer portion of the work of
Christ which is especially designated sacrfficial The reader
wUl see in the course of a few pages that this seeming digres
sion is necessary to the completeness of the investigation.
It is the characteristic of the Petrine teachmg upon the work
of Christ, that it touches more especiaUy upon the nature and
effects of that work. The order of thought in Peter's mind
may be gathered from his First Epistle. The Christian Ufe is
a salvation, crcoTTjpia. Christ had been foreordamed before
the foundation of the world to obtain salvation for those who
were foreknown as believers upon Him.^ Of this salvation
the prophets were aware by the revelations made by the
Spirit concerning a suffering Messiah ; but their knowledge
had not, however, passed into experience.^ Nevertheless,
experimental knowledge is the privilege of aU who, in these
last times of divine revelation, beUeve.' If the question
is asked, what this salvation is, the reply comes, that it
is a salvation already revealed,* and a salvation ready to
be revealed.^ Of the salvation already revealed, Peter men
tions two sides, — death to sin, and life to righteousness
(otherwise expressed in reverse order as the " obedience and
sprinklmg of the blood of Jesus "), meaning thereby the for
giveness of sins since Jesus has borne them,^ and the abUity
to live a holy life.^ Because of the one side, it may be said
that, although in times past mercy had not been obtained, and
the sinner had been confounded,* now, as by the blood of
1 1 Pet. i. 2, 5, 9, comp. i. 20. = 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. = 1 Pet. i. 12, 21.
* 1 Pet. i. 9. Alford would make the salvation spoken of here something
hereafter, "the great inclusive description of future blessedness." But the
Epistle abundantly shows that salvation in Peter's view was something commenced
here to be completed hereafter.
' 1 Pet. i. 5, 13. » 1 Pet. u. 24. ' 1 Pet. u. 24. « j pet. y. g.

:• OF THE WORK OF CHEIST. ' 289
a lamb without blemish and without spot, mercy had been
obtained.^ In consequence of the other side, it is now no
longer impossible to obey the divine command to " be holy ; " *
nor is it any longer a divine accommodation to speak, in the
terms of the original covenant, of a holy priesthood, acceptable
sacrifice, and a peculiar people.' The salvation ready to be
revealed, which in Peter's view is the complete attainment of
the salvation partly experienced in this present life, is some
times called glory, — " the amaranthine wreath of glory ; " * it
is an inheritance incorruptible ; it is the state of angels and
of the risen Lord.
Thus far we have been deaUng with the effects of Christ's
work as deducible from the First Epistle. But Peter also
speaks, albeit with more brevity, of the nature of that work
which has accomplished salvation. That work was associated
with the eternal foreknowledge of God the Father ; ° it was
conditioned by the sinlessness of Christ ; * it was a work of
suffering ; ' those sufferings culminated in a death of the
nature of a vicarious endurance of the sins of the unjust;*
to that death succeeded a quickening of the spirit and a con
sequent resurrection to power, and glory, and dominion over
angels, authorities, and powers.' Peter even sUghtly alludes
to the necessity of the work of Christ arising from the " much
mercy of God " ^^ and that faUen state of man, who, living in
darkness,^^ ignorantly followed his own lusts, and was subject
unto death,^^
The same doctrinal conceptions underlie the Second Epistle,
although, as might be anticipated from its exclusively hortatory
aim, — the Second Epistle is admonitory and hortatory, not
hortatory and doctrinaUy iUustrative, like the first, — they are
nowhere so fuUy expounded. Nevertheless, we read in the
Second Epistle of the necessity for the work of Christ which
lay in the corruption that is in the world, as is instanced by
lust,'' that corruption being expanded and dilated upon in a
1 1 Pet. i. 19. ' 1 Pet. i. 16. ' 1 Pet. u. 5.
* 1 Pet. V. 4. 5 1 Pet. i. 2. « 1 Pet. ii. 22, iu. 18.
'^ 1 Pet. i. 11, ii. 21, iu. 18, iv. 1, v. 1. » 1 Pet. u. 24, iii. 18.
• 1 Pet. i. 3, 21, iu. 21, 22. " 1 Pet. i. 3. " 1 Pet. u. 9.
" 1 Pet. i. 14, 24, ii. 11, iv. 2. " 2 Pet. i. 4.
T

290 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE
passage -^ which, as a description of human depravity, is only
paraUeled "by the first and third chapters of the Epistle to the
iRomans, Thus, the effects of Christ's work are described as
" purification from former sins," ^ " escape from the miasmas of
the world," ' and as " entrance into the everlasting kingdom of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; " * whilst the source of this
godly Ufe and hope is stated to be " the knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ," ^ and that divine power of Christ *
which enables us to be partakers of the divine nature,^
SubstantiaUy the same conceptions of the nature and
effects of the work of Christ pervade, under many forms of
expression, the more numerous Epistles of Paul ; but, whUst
Paul nowhere exceeds or more lucidly represents the soterio-
logic aspects of Christ's work, his writings afford a more
detaUed account of the theologie, and especiaUy the anthropo
logic, aspects of that work, and hence bring into greater
prominence the necessity for the work of Christ,
That necessity is declared by Paul to have had a triple
origin, — in the attributes of the Father, in the attributes of the
Son, and in the attributes of fallen man. The necessity, as
regards the divine nature, lay in the allaying the divine anger,
or wrath, or displeasure — that is to say, the divine righteous
ness developing itself as punishment for wrongdoing — aroused
by human sin, and in the averting the consequences of that
wrath, such consequences as " condemnation," the righteous
judgment of God for a time restrained from its fury to be
presently loosed with treasured force in indignation, in woe,
in anguish, in flaming fire at the day of revelation.* Then;
according to Paul, a further divine necessity for the work
of Christ lay in that " love " ^ of God towards us, which is
manifested in His grace.-"* The necessity in the attributes of
Christ is but cursorUy mentioned as His obedience." But the
apostle is very fuU in treating of the anthropologic necessity
' 2 Pet. ii. 10-22. ^ 2 Pet. i. 9. '2 Pet. u. 20. * 2 Pet. i. 11.
^ 2 Pet. i. 2 : 'friyyuns — cognitio maturior, exactior — the more exact and
complete knowledge of Christ.
« 2 Pet. i. 16. 7 2 Pet. i. 4.
8 Rom. i. 17, u. 3, 7, 8, v. 16, 18 ; Col. iii. 6 ; 2 Thess. i. 8, 9, 10.
9 Rom. V. 7, vui. 39 ; Eph. ii, 4,
" Rom. iii;- 24, iv. 16, v. 20, 21 ; Eph. ii. 5, 8. . " Eom. v. 19. .

OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. 291
for Christ's work. He sees a fertile source of evU and pain
in the sin of rnan, which only such a power as that of Christ's
can remove. Sin has a great crippling power ; it renders our
race powerless for good;^ it generates a weakness to obey
law ;^ it arouses a gigantic opposition between the ideal and
real, since the sinner may know the right and choose the
right, and yet be incapable of performing what he wills.'
Darkness, unrighteousness, are the inevitable results.* Nor
are the effects of sin appreciable in the inner realms of
volition simply: the entire nature is tainted by it;° sin
engenders impurity, lawlessness, concupiscence, even bestiality;*
it forges the fetters of . a bondage to the elements of the
world,^ — nay, in a word, it superinduces death,* mortaUty
that is, and something more, misery, degradation, servility,
moral impotence, eternal destruction.' A natural consequence,
therefore, of sin is a mutual alienation of man from God,'" and
of God from man.-'^ Nor is the catalogue of iUs which must
be removed, if man is ever to be restored, even yet complete.
Man not only suffers from the effects of sin unconsciously,
but consciously ; a part of the sinner's lot is consciousness of
sin; sometimes such a sense is a prompting of conscience,
sometimes of the Law ; ^^ the soul knows itseU to be without
God in the world ; '' and ever and anon the consciousness of
an awful punishment arouses despair.^*
The nature of that work of Christ which is to change aU
this, and paint the ground colour of a brighter picture, is thus
described by Paul. That work was the historical fulfilment
of the eternal purpose of God " not to spare His own Son, but
to deliver Him up for us all."'® It was further conditioned by
the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was both divine and human ;
' Eom. V. 6. " Eom. viii. 3.
3 Rom. vii. 18, 19. * Rom. i. 18, 21 ; Eph. iv. 18.
" Eom. vu. 18 ; Eph. iv. 22 ; Col. ui. 5.
6 Rom. vi. 19, vii. 17 ; Eph. iv. 19 ; 1 Thess. iv. 5.
' Gal. iv. 3 ; Eph. ii. 2, 3.
8 Rom. V. 17, vi. 16, 23, vU. 10, vui. 6,. 12 ; Eph. ii. 2 ; CoL u. 13.
9 Rom. i. 24, 28, ii. 12, 16, vi. 16, vii. 14, 19, 24, viu. 10.
" Eom. viu. 7 ; Eph. iv. 18. " Rom. viu. 8. " Eom. u. 12, 15, iii. 20.
13 Eph. u. 12. " Eph. u. 3 ; Eom. i. 32, u. 3, iu. 19.
" Eph. iu. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14; Titus i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 9, 10. Comp. 1 Thess.
V. 9; 1 Cor. ii. 7.

292 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE
for if, on the one side, the apostle speaks of the birth
" according to the seed of David," he speaks of His being in
an especial sense " God's own Son;"^ if he brings before us the
bodily resemblance to sinful humanity, he as clearly states
that He had humbled Himself from the form of God ; ^- if He
was " born of a woman,'' He was also " the image of the
invisible God, the first-born of all creation, because in Him
the universe was created, things in the heavens and things in
the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones,
dominions, principalities, or powers, the whole universe has
been created for Him and by Him, and He is before aU things,
and by Him the universe subsists." ' Then, as prominent
elements in the work itself, the apostle mentions our Lord's
sinlessness,* His vicarious death,® and His glorious resurrection,®
the main feature being the vicarious death " for us," " for our
sins," " for ungodly men," "for all." It is indubitable that
Paul regarded the work of Christ as centred in the crucifixion,
when He, who was God m human form and sinless, submitted
to death on behalf of sinful man.
Then, accordmg to the thought of the apostle, great effects
were wrought by this merciful work of Christ, both in heaven
and on earth. By the work of Christ, God is at once just
and the justifier of men •}' He is the Saviour of aU men* — ^yea,
a Father.' His eternal power may now uninterruptedly flow.
He can raise His Son from the dead. He can exalt Him, He
can Himself become the Deliverer of man from the dispiriting
opposition between the flesh and the spirit."" Indeed, the
foreknowledge of this work of the Lord had prompted the
predestination of man to be conformed to the image of His
Son ;^^ and, in actual fact, the Lord God Almighty becomes the
source to mankind of wisdom and righteousness, sanctification
and redemption.^^ Man can now be reconciled to Himself ;^' he
' Rom. i. 4, comp. viii. 3, xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 19, xi. 31; GaL iv. 4.
" Eom. viu. 3. Comp. Phil. ii. 6, 7; Eph. u. 8; Col. i. 21, 22.
' Gal. iv. 4. Comp. Col. i. 15-17. ^ 2 Cor. v. 20; Rom. v. 19.
' Eom. V. 6, 8; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2 Cor. v. 14; 1 Thess. v. 10.
" Eom. viu. 11 ; Col. u. 12 ; 1 Thess. i. 10 ; 2 Tim. u. 8.
7 Eom. iu. 26, viu. 34. » 1 Tim. iv. 10; Titus iu. 4.
« 2 Cor. vi. 18. '» Eom. vii. 25. " Eom. vui. 29; Eph. i. 3, 4, 5, 11.
" 1 Cor. i. 30. " 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

OF THE WOEK OF CHRIST. 293'
can be delivered from the grave ;^ he can be blessed with the
gift of everlasting consolation, a good hope through grace ; *
the believer can receive aU things.' The work of Christ also
redounded to His personal glory. A life unto God is the Ufe
of the risen Jesus,* a life of intercession at God's right hand.®
He has " made peace."® By His holy life He has condemned
sin in the flesh,' and become the Judge of the quick and the
dead.* It is His to bestow the gift of His Spirit ' — the grace
of God.^" He is the agent in the deUverance of man from the
paralyzing conflicts between the higher and lower natures.^^
He, indeed, is the channel, if the Father is the source, of
wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption.'*
Henceforth it is His to impart " unsearchable riches." ^' But
again it is on the anthropologic side that Paul is fuUest ; he
describes at considerable length the effects wrought upon man
by the work of the Lord Jesus. For the believer, punishment
is no more ; sin is no more imputed ; there is now no con
demnation ; man is- justified ; by one deed and at one time
man has been freed from the law of sin and death ; salvation
has been granted from " the wrath," present or to come." The
very consciousness of sin is aUayed in the human heart ; for
has not the sinner peace with God, reconciliation, justification,
forgiveness of sins ? ^® Is he not redeemed from the curse of
the Law ? ^® Further, the apostle describes how, that the
deUverance inay be complete, to the rest of conscience there is
added strength of character, and glories in the gospel that the
power as well as the guilt of sin is removed ; thus, the soul
that is forgiven is spirituaUy quickened,^' there is a newness
of life,'* a service in newness of the Spirit," a life in the Spirit.^"
This life in the Spirit is a death to sin,'^ a slaying of the
deeds of the body.** Other inevitable consequences are sancti-
1 1 Cor. XV. 57. ' 2 Thess. ii. 16. ' Rom. viu. 32. * Eom. vi. 10.
» Rom. viu. 33. « Col. i. 20. ^ Rom. viU. 3. * 2 Tim. iv. 1.
3 Rom. viii. 11. '» 1 Cor. i. 4. " Rom. vii. 25. " 1 Cor. i. 30.
" Eph. iii. 8.
" Rom. iu. 28, iv. 8, 27, v. 9, v. 18, vui. 1, 2. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 10.
i» Eom. V. 1; PhiL iv. 7; Rom. v. 1, 11, 19; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. ii. 16; Col. i. 4.
•« Gal. iii. 13. i' Rom. viu. 11; Eph. u. 5; CoL u. 13.
18 Eom. vi 4; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10.
19 Rom. vu. 6 ; Titus iu. 5. '° Gal. v. 25.
»i Eom. vi. 2; GaL u. 20; Col. u. 20, ui. 3. " Bom. viii. 13.

2^94 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE
fication,^ life and peace,* a preservation blameless,' righteous
ness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,* a manifestation
of the life of Jesus.® So also it may be said that this new
life is a life with Christ, in which the entire man, being fUled
with aU the fulness of God, becom.es a very temple of God.®
Nor are the blessings of salvation exhausted by the forgiveness
of sins, the quieting of conscience, and a renewal of life ; the
apostle also speaks of a present hope and a future reaUzation
of the glory of God.' As a free gift the believer shaU have a
life eternal,* and shaU participate in Christ's glory ;® he is, in
fact, already sealed unto the day of redemption:-"' for every
beUever there shall be a resurrection from the dead,^^ and a
reign in life.^*
Before passing on to the Johannine views upon the matter
in hand, a glance may be profitably cast at the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Its conceptions upon the work of Christ are
essentiaUy Pauline. It was by " the grace of God " that
Jesus tasted death for every man ;^' and that death received its
vaUdity and power, on the one hand, because the historical
Jesus was the Son of the Most High — the very radiance of
the divine glory and the impress of the divine character ;^* and,
on the other hand, because He had suffered,'® was sinless
throughout,^® and had become perfect through sufferings." Then
the effects said to be wrought by this suffering and death are,
first, that He is Himself crowned with glory and honour,^* has
passed into the heaven," and become the High Priest who ever
liveth to make intercession,*" — that, in fact. He is the author and
the fimsher of our faith ;*^ and, secondly, since He has wrought
reconcUiation for sins,** the believer can receive eternal salva
tion — salvation to the uttermost,*' that is to say, sanctification
in this Ufe** and entrance into rest in the life to come.*® The
1 Eom. vi. 12. 2 Rom. viU. 6. ' 1 Thess. v. 23.
* Eom. xiv. 17. ^ 2 Cor. iv. 10.
6 Eom. vi. 8; GaL u. 20; Col. iu. 3; Eph. ui. 19; 1 Cor. iu. 17, vi. 19.
' Eom. V. 2; Col. i. 27, iu. 4. 8 Rom. v. 20, vi. 23.
» Eom. viii. 18; Col. i. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 14. " Eph. iv. 30.
" 1 Cor. XV. 12-23, 57 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; PhU. iu. 21.
12 Eom. V. 17; Eph. u. 6. " Heb. u. 9. " Heb. i. 3.
'5 Heb. ui. 17. " Heb. iv. 15. "¦ Heb. ii. 10. is Heb. u. 9, xu. 2.
'» Heb. iv. 14. 2' Heb. vii. 25. " Heb. xii. 2. "^ Heb. u. 17:
=3 Heb. V. 29, vii. 25. =* Heb. x. 14. ?* Heb. iv. 8-10.

OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. " 295
opening chapter of the Epistle to' the Hebrews becomes, by its
Christologie sentiments, a transition to the teaching of John.
Turning to the Johannine exposition of the work of
Christ, it is evident that whilst the exposition exhibits the
same general substratum of doctrine as that which underlies
the writings of Peter and Paul, it was also the privUege of
John to bring into more especial prominence one feature of
Christ's work which is but cursorUy aUuded to by the other
New Testament writers. As Peter dwelt more emphatically
upon the soteriologic aspect, and Paul upon the anthropologic
aspect, John unfolded with greatest cleamess and detail the
Christologie side of Christ's work. The Johannine cast of
thought may be gained with tolerable precision from the First
Epistle of John, and the several elucidatory remarks of his
Gospel, especially its introduction. In the necessity for the
work of Christ, John, like Paul, sees a human and a divine
side; this human necessity lying in the "unrighteousness"'
and consequent " darkness "* in which man was sunk, and
in that love of the world — that lust of the flesh and of
the eyes' — in whieh he was absorbed ; this divine necessity
consisting in the " holiness,"* and especially the "love,"® of God.
The nature of Christ's work John describes as being seen, in
the historical manifestation of Christ, in His sinless ® bearing
of the curse of human sin ' by submitting to the punishment
of death,* thus becoming the atonement for the sins of the
whole world.' Of the effects of the work of Christ, John
speaks generally as the imparting of " life,'"" or the restoration
to the privileges of the Divine Fatherhood ; ^' and, more speci
fically, as consisting, in the first place, of forgiveness of sins, and
therefore of boldness in the day of judgment ;^* and, in the
second place, of a cleansing from aU unrighteousness by an
unction from the Holy One," this purification showmg itself
throughout the range of Christian morality, but especiaUy in
the absence of " hate " and the presence of " love;" and, in the
' 1 John i. 9. 2 1 John i. 17. 3 1 John u. 15-17.
* 1 John i. 5. * 1 John iu. 1, iv. 9, 16. " 1 John u. 1, 29, ui. 5»
7 1 John iu. 16. « 1 John iu. 16. ' 1 John u. 2.
10 1 John V. 12. " 1 John iu. 1,7. 1^ 1 John iv. 17.
13 1 John U. 10.

296 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE
third ¦ place, of " eternal life," the " not being ashamed at His
coming,'" the "being like Him," the " seeing Him as He is." ?
But John does not dwell simply upon the work of Christ
during His earthly ministry, nor does he rest content with
a statement such as Peter's concerning the pre-existence of
Christ ; he adds an important element to our doctrinal con
ception of the scheme of salvation, by expounding at some
length the status of the pre-existent Christ, and the peculiar
efficacy thus attached to any atoning work He might under
take. This necessary complement to the previously cited types
of doctrine is the doctrine of the Logos. According to John,
He who enables believers upon His name to become sons of
God is the Word, Who is God, Who was in the beginning with
God, Who was Creator of all things. Who possessed Ufe in Him
self and was the source of all light. Who became flesh. Who
diffused His gracious and true glory. Who displayed eternal
life. Who declared Himself to the apostles that they might
declare through Him fellowship with the Father, Who has now
returned to the bosom of the Father.' By this clear and
consistent teaching of the divinity of Jesus, the apostolic
testimony to the work of Christ was made complete. Needs
it be stated that the " Alpha and Omega " of the Eevelation
finds its paraUel only in the advanced doctrine of the Epistle
and Gospel of John ?
It is scarcely necessary to add, that all the doctrinal fea
tures of these several types are found in the discourses of our
Lord Himself. Who amongst the apostles dwelt so fully, by
word and act, upon the necessity for intervention which lay
in the justice and love of the Father ? Who spoke so forcibly
as He upon that necessity which lay in the sinful condition
of man ? Who revealed so plainly the nature of that salva
tion which He Himself wrought, at once the eternal Son of
the Father and the suffering Son of Mary. Who told like
Himself, even so early in the pubUc ministry as the conversa
tion with Nicodemus, the wonders which His death should
effect ? AVho so beautifuUy exhibited those present results
of His work, to be seen in regained peace of mind and restored
sonship, or those future results which would be experienced
1 1 John iu. 2. " 1 John iu. 2. ' John i. 1-19; 1 John i. 1, 18.

OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. 297
when the soul had reached the " many mansions " ? In the
parables of Jesus, in His esoteric and exoteric conversations,
every element may be found of that teaching which after
wards became popularized by the labours and writings of the
apostles. It will have become evident to any attentive and critical
reader of the preceding analyses, that the New Testament
does not afford diverse answers to the question concerning the
work of Christ, although those answers are stamped with an
individuality which renders them different. The several types
of New Testament teaching supplement, but do not supplant
each other. It now becomes our duty to rise to a higher
stage of generalization, and place in one consistent and inter
dependent view the several apostolic testimonies just eUcited.
The apostoUc doctrine concerning the work of Christ,
generally considered, divides itself into three parts, — viz., the
doctrine concerning the necessity, and the nature, and the effects
of that work.
The necessity for the work of Christ is first seen in time at
the fall of man. When Adam ceased to render his sacrifice
of obedience, the relations between himself and his Maker
changed, change appearing in the action of the Father, in the
action of the Son, and in the nature and action of man.
One part of the necessity for the work of Christ, as stated
in the New Testament, lay in the attributes of the eternal
God. God was righteous ; and the righteousness which
showed itself to man unfaUen as feUowship, upon faUen man
displayed itself as " wrath." This " wrath " worked passively
by distance, and actively by punishment. The Euler of all
must be holy. If He be not holy. He is not God. Justifier
He may be of the transgressor in His mercy; just He must
be even in his justifying. The closing of Eden speaks of the
divine withdrawal from fellowship with sin ; the punishments
which had befaUen and still threatened the human mce speak
also of the vindicative (not the vindictive) anger of the aU-
righteous One ; and more sure and more terrible than aU, the
mysterious decree of death, suggestive of we know not what
evU, impended ever as the divine sentence upon sin. " Holy,

298. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE
Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty " is the silent doxology of
every fact that speaks to man by divine ordinance of his
altered state. But God is love : love is the very essence of
the divine character ; all love and righteousness before, God
is all love and righteousness stUl, notwithstanding that His
righteousness is a righteous indignation. As great a necessity
for the work of Christ lay therefore — so the New Testament
asserts — in the divine love as in the divine vn-ath. Nor is
there any contradiction in this, except we adopt inapplicable
human analogies. Instinctive human love, carrying evidence
of its unlioliness in its desire for unconditional forgiveness,
can never help us to understand the cross of Christ. Holy
love knows nothing of unconditional forgiveness ; its great
concern is to harmonize the rival claims of right and incUna-
tion. God is holy; God is love. In these two scriptural
statements lies the necessity for the work of Christ ; for if
God be love. His love caUs for some means of pardoning
man ; and if God be holy, that means cannot be unconditional
forgiveness. To uphold the divine righteousness, and at the
same time to remove the difficulties which restrain the exer
cise of the divine love : this is the problem introduced by the
faU. Another part of the necessity for the work of Christ recog
nised by the New Testament, lay in the faUen nature of man,
or, more precisely, in the conscious and unconscious effects of
sin. By the primary act of disobedience, the current of
divine influence, which had ceaselessly flowed from God from
the hour of creation, was stopped ; the balance of the human
faculties, so exquisitely made and so deUcately adjusted, was
disturbed ; and he, who was before half God and half animal,
gravitated beyond all power of righting himseK. With oscil
lation came disorder and unrest. This loss of balance was
the fertile root of all those diseases, physical and psychical,
which culminated in death. Life had become, in fact, a living
death. The mysterious act of generation was also impUcated,
the perturbations of the parents being transmitted to their
children. Not that the original likeness to God was entirely
obUterated ; for, in the sense of right and in the consciousness
of God, traces remained of the primeval experiences. Yet

OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. 2'99
these very relics of the feUcitous past brought their discom
forts, since, in the first place, they made Ufe a wearing confiict
between intention and action, the ideal and the real ; and, in
the second place, the primary causes of evil persisting, they
themselves tended to fade from the spirit Uke some beautiful
poem forgotten in drowsiness. Faeilis descensus Averni, —
one glides vrith the stream without effort. The wUl of man
feU in with the course he was almost imperceptibly foUowing,
and unconscious error became conscious sin. Then, ever and
anon, the sense of merited punishment for wrongdoing arose
from the depths of the spirit prompting despair, and, with
the loss of self-respect, further sin. If man was ever to be
restored from the blinding and corrupting effects of sin, if he
was ever to be delivered from the oppressive dictates of his
conscience, some method must be discovered by which the
painful consequences of the past could be neutralized, the
lost balance restored, the voluntary choice of good ensured,
and, as a preUminary to aU, the dead or deadening conscience
aroused and tranquillized. AU would be easy if the power
which created could revive, if the voice which condemned
could reprieve.
A further part of the necessity for the work of Christ,
according to the New Testament, lay in the nature of the
eternal Word. He it was who had crowned the glorious
edifice of creation by forming man in His own image, and by
the first act of disobedience and its inevitable world-wide
renewals the divine image had become defaced. To deface
constantly was to efface. God's grandest work on earth
stood like a vacated temple, or a dead genius. It was not
alone that man had transferred his aUegiance ; the transfer
involved certain retrogression. If the work of divine revela
tion which was the office of the Word, if the expression of the
innermost thought' of the Father, was to be effected without a
flaw, some great regenerative process must be undertaken.
Further, adequate expression must be given to the hoUness
and the love of the Father.
How all these antinomies, introduced by sin, have been
reconciled, — how the divine righteousness is silenced and satis
fied, how the divine love is enabled once more to flow freely.

300 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE
how man is forgiven, how the old Adam is slain and the new
implanted, how the Son becomes again the channel of a new
birth and a more glorious creation, — all these things are
apparent as we further proceed to study the New Testament
statements as to the nature of the work of Christ. Let it be
remarked that we are not concerned with the eternal purposes
of God, but with the unfolding of those purposes in time.
The New Testament assures us that the Divine Father, foresee
ing before , all worlds the fall of man, foresaw and prearranged
a method of redemption by the Son; and that God the Son,
knowing before all worlds the purpose of the loving Father,
rendered a cheerful acquiescence : it is with that acquiescence
as revealed to man in the realm of the successive, not as
apprehended by the eternal mind of God, that we have to do.
The New Testament describes the work of Christ as two
fold, — the obtaining forgiveness for human sin by His death,
and the implanting a new principle of life in the believer by
His risen life. It is not alone that Christ proclaims for
giveness. He achieves it ; it is not alone that He calls to a
higher life. He makes that life possible by the gift of His
personal energy. The death of Jesus and His risen Ufe are
the two prominent facts upon which stress is laid, and which
compose the Gospel. When, for example, the Scriptures
assert that " Christ tasted death for every man," " gave
Himself for our sins," " died for aU," they draw attention
to one aspect of our Lord's work — that which achieved for
giveness of sins ; w^hen they speak of a " new birth," " old
things passing away, and all things becoming new," "the
resurrection in newness of life," they employ as an appeal
another aspect of that work. To forgive was not to save :
the salvation of man was effected by the implanting in the
believer a new principle of Ufe, under the influence of which
the latent spiritual faculties blossomed and fructified, and a
greater advance was made than from childhood, with its
chUdish pains and pleasures, to the occupations and delights
of manhood. By that work of Christ which rendered possible
the forgiveness of sins, that filrther work of Christ which con
sisted in the restoration of man became possible.
The effects of this justifying and sanctifying work of Christ,

OF THE WOEK OF CHRIST; 301
according to the New Testament, is the removal of the con
sequences of sin. If the New Testament teaches that sin had
its inseparable consequences upon God and Christ and man,
it as distinctly teaches that aU these consequences have been,
or are being, neutralized by the work of Jesus.
Thus, it is the burden of the New Testament, and more
especially of the teaching of Paul, that Jesus has harmonized
the opponent attributes of the Father. The divine love and
the divine righteousness can now have free play. Love can
assist, suggest, deliver, and righteousness remain intact ; right
eousness may have its claims satisfied, and make no breach in
love. The restraint which sin had placed upon ineffable
grace has been withdrawn ; the transformation which sin had
wrought upon the divine holiness, making it burst forth in
"wrath," has been retransformed ; now the paradisaic state
may be restored, and, forgiveness being granted by the free
grace of God through the deed of His Son, spiritual convales
cence may take place without obstruction by the ceaseless flow
of His recuperative Spirit.
So also it is the good news of the New Testament that all
those consequences which sin has evoked in humanity at large
are being paUiated by the work of Christ. The two great
restorative agents — the sense of forgiveness, and the access
of new life — may be imparted, and man may be redeemed as
weU as reprieved. The assurance of faith is now the lot of
the beUever, and that assurance, amidst its many blessed sug
gestions, may be ever eloquent of the favour of the Almighty
and the ceaseless exertion of His energy in renewaL To the
rest of justification and the change of sanctification succeed
the joy of adoption and the hope of glory. By the work of
Christ every believer is permitted to live in the consciousness
of reunion with the Father of Spirits, that reunion being the
pledge that his sins are forgiven, and the channel by which
the consequences of his sins are counteracted. Day by day
throughout his earthly life, the believer in Christ is assured
that God dweUeth in him, and that therefore the ascendency
of sin is giving way before the ascendency of hoUness. Fur
ther, the effects of sin, which are not entirely removed on
earth, — sin, death, ignorance, desire still remaining, — are to

302 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE
be completely displaced in the world to come.' Thus, under
the infiuence of Christ, all the physical and moral effects of
sin, natural and deliberate, are slowly contravened, and will
be entirely exchanged in the risen Ufe which wiU dawn
beyond the grave.
Nor should it be forgotten in a catalogue of the effects of
the work wrought by Jesus, the incarnate Logos, that He
Himself has thus been restored to the office of Creator and
Preserver. He who was made before aU worlds has, by virtue
of His transcendent work, received aU power in heaven and
on earth. The Creator of mankmd has become the re-Creator ;
the Giver of life has become the Giver of new life ; Jesus, the
Word made flesh, can now continue that work of the formation
of human character so wUfuUy interrupted by the faU: The
divine energy may stream forth through Him, the impotent
may become powerful, the paralyzed vigorous. The divine
Light may now radiate uninterruptedly, and darkness and its
deeds flee away. The world which He had made and lost. He
rides forth upon His white horse, and in triumphal procession,
conquering and to conquer ; and He must reign until all things
are put under His feet. The universe which had banished
Him receives Him again, requests His beneficent might,
acknowledges His mild sway, shares the glories of His reign,
participates in the privileges of His priesthood. If man has
been restored by the deed of Calvary to the inheritance he
had forfeited, Jesus, the Son of God, has been restored by that
same deed to the inheritance of which He had been despoUed.
To this general view of the apostoUc testimony concerning
the work of Christ, it must be added, recaUing the proviso stated
a few pages back, that that work may be portrayed either
as it ideaUy existed from all eternity, or as it has been actuaUy
enacted on the fields of history. According to the one point
of view, the whole course of the Saviour's action may be pre
sented as coexistent in the divine mind; according to the
other, the several stages of Christ's work on earth and in
heaven may be represented as successive. This distinction
is of importance if we would avoid that confusion into which
it is so easy to faU, if we commingle thoughts as they ideally
exist, and as they exist with all their limitations in the human

OF THE WOEK OF CHEIST. 303
sphere, — if we commingle intentions with deeds. Having, for
simplicity's sake, described the work of Christ as it occurred
on the fields of history, it is only necessary to remind the
reader that all these things coexisted, according to the teach
ing of the apostles, from aU eternity in the divme decrees.
The fact and consequences of sin being etemaUy known, the
fact and consequences of the work of Christ were also known
before all time ; nay, intention and fact, wiU and action,
being synonymous in the divine mind, it may even be said
that the redeeming work of Christ was as real to the mmd of
God when eternally determined as when historicaUy effected.
The bearing of this fact upon our subject will be seen here
after.

CHAPTER IV.
THE WOEK OF CHEIST AS EXPEESSED IN
SACEIFICIAL LANGUAGE.
** AliTos UpsTof, xtiTos it//ix, uuTos Upii/;, xt/ros iuffixrTnpioy^ auTog Osflf, uiiris
xvfpwros, XUT05 PxffiXtils, XUTOS xp^iipsv;, xiiTo; rpo^xroy, xi/Tog xpytoy, Tct rxyTX
iv TiiT/v." — Epiphanius, Hcereses, cap. Iv.
TO any one who has familiarized himself with the general
features of the Mosaic sacrificial cultus, it must have
already suggested itself how admirably the characteristic
elements of the work of Christ just sketched might be ex
pressed under imagery drawn from that ceremonial. How
facile, then, must such an imagery have been to the apostles !
Bom and bred in the days of the gorgeous ritual of the
Herodian temple, th^ir every patriotic and religious feeling
inseparably associated' with the gloiy and beauty of their
divinely-inspired faith, how readily must the pictorial effects
of the Temple service have been enlisted in the proclamation
of things in any way analogous ! The whole system of the
Hebrew rites, so complicated and so grand, had so fiUed the
eyes, possessed the imaginations, and engrossed the hearts of
the apostles in the most plastic years of their life, it had so
constituted their business and composed their relaxation, it
had been so cherished as their dearest treasure, and fostered
as their fondest hope, that the very reverence and sanctity
which had gathered around the faith of their childhood gives
the assurance that this sublime and famiUar worship would
be to them emblematic of aU that was traest and deepest and
most lasting in reUgion. The Jew would find figures of speech
in the Levitical sacrffices with as little effort as the Eomanist
does in the Mass, or the Englishman in the British Constitu
tion.' ' Compare Lowth, Sacred Poetry of Hie Hebrews, Lecture viii.

WORK OF CHEIST EXPRESSED IN SACEIFICIAL LANGUAGE. 305
And, as matter of fact, it is abundantly evident from the
New Testament, that the rites of Judaism did lend themselves
with peculiar ease to the communication of the first prin
ciples of Christianity. The sacrifices of the Old Testament pro
vided a convenient phraseology to the early preachers of the
gospel for describing the averruncatio incdi and the a^quisitio
honi, which were the prominent subjects of their discourse.
Whether we coincide or not in the startling opinion that
" there were no types in nature out of which, as roots, the
words could grow that would signify a matter so entirely
supernatural as the gracious work and incarnate mystery of
Christ," and that, as a consequence, " the only way to get a
language for Him at aU, was to prepare it artfficiaUy," ' we
may, however, unhesitatingly say with the author of that
opinion, that the rites and ceremonies of the ancient faith of
Moses, David, and Isaiah pro\ided "a new nomenclature of
figures for the sacrifice of the Son." " As the same thought has
been more tersely put : " The mstitutions of the Old Testament
are, to a large extent, a dictionar^^ in which I learn the true
sense of the language of the New." ' Whatever theory is
entertained with respect to the precise relation between the
i^undamental maxims of Judaism and those of Christianity, —
and it wiU be our duty presently to fix that relation with some
degree of exactitude, — ^it is aUowed by all, by Socinian and
Calvinist alike, that the rites instituted at Sinai were largely
employed by the apostles to convey by figure what the work
of Christ disclosed by fact.
There are two points to be insisted on with reference to the
connection between the Old and New Covenants, — viz., in the
first place, that the work of Christ may be figuratively deli
neated by means of the sacrfficial rites of the Tabernacle or
Temple ; and, in the second place, that the work of Christ is
not so delineated simply in a figurative manner. "The
language of the New Testament does not contain mere figura
tive aUusions to the Jewish sacrifices, but ascribes a real and
immediate efficacy to Christ's death, an efficacy corresponding
to that which was anciently produced by the legal sin-offer-
' Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 392. ' Ibid. p. 403.
' Dale, The Jewish Temple and the Christian Church, p. 146.
U

306 THE WORK OF CHEIST AS
ings." ' The latter point is for the moment reserved ; it is
with the former pomt — the possibility of bringing old associa
tions to bear in instilUng the gospel of Chi'ist — that we are
at present concerned. Any analogy, however distant, wUl be
evidence in iUustration. The sacrificial ritual of the Old
Testament afforded figurative language for the expression of
the principles of Christianity, just as did the relation of master
and slave, the marriage ceremonies, the customs of the market
place, the privUeges of the home, the, precedents of the courts
of justice, the splendours and immunities of the State.
The Tabernacle and its succeeding Temples were the visible
embodiments to the Jew of the presence of Jehovah, the house
in which Jehovah dwelt, the palace from which He issued His ¦
commands and dispensed His benignities; what step, then,
was more easy than to find in the Tabernacle or in the Temple
a figure of the supereminent character of Christ ? Jesus was
the Emmanuel, the Word made flesh, the effulgence of the
Father's glory, the impress of His person, who had humbled
Himself to take the form of a servant ; might He not be called
a nobler Shechinah — a Tabernacle without an iota of pretence ?
S(j we actuaUy find John saying, " The Word became flesh,"
and, " tabernacled amongst us ; " * and our Lord Himself said,
speaking as we are informed of His blessed body, " Destroy
this temple, and in three days I wiU raise it up." '
Then the divisions of the sacred structure of Judaism
afforded a peculiar imagery. The Ufe of Christ on earth was,
as regarded its mtercourse with the Father, a life at some
distance : to pray on the mountain-top or in the garden was
not to speak in the immediate presence ; the advent of angels
was exceptional — they were not ever on the wing to do the
Saviour's bidding ; having assumed our nature. He was bound
by its Umitations and debUity. But aU this was the very
contrast offered so boldly by the Holy Place and the Holy of
Holies. The earthly life of Jesus may be aptly described as a
worship without the veil; His resurrection Ufe is a life within
1 Veysie, Bampton Lectures on the Atonement, Sermon v.
'Johni. 14: Irxmuiny. Sxjjvb is the common Septuagint equivalent for the
Tabernacle. 3 John ii. 19.

EXPRESSED IN SACRIFICLAL LANGUAGE. 307
the veil. And such an imagery comes frequently to the
apostoUc Ups. The cross is the altar upon which He makes
His sacrifice : it is a greater and more perfect tabernacle, by
means of which, in the days of His flesh. He approaches the
Most High;' it is the veil of His flesh which is torn asunder,
that He may enter upon His work of heavenly mtercession ;*
death to Him is the entrance, not into the holy places made
by hands, the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the real and no longer the symboUcal " presence
of God " for us.' Then how often the place of the immediate
presence of God and the Lamb is described in the apocalyptic
visions as the mmost shrine of the^emple ! * How often is
the place where intercession is made desi^ated tl^e altar ! ^
Further, what could more vividly express the sacrificial and
intercessory work of Jesus than the office of the Jewish priest
hood ? The priests had been elected by God, under the Old
Covenant, to the privileges and duties of divine approach,
prayers on the lips and gifts in the hands ; theirs also was the
right of intercession ; and, at once alUed to God and man, it
was their high honour, as if themselves exalted above the guUt
and poUution of transgression^to plead- ot^ bplialf nf Iinrnan
sin, and, as if admitted^ to the counselsof_the_Most High,_to
"coinvey the assurance of the divine forgiveness and the divine
favour ; theirs, too, it was to mitigate the divme anger by the
shedding of blood, and to dispense the divine charity in the
presentation of sacrffice : in the high priest these offices of
intercession and mediation were concentrated. Now, how
could any converted Jew ignore the analogy between the new
and the old ? Was it not the very essence of the work of the
Messiah, whom he had now come to recognise in Jesus of
Nazareth, that He was at once thfi highest representative^jLGpd
and the noblest representative of man, and that, possessing in
greater measure aU the attributes of the ancient priesthood,
He had bestowed His very self in the offering of sacrifice and
the discharge of priestly duties ? The presentation of Himself
on Calvary was, so to speak, the priestly presentation in His
' Heb. ix. 11. 2 Heb. x. 20. ' Heb. ix. 24.
< Rev. vu. 4, xi. 1, 2, 19, xiv. 17, xv. 5, xxi. 3,. 22.
^ Eev. vi. 9, viu. 3, 6, ix. 13, xi. 1, xiv. 8, xvi. 7.

308 THE WOEK OF CHEIST AS
white robes at the altar on the great Day of Atonement. Who,
like Him, could plead before God lhe_ meritsjafja. sacrifice Uke
His ? Who could pass like Him within the veU, and present
a sacrifice beneath the gaze of angels and in the very presence
of the Almighty ? Who could bring such messages of mercy
as He from the dread throne of the " I AM " ? What names,
then, so appropriate for the great worker of salvation as
" Priest," " the Priest," " the Priest for ever,'" "our great High
Priest," " fatherless, motherless, without length of days or end
of life, the Priest eternal after the order of,^lelQ^se^|k" ?^
There was not a soul that had been trained in the rites of
Judaism that would not consciously or unconsciously acknow
ledge the vividness of the apostolic argument, whether or not
understanding ended in acceptance : " Having therefore bold
ness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new
and living way, which He has consecrated for us, through the
veU, that is to say. His flesh ; and having a High Priest over
the house of God : let us draw near." '
So also the_rites_£££urification would provide a convenient
phraseology for the frustration of original sin by the work of
Christ. His it was, as part of the effects of His great work,
" to cleanse the leprous," " to purify the heart," " to purify
unto Himself a peculiar people ; " His it was " to purge our
sins," " to purge our conscience from dead works,'' " to purge
us from the consciousness of sin ; " His it was to " cleanse
from all sin " and to " cleanse from aU unrighteousness." *
And it is axiomatic^how readily the works of Christ_fell
into sacrificial Jorms. There was not a detail in the sacrificial
'"ntualfnoFa variety of presentation, not a pecuUarity of selec
tion, which might not be enUsted in the conveyance of some
important feature of Christ's work. The generic characteristics
of sacrificing have their pictorial power ; and the specific
characteristics of the several varieties and rituals have a
similar power peculiarly their own.
1 Heb. V. vi. (compare Ps, ex. 4 in the Septuagint), vu. 17, 21, viii. 4,
X. 21.
' Heb. u. 17, ui. 1, iv. 14, v. 10, vi. 20, vii. 26, viii. 1, ix. 11.
3 Heb. x. 19-21,
* Matt. viu. 3, xi. 5 ; Acts xv. 9 ; Titus ii. 14 ; Heb. i. 3, ix. 14, x. 2 ;
1 John i. 7, 9.

EXPEESSED IN SACEIFICIAL LANGUAGE. 309
_Jesus_wasjthe^reat^ sacrifice. He gave Himself to God.
His willing obedience to the Father's behests. His persistent
execution of the Father's wiU, through humiliation and poverty,
limitation and solitude, — this was a gift of the purest and
truest and most costly kind, ^en, too, Jesus was the great
atonement. He was the divinely provided " covering" for
human sin. And when the attention is directed to the atoning
feat,ures of His stupendous work, it was in the fact that His
life, — His blood, — ^by which He wrought the beneficial change
in the relations between God and man, that a point of union
is found with the Mosaic atonement,. and that thus the most
impressive feature of the ancient worship is rendered tributary.
Without " shedding of blood " there was no remission under
the Old Covenant, and without " shedding of blood " there is
no remission under the New ; so it is not wonderful that the
" blood of Jesus " became prominently employed as a pricis
of the great subject of Christian teaching ; and the cardinal
doctrine of Mosaism became, in the earnest and reiterated
appeals of Christian missionaries, the channel for the diffusion
of the cardinal doctrine of Christianity. It was the " shedding
of His blood" which Christ Himself memoriaUzed in the
Eucharist ; it is " the blood of Christ " which Paul proclaims
as the instrument of justification, redemption, adoption, sancti
fication ; it is to " the blood of Christ " that Peter appeals in
illustration of the costliness of sin ; it is " the blood of Christ"
which John regards as the pledge of the purification of the
inmost fountains of Ufe ; and it was " the blood of Christ " in
which, in the visions of the Eevelation, the garments of the
blessed were washed.^ An iUustration more pertinent to the
Jewish mind of the vaUdity and power of Christ's death could
not be found.
Every element m the sacrfficial ritual would also furnish
an appropriate series of images. When Jesus offered Himself
to obtain salvation for mankind, whether in the eternal counsels
of heaven or on the historical stage of earth, what was this
1 Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 24 ; Luke xxii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25 ; Acts xx. 28 ;
Rom. ui. 25, v. 9; 1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 25, 27 ; Eph. i. 7, u. 13 ; Col. i. 14 (in
the Textus Receptus), i. 20 ; Heb. ix. 14, 20, x. 19, 29, xiu. 12, 20 ; 1 Pet.
i. 2, 19 ; 1 John i. 7, v. 6, 8 ; Eev. i. 5, v. 9, vu. 14, xii. 11, xix. 13.

310 THE WOEK OF CHEIST AS
but the presentation of His sacrifice ? As the words fall upon
the ear, " Father, the hour is come ; glorify Thy Son, that Thy
Son also may glorify Thee," is it not as if He Who was at
once offerer and victim is attesting the reality of His desire
to sacrifice Himself by an imposition of the hand ? What is
it but the slaughter as the cry rings forth, " It is finished-" ?
Was ever manipulation with the blood like that, when He
passed within the veil to present before the eternal throne the
merits of His completed sacrifice ? What but the act of
cremation is the universal honour bestowed by the Father upon
the Son ? And is not that a sacrificial feast indeed, when the
beUever, in all his sins and in all his temptations, rests in
faith upon the one Sacrifice, and eats the flesh and drinks the
blood of the Son of man ?
Every variety of the Old Testament sacrffice may be made
beautifully iUustrative of certain aspects of Christ's work.
Christ is the true sin-offering : " Who needeth not daUy to
offer up sacrifice, first for His own sin, and then for the
people's : for this He did once, when He offered up Himself."^
Christ is the true trespass-offering : " Who gave Himself a
ransom for all."* Christ is the true burnt-offering : " An offer
ing and an atonement to God for a sweet-smeUing savour." '
Christ is the true peace-offering : as Simeon said, " Mine eyes
have seen Thy peace-offering."* Christ is the Paschal Lamb.®
Christ is the Lamb of God.® There is not a sacrificial element
of the Old Testament, in short, which, without any great strain
of language, might not be applied m iUustration of some
feature in the character or work of the most prominent figure
in the New Testament;.
From the analogy, too, to Moses, who had been divinely
commissioned to impart the Smaitic faith, with its half Ughts
and neutral tints, Jesus, the Light of the World, the Sun of
Eighteousness, is caUed " the Mediator of a better covenant." ^
Then, before we pass away from these figurative aUusions
i Heb. vu. 26, 27, ix. 24-28, x. 8-12, 14, 18. ^ 1 Tim. ii. 6.
' Eph. V. 2 ; comp. Gen. viii. 21, Lev, i. 9, 13, 17, and many other passages
in the Septuagint.
4 Luke u. 30. » 1 Cor. v. 7.
6 John i. 29 ; 1 John iu. 5. ^ Heb. vui. 6.

EXPRESSED IN SACEIFICIAL LANGUAGE. 311
to the work of Christ, a word or two wUl not be misplaced
upon the work of Christ when viewed as a " ransom " or
" redemption." This is a very common mode of expression in
the New Testament, and is of course connected with the Old
Testament ideas of " ransoming," as displayed in the trespass-
offering and other ceremonial acts. OccasionaUy, it is true,
the class of words which bear this common significance foUow
the analogies of aU language, and simply express the general
idea of deliverance ; in many cases, however, it is evident that
the more Umited idea of deliverance after the payment of an
equivalent value is signified. This conception of equivalent
payment was exceedingly famUiar to the Jew, as we have
seen again and again. What wonder was it, then, that He
who had effected our deliverance from sin and punishment
by the precious gift of His own life, should have been said to
have "bought" us with His own blood, to have "redeemed"
us with His blood, to have been our " ransom" ?^
1 Matt. XX. 28 ; Mark x. 40 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Titus u. 14 ;
Heb. ix. 12, 28 ; 1 Pet. i. 18.

CHAPTER V.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF
ATONEMENT.
' ' The Atonement, is a pure matter of revelation. Whether as regards the truths
which it embodies, the principles on which it rests, or the ends to which it is
conducive, we have no reliable means of information beyond what God has been
pleased to give us in His word." — Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture
respecting tlie Atonement, Preface.
SUFFICIENT, if slight, Ulustration has been given of the
readiness with which the sacrificial ritual of the Old
Testament accommodated itself to the figurative description of
different aspects of the work of Christ, and a partial answer
has thus been returned to the question before us as to the
sacrificial nature of Christ's work. A further question arises,
as to whether the work of Christ is sacrificial by figure only.
Is there simply a distant, and almost intangible analogy,
between the Jewish rites and the works of Christ, or some
thing more ? Is the relation between the sacrificial teachmg
of the Old Testament and that portion of the sacrificial teach
ing of the New which relates to the work of Christ, nothing
beyond this, — that the former provides a convenient termi
nology for the latter without unwarrantable strain ? This is
the crucial question of the New Testament doctrine of Sacrifice,
Its importance cannot be exaggerated. If the death of Christ
be only figuratively a sacrifice, then the sooner such a designa
tion be banished from exact speech and theological thought
the better; it possesses no argumentative value, and any
reUance upon it cannot fail to land the reasoner in " the con
temptible faUacy " of the sophismn figuroe dictionis. It is to
the solution of this question of the ultra-figurative sacrificial
nature of Christ's death, jto which all our energies must be

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT. 313
bent. An indispensable preUminary wiU be The New Testa
ment DocTEiNE OF Atonement.
There are two ways in which the New Testament doctrine of
the Atonement may be collected, the dogmatic and the biblico-
theological. The dogmatic method proceeds on the assumption
of the unity of the New Testament writings, the bibUco-theo
logical on the assumption of their diversity. The postulate of
the former is that the New Testament is a complete whole, made
up of interlacing and mutuaUy-supporting parts ; that of the
latter is that the New Testament is composed of parts, but how
far those parts are mutually supporting, or mutuaUy destructive,
has to be proved. According to the dogmatic method, truth
is gained as to the contents of Scripture by a suitable arrange
ment and classification of passages promiscuously selected;
according to the biblico-theological method, by a suitable
arrangement and classification of passages selected from each
book or combination of books. Proof of a New Testament
doctrine foUows in this instance from the consensus of apostolic
opinions, in that from a coUation of passages selected without
regard to their authors. Now both of these methods have
their separate and their conjoint value, the one emphasizing
the fact that aU Scriptures were given by the inspiration of
God, the other the fact that holy men of God spake as they
were moved. In the pursuit of our inquiry into the nature
of the death of Christ, we have already followed the biblico-
theological method, and shaU now pursue the dogmatic.
Having iUustrated the fact that the whole structure of the
apostoUc thought becomes a building without a foundation, an
arch without a keystone, if the death of Christ be omitted, it
now remains to prove from the apostoUc thought the exact
nature of that death of Christ,
Be it noted that no attempt wUl be made to apportion
the several parts that are taken in the great work of man's
salvation by the three Persons in the blessed Trinity, A com
plete view of the scriptural doctrine of the Atonement cannot,
it must be aUowed, be sketched without ascribing to Father,
Son, and Spirit, in the manner of Scripture, their individual
and uninterchangeable offices; and a doctrme of the Spirit
is as necessary to the apprehension of the New Testament

314 THE NEW testament DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
doctrine of man's salvation as a doctrine of the Person of
Christ. But our subject is the scriptural doctrine of Sacrffice ;
the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Atonement is only touched
so far as it affects our special study. Eestricting ourselves
to the intelligible rather than the misapprehensible, precision
is only aimed at where our subject demands it.
It may be weU to briefly recapitulate the results of the
biblico-theological inquiry. It has been already seen that
the entire apostoUc testimony would display the anomaly of
inference without a single substantiating premise, if the death
of Christ be left out of account. The Petrine soteriology is a
doctrine of salvation through the death of Christ. The PauUne
anthropology is a doctrine of the rise and progress of faUen
man which had its primary impetus in the death of Christ.
The Christology of John has its cUmax, not when the Word
became flesh, but when the blood was spilt which cleanses from
all sin. Or, not to dweU upon what has become abundantly
evident already, if the entire apostolic testimony be regarded,
it was the death of Christ which reconcUed the opponent
attributes of the Father ; it was the death of Christ which
became the starting-point of the paUiation of the consequences
of sin in humanity ; it was the death of Christ which gave a
reasonable ground to a new hope for the human race ; it was
tlu death of Christ which was the irrevocable preUminary to a
restoration of any semblance of the' paradisaic intercourse
between the estranged Creator and the creature. Take away
the death of Christ, and the apostoUc gospel is a baseless
announcement, news good enough in sentiment, but not in fact.
The unalterable position in the apostoUc proclamations of
the death of Christ having thus been shown according to the
biblico-theological method, the dogmatic method may now be
advantageously employed, we repeat, in the statement of the
nature of that aU-important death. Indeed, the dogmatic
method renders valuable assistance in bringing into clear
relief the relation of the death of Christ to God and
man. According to the teaching of the New Testament dogmati
cally regarded, there are five propositions concernmg the death
of Christ which are again and again repeated : —

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 315
First, it is declared that the death of Christ is not of small
concern as compared with His Ufe.'
Secondly, it is declared that the death of Christ is in some
way a death for the human race.*
Thirdly, the New Testament also declares that the death of
Christ is in some way a death for the sin of the human race.'
Fourthly, the New Testament further declares that the
death of Christ in some way obtains the forgiveness of the
sins of the human race.*
Fifthly, the New Testament as surely declares that the
death of Christ in some way neutralizes the effects of the sins
of the human race.®
To the comprehension of the significance of this unique
death of Jesus, three moments are expressly supplied in the
Old and New Testaments, — viz., the scriptural conception of
death, the personal sinlessness, and hence the personal death-
lessness, of the Eedeemer, and the mysterious Person of the
Lord. In the first place, material aid to the concatenation of the
scriptural doctrine of the Atonement — we use the word ad
visedly, in accordance with the Old Testament signification,
inasmuch as the death of Christ is described in the New
Testament as the source of forgiveness and cleansing — is
afforded by the scriptural doctrine of Death, Those cannot but
misapprehend many important features of the New Testament
1 Matt. XX. 28 ; Luke xxii. 19, 20 ; John vi. 51, x. 11, 15, 18, xv. 12, 13 ;
Acts XX. 28 ; Rom. iu. 25, v. 6-10 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. i. 6, 7,
ii. 16 ; Col. i. 13, 14 ; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10 ; Heb. ii. 9, ix. 12, 15, 27, 28, x. 10-14,
xiu. 12 ; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, u. 24, iu. 18 ; 1 John iii. 16 ; Rev. i. 5, 6, v. 9,
vii. 14.
» Matt. XX. 28 ; Luke xx. 19, 20 ; John vi. 51, x. 11, 15, 18, xv. 12, 13 ;
Eom. V. 6-8, viu. 32 ; 1 Cor. v. 7 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, 21 ; Gal. u. 20, iu. 13 ;
Eph. V. 2, 25 ; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10 ; 1 Tim. u. 5, 6 ; Titus u. 13, 14 ; Heb. ii. 9,
X. 11-14 ; 1 Pet. iu. 18 ; 1 John iu. 16.
3 John i. 29 ; Eom. iv. 25, v. 20, 21, viii. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ;
Gal. i. 4, iii. 13 ; Heb. ii. 17, ix. 26, 27, 28, x. 11-14 ; 1 Pet. iu. 18 ; 1 John
ii. 2, iv. 10.
* Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Luke xxiv. 46, 47 ; John i. 29, iu. 14-17 ; Acts x. 43,
xiu. 38, 39 ; Eom. ui. 24-26 ; 1 Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ; Eph. i. 6, 7, u.
16 ; Col. i. 13, 14 ; Heb. ix. 26, 27, 28 ; 1 John i. 7, u. 2, iv. 10 ; Eev. i. 5, 6.
' John iu. 14-17 ; Eom. v. 8, 9, vi. 10, 11 ; 1 Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ;
Eph. ii. 16 ; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10 ; Heb. x. 10, xUi. 12 ; 1 John i. 7 ; Eev. i. 5, 6.

316 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
revelation who understand by this frequently recurring word
and its derivatives, the " shuffling off this mortal coU," the
cessation of the- physical functions, the syncope which ter
minates the connection with this present life. Unquestion
ably death often means dissolution in scriptural phrase ; but
it is equaUy unquestionable that the scriptural conception of
death is not exhausted by that definition. Death in the
Scriptures, as in aU language, is commonly more than decease.
Decease itself is so solemn, so overwhelming, so mysterious,
and so suggestive, that it becomes from its very indistinctness
and engrossment the most facUe image in poetry, religious
literature, and in common conversation, for all that mysterious
realm beyond the grave, for the unknown relations between
the naked spirit and the eternal God, for the gi-eat incogniz
able to which man feels himself to be traveUing. "How
wonderful is death'' is the sentiment of mankind, and how
awful too ; and having touched his deepest feelings and being
present in aU his truest Ufe, man has used the word to con
vey aU those things in the disembodied Ufe of which he has
no ken. Surely, if the signfficance of death has been enlarged
by the aesthetic needs of more cultured times, it is not won
derful if the word meant more to the reUgious Jew than he
found it easy to express. At any rate, the Scriptures clearly
and convincingly show that they mean more by death than
the margin of mortaUty. Time, for example, wonld have
demonstrated our Lord's words to have been false when He
cried in the Court of the Temple, " If a man keep My saymg,
he shall never see death," ' if the death He aUuded to was
decease. Or, again, what meaning, on such a supposition,
could be attached to the words of John : " We know that we
have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.
He that loveth not his brother abideth in death"?*
An analysis of the New Testament usage of the word
reveals the foUowmg variety. Frequently death is equivalent
to dissolution, whether natural or violent.' The word also
frequently sigmfies capital punishment, the extreme penalty
1 John viu. 53. " 1 John Ui. 14.
' E.g. Matt. x. 21, xx. 18, xxvi. 26 ; Luke ii. 26 ; John xi. 4 ; Acts xxii. 4 ;
PhU. u. 21.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 317
of the law, whether Mosaic or civil' As a slight remove
from the preceding meaning, death comes to stand for the
extreme penalty of the divine law.* From this the meaning
is not far off, that death is all or any of the primitive effects
of sin ;' thus, an irresponsive and incapable voUtion, such as
sin engenders,* that conflict between desire and fruition
which every sinner experiences,® the spiritual decadence in
its several stages which is the conscious result of sin,® the
excision from Christian privUegffs which is the penalty of sin,''
nay, the final doom of the impenitent, which is otherwise
designated " eternal fire," " Gehenna," " the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone,"*— each of these things is in the New
Testament denominated death. It would thus appear that, if
death frequently signifies what is more precisely put as violent
or natural death, its more common significance is death as the
deliberate penalty attached by God to human sin.
And this conception is substantiated by an appeal to the
Old Testament. To the Jew, death was always the deliberate
penalty attached by God to human sin, that penalty being
something more than the loss of life. The Old Testament
often uses the word death (its Hebrew equivalent, that is) to
convey the idea of dissolution simply, but it also uses the
word in a wider sense.' The first occasion of its use is
wider. " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt," to
translate Uterally the Hebrew intensive idiom, " die with
death," was the divine proclamation to Adam and Eve, a
proclamation which the issue proved to be completely false if
death signified physical demise, but profoundly true if death
was all the penal consequences of sin, of aUenation, unrest,
predisposition to wrong, physical weakness, and aU the mani
fold phases of that awful history which culminates in the
1 E.g. Matt. xv. 4, xxvi. 66 ; Luke xxiu. 15, 22, xxiv. 20 ; Acts xxiii. 29,
xxv. 11 ; PMl. i. 20.
2 Eom. i. 32.
' Rom. V. 12, 14, 17, 21, vi. 10, 16, 23, vu. 5, 10, 13, 24, viu. 2, 6 ; 2 Cor.
i. 9, 10, iu. 7, vii. 10 ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; Heb. u. 9, v. 7 ; Jas. i. 15 ; 1 John iii.
14, V. 16, 17.
* Eom. vii. 13. " Eom. viii. 24. ^ 1 John v. 16 ; Rom. vii. 11.
' 1 John V. 16. 8 Eev. u. 11, xx. 6, 14.
' Gen. u. 17, iu. 4 ; Prov. ii. 18, v. 5, vu. 27, x. 2, xi. 4, xu. 29 ; Isa. xxv. 8.

318 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
grave and what it introduces to. So, too, the whole Mosaic
Law, with its luminous suggestions of the value of the human
soul and its dark hints of a solemn future not as yet clearly
revealed, with its theocratic government, which seemed to bring
the Jew under the same supersensuous rule as angels and
faUen spirits, deepened by its capital penalties, — " Thou shalt
surely die," echoing from every page — the inevitable associa
tion of dreadful mystery and heavy penalty with the passage
from this mortal life.
And it is not without weight in this connection that the
common contrasts in the New Testament to " death " are " Ufe
and peace," " life and immortality," " eternal life,'' " salva
tion ;" and further, that the final exercise of the divine
prerogative of punishment for sin is caUed " the second
death." But the point upon which we are insisting can scarcely be
more forcibly put than it has been by a learned writer upon
the New Testament teaching upon Sin and Eedemption : —
" All the different consequences and effects of sin the New
Testament comprises in the one leadmg idea of ' death.' For
example, in the Gospel and Epistles of John, the state of man
under sin described as ' death ' is contrasted with the ' life '
brought through Christ.'' Then the Apostle Paul teaches that
' death ' has come into the world by sin, and that this ' death '
is the wages of sin.* What is meant by this idea of ' death '
we may now consider decided. That meamng may be thus
expressed: Death has not come into the world through sin
in this sense, that an essential change has taken place in the
physical organism of man, and the body, from being immortal,
has become mortal . . . The change wrought by sin can only be
referred to the special form of death, and to the manner in
which the irrevocableness of death has invaded, the conscious
ness. The special form of death consists in the manUold
terrors, pams and distractions, which evidently accompany
the predominance of sin in man,"' So surely does the New
1 John iu. 36, v. 24, vi. 50, viu. 51, xi. 25, 26 ; 1 John iU. 14.
"Eom. V. 12, etc., vi. 21, 23, vii. 10 ; Eph. u. 5, etc.
' Klaiber, Die Neutestamentliche Lehre von der Siinde und Erlosung, 1836,
pp. 42-45.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT, 319
Testament regard the significance of death to lie in the numer
ous and interminable effects of sin, that an eminent philologist
has not scrupled to define the New Testament meaning of
6dvaTo<;, amongst other meanings, as omnis miseria et infe-
licitas, maxime quae est vitiositatis et peccatorum poena in hac
pariter ac in futura vita, " the essence of misery and infeUcity,
especiaUy that which is the penalty of vice and sin in this
world and in the next," ^
When, then, the New Testament speaks of the potency of
the death of Christ, it is not meant that the Eedeemer's sub
mission to mere decease as such effected the forgiveness of
sins, but that His submission to death as the determinate
penalty attached by God to human sin has wrought the
gigantic effect. What the death of the cross was in itself, we
are unable from our evidence, possibly from our natural
capacity, to decide; the mental anguish superadded to the
physical laceration are beyond our ken; nor is it at all
probable that the pangs of the lost, to say nothing of the re
coUections of the spirits of the just, if they were within our
reach, could in any way enlighten us upon the sufferings
Jesus underwent In some way, by us unknown, if not
unknowable. He suffered penal death as none else can or will :
" He tasted death for every man," It is true that the peculiar
agony of the crucifixion as narrated, especially that awful
cry of " Eloi " from Him who had lived in the hourly support
and joy of an ever-present sense of the Divine Fatherhood,
seems to imply that the horror of the penal death experienced
lay in the hiding of the divine countenance, in the harrowing
lovelessness of the divine withdrawal ; be this as it may, it was,
at any rate — so the New Testament teaches — the submission
to death as the penal infliction of God which achieved the
grand result of human salvation. Undoubtedly that submis
sion to death was the act of a precise moment ; so much is
clear without entering into that perplexing problem which
agitated and divided the schoolmen, whether man woiUd have
died if sin had not come mto the world,-^a problem, by the
1 Schleusner, Novum Lexicon Orceco-Latinum in Novum Test, in loco; com
pare Cremer, Biblisch-Theologisches Worterbuch (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of
New Testament Greek, T. & T, Clark), in loco.

320 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT,
way, to which the PauUne distinction of a psychical and
pneumatic body would seem to afford an affirmative answer.
StiU, whatever answer is returned, the case is not altered ; if
death existed before the FaU, it became a very different thmg
after ; psychical demise became pneumatic suffering ; and
when Christ submitted to death in our behalf, the awful
moment of decease received its solemnity as weU as its merit
from the voluntary endurance of the pangs of penal death,
whatever they may be.
A second consideration of great value in the apprehension
of the New Testament doctrine of Atonement is the invariably
attested fact of the sinlessness of Jesus. It is the unanimous
testimony of the New Testament, that Jesus of Nazareth, being
born under abnormal conditions, did not share in the normal
human state of inherited weakness, and that having lived
under abnormal conditions. He had neither part nor lot in the
conscious and wilful wrongdoing of the race. His was a sin
less life of uninterrupted communion with the Father. When
the sun was hot He could walk with God, and no fear seized
Him in the cool of the day as He heard the voice of God
amongst the trees. He Who was born without guile, Uved
without guilt. Throughout His earthly life no apple the EvU
One could offer enticed Him from His allegiance to holmess,
and He unhesitatingly appealed to His enemies to convict
Him of fault.' Nor was the testimony of His daUy Ufe to
an absence of fault simply, to a merely negative sinlessness :
not a selfish thought passed the horizon of His soul ; His was
a life of active beneficence, of ceaseless phUanthropy. To
refrain from evil, to go about doing good, such is a summary '
of His life on its human side. The narratives of the evan-
geUsts present the astonishing fact that the battle Adam
fought and lost on the arena of Eden could again be under
taken by man ; for, as was the life of the first Adam in bodUy
constitution and mental balance, such was that of the second
Adam; further, immaculate in birth. His was also an
immaculateness of course. To this sinlessness of Jesus the
apostles frequently refer. Paul, as a divine ambassador,
pleads with the Corinthians : " Be ye reconcUed to God, Who
1 John viii. 4, 6.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT, 321
hath made Him a sin-offering for us who knew no sin." ^
Peter appeals to the example of long-suffering in Him " who
did no sin, neither was guUe found in His mouth." * John
confidently asserts : " Te know that He was manifested to
take away our sins ; and in Him is no sin." ' And the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers again and again to the
same characteristic of the Eedeemer's relation to the divine
law, pointing his passionate appeal not to faU short of the
rest of God by recaUing the fact of the sympathy of Jesus, a
High Priest susceptible of the sense of our infirmities, smce
" He was in all pomts tempted like as we are, yet without
sin," * arguing for' the eternal intercession of Jesus from the
fact that He was " holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from
the whole race and category of sinners," ® and clenching his
statement that Christ was once offered for the sins of many
by averring that He wUl appear a second time, and in a more
glorious manner, " without sin unto salvation." ®
Now, it is an inevitable consequence of that sinlessness
which ruled in the physical as absolutely as in the moral
sphere of Jesus' bemg, that He was not subject to death, in
the New Testament sense of the word, as the punishment
awarded by God to human sin. Hence the wisdom of those
words of Anselm's : " No man but He has ever given to God
by dying what some time or other he would not of necessity
have lost, or has paid what he did not owe ; but He of His
own free wiU offered to the Father what He could never have
lost by any necessity, and paid for smners what He in no way
owed for Himself." ^ And be it remembered that this death-
lessness of Jesus was quite apart from that fund of life which
He possessed as God. From His personal possession of over
flowing life. He might indeed say, " I am the Life," and the
apostle might say of Him, " In Him was Ufe, and the life was
the Ught of men ;" but it is not to this property of superabun
dant Ufe, in aU its fulness of meamng, to which aUusion is
' 2 Cor. V. 21. 2 1 Pet. ii. 22. " 1 John ui. 5.
* Heb. iv. 15. » Heb. vu. 26. » Heb. ix. 28.
' Cur Deus Homo, Lib. II. cap. xviu. 6 (xix.) : " NuUus unquam homo pneter
Ulum moriendo Deo dedit, quod aliquando necessitate perditunis non erat, aut
solvit quod non debebat. lUe vero sponte Patri obtuUt, quod nuUa necessitate
unquam amissnms erat, et solvit pro peccatoribus quod pro se non debebat."
X

322 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
now made ; the sole fact to which attention is directed is this,
that Jesus occupied the same position before the divine
tribunal as Adam did before the FaU, and by virtue of the
sinlessness of His life and nature did not come in any degree
within the condemnatory clauses of the divine revelations to
man. Consistently enough, therefore, referring no doubt both
to the deathlessness of Deity and the deathlessness of the sin
less, Jesus said to His disciples : " Therefore doth my Father
love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
This right have I received of my Father."'
A third moment supplied by the Scriptures to the doctrine
of Atonement by the death of Jesus, is the bibUcal conception
of the unexampled personality of Him who condescended unto
death. It is no part of our labours to gather into array all
the testimonies of the New Testament, direct and indirect, to
the unique character of Jesus. It has been already seen in
our classification of the apostolic statements concerning the
work of Christ, that, whUst aU those statements fundamentaUy
agree, they differ in the detail and prominence which they
assign to certain aspects of their doctrine ; the same is true
concerning the doctrine of the Person of Jesus ; there is not
a modification of New Testament teaching from which that
doctrine may not ,be deduced ; the doctrine of the blended
divinity and humanity of Jesus may be found in the somewhat
Judaic type of teaching of the Synoptists, James, Jude, and
Peter : it may be found much more distinctly in the PauUne
type of doctrine, and most precisely of all in that type of
teaching which is designated Johannine. The detailed proof
of these assertions it is unnecessary as weU as inappropriate
for us to give, masmuch as that proof has been so ably and
conclusively educed by an author, the value of whose contribu
tions to Christology are universaUy aclmowledged.* Eeferring
1 John X. 17, 18.
' Professor Dorner is of course meant. In the introduction to his great work,
Entunckelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi (ably translated into
English by Drs. Alexander and Simon), the Biblico-Theological proof is exhaus-
tivsly given.

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 323
the reader to the conclusions of our chapter upon the New
Testament doctrine of the work of Christ, we merely add
that any additional proof that may be necessary of the con
sensus of apostolic testimony upon the Person of Christ wUl
be taken for granted. To emphasize, however, the points to
which we would especially draw attention, the dogmatic
method may be advantageously adopted.
Jesus of Nazareth was truly God. He is expressly desig
nated divine ; aU divine names and titles are applied to Him ;
aU divine attributes are ascribed to Him, He is declared to be
omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, unchangeable ;
divine works are ascribed to Him, such as creation, new
creation, salvation, resurrection, judgment. His was a pre-
existent life before all worlds and all creatures. He
expressly claimed equality with God. He is frequently
caUed the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father. He
is mentioned as one of the Divine Trinity. He is the object
of worship for men and angels. He is the object of faith,
reverence, love, homage, devotion, invocation, supplication,
thanksgiving.' Jesus of Nazareth was truly man. He is said to have
assumed human form. He is called an Israelite, a son of
David; He is said to have been born of a woman. He
possessed a human body. All the characteristics of this mortal
life were visible in Him ; He was Umited by time and space.
He could hunger and thirst. He was susceptible of weariness.
He could pray. He could weep, He could be tempted and
tried, a disciple could lean upon His bosom. He was born.
He died, He was buried. He was crucified. He calls Himself
the Son of man ; He called men His brethren ; others caUed
Him man. He showed a filial solicitude and affection for Mary.
But there is one aspect of the office of the Theanthropic
Jesus which, in any examination of the New Testament doc
trine of the Atonement, caUs for express statement. The God-
man was the agent in all revelations of the divine wUl. It
is the Being incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth Who is described
as the Divine Agent in the creation and the preservation of
' Compare the points of proof drawn up in First Lines of Christian Theology,
by Pye Smith, edited by Wm. Fairer.

324 THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
the. world. Who is said to be the source of all knowledge of
God, Who is stated to be the Giver of aU Ught and Ufe
to His church, and Who is appointed as Judge of aU. Whoever
reads the New Testament with care, wiU find ever and anon
the thought recurring, in subtle suggestion oftentimes rather
than in expUcit speech, that He Who died on the cross was
He Who had revealed the Father's will in heaven above and
in earth beneath. Who had opened to man, created in His
image, a glorious and blessed destiny. Who had interposed
again and again after the sad story of the FaU to raise man
from the degradation into which he was sinking. Who had labo
riously prepared the way for His incarnation. Who displayed
grace and glory on the stage of this present life. Who still
revivffies and blesses by the Spirit, and Who shaU judge the
world. In the New Testament conception, Jesus Christ is the
one revealer of God.
These features of the Person of Christ cannot be better
summarized than by the Johannine doctrine of the Logos :
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. AU things were made by Him ; and
without Him was not anything made that was made. In
Him was life ; and the life was the Ught of men. And the
Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us (and we beheld
His glory, the glory as of the onlyrbegotten of the Father), fuU
of grace and truth."
This, then, is the New Testament doctrine of Atonement,
that He Whose office it had ever been to reveal the mind of
the Father, and Who had assumed human form, having passed
through this mortal life without sin, and being therefore non-
amenable, to any penalty decreed upon transgTession, had
voluntarUy submitted to that curse of death, with all its
mystery of meaning, which He had HimseK announced, and
thereby rendered the forgiveness of sins possible to man.
This doctrine must now be defended by an examination of
counter theories.

CHAPTER VI.
CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE
ATONEMENT.
" Aber, Freund, ist es bios die Kirchenlehre, die hierfallt, oder die der Schrift
selber ? " — Tholuck, Die Lehre von der Siinde und vom VersShner oder die
wahre Weihe des Zweifiers, 9th ed. p. 93.
THE possibility of framing a theory of the Atonement,
regarded by many as altogether chimerical, resolves
itself in our case into the possibUity of combining into one
consistent view the numerous passages of the Gospels and
Epistles which have reference to the atoning work of Jesus.
This possibiUty has been demonstrated in the preceding
chapter, and the theory there advanced can only be over
thrown by demonstrating it to be inconsistent with Scripture,
by demonstrating it to be inadequately representative of
Scripture, or by demonstrating the unreUableness of Scripture
itself. Not a step has been taken into the speculative region ;
all that has been done has been to classify and colUgate the
scattered testimonies of Jesus and His apostles. We hold the
atonement of Jesus to be a pure matter of revelation, and
speculation upon it to be wholly misplaced ; but whether this
be so or not, it is at any rate open to us "to search the
Scriptures." " We may be very sure that God intended us to
know as much of the method of our salvation by the death of
Christ as His word reveals."^ With Warburton we assert
that, " why this precise mode of redemption by the death and
sufferings of Christ was preferred to all others in the eternal
purpose of the Godhead exceeds the power of human reason to
discover, because His attribute of wisdom, which it is out of
the reach of man to apply to this inquiry, is here concerned ; ''
but we would add with that learned man, " when it has been
* Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement, p. 16.

326 CRITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
proved by fact that a reUgion was revealed in which this mode
of redemption is employed, the reason may lend her modest
aid." ' " The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but
those things which are revealed belong to us and to our chil
dren for ever," * The theory we have advanced is simply a
complete induction from Scripture,
But this is not the only conception attached to a theory of
the Atonement, nor is it the common conception ; much con
fusion of thought wUl be avoided if the ambiguity of the word
is clearly placed before the mind. What is a theory ? The
question at issue is nothing more nor less than the adoption
of the Baconian or the scholastic phUosophy. Two answers
have been returned, Accordmg to the one opinion, a theory
is a hypothesis suggested by the mind and employed to explain
certain facts ; according to the other, a theory is a generalization
suggested by the facts themselves, and gathering those facts
into one accordant view. A theory of the former kind has its
birth in the anticipatory rush of thought in contemplation —
that is to say, in the comparison of thoughts with facts ; a
theory of the latter kind originates in the tentative adjustment
of thought — that is to say, in the comparison of facts with
thoughts. And, as a matter of fact, there is aU the difference
in the world between the two conceptions. In the one case,
a theory is a proposition assumed to account for certain facts,
and has no other evidence of its truth than that it affords
some explanation of those facts ; in the other case, a theory is
a proposition directly induced from certain facts, and verifiable
by those facts. A theory which is a hypothesis is a specula
tion ; a theory which is a generaUzation is a complete induc
tion. These distinctions may be iUustrated by an example.
In W(irks on chemistry much is said of chemical theories^;
what is meant is one of two things, — such hypotheses as the
atomic theory, which can be at best but denominated as pro
bable, this probabUity depending upon the adaptabUity to the
explanation of many coUateral phenomena; and also such
weU-accredited and verifiable generalizations as those of the
composition of water or phosphoric anhydride, or as those yet
1 Warburton, TAe Divine Legation of Moses, Book IX. Introd,
'Deut, xxix. 29,

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT, 327
more abstract yet equally verifiable laws of combination by
weight and by volume. A simpler and less technical Ulustra
tion would be this : One man imagines there is some hidden
relation between the inhabitants of Britain and the Jews, and
jumps to the conclusion that the EngUsh are the ten lost
tribes, — this is a subjective theory; another laboriously
searches history, and, by a minute and lengthy examination
of credible testimonies, finds that the EngUsh are a mixed
race, formed by the mtermarriage of Normans, Saxons, Danes,
and Celts, without the admixture of a single Shemitic element,
— this is an objective theory. Now, although there have been
some rare cases in which these two varieties of theories, so
different in their method and in their principles, have co
incided m their results, as when Goethe, by that marveUous
faculty of his of tracing resemblances in difference, hit upon the
great law of vegetable morphology, which was only received into
the estabUshed laws of science after the long labours of De Can-
doUe and Schleiden ; practicaUy, however, it is found that what
may be for convenience caUed a subjective theory, is usuaUy
based upon a mere analogical resemblance, whUst an objective
theory, to use the obvious contrast, is a logically correct infer
ence ; and the progress of aU science has been characterized by
the subordmation, if not the relinquishment, of theories of the
former class, and the introduction of those of the latter. With
respect to the numerous theories of the Atonement which have
been advanced, it must be confessed that they have been for the
most part subjective theories, and a great step wiU have been
taken towards unanimity of opinion when this is recognised.
What we have designated a theory of the Atonement is an
objective theory; regarding Scripture as the man of science
regards nature, a law, so to speak, has been inferred from the
series of facts, as it were, with which Scripture has provided
us. In the absence, however, of a suitable term, and one
which would not introduce a certain odium into the discus
sion, it wiU be a matter of convemence to use the word theory,
as is done in all the sciences, to signify either an objective or
subjective theory, leaving it to the context to convey what
variety of theory is intended.
In the preceding chapter we have endeavoured to infer a

328 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
perfect induction from the New Testament statements as to
the nature of the Atonement effected by the death of Jesus.
But in the introduction to this treatise it was stated that the
doctrines of Scripture may be advantageously studied by a
critical examination of those analogous doctrines which other
investigators have held to be scriptural, as weU as by a direct
interrogation of the Scriptures themselves, A greater advan
tage might even be plausibly anticipated from this negative
method than from the method which is more direct. Judg
ment is less rare than origmaUty, Any educated man can
compare, few can discover. It is more easy to decide the
conformity of a doctrine with Scripture, than to deduce a
doctrine from scriptural non-conformity. And, with respect
to our special inquiry, much wUl be gained if our theory is
shown to possess aU the scriptural features of other theories,
and to exclude those features which are unscriptural. Gold
is assayed by a comparison with the finest gold previously
obtained ; it is peculiarly desirable to test our theory by a
review of the leading theories which have been formed, often
times to be greeted with acclaim, and handed downwards with
authority, during the history of the Christian church. Be it
remembered that all we have to do is to bring into prominence
the scriptural and unscriptural elements of these theories,
nothing else. Undoubtedly there are other methods of test
ing the truth of Christian doctrine, but with these we have
nothing to do. The falsity of any doctrine of the Atonement
would be demonstrated by showing that it was inconsistent
with itself, or inconsistent with the universal experience of
the Christian church ; the only inconsistency we have to do
with, is mconsistency with Scripture,
Unscriptural theories of the Atonement may be divided, in
accordance with the three moments of the true bibUcal theory,
into three broad classes. In the first place, there are those
which, Uke the Gnostic and Unitarian theories, do not declare
the whole truth upon the Person of Christ; in the second
place, there are those which, Uke the Patristic, Arminian, and
Socinian theories, and the theories of Anselm, Abaelard, and
Duns Scotus, inadequately represent the nature of Christ's
death ; and, in the third place, such theories as the Ebionite

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 329
and Unitarian, which have a tendency to convey in a manner
incommensurate with the New Testament statements the third
moment of the scriptural theory, viz, the personal deathless
ness of Jesus, These several theories wUl now be passed
under brief review ; they wUl be found not exhaustive, but
eminently suggestive. Upon the first and third divisions of
this classification, however, interesting as it is as a phUo
sophical speculation to trace their concurrent rise and fall, a
very few words will suffice : the wide bearings of an unscrip
tural grasp upon either of these moments wiU be adequately
conveyed by a brief statement of the Gnostic and Unitarian
theories, which, historically associated with distinct doctrinal
epochs, nevertheless iUustrate tendencies of thought in all ages
of the church.
Amongst the earliest of the inteUectual struggles of the
Christian Fathers were those with that singular eclectic pro
duct, known in ancient times as the Gnosis, and in modern
as Gnosticism, which, blendmg into a remarkable whole the
philosophies of Greece, Persia, and India, the mythologies of
the Aryan and Shemitic races, and the religions of Judaism
and Christianity, formed common ground for such opposite
natures as Valentine the Egyptian, Cerdo the Sj^ian, Bardesan
the Armenian, and Marcion of Sinope. It is no part of our
labours to attempt what has tasked the ingenuity and the
genius of a Neander and a Baur, a Eitter and a Mansel, and
to classify the several contributions to this extraordinary
theory of the universe ; all we have to do is to state its
distorting influence in one aspect only, and show the inevitable
results of Gnosticism upon a theory of the Atonement. This
will best be done by tracing the Gnosis in its most general
form ; and it happens that, with aU the fluctuations visible in
the several Gnostic systems, and with aU their variations of
detail, it is, nevertheless, possible to give a concise statement
of the principles common to all. The source of all spiritual
existence, according to the Gnosis, is the infinite and incom
prehensible Light. Opposed to the incomprehensible Light is
wodless and eternal matter, the kingdom of Satan and his
demons. These two kmgdoms of matter and spirit are in
perpetual conflict. Not that the incomprehensible Light comes

o

330 CRITICAIi EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
into contact with godless matter, but the Light informs matter
by a series of aeons, or spirits of the supernatural world, who
emanate from itself or from each other, and who constitute,
in fact, the Pleroma or realm of divine life (to which the
Kenoma or realm of matter corresponds). By virtue of this
relation of the incomprehensible Light to godless matter, these
aeons or spirits of the Pleroma, themselves revelations of the
attributes of the Light, are imprisoned and oppressed by matter;
and it becomes necessary to liberate them and restore them
to the heavenly world. In the terrific conflict between the
Pleroma and Kenoma, which is the result, the creation and
redemption of man are important stages. The immediate
cause of creation is the Demiurge, the Prince, therefore, of
this world, a being of neither divine origin nor divine nature,
and who is destitute both of divme knowledge and divine
love. With characteristic ignorance he imagines himseU the
lord of all things : he dwells in the planetary heaven, and
owns as subjects the whole range of sidereal spirits ; yet his
very acts of creation are stages in his overthrow, for he
unconsciously receives froin the incomprehensible Light the
impetus of his creative and regulative acts. Further, of the
macrocosm the Demiurge creates, man is the microcosm,
embodying in himself the spiritual and material worlds ; man
stands, in fact, at the centre of the universe, and by virtue of
his triple nature, hylic, psychic, and pneumatic, chUd of the dust
as he is, he is capable of divine knowledge, notwithstanding
the fact that the higher nature he possesses is submerged by
the supremacy of the Demiurge and his tributary spirits.
Another step in the downfaU of the Demiurge is the work of
redemption achieved by Jesus Christ, the highest of the seons,
whose it should be to reveal the Light most fully, and to complete
the ransom of the spiritual nature of man. In order not to
submit Himself to the dominion of matter, Jesus was regarded
as only apparently assuming human form, and thus, by a
deceptive Ufe and an illusory death, working the liberation of
man. We need add no more of the general system, nor need
we cursorily or minutely examine the several Gnostic doctrines
of the Atonement extant, which, in the reconstruction of the
entire mass of biblical truth in accordance with their funda-

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 331
mental principles, were undertaken by individual writers ;
suffice it to say that, holding, as a logical consequence of the
philosophic postiUate of the godlessness of matter, the common
principle of the doketic or apparent humanity of Jesus, it is
evident that all the Gnostic systems were incapacitated from
holding any scriptural conception of the death of Christ. The
New Testament asserts by every possible variety of evidence
the true humanity of Jesus ; ^ and the doctrine of Atonement
by His vicarious death upon Golgotha is robbed of its most
necessary support, if the human life of the Eedeemer is
regarded as a semblance, and His death as a sham to deceive
demons. These philosophic systems of a past and irre
coverable age are a series of crucial experiments which demon
strate the futility of hoping to express the teaching of the
apostles upon the Atonement, when the cardinal truth of the
Incarnation is misrepresented. A doketic incarnation and a
scriptural view of the Atonement are irreconcUable ; and it
were devoutly to be wished, when the currents of theological
thought drift, as they sometimes do in the lapse of years,
towards a forgetfulness of the actual humanity of Jesus, and
towards a doketic death upon the cross, the manifest lessons
of the soteriologic attempts of the Gnostics were recounted
and laid to heart.
But if history demonstrates the impossibiUty of holding a
scriptural view of , the Atonement side by side with a doketic
conception of the humanity of Jesus, it as clearly shows that
a disbeUef in His divinity is as entangling an opinion. Anti-
trinitarians have existed in aU Christian times, producing in
the Ante-Nicene period such notorious errors as the Ebionite,
SabeUian, Monarchian, and Arian heresies, and in later times
Socinianism and modem Unitarianism ; and have uttered their
loud and persistent protest against deo'Xoyetv rbv Xpurrov,
" beclouding the character and work of Jesus by theological
distinctions." Now, to repeat what was said concerning the
previous mental tendency, with the detaUed history and
criticism of so-caUed Unitarianism we have not to do ; what
we wish is simply to draw attention to the fact that, con
currently with a discrediting of the divinity of Jesus, there
' See p. 323.

332 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
has always existed an insufficiently scriptural view of the
Atonement. The rejection of the dogma of the Theanthropos
has always involved an entire remodelling of theology, and,
amongst other doctrines, of that of the Atonement. All idea
of death, in the scriptural sense, as the vicarious endurance of
the punishment divinely decreed upon sin is passed over, and,
as a necessary consequence, stress is laid upon other aspects
of Christ's lUe and work, in order to account for His astoundmg
influence. Eejection upon any grounds of the divinity of
Jesus has invariably tended to the rejection of the paramount
import of His death in the remission of sins. As a matter of
fact. Unitarian theologians of pronounced views, or those theo
logians who are affected by that subtle and interpenetrating
atmosphere of Unitarianism which pervades the whole area of
the church at certain epochs, have been the great exponents
of what have been caUed, for want of a better word, moral
theories of the Atonement, — theories, that is to say, which
rely for their proof upon the common principles of ethics
rather than theology, — and in the requisite reconstruction
have had recourse now to the supereminence of Christ as a
teacher, and now to His exaltation as a martyr, at one time
to His unparaUeled and attractive love, and at another to His
stern and rigid moral example. The scriptural doctrine of
the Atonement stands or faUs with the acceptance of aU and
each of its three moments ; reject that of the divinity of
Jesus, and history has always shown that the scriptural con
ception of the death of Christ has been invariably rejected too,
— all sorts of hypotheses being advanced to render intelUgible
in any degree the stupendous effects wrought by Jesus upon
the hearts and consciences of men. If detailed proof were
essential, it would abundantly suffice to examine the doctrinal
efforts, by far the most complete and scholar-like the Anti-
trinitarian school has produced, of that self-denying and
indefatigable brotherhood which estabUshed itself in the six
teenth century in the Polish Palatinate ; adhesion to the funda
mental principle of Fausto Sozzmi — a change, that is to say,
in theology proper or the doctrine of God — would be then seen
to involve changes in the current anthropology, soteriology,
ecclesiology, and eschatology, so completely do the scriptural

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 333
doctrines stand or fall together ; and yet it would be also seen
that in the enforced reconstruction of the doctrine of the work
of Christ, with all the exegetic pliancy and laborious criticism
of a Sozzmi, a Crell, and a SchUchting, the impression is most
vividly left upon the mind that the several Socmian doctrines
are inharmonious, their quotations are one-sided, their inter
pretations strained, and their criticism based for the most part
upon misconception,' Where Socinus failed, who, with the
same postulates, shaU succeed ? EquaUy with the Gnostic
theories, the several Anti-trinitarian theories are crucial experi
ments "which demonstrate the inevitableness of eliding much
of the express testimony of Scripture, if the scriptural doctrine
of the Person of Christ be msufficiently seized.
But it is upon the various doctrmes subsumed under the
second head, viz, the unscriptural views of the nature of the
death of Christ, that the greatest attention, from their surpass
ing interest and influence, has usually and deservedly been
bestowed; and upon some of the more prominent of these
theories a brief criticism may be very profitably spent. We
commence with a theory which had 'many eminent supporters
in patristic and mediaeval times.
It is manUest from the extant writings of the so-caUed
Apostolic Fathers, that they framed neither an objective nor a
subjective theory of the death of Christ; the biblical state
ments expressed with sufficient precision the cardinal doctrines
of their faith, and in their mtense realization of the salvation
that was in Christ, deep emotion precluding and superseding
exact science, they had no desire to express in logical form,
' See the Bibliotheca Fratrum Pohnorum qui Unitarii appdlantur, continens
opera omnia Johannis Crellii Francii, Ludovici Wolsogenii, Fausti Socini Senensis
et Exegetica Jonce Schlichtingii a Bucoviec, IrenopoU 1656, the first volume
of which contains the exegetic and didactic works of Socinus, and the second
the polemic. The views of Socinus upon the Atonement are to be found in the
Prcelectiones Theologicce, vol, i. pp. 537-600, or in polemic form in, possibly his
finest work, the De Jesu Servatore. John CreU wrote a defence of the De Serva-
tore, which is included in the same edition. SchUchting was the great exegete
of the school, and scattered throughout his Commentary upon tlie New Testa
ment are numerous investigations of the subject in hand. A brief statement of
the Socinian views upon the Atonement wUl be found in the Eacovian Catechism,
Christiance Religionis brevissima institutio per interrogationes et responsiones,,
Qusest. 377, etc. ,

334 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
and with suitable limitation, that which stirred them so
deeply.^ It was in the severe conflict with Gnosticism that it
first became necessary for the leaders of the orthodox party to
state exactly what they beUeved ; and it was under the bane
ful shadow of Gnosticism that the first aspect of the atone
ment elaborated was the relation of the death of Christ to the
devil Was it not inevitable that a one-sided investigation
should lead to a one-sided and subsequently an erroneous
theory ? Even so early as the days of Irenaeus, it was felt
to be necessary to define with some precision the effect of the
work of Christ upon the kingdom of Satan ; * but redebiption
from the devil, which in Irenseus was the regaining by moral
suasion of the power which the devU had obtained by force
without possessing any valid right, becomes in Origen a pay
ment to the devU of a ransom he may rightly claim. The
conception, at any rate, which this greatest of the Theosophists,
who have debased theology by accommodating it to corrupt
philosophical theories, entertained concerning the redemption
of man has been thus accurately described by a modem
church historian : " The assumption from which Origen starts
1 A series of quotations to this effect from Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, and
Clement of Eome, which might be augmented to considerable length, will be found
in Shedd's useful History of Christian Doctrine (T. and T. Clark), voL ii.
pp. 208-211. Dr. Shedd thus sums up his investigations : "It is evident, from
this examination of the very brief writings of the Apostolic Fathers, that they
recognised the doctrine of atonement for sin by the death of the Eedeemer
as one taught in the Scriptures, and especially in the writings of those two great
apostles, John and Paul, at whose feet they had most of them been brought up ;
they did not, however, venture beyond the phraseology of Scripture, and they
attempted no rationale of the dogma."
* In his fifth book. Contra Hcereses, Irenseus writes : "The Mighty Word and
True Man, redeeming us by His own blood in accordance with the dictates of
right reason (rationabilMer), gave Himself as a ransom for those who had been
taken captive ; and since the kingdom of Satan (aposiasia) unjustly ruled us,
and since we were the subjects of God by nature, contrary to nature He has
transferred our allegiance (alienavit nos), making us His own disciples : the
Omnipotent Word of God, having no lack of justice in Himself against the
apostasy itself proceeded justly, redeeming His own from its power — not forcibly,
as the apostasy did in the beginning, snatching with insatiable greed (rapiens
insatiaUliter) things which did not belong to it, but by moral suasion (secundum,
suadelam), as became God, who would attain His desire by persuasion, and not
by force, so that neither should justice be violated nor the original creation of
God perish " (Patrologice Orcecce tom. vii. p. 1121).

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 335
is the right which the devil has obtained over man by sin ;
this right necessitated a just arrangement with him: it involved,
that is to say, that this right he had acquired should not be
taken from him by force, but that he should receive as recom
pense for his loss something else equivalent, since only on
this presupposition would he be wilUng to submit to the
exchange. This ransom was the blood of Christ." ' Now, this
conception of the lutron of the New Testament, as a ransom
paid to the devil for the liberation of man who was his
lawful slave, became one of the most cherished views of the
church ; and although it was staunchly and almost virulently
opposed by men like Athanasius and Gregory- Nazianzen,
although in addition it must never be left out of sight, that in
the very writers who stated it most grossly, it did not exclude
other views upon the same subject ; * nevertheless it cannot be
denied that in popular preaching, as weU as in more methodi
cal theological inquiries, this was the view which in patristic
and mediaeval times most readily came to the front; it was
prominently advocated, with more or less limitations, in the
writings of Basil the Great, Ambrose, Leo the Great, Gregory
the Great, Hugo St. Victor, Thomas Aquinas, and Bernard of
Clairvaux, not to mention lesser names ; and even those who
ostensibly opposed it could not shake themselves free from its
contaminating influence. Sometimes the theory was expressed
so grossly as to imply that the conflict of Christ with the
devil was maintained upon the ancient principle that decep
tion or trickery, feint or falsehood, all was fair in war. Thus
Gregory the Great likens the devil to the Behemoth of the
Book of Job, who was hooked by the bait of the flesh of
Christ ; John Damascene finds a parallel to the blindness of
1 Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der VersShnung in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entutickelung von der altesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, 1838, pp. 47-49.
' Thus Origen dwells in many passages, as forcibly as Anselm, upon the
character of the work of Christ viewed as the payment of a debt, and as forcibly
as Jonathan Edwards upon the juridic aspect of the Atonement. Hence Eitschl,
finding the first traces, as he says, of a thoroughgoing and exclusive theory in
Anselm, commences his historical investigation in the first volume of his great
work. Die christliche Lehre von der Reehtfertigung und Versohnung (Erster
Band, 1870, " Die Oeschichte der Lehre ; " Zweiter Band, " Der biblische Stoff
der Lehre," 1874 ; Dritter Band, " Die positive Entwickelung der Lehre," 1874),
with the Cur Deus Homo.

336 CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
the devU in the dog in the fable who dropped his meat to
catch at its shadow ; and several writers of a yet later date
speak of the cross as a bird-snare or a mouse-trap.
This bygone theory of a ransom paid to the devU, now
relegated to the museums of the past as an equal curiosity
with the theory of the universe founded upon the hypothesis
of four elements, was based upon two facts and two errors.
It was perfectly true, as the Bible states, that there was a
relation between the death of Christ and the empire of Satan ;
it was also true that the death of Christ is described in the
Bible as a ransom ; it is a misapprehension to allege that the
Bible regards the devU as having any vested right in man,
and equaUy a misapprehension to say that the ransom con
templated by the Scriptures was a ransom in the mitigation
of a righteous claim on the part of the devil. WeU might
Gregory Nazianzen ask, " To whom was the ransom paid ?
To the evU one himself ? Away with such a scandal 1 Then
the robber would receive not from God merely, but God
Himself as a ransom and exceeding rich reward for his
tyranny ! " The testimony of the New Testament is clear
that the ransom paid was to the offended majesty of the Most
High, not to any Satanic power. There are rare cases pos
sibly in the New Testament where the conception of a Xvrpov
may refer to a monetary indemnity to be paid as the price of
a slave. The idea of a \vTpov, as has been already shown, in
some few cases signifies, like the Hebrew equivalent, the mere
fact of deUverance, and a ransoming from the devil would in
this case mean a deUverance from his power by any possible
means ; the idea, however, signifies in most cases the indem
nity paid to God in satisfaction for wrong done, as in the
case of the trespass-offerings and ransoms for the first-born
under the old covenant.-' The figure of redemption caUed
up in the minds of the apostles and their hearers the various
redemptions of the Jewish law, not the associations of Eoman
society ; the figure of ransom was drawn from the customs of
the Tabernaclei, not of the slave-mart. A knowledge of the
detaUs of the Jewish worship, and their intimate connection
with the rites and doctrines of the Christian church, would
1 See pp. 274 and 275.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 337
have saved the Church from the distortions and coarseness of
the idea of indemnifying the devil
The theory just considered, so far from being a complete
induction from Scripture, is a perverse rendering of one of
the facts which any complete induction should explain ; the
theory which next caUs to be considered, that of the famous
successor of Lanfranc in the see of Canterbury and the Father
of Scholasticism, is assuredly an induction from Scripture, but
an incomplete induction. The problem Anselm placed before
himself in his great treatise, which he adroitly caUed Cur Deus
Homo, was to investigate the reason of the incarnation. He
divides his work into two parts, in the first of which he
deals with the objections of those who reject the Christian
faith, and undertakes to demonstrate remoto Christo . . .
rationibus necessariis esse impossibile ullum hominem salvare
sine illo, — that is to say, that if there be no Christ, the sal
vation of any man is impossible ; and in the second, "just as
if nothing were known of Christ," he undertakes to prove
" that human nature has been framed for this end, that the
whole man, body and soul, might enjoy a blessed immortaUty ;
that this end must be accomplished, and must be accomplished
by no other means than the incarnation audits consequences.'"
This inquiry he carries on in the form of dialogue non tarn
ostendere, quam tecum qumrere — for fellowship in investiga
tion rather than dogmatizing. The main question is other
wise stated. Thus, in one place, Anselm writes that it is his
desire to answer the query, whether emanating from an infidel
or a believer, " with what reason and by what necessity God
became man, and restored by His death, as is beUeved and
confessed, life to the world, when this might have been done
by some one else, whether by angel or man, or by a simple
volition;"* or, as it is put elsewhere, "by what necessity and
reason God, when He is ommpotent, took upon HimseU the
humiliation and weakness of human nature for our redemp
tion?"' or, as the question is put in yet another place,
" What righteousness is there in deUvering the greatest man
who ever Uved to death on the sinner's behalf ? " * and yet
1 Cur Deus Homo, Prsefatio. ' Ibid. Book I. cap. i.
3 Ibid. Book I. cap. ii. * Ibid. Book I. cap. xviii.

338 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
again it is proposed to inquire, " by what means the death of
Christ can be rational and necessary," ^ It is evident, there
fore, that whUst Anselm appears to propose, to himself the
solution of the purpose of the incarnation, he is in reaUty
investigating the necessity of the cross ; as he himself tersely
says, " Qucerendum est igitur, qua ratione Deus dimittat peccata
hominibus" — "The problem is this, by what method God
remits the sins of men,"* Anselm, after answering several
subsidiary questions, proposes to reply by examining " what
sm is," and " what it is to render satisfaction for sin ? " Sin is
debt, says Anselm, and to render satisfaction for sin is to pay
the debt due to the Almighty. To quote his own words : " If
either angel or man always rendered to God what he owed,
he would never sin: sin is therefore nothing else than to
render to God His due : now the whole wiU of every rational
creature ought to be subject to the wUl of God. This, then,
is the debt which both angel and man owe to God, by paying
which no one sins, and which every one who does not pay
sins. This is justice or uprightness of wiU, which. makes men
just or upright in heart, in other words, in wiU ; this is the
sole and total honour which we owe to God, and which God
requires of us : only such a wUl does deeds pleasant in the
sight of God, when action is possible ; and when it is not, the
wUl itself is acceptable, because no deed can please without
it. He who does not pay to God this debt of honour defrauds
God of what is His own, and dishonours God, and this is to
sin ; and so long as what is taken is not paid, he remains a
defaulter. Nor is it enough to restore what has been withheld,
but because of the contumely inflicted more must be repaid :
for as, when the health of any one is injured, to restore health
without making some recompense for the pain that has been
borne is an insufficient requital; so the violator of honour
does not make adequate restitution, unless he repays propor
tionately to the irksomeness of the dishonour : so, then, every
smner is under the obUgation of paymg to God the honour he
has deprived Him of, and this is the satisfaction which every
sinner owes to God." ' Having thus estabUshed that aU sin
1 Cur Deus Homo, Book I. cap. x. ' Ibid. Book I. cap. xi.
' Ibid. Book I. cap. xi.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT, 339
is debt djie to God, Anselm applies this conception to the
elucidation of the cathoUc doctrine, and in detail substantiates
the propositions, — that God cannot forgive sin, that is to say,
forgive the debt due to His honour without a payment in full,
— that the payment demanded must be commensurate with
the sin, — that the lightest sin is incommensurable, — that man
is a bankrupt debtor, — and that satisfaction can only be made
by the incarnation of God and His free payment of aU the
dues of man.
In the history of Christian doctrine, the Cur Deus Homo
takes its place with Butler's Analogy. As an apologetic sub
stantiation of Christian beUef, it was invaluable in the special
reUgious circumstances of the days of WiUiam Eufus, and,
from its steady and irresistible progress from the commonest
elements of popular ethics and common sense to the distinctive
features of the New Testament revelation, it may even render
service to the modem sceptic ; as a contribution to Christian
doctrine, it is inconsequent and misleading. Valuable as it is
to convince the unbeliever that all sin is a Contraction of debt
which must be paid sooner or later, to impart a similar con
ception to the beUever is to erect a fleeting description into a
satisfactory definition, Anselm's theory of the death of Christ
is a serious and methodical and thoroughgomg explanation of
the sinner's relation to the Creator by the light of the Parable
of the Talents, or the lord who forgave his steward his mone
tary defalcation; but such an explanation, teeming with
suggestiveness and mstruction, so long as it is used simply as
a figure, lands in perplexing contradiction immediately it is
made to go on aU fours, Anselm is himself to blame if the
retort is so often made, that the readiest way for a creditor
to cancel a debt is to forgive it unconditionaUy, The very
difficulty in the whole question, besides, is elided in such a
conception, for how comes it that the death of Christ defrays
the debt due to the divine honour ? To define sin as debt,
is to introduce endless confusion into the discussion. The
scriptural explanation is much more simple ; for when it is
said that death is the punishment decreed upon sin, and
further, that the death of Christ is the vicarious endurance of
that punishment in all its mystery by Him who was Himself

340 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT,
sinless and the actual awarder of the punishment, whUst it
is undoubtedly true that the one cardinal difficulty remains,
of the vaUdity of vicarious punishment, nevertheless minor
confusions are not introduced into the theory. To the com
prehension of the nature of sin Anselm contributed only a
figure of speech by caUing it debt ; to the comprehension of
the death of Christ he contributed an analogy simply by
caUmg it the payment of debt.
Duns Scotus adopted a paraUel analogy to explain the
scriptural statements upon the Atonement, drawing in this
instance from a technical relation between debtor and creditor
possible in Eoman law, and in those legal systems which
have emanated thence. By a legal fiction termed acceptation
or acceptilation, it was aUowable to grant release from debt by
canceUing the whole when part was paid, or even when no
money at aU changed hands. Acceptilation was thus the
optional acceptance of Uttle or nothing as something. Now,
this legal idea was employed by Duns Scotus in his contro
versy with the Thomists to Ulustrate the significance of
Christ's death. According to his view, the passion of Christ
was not, as Aquinas had asserted, sufficiens et superabundans
satisfactio} " a sufficient and more than a sufficient satisfac
tion" for the sins of the world ; the passion of Christ did not,
as Aquinas had also argued, effect salvation per modum
efficientice^ by its inherent merit, that is to say ; the passion
of Christ was a process of acceptilation, on which the Almighty
in His infinite benevolence is wiUing to regard as satisfaction
for the infinite sin of man what in itself is assuredly not
infinite. One passage from his Commentary, out of many
which might be quoted, wiU suffice. In replying to the state
ment that the life and work of Christ had something of infinity
about them which fitted them for annulUng infinite sin and
conferring infinite grace and glory, " I say," he writes, " that
the merit of Christ was finite, because essentially dependent
1 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3d part, quaest. 48 (Migne's edition, vol. iv.
pp. 445, 446).
" Ibid. vol. iv. pp. 450, 451. Aquinas has had the misfortune to be resorted
to for phrases rather than arguments ; his inquiries, for example, upon the
sufferings of Christ are extremely large-hearted and broad-eyed, nevertheless
it is by his satisfactio superabundans he is remembered.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 341
upon a finite beginning. . . . How then did that merit become
of sufficient avaU ? I say that as every other gift of God is
good because God has wUled it, and not conversely, that thus
the merit in question became just as great a good as it was
taken for {acceptdbatur), and that it was its acceptUation which
constituted it so great a merit, and not conversely. . . . From
its very form, this merit could not be received (acceptari) as
an infinite fact, or for an infinite purpose, but for a finite.
Nevertheless, from the circumstances of the case, there was a
certain extrinsic reason why God could acceptilate it as an
infinite fact, and employ it from its accompaniments for an
infinite purpose ; nor would there have been any congruity in
acceptUation visible either in the reason for the deed or in the
doer, if that merit had been attached to another person : the
passion of Christ sufficed for just as many as God wished it
should suffice (^acceptari) ; stUl, as far as the acceptUation itself
was concerned, it was neither regarded as infinite nor as in
itself formaUy infinite." ' What Duns Scotus intends his readers
to understand then is, by aU these subtle and almost untrans
latable technicaUties of scholasticism, that the sufferings of
Christ achieved their stupendous results by the divine voUtion
and not by mherent merit. The only criticism that is caUed
for by such a theory, is that the New Testament never regards
the death of Christ as a fancy value put upon the sin of man :
the death of Christ is a submission to a punishment equiva
lent to the punishment of the race.
In the works of Abaelard, whom Eoscellinus described as
" ennobled beyond the generaUty of men by the sanctity of
his Ufe and the exceptional character of his doctrme," the
death of Christ is submitted to popular comprehension by yet
another analogy. The sentiments of Peter Abaelard relative
to the subject in hand wUl be most conveniently extracted
from his Exposition of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, in the
second book of which he deUberately sets himself to answer
the question as to the nature of the redemption achieved by
Christ. Having in the first place criticised and rejected the
1 Joannes Duns Scotus, In tres primes et in quartum Sententiarum Commen-
taria. Book III. Dist. xix. Qusest. i. sec. 13 (vol. vii. p. 417, in the complete
edition in twelve folios made by the Franciscan Wadding in 1639).

342 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
notion that the death on Calvary was a ransom paid to the
devU, he proceeds to give in the following terms the trae
solutio to his qucBstio : " Now it seems to us that in this we
have been justified in tbe blood of Christ and reconciled to
God, that by the agency of that unparaUeled grace displayed
towards us, in that His Son has undertaken our nature and
endured even unto death whUst instructing us by word and
example. He has bound us so much more closely to Himself
by His love {nos sibi amplius per amor em astrinxit), that,
inflamed by such a gift of divine grace, genuine love dreads
the endurance of nothing for His sake ; and in the beUeving
expectation of this benefit, mdeed, the ancient Fathers, we
doubt not, were inflamed with the warmest love to God and man,
since it is written : ' And they that went before, and they that
foUowed, cried, saying, Hosanna ; Blessed is he that cometh in
the name of the Lord.' A most just man also, that is to say
one who loves God more, every man becomes after the passion
of Christ, because a benefit already accomplished arouses to
a deeper love than one that is only hoped for. Our redemp
tion therefore is that highest exhibition of love towards us,
which not only frees us from the slavery of sm, but obtains
for us the true Uberty of the sons of God, in order that we
may accompUsh aU things by love rather than fear of Him,
Who has displayed to us so great mercy, than which He Him
self testffies a greater cannot be found : ' Greater love has no
man than this, that a man lay down his Ufe for his friends.' " ^
The same sentiment is thus expressed m Abaelard's Epitome
of Christian Theology : " Side by side with His, all the tor
ments of the martyrs are as nothing, and so none can compare
with Him in suffering ; and it is evident all this was done
that He might show how great love He had to man, and so
inflame man with a greater love in return."* The validity,
therefore, of the death of Christ lay, in the opinion of Abae
lard, in the fact that it was a convincing exhibition of divine
love. Now, granting that the death of Christ is an exhibition of
1 Abaelard, Expositio in Epist. Pauli ad Romanos, Book II. (Migne's edition,
p. 836).
^ Epitome Theologicce Christiance, cap. xxv. (Migne's edition, p. 1731).

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 343
divine love, does it therefore foUow that it is this and nothing
more ? Had Abaelard asked himself such a question, he would
have probably been led to see in the New Testament an
additional element .to that which he, it must be admitted, so
forcibly deUneated. And yet this is far from certain : for it
would appear as if Abaelard had projected his own affectionate
and benevolent natm-e — wantmg lamentably, one cannot but
confess, in the sterner and nobler attributes of character,
imflinching uprightness and discriminating justice — into the
heavenly world, and represented Deity as such an one as
himself, spontaneously forgiving without prior or ulterior ex
amination, and loving to a fault. The love of God and the
love of Christ have assuredly not been left out of sight in the
previous discussion upon the scriptural doctrine of Atonement,
but these moments alone have been seen to be an insufficient
analysis of the divme action as revealed by the apostles.'^
Inflexible righteousness had its account to settle as weU as
magnanimous love.
From the great school of Arminian theologians, which has
inscribed, on its banners the Synod of Dort and the proud
name of Eemonstrants, and which has numbered in its ranks
such men as Jacob Arminius, Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius,
Stephen Curcellaeus, and PhUip von Limborch, have emanated
several distinct contributions to the doctrine of the Atonement.
In its reconstruction of the whole of theology in the Anti-
Predestinarian interest, the nature of the death of Christ could
not be left out of sight, and noteworthy theories are connected
with the names of Grotius and Limborch, one or the other of
whom the other investigators foUowed.
In his learned and clear Defensio Fidei Catholicce de Satis-
factione Christi, the distinguished jurist, who is better known
as the author of the famous treatise, De Jure Belli et Pacis,
from the pubUcation of which dates the modern conception of
international law, undertook to defend the cathoUc doctrme of
the Atonement from the animadversions of Socinus. Grotius
commences his treatise by a succinct and laudable statement
of the orthodox doctrine, which he enunciates as foUows : —
" The cathoUc doctrme is this : God, moved by His goodness to
1 See p. 298.

344 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
confer a signal benefit upon us, but restrained by our sins which
deserved to be punished, determmed that Christ, Himself a
wUUng agent because of His love to mankind, by submitting
to most excruciating tortures and an ignominious death, should
bear the punishment of our sins, in order that we, by the
exercise of genuine faith, the divine justice being clearly dis
played, might be freed from the penalty of eternal death." ^
This summarized statement Grotius proceeds to expand into
the foUowing moments : God is the primary efficient cause in
this redemption, being moved by His own pity and our sins,
which merited" punishment; Christ is the second efficient
cause, being moved by His great love ; the fact itself insisted
on (materia) is the series of pains previous to death and the
death itseU; the intention referred to {forma) is the payment
of the punishment due to our sins ; death is the destruction
of the person of Christ, consisting of body and soul; the
purpose is the demonstration of the divine justice and the
remission of our sins, — that is to say, the releasmg us from
their punishment. Having thus formulated the doctrine he
purposes to defend in a most unexceptionably scriptural
manner, Grotius advances to the task of substantiation ; and
an examination of the method employed shows that he reUed
for his defence upon two Unes of argument, the one, the state
ments of Scripture, and the other, legal analogy. Upon the
former method we need say no more ; it is in the latter that
false ideas arose. In his second chapter, .entitled, How^ God is
to be thought of in this matter, Grotius proceeds : " The state
of the controversy being understood, and that opinion being
confirmed from the Scriptures, upon which the faith of the
Church rests, to destroy the objection which his reason, or, to
speak the truth, his abuse of reason, has suggested to Socinus,
it is of the first importance to understand what part or office
God has in the matter in question, Socinus confesses His
part is with Uberation from punishment, we would add that
He has to do with the infliction of punishment ; whence it
foUows that God must be regarded as a Euler {Bectorem) : for
to inflict punishment, or to release any one you might punish
1 Defensio Fidei, cap, i, ; Pitt's complete edition of the works of Grotius,
1679, vol. iv. p. 297.

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 345
from his penalty, which the Scriptures caU justifying, is
primarUy and necessarUy the function of a ruler as such {non
est nisi Pectoris qua talis primo et per se) ; as, for example,
the function of a father in the family, a king in the State, a
Deity in the universe." " Now, smce God is to be regarded
as a Euler," Grotius contmues in the next chapter, " this act
of His is an act of jurisdiction generaliter dictce." Of what
nature, then, it must be asked, is this act of jurisdiction ? It
is a relaxation, is the reply, of the penal law at the wUl of
the Euler : " The question may be here asked, whether that
penal law may be relaxed ? For there, are some laws which
cannot be relaxed {irrelaxabiles) either absolutely or e^ vtto-
Oeaeax: (hypothetically). Those which are absolutely irrelax-
able are such as are addressed to things irreversibly wicked,-
as, for example, the law against perjury or against bearing
false witness against a neighbour ; for just as we say that
God cannot lie and cannot deny Himself, so we may no less
rightly say that God cannot do, or approve, or grant legal
rights to actions inherently wicked. Laws are hypotheticaUy
relaxable which are concerned with some definite decree
which the Scripture calls t^? ^ov\fj<; afierddeTov (immutable
in counsel), or diJ,eTav6r)Tov (not to be repented of) ; such a
law is that concerning the condemnation of those who do not
beUeve in Christ. But aU positive laws are relaxable, nor
may we betake ourselves to a hypothetical necessity for a
distinct decree, where no mark of any such decree exists.
But some fear lest to concede such a thing is to injure God
by makmg Him mutable — they are much mistaken ; for law
is not something inherent in God, nor is it the wiU of God, —
law is an effect of His wiU {nam lex non est aliquid internum
in Deo aut ipsa Dei voluntas, sed voluntatis quidam effectus) :
but the effects of the divine wUl are most certainly mutable."'
Hence it appears that the positive and penal law of God
may be put aside, in the esteem of Grotius. And so he
distmctly adds ; with the proviso, that it be not relaxed either
easily or upon a Ught occasion. " But," he concludes, " there
was a most weighty reason, since the whole human race had
lapsed into sin, for relaxing the law ; for if aU sinners were to
1 Pitt's edition, voL iv. pp. 310, 311.

346 CRITICAL EEVIEW OF THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
be delivered to eternal death, there would utterly perish from
the earth two most beautiful things, human adoration of God,
and divine beneficence to man.'' Thiis, according to Grotius,
the death of Christ effects the salvation of man by a process
of relaxation of law; it was not Socinus, as Grotius urged,
that had relapsed into the Scotist notion of acceptilation, but
Grotius himself in a more subtle form.
As a statement of scriptural doctrine, the Defensio Fidei was
most powerful ; it also had considerable weight as an apolo
getic reply to Socinus, from its strong insistence upon the
Eectoral attributes of the Deity : it is only when we approach
its deliberate contribution to the apprehension of the bibUcal
statements that fault must be found. What the Bible says
is, that the death of Christ was an actual submission to the
punishment of death decreed upon sin ; that is to say, if the
legal analogy be adopted, there was no relaxation of law ; the
forgiveness of man was not a judicial remission of punishment
in consideration of some recognition made of the majesty of
the law, but in consideration of a complete recognition ; the
forgiveness of the prisoner was not a verdict of guUty, which
was, because of the recommendation of the prosecutor who has
been made to .suffer, virtually an acquittal ; the forgiveness of
the New Testament is a consequence of the actual submission
of the prosecutor to the punishment due to the prisoner.
Limborch resorted to yet another analogy to explain the
current doctrine of the Church — that of the Jewish sacrffices :
in his view, the death of Christ was a sacramental act,
achieving, by the divine mercy, results incommensurate with
its inherent power. " Some speak," he writes, " of the satis
faction of Christ, by which He has released us from aU the
pains due to our sins, and by bearing and exhausting them
has satisfied the divine justice; but this sentiment has no
foundation in Scripture {sic) : for " (to give one reason out
of many he advances) " the death of Christ is caUed a sacrifice
for sin, and sacrifices are not payments of debts, nor plenary
satisfactions for sins, but a gratuitous remission of sins is
granted on their completion " {illis peractis conceditur gratuita
peccata remissio)} This conception Limborch subsequently
1 Theologia Christiana, 3d ed. p. 255.

CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT. 347
expands as foUows : " There remains, then, our own opinion,
that is, that Jesus Christ was a true sacrifice for our sins, and
was rightly so caUed. . . . But you may ask. How comes it
that a single victim sufficed for the expiation of so many
myriads of men and their sins ? See : one victim sufficed for
two reasons ; the one is, the divine wUl, which required for
the Uberation of the human race nothing more than this
single victim. For it is the inalienable right of the Almighty
to declare with what price He wiU rest satisfied. And,
indeed, if animal victmis could suffice by the wUl of God
under the Old Testament for the expiation of those lesser
crimes of the people, for the expiation of which God admitted
sacrifices at that time; and if, especially, those two goats
(Lev. xvi.), the one of which, after the imposition of the high
priest's hands, was sent out into the desert, and the other was
slain, and its blood carried by the high priest into the Holy of
Holies, sufficed for bearing away and expiating the sins of
the people committed throughout a whole year, why should
not the blood of Jesus Christ also suffice, by the same divine
will, for expiating aU the sins of the whole world ? A second
reason is, the dignity of the person of Jesus Christ, w]^o is
the Son of God, verily God over aU things, blessed for ever." '
By the action of the divine wiU, therefore, it was the opmion
of Limborch, the death of Christ, which possessed only an
analogous potency to that of the Old Testament sacrffices,
became sacramentally equal to the great and stupendous work
attributed to it. The same view is adopted by Curcellaeus :
" Christ," said he, " did not make satisfaction by enduring the
punishment which we sinners merited. This is not the nature of
a sacrffice, and has nothing in common with it ; for sacrifices are
not payments of debts, as is manifest from those offered under
the Law. The victims that were slain for transgressors did
not expiate the punishment which they merited, nor was their
blood a sufficient \vTpov for the soul of man. But they were
oblations only by which the transgressor endeavoured to
mcUne the mind of God to compassion, and to obtain remis
sion from Him. Hence the formula in the Law appUed to
' Theologia Christiana, 3d ed. p. 258.

348 CEITICAL EEVIEW OF THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
those who had expiated their sins by offering a sacrifice : ' And
it shaU be forgiven them.' " ^
That such a view of the significance of sacrificial ter
minology, as appUed to the death of Christ, is unscriptural,
this whole book demonstrates. If many have erred in con
fining their study of sacrifice to the salient points of the New
Testament, the Arminians have erred by restricting their
investigations to the saUent features of the Old Testament.
And not to them with any care, or they woiUd have observed
the difficulty arising from numerous difficult points in the
sacrificial worship of the Old Testament which were un
resolved and unresolvable until the coming of Christ ; and they
would also have appreciated the great difficulty in precisely
apprehending the nature of Christ's death from a sacrificial
standpoint, because of the variety of sacrificial figures appUed
to it. Further, it is directly opposed to the teaching of the
apostles, that the death of Christ possessed simply a sacra
mental efficacy. Limborch and CurceUseus are forcible Ulus
trations of that vice, which has so largely impeded the progress
of the doctrine of the Atonement, of mistaking faint analogy
for valid inference.
To the wise all history is the biography of their own minds,
and the history of doctrine displays as vividly as political
history the tendencies to error which are latent in us aU ; and
it were well if every man who betakes himself to this special
study were to view his fleeting opinions and half-expressed
tendencies in the cold Ught of history, and thus decide for
himseU dispassionately and thoroughly, first, the limits of the
authority of Scripture, and, next, the compatibility of his
evanescent or more lasting opinions with that ultimate
authority; for not a Uttle of modern perplexity still arises
from semi-latent leanings towards viewing the work of Christ
under some figure of speech like ransom, or debt, or acceptilation,
or relaxation, or love, or sacrifice.
1 Institutio Religionis Christiance, Book V. cap. xix. 15.

CHAPTER VII.
THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE.
"To judge rightly the time and its condition is the great thing ; there is a
time, as the preacher says, to speak, and a time to keep silence. " — Matthew
Arnold, Literature and Dogma, Preface.
" TPVlD the Almighty," says Lessing, " holding in His right
_L^ hand truth, and in His left search after truth, deign
to tender me the one I might prefer,^ — in aU humiUty, but
without hesitation, I shoiUd request search after truth." ' A
parallel, if not as startling a paradox, would be, " Great books
do not of necessity owe their value to the amount of truth
which they contain." Books without number, the conclusions
of which have long been regarded as only deserving of decent
burial, live because of the invaluable method by which those
conclusions were professedly reached, or because of the im
perishable style under which those conclusions were conveyed.
The asides of many writers possess a more lastmg and attrac
tive iiffiuence than their deUberate and darUng labours. In
books, as in education, discipUne is as coveted a gem as
express teaching. Thinking that is erroneous is not therefore
devoid of stimulus ; views which time proves incorrect, are
not therefore unadapted to a temporary state of the pubUc
mind; opinions easUy shown to be inconsequent, are not
therefore inconvenient ; sentiments intrinsically false, are not
therefore adventitiously inapt. The search after truth of some
minds is more precious than the truth of others.
We have thus prefaced the contents of this chapter, because
it is always an invidious task to criticise the writings of those
to whom we are under obUgation for guidance or encourage
ment, for suggestiveness or spiritual force. And this is pecu
liarly the case with recent writers. By the lapse of time and
1 Quoted by Sir William HamUton, Metaphysics, Lect. i. voL i. p. 13.

350 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
the respect of ages, the great theologians of the past have
gamed their halo of fame, and are viewed through that mist
of enchantment which distance lends ; Augustine wiU always
be " the Saint of Hippo," and Aquinas " the angelical doctor ; "
to detract from them in one thing, can never be to detract
in all, and their deeds, and characters, and opinions may be
animadverted on without apology. With those, however, who
are our contemporaries, or the awe of whose lamented decease
has scarcely faded from our hearts, it is otherwise ; the faults
of friends or famUiars in the home or in the study we would
fain forget tn their virtues, and inaUenable instincts comcide
in the sentiment, de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Such thoughts must in aU reverence preface the examina
tion of the leading work ' of that chaste, patient, and loving
spirit, John M'Leod Campbell, which none can read without a
tribute to the deep spirituality of its author, his grave intelU
gence and manly sympathy with those who are perplexed by
the reUgious unsettlement of modem times. The history of
Dr. CampbeU's view of the atonement is instructive. " It is
about forty years," he writes in the notes to his third edition,
" since the moral and spiritual nature of the atonement first
dawned upon my mmd. What was then prominent in my
faith and in my teaching was the universaUty of the atone
ment and the assured peace with God, which is quickened by
the faith of the forgiveness of sins revealed in the gospel.
But my attention was drawn to the nature of the atonement
in tracing out the moral and spiritual power of faith in it, and
in considering its immediate and direct object of bringing us
to God. This element in my teaching, however, was not
included when that teaching was caUed in question. But,
subsequently, it more and more occupied my thoughts, gradu
aUy, through many years, taking the form which it presents
in this book, viz. a moral and spiritual atonement, and which
was such in itseU, — not simply accepted as such because of
the moral exceUence manifested tn Christ tn making it. . . .
A continually deepening sense of the importance of the con
clusions at which I had arrived on this great subject at last
' The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life,

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 351
induced me to write on it. And, as a preparation for this
task, I thought it right to acquaint myseU as much as possible
with the state of ,mind on the subject of the atonement, in
which I might expect to find reUgious men. . . . My
endeavour was to discern any element of truth present in
what I read, and to separate it from the error with which it
might be combined ; and thus the words of President Edwards,
• either an equivalent punishment, or an equivalent sorrow and
repentance,' suggested to me that that earnest and deep thinker
had reaUy been on the verge of that conception of a moral and
spiritual atonement which was occupying my own thoughts." ^
For this history of Dr. CampbeU's initiation into the guUd of
great thinkers upon the atonement, we cannot be too thankful.
That history gives us a satisfactory starting-point for his sub
sequent resiUts : it was in reaUty a repugnance to the current
Presbyterian doctrine of his time upon one aspect of the
atonement — a desire to find a basis, inteUectual U not biblical,
for "the universaUty of the atonement" — that prompted a
further study of the subject. It was the Universalist theory
of the atonement which became the prepossession in favour of
the theory of the nature of the atonement which Dr. CampbeU
proposed ; it was not the nature of the atonement which com
peUed a Universalist theory. Clearly enough the crucial ques
tion upon the atonement is placed before us as foUows : " The
sufferings of Christ in making His soul an offering for sin
being what they were, was it the pain as pain and as a penal
infliction, or was it the pain as a condition and form of hoU
ness and love under the pressure of our sm and consequent
misery, that is presented to our faith as the essence of the
sacrffice and its atoning virtue ? " * But the reply which Dr.
CampbeU returned to this question of the nature of the atone
ment was confessedly necessitated by a view already held on
various grounds concerning the extent of the atonement. And
it was such a prepossession also which rendered it necessary
to find the proof of the theory advanced in its " seU-evidencing
Ught," ' not in the testimony of Scripture.
1 The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, 3d. ed. pp. 398-400.
^ Ibid. p. 118. ' Ibid. Introd. p. xviii.

352 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
Having premised that of the two fundamental doctrines of
the Christian faith, the Incarnation and the Atonement, the
Incarnation is " the primary and highest fact," and the Atone
ment the ¦ secondary and derivative in the history of God's
relation to man. Dr. CampbeU goes on to say that, " assum
ing the incarnation," he has "sought to realize the divine
mind in Christ as perfect Sonship towards God, and perfect
brotherhood towards man, and doing so the incarnation has
appeared developing itself naturally and necessarily as the
atonement." '¦ Defining more accurately the plan he has
marked out for himself. Dr. CampbeU further says, that of
the three aspects of the atonement, — ^its reference, its object,
and its nature, — it is its nature that he proposes to consider,
and that with more immediate reference to the second aspect.
what it has accomplished in regard to the remission of sins
and the gift of eternal Ufe.*
Thus viewed. Dr. Campbell considers the atonement to
have a twofold reference, — the one retrospective, relating to
the evil from which deliverance is effected ; the other prospec
tive, relating to the good bestowed.' Further, the retrospective
and prospective aspects each present two sides — viz., first,
Christ's dealing with men on the part of God; and, secondly.
His deaUng with God on the part of men.* To the iUustra
tion of these several bearings of the atonement the greater
part of the book is given.
Commencing with the retrospective aspect, Christ's dealing
with men on the part of God is first considered. " It was in
our Lord the natural outcoming of the life of love — of love to
the Father, and of love to us — to show us the Father, to vmdi-
cate the Father's name, to witness for the exceUence of that
will of God against which we were rebeUing, to witness for the
trustworthiness of that Father's heart in which we were refus
ing to put confidence, to witness for the unchanging character
of that love in which there was hope for us, though we had
destroyed ourselves. This witness-bearing for God (' I have
given Him for a witness to the people ') was accompUshed in
1 The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, Introd. p. xvii.
2 Ibid. pp. 1, 2. 2 Ibid. p. 6. * Ibid. pp. 127, 128.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 353
the personal perfection that was in Christ, His manifested
perfection in humanity, — that is to say, the perfection of His
own following of the Father as a dear child, and the perfection
of His brotherly love in His walk with men. His love and
His trust towards His Father, His love and His long-suffering
towards His brethren, — the latter being presented to our faith
in its oneness with the former, — were together what He con
templated when He said, ' He that hath seen me hath seen the
Father.' " ^ And .this witness-bearing for the Father (which,
by the by, no evangelical teacher leaves out of his teaching
upon the infiuence of Christ, however strongly he refuses to
see in that witness-bearing a sacrifice for sin) Dr. CampbeU
actuaUy asserts to be an element in the sacrifice Christ made
for sin : " This witness-bearing for the Father was a part of
the self-sacrifice of Christ. The severity of the pressure of
our sins upon the spirit of Christ was necessarily greatly
increa.sed through that living contact with the enmity of the
carnal mind to God into which Christ was brought, in being
to men a Uving epistle of the grace of God. His honouring
the Father caused men to dishonour Him ; His manifestation
of brotherly love was repaid with hatred ; His perfect walk
in the sight of men failed to commend either His Father or
Himself; His professed trust in the Father was cast up to
Him, not being believed, and the bitter complaint was wrung
from Him, ' Eeproach hath broken my heart.' " *
The dealing of Christ with God on behalf of men in its
prospective aspect is next considered ; this second feature of
the mediatorial work of Christ is "a perfect confession of
human sin." If the Lord Jesus mediates between God and
man by a representation in Himself of the nature of God, He
mediates between man and God by a representation in Him
self of the nature of man : " That oneness of mind with the
Father, which towards man took the form of condemnation of
sin, would, in the Son's dealing with the Father in relation to
our sins, take the form of a perfect confession of our sins.
This confession, as to its own nature, must have been a perfect
1 The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, p. 129.
' Ibid. p. 130. Z

354 THE THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
Am.en in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man.
Such an Amen ('„a deep, multiform, all-embracing, harmonious '
Amen, as Dr. CampbeU elsewhere states ') was due in the
truth of things. He who was the truth could not be in
humanity and not utter it ; and it was necessarily a first step
in deaUng with the Father in our behalf. He who would
intercede for us must begin by confessing our sins. This all
will at once perceive. But let us weigh this confession of
our sins by the Son of God in humanity. . . . Apart from the
question of the suffermg present in that confession of our sins,
and the depth of meaning which it gives to the expression, ' a
sacrifice for sin,' let us consider this Amen from the depths of
the humanity of Christ to the divine condemnation of sin.
What is it in relation to God's wrath against sin ? What
place has it in Christ's dealing with that wrath ? I answer :
He who so responds to the divine wrath against sin, saying,
' Thou art righteous, 0 Lord, who jiidgest so,' is necessarUy
receiving the fuU apprehension and realization of that wrath,
as weU as of that sin against which it comes forth into His
soul and spirit, into the bosom of the divine humamty; and,
so receiving it. He responds to it with a perfect response, — a
response from the depths of that divine humanity, — and in
that perfect response he absorbs it. For that response has aU the
elements of a perfect repentance in humanity for all the sin
of man, — a perfect sorrow, a perfect contrition, — aU the elements
of such a repentance, and that in absolute perfection, — aU,
excepting the personal consciousness of sin; and by that per
fect response in Amen to the mind of God in relation to sin is
the wrath of God rightly met, and that is accorded to divine
justice which is its due and could alone satisfy it." *
So much for the nature of this expiation by confession ; but
some attention, Campbell affirms, must also be paid, to render
the theory complete, to the intensity of the sufferings of Christ
which this confession — this utterance of " the perfect Amen
in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man " —
entailed. A singular admission ! That intensity " was according
' The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remisiion of Sins and
Eternal Life, p. 225.
2 Ibid. pp. 135-137.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 355
to the perfection of the divine mind in the sufferer, and the
capacity of suffering which is in suffering flesh." '
To iUustrate this novel view of the nature of the atonement
of Christ, Dr. Campbell appends the foUowing iUustration : —
" Let us suppose that all the sin of humanity has been com
mitted by one human spirit, on whom is accumulated this
immeasurable amount of guilt, and let us suppose this spirit,
loaded with all this guilt, to pass out of sin into holiness, and
to become fiUed with the Ught of God becoming perfectly
righteous with God's own righteousness, — such a change, were
such a change possible, would imply in the spirit so changed
a perfect condemnation of the past of its own existence, and
an absolute and perfect repentance, a confession of its sin com
mensurate with its evU. If the sense of personal identity
remained, it must, be so. Now let us contemplate this re
pentance with reference to the guilt of such a spirit, and the
question of pardon for its past sin, and admission now to the
light of God's favour. ShaU this repentance be accepted as
an atonement, and, the past sin being thus confessed, shaU the
divine favour flow out on that present perfect righteousness
which thus condemns the past ? or shall that repentance be
declared inadequate ? shaU the present perfect righteousness
be rejected on account of past sin, so absolutely and perfectly
repented of? and shall divme justice stiU demand adequate
punishment for the past sin, and refuse to the present righteous
ness adequate acknowledgment — the favour which, in respect
of its own nature, belongs to it ? It appears to me impossible
to give any but one answer to these questions. We feel that
such a repentance as we are supposing would, in such a case,
be the true and proper satisfaction to offended justice, and
that there would be more atoning worth in one tear of the
true and perfect sorrow which the memory of the past would
awaken in this now holy spirit, than in endless ages of penal
woe. Now, with the difference of personal identity, the case
I have supposed is the actual case of Christ."* Yes, "with the
difference ofpersmial identity; " but is it not just " this difference
' The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, p. 139.
2 Ibid. pp. 145, 146.

356 ¦ THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
of personal identity," a reasoner might say, which has led Dr.
CampbeU to reject the idea of a vicarious bearing of punish
ment, and is a vicarious confession any more intelUgible ?
Passing, then, to the prospective aspect of the atonement,
CampbeU urges — we speak of the matter briefly, because it is
not of high importance to a comprehension of his pecuUar
theory — that, manwards, it was a bringing of humanity into
the life of sonship,' and, Godwards, an intercession on man's
behalf.* Upon the very suggestive chapters on Intercession
regarded as Prayer, and on The Life and Sufferings of Christ
as illustrative of the Continuity of Sonship, we do not enter.
A general summary of this theory of M'Leod CampbeU's
may be given m his own words : " In the Ufe of Christ, as
the revelation of the Father by the Son, we see the love of
God to man, the will of God for man, the eternal life which
the Father has given to us in the Son, that salvation which
the gospel reveals as the apostle knew it when he invited men
to the fellowship of it as feUowship with the Father and with
His Son Jesus Christ. Proceeding from this contemplation of
the light of eternal life as shming in Christ's own life on
earth, to consider the Son in His deaUng with the Father on
our behalf, and contemplating Him now as bearing us and our
sins and miseries on His heart before the Father, and uttering
all that in love to the Father and to us He feels regarding us,
— -aU His divine sorrow — all His desire — :aU His hope — aU
that He admits and confesses as against us — all that, notwith
standing. He asks for us, with that in His own human con
sciousness, in His following the Father as a dear child walking
in love, which justifies His hope in making intercession,
enabling Him to intercede in conscious righteousness as well
as conscious compassion and love, we have the elements of
the atonement before us as presented by the Son and accepted
by the Father, and see the grounds of the divine procedure
in granting to us remission of our sins and the gift of eternal
life." '
The question of the validity of this theory turns upon the
' The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, p. 162.
' Ibid. p. 174. 3 ihid. p. 176.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, And DALE, 357'
validity of its hypothesis of the remission of sins upon the
vicarious confession of sins by Jesus Christ, Justly enough
Dr, CampbeU speaks of prospective and retrospective aspects of
the atonement, and of each of these in their manward and
Godward relation ; nevertheless, to treat of each of these at
length in an examination professedly upon the nature of the
atonement, is to introduce some confusion into the main
question. All who accept in any form the New Testament
statements, are agreed that Christ revealed the Father, aU are
agreed that the atonement of Christ brought man into the Ufe
of sonship, aU are agreed that the heavenly life of Christ is
intercessory ; but, with commendable wisdom, theologians have
been in the habit of keepmg the doctrine of the Person of
Christ, the doctrine of the Offices of Christ, and the doctrine
of the Adoption of BeUevers, distmct from the doctrine as to
the nature of the Atonement. The question at issue is, not
what was the retrospective aspect of the atonement in its man-
ward relation, not what was the prospective aspect of the
atonement either Godwards or manwards, but what was that
work of Christ which rendered these things possible, — what
was that work of Christ which rendered it possible for Him to
reveal the Father's attribute of loving forgiveness, which ren
dered it possible for Him to enter upon a life of mtercession,
which rendered it possible for man to share the privUeges of
adoption ? The one contested point is, to adopt Campbell's
terminology, the retrospective aspect of the atonement God
wards, in other words, the work of Christ which faciUtated the
remission of sins. That work of Christ, it must be confessed
with a considerable lack of directness. Dr. Campbell asserts to
be the vicarious confession of sins. Is this hypothesis valid ?
When Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who bore our
sins, is all that is meant this, that Jesus appreciated the extent
and enormity of our sins and repented of them in our stead ?
Dr. CampbeU's reply is in the afiirmative : " It was not in us
so to confess our sins" (that is to say, in such a way as to
draw forth the divine forgiveness), " neither was there in us
such knowledge of the heart of the Father. But if another
could tn this act for us, if there might be a mediator, an inter
cessor, one at once sufficiently one with us, and yet sufficiently

358 THE THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
separated from our sin to feel in sinless humanity what our
sinful humanity, could it in sinlessness look back on its sins,.
would feel of godly condemnation of them and sorrow for
them, so confessing them before God, — one coming sufficiently
near to our need of mercy to be able to plead for mercy for
us according to that need, and, at the same time, sb abiding in
the bosom of the Father, and in the light of His love and secret
of His heart, as in interceding for us to take fuU and perfect
advantage of aU that is 'there that is on our side, and wUls our
salvation ; — if the Son of God has, in the power of love, come
into the capacity of such mediation in taking our nature and
becoming our brother, and in that same power of love has
been contented to suffer all that such mediation, accomplished
in suffering flesh, impUed, — is not the suitableness and the ac-
ceptableness of the sacrifice of Christ, when His soul was made
an offering for sin, what we can understand ? " ^ Unfortun
ately, inteUigibUity is not the prime criterion of truth in the
matter, nor is luminosity, nor unity, nor simpUcity, to each
of which appeal is made.* The sole legitimate question is, "Is
this atonement by vicarious confession scriptural ? " And the
reply must be, that, whilst a vicarious bearing of the punish
ment of death decreed upon human sin is abundantly scriptural,
not a single scriptural precedent can be advanced for a vicari
ous confession of sins. Much might be aUeged against this
theory, on the score that such a vicarious confession is a con
tradiction in terms, as SocinianS have so constantly asserted
that the idea of vicarious punishment is a contradiction in
terms — confession to be valid must be personal ; but with
philosophical and ethical discussion we have nothing to do :
the theory is condemned because it is contrary to the express
statements of Scripture.
A crucial point for such a theory is the explanation it
affords of the death of Christ, The consensus of the New
Testament teaching attaches an inexpressible importance to
the death of Christ in the achievement of reconciliation between
God and man ; what assistance is rendered by this theory in
1 The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to Remission of Sins and:
Eternal Life, p. 149.
' Ibid. cap. xiv.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 359
the interpretation of that prominent position of Christ's death?
How do Gethsemane and Golgotha, and their paramount
position in the apostoUc discourses, harmonize with this theory?
Dr. CampbeU does not shrink from the test. The closing
scenes of our Lord's life, in his esteem, gave on the one hand
the finishing touch to the Son's witness for the Father ; for to
go to death stUl trusting in the Father was to perfectly mani
fest the love that there was in God, was to put His sense of
Sonship to the severest test. — " He who in coming into the
world had said, ' Lo, I come to do Thy wUl, 0 God,' who could;
as to the fulfilment of this purpose, say to the Father, ' I have
glorified Thee on the earth, I have declared Thy name, and
wiU declare it,' is seen here at the close of His course, as 6ne
holding fast the beginning of His confidence, and in this last
trying time, and whUe subjected to the hour and power of
darkness, sustained by the simple faith of that original father-
liness of the Father's heart, which He had emne forth to reveal,
and TO EE^^;AL by teusting it." ^ On the other hand, these
closing sufferings gave its ultimate depth to the confession of
our sins ; sin as seen on the cross was a new thing from its
maUgnancy, an experience not otherwise obtainable ; and " it
is obvious that all by which the pressure of our sins on the
Spirit of Christ was increased, and He was brought into closer
contact with them and deeper experience of the hatred of the
darkness to the Ught, must have given a contmuaUy deepening
character to Christ's dealing with the Father on our behalf; —
giving an increasing depth to His response to the divine con
demnation of our sin, causing that response to be rendered
in deeper agony of spirit, and, at the same time, rendermg
His persevering intercession a casting HimseU more and more
on the further and deeper depths of fatherUness in the Father.
. . . Neither without this could an^ adequate confession of
man's sin have been offered to God in humanity in expiation
of man's sin, nor intercession have been made according to
the extent of man's need of forgiveness." * In other words.
Dr. CampbeU's view is, that death was superadded to the
1 The Nature of the Atonement, and Us Relation to Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, p. 285.
» Ibid. p. 289.

360 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
incarnation to afford opportunity of experiencing the heights
of trust and the depths of sin. But appeal may be confi
dently made to any student of the Scriptures whether such
conceptions are ever wholly or in part attached to the death
of Christ in the New Testament ? Have not our preceding
examinations, biblico-theological and dogmatic, conclusively
demonstrated that in the New Testament teaching the incar
nation was but a stage towards the crucffixion, that the cruci
fixion is not an accident or necessary consequence of the
incarnation, and, further, that the death of Christ occupied
its paramount position in the apostolic preaching and exhorta
tion because it was that death which proclaimed to the world
the vicarious endurance by Jesus, the Son of God and the
Son of Mary, of , the penalty of death decreed Upon human
sin? With all its wealth of Ulustration and fervour of spiritual
affection, the Nature of the Atonement and its Relation to the
Remission of Sins and Eternal Life stands convicted of inade
quately interpreting the bibUcal statements upon the subject
of which it treats. Its fundamental assumption, that the
crucifixion was comparatively unimportant when compared
with the incarnation, has vitiated its entire conclusions. It
is the death of Christ which the Scriptures ever lay stress
upon. Undoubtedly it was a consequence of the incarnation
that a revelation was made of the nature of God as apprehended
in human consciousness, but this revelation is no more con
nected with the death of Christ than with His Ufe ; and as
for the complete confession of human sin which death, and
such a death, alone rendered possible, such a confession, if
vaUd, is nowhere aUuded to in Scripture, nor impUed therein.
The scriptural conceptions of the validity and potency of the
death of Jesus is, as we have seen, a death of a Lawgiver who
has not Himself transgressed His law, on behalf of those who
have so transgressed.
How near, in his recoil from theories associated by him
with the beUef in a Umited atonement. Dr. CampbeU came to
the New Testament conception of the death of Christ, may be
seen in one extraordinary passage in his suggestive work : —
" When I think," he says, in his chapter on " The Death of

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 361
Christ contemplated as the Tasting Death," " of our Lord
as tasting death, it seems to me as if He alone ever truly
tasted death. . . . What men shrink from when they shrink
from death, is either the disruption of the ties that con
nect them with a present world, or the terrors with which
an accusing conscience fills the world to come. The last
had no existence for Him who was without sin; neither
had the world, as the present evil world, any place in
His heart. And even as to that purer interest in the present
scene, which the relationships of Ufe, cherished aright and
according to God's intention m them, awaken, and the trial
that death may be from this cause, there was in our Lord's
case nothing parallel to it, unless that care of His mother
which He devolved upon the beloved disciple. But death, as
DEATH, is distinct from such accompanying considerations as
these, and our Lord tasted it in the truth of that which it is. For
as He had truly lived in humanity, so did He also truly die ;
death was to His humanity the withdrawal of the gift of that
life which it closes. As men in Ufe know not life as God's
gift, neither reaUze what it is to live, so neither do they
in death know God's withdrawal of that gift, nor consciously
reaUze what it is to die. . . . Further, as our Lord alone truly
tasted death, so TO Him alone had death its peefect mean
ing AS THE WAGES OF SIN, for in Him alone was there fuU
entrance into the mind of God towards sin, and perfect unity
with that mind. We have seen before that the perfect con
fession of our sins was only possible to perfect holiness ; and
so we may see also, that the tasting of death, in fuU realiza
tion of what it is that God Who gave life should recaU it,
holding it forfeited, was only possible to perfect holiness.
. . . Had sin existed in men as mere spirits, death could not
have been the wages of sin, and any response to the divine
mind concerning sin which would have been an atonement for
their sin could only have had spiritual elements ; but, man
being by the constitution of humanity capable of death, and
death having come as the wages of sin, it was not only sin that
had to be dealt with, but an agisting law with its penalty of death,
and that death as already incurred. 'So it was not only the
divine mind that had to be dealt with, but also that expression of

362 THE theories of THE ATONEMENT OF
the divine mind which was contained in God's making death the
wages of sin." ^ Such a grasp as this passage displays upon the
leading elements of the New Testament conception ought to
have landed their spiritually-minded author in the New Testa
ment doctrine.
Another modern theory deserving of attention is that of
that acute thinker and subtle theologian, the late Horace
BushneU. His theory is contained in two works : The
Vicarious Sacrifice grounded on Principles of Universal Obliga
tion,'^ and Forgiveness and Law grounded in Principles inter
preted by Human Analogies.^
Starting with the singular opinion, that " there is no
example of mortal conceit more astonishing . . . than the
assumption that the import of Christ's mission can be fairly
and sufficiently stated in a dogma of three lines," Dr. Bush
nell says, in his introduction to The Vicarious Sacrifice, that
" he does not propose to establish any article whatever , . .
but only to exhibit if possible the Christ whom so many cen
turies of discipleship have so visibly been longing and groping
after, viz. the loving, helping, transforming, sanctifymg Christ,
the true soul-bread from heaven, the quickening life, the
POWER OF God unto salvation." Then he proceeds straight
way "to estabUsh an article." The work of Christ he conceives
"as beginning at the point of sacrifice, vicarious sacrifice,
ending at the same, and being just this all through — so a
power of salvation for the world." What he understands as
Vicarious Sacrifice he states as follows : — The word "vicarious"
is " a word that carries always a face of substitution, indicating
that one person comes in place somehow of another ; and
when we speak of ' sacrifice,' any person acts in a way of
vicarious sacrifice, not when he burns upon an altar in some
other's place, but when he makes loss for him, even as he would
make loss for himself, in the offering of a sacrifice for his sin."*
1 The Nature of the Atonement, and its Relation to the Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life, pp. 301-303. The italics are ours.
^ The quotations are from the English edition, published by Strahan, 1871.
' The quotations are from the English "edition, pubUshed by Hodder &
Stoughton, 1874.
* Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 5.

bushnell, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 363
The expression Vicarious Sacrifice "is a figure, representing
that the party making such a sacrifice for another comes into
burden, pain, weariness, or even to the yielding up of lUe, for
his sake." The same conception Dr. Bushnell otherwise states
as foUows: " That Christ, in what is called His vicarious sacri
fice, simply engages at the expense of great suffering, and even
of death itself, to bring us out of our sins themselves, and so
out of their penalties, being Himself profoundly identified
with us in our fallen state and burdened with our evils." ^
A substantiation of this idea of salvation by sympathy is
found by Dr. BushneU in the words of Matthew, "Himself
took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." "A passage that
is remarkable," he says, " as being the one Scripture citation
that gives beyond a question the exact usus loquendi of all the
vicarious and sacrificial language of the New Testament." In
his view, this passage shows exactly what the substitution of
Christ for sin was. " What, then, does it mean, that Christ
' bare our sicknesses ' ? Does it mean that He UteraUy had
our sicknesses transferred to Him, and so taken off from us ?
Does it mean that He became blind for the bUnd, lame for
the lame, a leper for the lepers, suffering in Himself aU the
fevers and pains He took away from others ? No one had ever
such a thought. How then did He bear our sicknesses, or in
what sense ? In the sense that He took them on His feeling,
had His heart burdened by the sense of them, bore the
disgusts of their loathsome decays, felt their pain over again,
in the tenderness of His more than human sensibUity. Thus
manifestly it was that He bare our sicknesses — His very love
to us put Him so far in a vicarious relation to them, and
made Him so far a partaker in them. Here, then, we have
the true law of interpretation when the vicarious relation of
Christ to our sins comes into view. It does not mean that He
takes them Uterally upon Him, as some of the old theologians
and a very few modern appear to believe ; it does not mean
that He took their iU- desert upon Him by some mysterious act
of imputation, or had their punishment transferred to His
person. A sickness might possibly be transferred, but a sin
cannot by any rational possibility. It does not mean that He
1 Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 7.

364 the theories of the atonement of
literally came into the hell of our retributive evils under sin,'
and satisfied, by His own suffering, the violated justice of God ;
for that kind of penal suffering would satisfy nothing but the
very worst injustice. No, but the bearing of our sins does
¦ mean that Christ bore them on His feeUng, became inserted
into their bad lot by His sympathy as a friend, yielded up
Himself and His life even to an effort of restoring mercy ; in
a word, that He bore our sins in just the same sense that He
bore our sicknesses." ^
This idea of vicarious sacrifice having thus been inferred
from a single verse of Scripture, the whole of the subsequent
portion of the work is given to its iUustration, enforcement, and
defence. This subsequent portion is divided into four parts.
The first part of the Vicarious Sacrifice is supposed to sub
stantiate the given theory of vicarious sadrffice, by showmg
its harmony with the universal principle of love. Instead of
regarding it as a suspicious circumstance that such a definition
of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ simply makes the atoning
work of Christ, however different in manifestation or degree,
an instance of any meritorious expression of sympathy with
man in his lost estate. Dr. Bushnell regards this inevitable,
leveUing as a peculiarly cogent proof of the correctness of
his interpretation. To resolve the vicarious sacrifice of Christ
into the principle of love, is to ground that sacrifice on prin
ciples of universal obUgation ; to buUd on the foundation of
principles universaUy obligatory, is to impart to the super
structure the stabiUty of the fundamental principles. There
is nothing superlative in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ ;
nothing above the universal principles of right and duty — or^
more correctly, if the exact tenor of the argument be retained,
nothing foreign to the universal manifestation of love. If
Christ displayed vicarious sacrifice, aU good beings have done
the same. This principle of vicarious sacrifice was displayed
by the Eternal Father Who preceded Jesus, it was displayed
by the Holy Spirit Who followed Him ; nor was this strag-
gUng in the pains of vicarious sacrifice confined to the Blessed
Trinity, for all good angels, aU redeemed souls, have equaUy
manifested that principle of love. Dr. Bushnell does not
' Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 9-11.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 365
shrink from saying that the suffering of Christ " was vicarious
suffering in no way peculiar to Him, save in degree."^
He even concludes his discussion of the atoning virtue of
human feeUng for others by the astounding sentiment : " The
supreme art of the devil never invented a greater mischief to
be done, or a theft more nearly amounting to the stealing of
the cross itself, than the filchmg away from the followers of
Christ the conviction that they are thoroughly to partake the
sacrifice of their Master." * Well might another Anselm
inquire. Cur Deus Homo ?
The second part endeavours to substantiate the theory
advocated, by showing its adequacy to explain the effects
attributed in the New Testament to Christ's work. This is
a necessary stage in the argument. The conception of vicarious
sacrifice as the sympathetic sharing of others' woes having thus
been discovered, and subsequently shown to be grounded on
principles of universal obligation, acknowledged, that is to say,
by aU good minds, uncreated and created ; it is imperative
next to discuss how this vicarious sacrffice, examples of which
are to be found m untold numbers amongst men and angels,
as well as in the Father and the Spirit, came to be undertaken
by Christ, and how in His case that vicarious sacrifice achieved
results which no other instance of vicarious sacrifice ever
achieved. Here it must be confessed that Dr. Bushnell him
self seems to doubt the validity of his pecuUar theory, and his
reasoning hesitates. The vicarious sacrffice is seen, he main
tains, throughout the Ufe of Christ, and not pre-eminently in
His death : " Christ did not come into the world to die ; He
died because He came into the world." The purpose for which
this vicarious sacrifice of sympathy was undertaken by Christ
was to effect " a regenerative, saving, truth-subjecting, all-
restortng, inward change of the life" of man.' " We may sum
up all that He taught, and did, and suffered, in the industry
of His Ufe and the pangs of His cross, and say that the one
comprehensive, aU-inclusive aim that, draws Him on, is the
change He wiU operate in the spiritual habit and future well-
being of souls;"* or, as the same truth is otherwise expressed,
' Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 68. " Ibid. p. 82.
3 Ibid. pp. 90-92. * Ibid. pp. 109-110.

366 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
the principal matter was to " inaugurate a grand restorative,
new-creating movement on character — the reconciUation, that
is, of man to God."^ As to how this vicarious sacrifice
achieved such a result as the reconciUation of man and God,
the reply is that Christ's sympathy was, as BushneU terms it,
the moral power of God, that is to say, no mere influential
example, no revelation simply of the love of the Father, but
a manifestation of the entire moral perfection of God — the
irresistible moral force of the divine character. It was to
obtain and exert this moral influence that Christ Uved and
died, slowly accumulating it until it attained the requisite
body and volume ; indeed, it was the object of the incarnation
" to obtain through Jesus, and the facts and processes of
His Ufe, a new kind of power, viz. moral power, the same
that is obtained by human conduct under human methods.
It will be divine power stiU, only it wiU not be attribute
power, that is, the power of His idea ; this new power is to be
the power cumulative, gained by Him among men as truly
as they gain it with each other ; only it wUl turn out in the
end to be the grandest, closest to feeling, most impressive,
most soul-renovating, and spiritually-sublime power that was
obtained in this or any other world."* It is only due to Dr.
Bushnell that, since he insists so strongly upon the salvation
of man by the moral influence of the vicarious sacrffice, the
process of the acquirement of this moral infiuence should be
delineated after his manner. The moral power of Christ is a
result indirectly arrived at. When the Holy ChUd was bom.
He was destitute of moral power ; nor does it appear that
previous to the entrance upon His public mmistry He had done
anything more than to beautifully and exactly fuffil His duties.
He goes into His great work as a common man, a Nazarene
carpenter, respected for nothing save as He compels respect
by His works and His words. He continues His ministry
for three years, travelUng afoot, sleeping tn desert places
and on mountain - tops, associating mostly with the poor
and humble ; His doctrine was wonderful to all ; but it does
not appear that He grew at all by means of His discourses
upon the pubUc sentiment. A few persons like Martha and
1 Vicarious Sacrifice, pp. 126-129. = Ibid. p. 143.

bushnell; CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 367
Mary, Nicodemus and Joseph, and His own disciples, were
affected, probably few besides ; for in the life of Jesus there
are some things wonderfully subUme, some that are profoundly
wise, some that repel, some that bear a grotesque look, some
that are attractive and subduing as nothing else ever was, and
some that even discourage confidence. And so He goes to
tlie cross, and His moral influence has not appeared. His
moral influence is not yet ; between the infancy and the death
a great many strange things and a great many lovely are seen ;
coruscations of glory have been shooting out all along the
remarkable history ; none the less Jesus dies, and the clue to
His extraordinary life is not given. Then come the resurrec
tion and ascension. Now His supernatural nature and mission
come, for the first time, distinctly into thought ; now He is
known to have come from heaven and to have returned to
heaven, having shown to mankind the righteousness and love
of God, The clue is now obtained, and every incident in His
life receives adequate explanation. Such, at any rate, is a brief
abridgment of that very extraordinaiy chapter, so characteristic
both of the strength and the weakness of BushneU's intellect,
upon " How Christ became so great a Power." It would thus
appear to have been Dr. BushneU's opinion that Christ was
the power of God unto salvation, because of the moral influence
which He had gained by the revelation of the love and com
passion of God during the course of His exceptional lUe.^ But
there is, we repeat, considerable lack of cleamess in his state
ment of his pecuUar theory.
In the third part of The Vicarious Sacrifice, an attempt
was made to show how this special theory, harmonized with
just views of the judicial and rectoral attributes of God ; and,
in the fourth, how this theory harmonized with a true inter
pretation of the sacrificial symbols of the Old Testament ; but,
since these two parts have been superseded by the author in
his later work, their contents need not be further analyzed.
Thus far the work of Christ has been exhibited by Dr,
BushneU simply as a reconciUng power on men, and on men
only. His view of the vicarious sacrifice is that of a sympa
thetic suffering by which God manifest in the flesh so attracts
1 Vicarious Sacrifice, chap. iv. part. ii. pp. 140-181.

368 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
faUen man as to reconcile him. In his later treatise. Dr.
BushneU confesses that tins is not " sufficiently and scripturaUy
true," and he proposes to supplement his former treatise, and
present " a whole of doctrme that comprises both the recon
ciUation of men to God, and of God to men."^ It is still
assumed " that nothing can be trae of God or of Christ, which
is not true in some sense more humano, and is not made
inteUigible by human analogies ; "* and it is intended, therefore,
to complete the view of the work of Christ by an analysis of
human forgiveness, thereby Ulustratmg how that great work of
the Eedeemer wrought upon God as weU as upon man.
. Finding, as he thinks, in the Lord's Prayer and elsewhere,^
scriptural evidence for assummg that " one kind of forgiveness
matches and interprets another, and that the forgiveness of God
may be explained by the forgiveness of man," Dr. Bushnell
asks the question, " What is meant by a man's forgiveness of a
man?" in other words, "What is the nature of forgiveness as
exercised by the best and holiest men ? " Genuine forgiveness,
he replies, is not negative, a crying of quits simply. Such
mere getting out, / forgive, is " only a plausible indifference
under the guises of grace." True forgiveness must have its
antecedent propitiation. " A good man lives in the unques
tionable sway of universal love to his kind. If, then, one of
them does him a bitter injury, wiU he therefore launch an
absolute forgiveness on him ? If he were nothing but love —
if he were no complete moral nature — ^he might. But he is
a complete moral nature, having other involuntary sentiments
that come into play alongside of love, and partly for its sake —
the sense of being hurt by wrong, indignation against wrongs
done to others, disgusts to what is loathsome, contempt of Ues,
hatred of oppression, anger hot against cruel inhumanities, —
all these animosities, or revulsions of feeUng, fasten their grip
on the malefactor sins and refuse to let go. And they do it
as for society and the law-state of discipUne ; composing a
court of arbitrament that we call moral opinion, which keeps
all wrong-doing and wrong-doers under sanctions of public
opprobrium and silent condemnations. Filling an office so
important, they must not be extirpated under any pretext of
1 Forgiveness and Law, p. 33. " Ibid. p. 13.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 369
forgiveness. They require to be somehow mastered and some
how to remain. And the supreme art of forgiveness will
consist in finding how to embrace the unworthy as if they were
not unworthy, or how to have them still on hand when they
will not suffer the forgiveness to pass. Which supreme art is
the way of propitiation — always concerned in the reconcilia
tion of moral natures separated by injuries."^ True forgive
ness is " no . shove of dismission, no dumb turning of the
back;" true forgiveness is forgiveness blended with propitiation.
And in order to this forgiveness blended with propitiation,
two things are necessary : an intense sympathy with the
transgressor, and a heavy sacrifice on his behalf " In order
to (right propitiation), two things are necessary : first, such a
sympathy with the wrong-doing, party as virtually .takes his
nature ; and, secondly, a making cost in that nature by suffer
ing, or expense, or painstaking sacrifice and labour. The
sympathy must be of that positive kind which wants the
man himself, and not a mere quiet relationship with him ;
wants him for a brother; considers nothing gained tUl it has
gained a brother. The sympathy needs to be such as amounts
to vu'tual identification, where there is a contriving how to
feel the man all through, and read him as by inward appreciar
tion, to search out his good and his evil, his weaknesses and
•gifts, his bad training and bad associations, his troubles and
trials and wrongs— so to understand, and, as it were, be the
man himself; having him interpreted to the soiU's love, by
settmg aU tenderest, most exploring affinities in play, finding
how to work engagement m him, and learn what may be best
touched or taken hold of in a way to make him a friend.
Taking the wrong-doer thus upon itself, it will also take, in a
certain sense, his wrong to be foreign ; for its longing is after
some most real identification with the fellow-nature sought
after. Thus we see that to really forgive and make clean
work of it, requires a going through into good, if possible, with
the wrong-doer, and meeting him there, both reconciled. And
when it is done thoroughly enough to configure and new tone
the forgiving party as weU as the forgiven, he is so far
become a reconcUed or propitiated man, as truly as the other
1 Forgiveness, and Law, p. 38.
2a

370 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
is become a forgiven or restored man."^ But propitiation is
not complete unless sacrifice be added to sympathy : " There
remains a second indispensable condition, by which the advances
of sympathy, finding their way into and through wrong-doers
and enemies, wiU become a more nearly absolute power m
them, and a more complete propitiation for them — viz. in the
making cost and bearing heavy burdens of painstaking and
sorrow to regain them and be reconciled to them. The injured
party has a most powerful and multiform combination of
alienated and offended sentiment struggling in his nature.
And in one view, it is right that he should have. He could
not be a proper man, least of aU a holy man, without them.
His integrity is hurt, his hoUness offended, his moral taste
disgusted. He is alienated, thrown off, thrust back into
separation, by the whole instinct of his moral nature. The
fires of his purity smoke. His indignations scorch his love,
and without any false fire of revenge, which is too commonly
kindled also, he seems to himself to be in a revulsion that
he has no wiU to subdue. He is a wounded man, whose
damaged nature winces even in his prayers. So that if he
says ' I forgive,' with his utmost stress of emphasis, he wUl
not be satisfied with any meaning he can force into the words.
Is he, therefore, to be blamed that he has so many of these
dissentient feelings struggling in him to obstruct his forgive
nesses ? No, not in the sense that he has them, but only m the
sense that he does not have them mitigated or propitiated so
as to be themselves in consent or subjected to sacrifice. Let
him find how to plough through the bosom of his adversary
by his tenderly appreciative sympathy, how to appear as a
brotherly nature at every gate of the mind, standing there as
tn cost, to look forgiveness without, saying it, and he wUl findj
however he may explain it or not explain it, that there is a
wonderful consent in his feeling, somehow, and that he is per
fectly atoned — at-oned — both with himself and his adversary."*
" Forgivenesses in men are ripened and fuUy brought to pass
only as propitiations are;" "our human instincts put us
always on making cost when we undertake to reaUy forgive ;"
"human forgivenesses are possible to be consummated only
1 Forgiveness and Law, pp. 40, 41. ^ jf,i^_ pp ^j^ 42.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. o7l
by the help of some placation or atonement or cost-making
sacrifice." ^
To illustrate this method of propitiation by self-sacrifice, we
cannot do better than quote, in Dr. BushneU's own words, one
of the concrete examples he adduces : " You had, we may sup
pose, a partner in trade, whom you had taken up out of his
very dejected lot of poverty. Discovering talent and what
you thought was character in him, you took him into con
fidence to share your fortunes with you. Before you suspected
danger from him, he had used the • name and credit of your
company, under cover of his legal rights, in a most faithless
and cruel violation of trust, such as plucked you down out of
wealth and reduced you to a lot of poverty so nearly complete
that you had not even bread for your chUdren. But your
industry and worth brought you up again finaUy to affluence ;
while the vices into which he fell brought him down to want
and hopeless destitution. Meantime, in aU the intervening
years, you have been remembering his wrong, which you could
not well forget. His name has been, of course, a name signifi
cant of bitter wrong in your house, and so connected with pain
as to be seldom or never spoken — a word, as it were, for the
dumb. You have said inwardly, ' I must forgive,' and you
have meant on principle to do it, perhaps reaUy supposed it
to be done ; but there is, nevertheless, to this day a sting in
that name, and you do not wish to hear it. To meet him on
the street, or catch the look of his face, pains you, and you
inwardly shudder as you pass him, at the discovery that.
Christian as you are, you are certainly not reconcUed to him,
and see not how you ever can be. But you are shortly to
find how you can be. The poor man, going down under his
vices, loses name and figure, and is aU but forgotten. But
you hear that his family are suffermg in bitter want. Did
you not say that you , could forgive, and what is come now but
your opportunity ? You send them in suppUes and means of
comfort, once and again, — conceaUng always your name, lest
it may seem your revenge. By and by his son is arrested for
crime, and who but you wiU volunteer to give the needed
bail ? and that requires your name. At length some infectious
1 Forgiveness and Law, p. 48.

372 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT' OF
disease faUs on the forlorn being and his family, and who will
perU life in giving help and watch to people so completely out
of consideration ? But you said your forgiveness long ago, and
what shaU you do to make it good but go m to minister and
be their saviour ? The poor feUow turns himself to the wall
when he sees you and weeps aloud, saying not a word, but
just covering his face with his hands, and smothering his
broken-hearted shame as best he can. Where now, on your
part, is the reluctance and revulsion that so often stifled your
forgiveness ? Gone, all gone, for ever ! The word itself has
become the sweetest of all words. By your painstaking
endeavour and the peril you have borne for your enemy, you
are so far reconciled in your own nature that you can now
completely forgive, whether he can be rightly forgiven or not.
He cannot be till he comes into a genuinely right mind,
though stiU you none the less truly forgive. The forgiveness
in you is potentially complete, even though it should never be
actuaUy sealed upon him. You have taken his sin upon you
in the cost you have borne for his sake, and what you have
borne thus freely for him quells that unreducible something,
that dumb ague of justice that was disaUowing your forgive
nesses. It is even as if there had been a great sacrifice
transacted in your soul's court of sacrifice, by which your con
demnations that were blocking your sensibilities- have been
smoothed and soothed and taken away. Under so great patience
and cost the forgiving charities are all out in your feeling,
fresh and clear, and swinging the censers of their worship to
pay the fragrant honours due."^
For this view of the work of Christ, Dr. Bushnell imagined
he found support in Scripture,* first, in the EngUsh, Greek, and
Hebrew sacrificial terminology ; secondly, in the Old Testa
ment sacrifices ; and, thirdly, in a passage from the Epistle to
the Eomans. The first class of proofs consists in interpreting
the Hebrew kaphar to mean propitiate, in the sense of smooth
ing, mitigating, mollifying; in interpreting the Greek iKaaKopMi
in a similar manner, and in finding etymologicaUy in the
English equivalents (such as aton^ for these words the same
element of conciliation. Collateral evidence in support is also
1 Forgiveness and Law, pp. 42-45. -* Ibid. pp. 63-73.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 373
found, it is supposed, in the Old Testament sacrifices; for,
first, those sacrifices make nothing of the pain of the victim ;
secondly, they display no vestige of a retributive quaUty in
themselves ; thirdly, they have no connection with compensa
tion ; fourthly, they were never offered as a legal substitution ;
and, fifthly, the legal emphasis laid upon blood was but " the
collecting about the victim intensely sacred impressions." The
argument that such an interpretation of the nature of forgive
ness is scriptural, is concluded by quoting from Paul the words,
" Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through
faith in His blood," the import of which may be indicated. Dr.
BushneU thinks, by these three points : " First, there is a pro
pitiation accomplished in Christ's Ufe, and especiaUy in His
very tragic death, which prepares a way of forgiveness for the
sins of the world; the forgiveness now wiU be more than
verbal, it wUl be real, clean, complete. Secondly, it is God
Himself Who is forward in this transaction — ' Whom God hath
set forth ;' it is not Pilate who has done it, nor Caiaphas, nor
the soldiers, but it is that God has suffered them so far to
make irruption on His throne, and pluck down Him, Who by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge was delivered into
their hands ; for how can it be imagined what the propitiation
can do, save as it is set forth by the worst that sin can do,
worsted itself in turn by the blood of its crime. And, thirdly,
this propitiation is to be received only by faith — a 'propitiation
through faith in His blood ;' for it is this faith, in fact, which
makes the murder a sacrifice, which it does by accepting it as
the sacred altar-blood and life, and beholding in that sublime
act of cost, in which God has bent Himself downwards, in loss
and sorrow, over the hard face of sin, to say, and saying to
make good, 'Thy sins are forgiven thee.'"^
Upon the remainder of the Forgiveness and Law, which
treats of the harmony of this theory of propitiation with the
idea of law, and of the significance under such a theory of
justification by faith, it is foreign to out purpose to enter.
It is much to be regretted that Dr. BushneU's expressed
intention of recomposing in a more satisfactory form his entire
views, instead of leaving them in their present scattered, con-
' Forgiveness and Law, pp. 72, 73.

374 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
fusing, and even contradictory state, wUl never be fulfilled.
His entire theory upon the work of Christ would seem to
divide itself into two parts, which may be termed after M'Leod
CampbeU, the dealing with man, and the dealing with God.
The dealing with man is the bringing him to God by the
moral influence of the special suffering endured ; the dealing
with God is the objectifying the divine forgiveness in such a
way that, just as a good man only rightly forgives an injurer
when he allays his own sense of injury by active beneficence,
so the Almighty God may suffer and become appeased. Dr.
BushneU's point of view of the work of Christ in atonement is
that of vicarious sacrifice, understanding by that term a self-
sacrifice in behalf of, and not instead of, the human race, that self-
sacrifice reconciling God to man by enabling God " to joyously
'endure the contradiction of sinners against Hiraseli' propitiated
by His endurances," and that self-sacrifice reconcUing man to
God by affecting man as any other moral infiuence affects
Him. Had Dr. BushneU stated to himself with any distinctness
the contrast, so frequently alluded to, between nature and
science. Scripture and theology, he would never have penned
his sentiments about stating the import of Christ's mission
" in a dogma of three lines." It is just these "dogmas of
three lines " which it is the aim of all genuine theology to
extract, and to obtain such dogmas now and again is sufficient
reward for years of search. Such sentiments may be an excuse
for non-conciseness of thought, but they are based upon a
radical confusion of two very different things. Dr. Bushnell
might have as justly objected to the study of the theory of
music, because such a theory can never stir the soul as music
itself does. Undoubtedly " a dogma of three lines " does not
produce the same effect upon the many-sided nature of man
as is produced by a sympathetic perusal of the gospels ; but
science is one thing, preaching is another ; science has one aim,
direct address has another ; to lack the characteristics of one is
not to lack the characteristics of the other. Indeed, it would
have been well if Dr. BushneU, in his endeavour " to exhibit,
if possible, the Christ Whom so many centuries of discipleship
have so visibly been longing and groping after," had placed

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 375
more clearly before himself the scientific purpose of any such
search as his. In the absence of such determinate aim, the
result has been, that, regarded as a contribution to the study
of the atonement, Dr. BushneU's writings' have repeated the
mistake of M'Leod Campbell, and diluted the attention due
to the main point at issue by touching upon points coUateral
and undisputed.
The peculiar standpoint of Dr. Bushnell is to consider " the
work of Christ as beginning at the point of sacrifice — vicarious
sacrifice, ending at the same, and being just this aU through."
Now, even had Dr. Bushnell adhered most rigidly to the scrip
tural conceptions of sacrifice, this method of view 'must have
been misleading. The scriptural conception of sacrifice is
either too wide or too narrow to convey any adequate view of
the work of Christ in the remission of sins ; too wide if sacri
fice be used in its , most general sense of gift, or presentation,
or offering, too narrow if the word be restricted to sin-offering.
In asking ourselves what was conveyed under the sacrificial
language of the apostles, we felt it imperative, m the variety
of answers apparently possible, to examine the testimony of
the apostles themselves upon the matter, quite apart from aU
sacrificial aUusions ; and the consequence of our exammation
has been to demonstrate that it is only by the licence of all
figurative language that the work of Christ in dymg can be
called a sacrifice at all ; its accurate sacrificial designation is
atonement. But our author is doubly wrong, for he not only
does not understand the scriptural view of sacrifice, he mis
understands it. With him, vicarious sacrifice is but another
phrase for sympathy, with what authority our whole discus
sion decides. It is this sympathy as witnessed by man which
" inaugurates a grand restorative, newly-creating movement
in character ;" it is this sympathy as experienced by God which
renders such a movement possible.
Now, in his entire supposition of Christ's influence upon
character. Dr. BushneU is unscriptural ; for, so far from teach^
ing that the influence exerted by Christ upon man operates
through common channels and is the " same that is obtamed
by human conduct under human methods," the New Testa
ment exp]:essly teaches that the influence of Christ upon His

376 THE THEOEIES OF THE A^fONEMENT OP
followers is supernatural in source, is a gift of the Holy Ghost,
is an access of divine Ufe by means of which, as in natural
birth, a new spiritual birth is initiated, chUdhood passing at a
bound into maturity, and winter into summer. But upon this
point it is no part of our task to delay. To leave the lengthy
disquisitions upon side issues, we have to inquire more par
ticularly what is Dr. BushneU's opinion as to the great contested
question upon Christ's dealing with God on behalf of men.
By what influence upon God does the forgiveness of sins
become possible ? The reply is, by vicarious sacrifice, by the
display of sympathy ; but a sacrifice and a sympathy displaying
itself in such a way as to exert a reconciUng force upon the
sympathizer. This theory of forgiveness by self-propitiation is
a little startling. Finding in human nature the fact that man
feels himseU unable to grant an unconditional forgiveness to
any one who has injured him untU a certain wounded suscep
tibility is first overcome, and finding in the spiritual history
of man that such wounded susceptibUity is best overcome
by active beneficence in the injurer's behalf, Dr. Bushnell
deUberately applies this ' common analogy from our moral
nature to explain the action of God in Christ. God would for
give man of His unspeakable love ; but there are certain
antagonistic feelings which must be first propitiated, and these
feeUngs are propitiated by the unparalleled beneficence of the
cradle and the cross. Just as the national antipathy of the
Good Samaritan could no longer have any existence with
regard to the poor Jew he had succoured and saved, so God
cannot hesitate to welcome the estranged sinner for whom He
has suffered and died. This theory is unscriptural as weU as
astonishing, and any one who has followed our expositions in
the former part of this book wtU be able to see for himseU
the invalidity of BushneU's references to Hebrew, Greek, and
EngUsh. As an analogy, this theory is interesting and instruc
tive ; as an induction from Scripture, it can have no claim to
completeness. Another recent deliverance upon the subject in hand is
the deservedly popular " Congregational Lecture," by the Eev.
E. W. Dale.^
1 The Congregational Lecture for 1875, The Atonement.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 377
Holding it mischievous, as Mr. Dale says in his preface, "to
construct a theory of the atonement on the basis of those
descriptions of the death of Christ whieh represent it as a
ransom for us, or as a propitiation for the sins of the world, or
on phrases in which Christ is described as dying for us, or
dying for our sins," it is proposed, first, to establish a fact (that
there is a direct relation between the death of Christ and the
remission of sins) ; and, secondly (by the investigation of the
principles and grounds of that relation), to construct a theory.
The fact that the death of Christ is the objective ground of
the remission of sins, Mr. Dale sets himself* to prove by an
induction from the testimony of Christ and His apostles, and
an induction conducted in a peculiar way. There are four
methods of bibUcal proof commonly adopted, viz. by a classi-r
fication of proof passages selected from any bibUcal writer, by
a classification of proof passages promiscuously selected from
an entire Testament, by an analysis of the doctrinal system of
the several inspired writers, and by an analysis of the doctrinal
system of the entire New Testament. The " Congregational
Lecture " does not present its argument precisely in any ol
these forms. Believing that, " from the very nature of the
apostolic writings, those truths which belong to the essence of
the Christian creed are, for the most part, implied rather than
explicitly stated," reliance is placed upon this teaching by
implication. The unmentioned postulates of a habit of mind
are held to be as conclusive as express statements and formal
inference. " That the apostles regarded the death of Christ as
a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the world appears in
many passages, which yield no direct testimony to the doctrine ;
it sometimes determines the form and structure of an elaborate
argument, which falls to pieces if this truth is denied ; at other
times it gives pathos and power to a practical appeal ; it
accounts for some of the misconceptions and misrepresenta
tions of apostoUc teachmg; it explains the absence from the
apostoUc writings of very much we should certainly have
found in them U the apostles had not beUeved that for Christ's
sake, and not merely because of the effects on our hearts of
what Christ has revealed, God grants us remission of sins." ^
1 The Atonement, Introd. pp. 25, 26.

378 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
It is true that the illustrations used by Mr. Dale to exemplify
this indirect proof from the apostolic assumptions are peculiarly
unfortunate ; for, with respect to " the well-known passage on
the Lord's Supper in the First Epistle to the Cormthians," a
Eomanist might reply that, so far from the fact " that in a
Church founded by the apostle himseU a very short time before
the Epistle was written, it should have been possible for the
Lord's Supper to be associated with the disgraceful excesses
which he rebukes, and that in rebuking them he makes no use of
the awful argument which would have come at once to the lips
of a priest of the Church of Eome or a Eitualistic priest of the
Church of England," being " a proof, from which there is no
appeal, that St. Paul had never taught and did not beUeve that
the consecrated bread and wine were changed into the body
and blood of Christ," the very solemnity with which the
apostle endeavoured " to rescue " the sacred ordinance " from
dishonour, and to secure its reverential celebration," the very
" dread " with which the awful words, " Wherefore, whosoever
shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," invests this
ordinance, are proofs the other way — at any rate, it is on record
that the divines assembled at the Tridentine CouncU did so
argue. Further, with respect to the indirect testimony which
Mr. Dale finds to the divinity of Christ tn St. John's words,
" Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh is not of God," does not Mr. Dale know that
the undeveloped Gnostic heresy combated by the apostle was
as antagonistic to the true Deity as to the true humanity
of Jesus ? The Ulustrations of the death of Christ as an
atonement for sin are more happy ; ^ in these, as he him
self says truly enough in another work,* Mr. Dale has laid
under tribute a source of information which had not- been
sufficiently heeded by the great masters of New Testament
theology, and the result has been to obtain for his main thesis
that probabUity which always attends a subject that has
suddenly, as when the undulatory theory of Ught was found
to explam the novel phenomena of polarization and the newly-
1 See pp. 20-26, 60-71, 84-88, 120-123, 179-185, 202-209, 246-249.
'^ History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, Pref. to Eng. Trans, p. vii .

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 379
discovered rings of Newton, received support from an un
expected quarter. By far the most suggestive portions of
these lectures are those which exempUfy this method of proof
by undesigned comcidences, so to speak ; and the wish is almost
involuntarUy prompted that the lecturer had appUed himself
more persistently to this indirect, yet cogent, form of proof
As a matter of fact, however, the method of the examination
of Scripture adopted by Mr. Dale is not this indirect one alone ;
it is a compound variety of the biblico-theological methods : for
he relies for the establishment of his fact upon the consensus
of the apostolic writings, that consensus being exhibited in
proof passages as well as in passages "which are inexplicable if
his thesis be not granted." By the aid of this examination of
texts, some of which prove by absence and some by presence,
there are investigated in successive lectures the history of our
Lord Jesus Christ in relation to tbe fact of the atonement, and
in relation to the testimony of our Lord, the testimony of
Peter, the testimony of James and John, and the testimony of
the Apostle Paul, in each of which substantial evidence is
found of the proposition that the death of Christ is the
objective ground of the remission of sins. In a supplementary
lecture the fact of the atonement is confirmed, the author
beUeves, by a sketch of opinion upon the subject from the
days of the ApostoUc Fathers to those of Grotius ; this sketch
assuredly showing, it is thought, " that the Church did not
come to believe in the objective value of the death of Christ
because the doctrine had been developed in theological systems,
but that theological systems were constructed in order to
explain and justify the doctrine which the Church already
believed," — an inconsequent argument, if a true conclusion.
But enough has been said upon the fact, and the method of
estabUshing it ; it is with the theory by which that fact is
explained that we are more especially concerned. Here the
scriptural standpoint is confessedly left for " an inquiry of
transcendent speculative importance." And being met upon
the threshold by a grave and startling difficulty, whether the
remission of sins is possible, the theoretical examination is pre
faced by a lengthy reply,^ which, since it partakes largely of
1 Tlie Atonement, Lecture viii.

3 sot THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
an argumentum ad hominem directed against Dr. Young, may
be here passed over ; apologetic theology is . not bur present
concern. The theory of the atonement advanced by Mr. Dale
has for its aim, he teUs us, " to discover why it is the remis
sion of sins is granted to men on the ground of the death of
Christ ?"^ In more detail, having stated that, according to the
New Testament, " there are three considerations which invest
the death of Christ with unique and tragic interest, — viz., first,
it was the death of the Son of God — of God manifest in the
flesh ; second, it was a voluntary death ; third, immediately
before death, Jesus was forsaken by God," — Mr. Dale proposes
to investigate the connection between this mysterious death
and the remission of the sins of men by arguing two questions :
first, " Whether this connection can be explained by the existence
of any original relation existing between the Lord Jesus Christ
and tlie penalties of sin?" or, to state the question more generaUy,
"between the Lord Jesus Christ and the eternal law of righteousness,
of vjhich sin is the transgression?" and, secondly, " Whether
this connection can be explained by any original relation between
the Lord Jesus Christ and tlie race whose sins needed remis
sion?"'' " What, then," asks Mr. Dale in his 9 th lecture, " is the
relation between the Lord Jesus Christ and the penalties of
sin ?" or, more generally, " the eternal law of righteousness, of
which sin is the transgression?" His answer is, first, that
there are authoritative statements on the part of our Lord and
His apostles, which assert that the penalties of sin are to be
inflicted by Christ, since this function of judgeship is part of
a larger function, — that Jesus Christ is the moral Buler of the
universe, moral responsibility is responsibility to Him.^ Then, in
the second place, not satisfied with the scriptural reply, the
whole subject is approached in another way, by a singular
admixture of scriptural, ethical, and analogical argument. The
relation between Christ and law is first investigated; to this
we proceed, simply premising that it is much to be wished
that the clear speech and lucid reasoning commonly so cha-
1 The Atonement, p. 355.
' Ibid. pp. 360, 361.
3 Ibid. pp. 362, 363,

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE, 381
racteristic of the lecturer, had been a little more conspicuous
here. The investigation into the relation between Christ and law
consists of four steps, viz., a postulate that Christ is God,
and three arguments, partly speculative and partly scriptural —
viz., first, an inquiry into the relation between God and the
eternal law of righteousness ; secondly, an inquiry . mto the
relation between God and the punishment of sin; and, thirdly,
into the relation between God and the iU-desert of a man who
has transgressed the eternal law of righteousness.
What is said upon the relation between God and the eternal
law of righteousness is the result of an examination of the
famiUar theological problem, whether God is above law or law
above God. " AU Christians, all theists, acknowledge that God
is the moral Euler of mankind and the whole moral universe ;
what does this acknowledgment imply ? Does it imply that
the will of God . , , is the origin of the antithesis between
right and wrong, and the ultimate ground of moral obUgation?"^
This hypothesis is incredible, it is maintained, for. several
reasons. If it were true, for example, it would be difficult to
account for the recognition of moral obligation where the exist
ence of God is denied or doubted ; yet there is a conscience in
man, there is a sense the exclusive prerogative of which it
is to make moral distinctions; nor does conscience invoke the
authority of God before condemning vice and approving virtue ;
conscience confesses that the law of righteousness, the obligation
to do what is right, has an eternal and necessary authority.
Further, if the will of God were the source of moral distinc
tions, it would be impossible to love and reverence God because
of His moral excellence ; there can be no reason for celebrating
the glory of His justice, if, had He so pleased, injustice would
have been equally glorious ; God can have no moral perfection,
if the distinction between good and evil is the creation of the
divine will. Again, righteousness is the fulfilment of moral
obligations, but moral obligations can never be originated by
mere will, even if that will be the wiU of God ; duty is incon
ceivable if moral obligation does not exist antecedently to the
divine commands. The will of God not being then the source
1 The Atonement, p. 364.

382 THE THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
of moral distinctions, are those distinctions the consequence of
some law, independent and supreme, claiming aUegiance from
the Creator as weU as the creature ? The hypothesis is in
stinctively rejected ; even in idea nothing can be higher than
God. The solution may possibly be found, Mr. Dale thinks, in a
statement of the actual history of our ideas of righteousness
and God. Man, at man's estate, possesses a moral faculty
which asserts that the distmction between good and evil is the
expression of an eternal and necessary law ; man, at man's
estate, is also capable of knowing God when revealed to him
as a living Person Who possesses the same august and supreme
authority which conscience confesses in the eternal law of
righteousness ; " the relation between God and the eternal law
of righteousness is, therefore, unique ; He is not, as we are,
bound by its authority; in Him its authority is actively
asserted." ^ This, then, is the result of this elaborate show of
reasoning : God is neither the source nor the servant of the
eternal law of righteousness ; " in Him the authority of this
eternal law is actively asserted," whatever that may mean.
We shaU return to this presently; for the moment it is our
desire to state Mr. Dale's aS-gument as fairly as we can.
The relation between God and the penalties of sm is next
considered, the scrutiny of this question partly taking the
form of an analogical argument from the nature of punishment
as justly inflicted by human law. Punishment is not a simple
reformatory process ; for such a view involves the most gro
tesque consequences, and consequences repugnant to our most
elementary moral convictions. Nor is punishment awarded
for its deterrent effects, that it may be an additional motive
to obedience. Nor is punishment a simple assertion of magis
terial or regal rights. " The only conception, of punishment
which satisfies our strongest and most definite moral convictions,
and which corresponds to the place it occupies in the organiza
tion of society and m the moral order of the universe, is that
which represents it as pain and loss inflicted for the violation
of a law ;* if the law is a righteous law, if the severity of
the penalty is not out of proportion to the magnitude of the
1 The Atonement, p. 372,
= Ibid, pp, 383, 384.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE, 383
offence, the punishment is just; the offender has deserved
what he suffers ; . . . that the suffering inflicted is deserved,
is a necessary element in the conception of punishment."
The next point is the relation of God to the iU-desert of a
man who has transgressed the eternal law of righteousness,
and to the suffering which may justly come upon him for his
transgression ; in other words, must God inflict the penalties
which sin has deserved ? To this question " the Christian
revelation and the irrepressible instincts of our moral and
spiritual nature " reply in the affirmative ; God would not be
God if infringement of the eternal law of righteousness re
mained unpunished. But a further question arises : " Must
punishment of necessity faU upon the wrong-doer ? " " Not
necessarily," is Mr. Dale's reply; for, according to human
analogies, " whatever moral element there is in punishment itself
as punishment, is derived from the person or power that infiicts
it."^ "Hence, if in any case the penalties of sin are remitted,
some other divine act of at least equal intensity, and in which
the iU-desert of sin is expressed with at least equal energy,
must take its place."* So much may be concluded a priori.
The Christian atonement is the fulfilment of that necessity.
The first portion of Mr. Dale's theory, which has for its
purpose to explain the connection between the death of Christ
and the remission of sins, may be stated, then, as foUows : —
Christ is God ; in God the eternal law of righteousness, given
in conscience, is and must be actively asserted ; punishment or
pain or loss is the means by which the eternal law of righteous
ness is divinely asserted when that law is infringed ; if, in any
case, the penalties of sin are remitted, some other divine act
of at least equal intensity, and in which the iU-desert of sin
is expressed with at least equal energy, must take its place ;
such an act (of equal intensity at least with the punishment
of the wrong-doer) is the death on Golgotha ; by the death of
Christ, therefore, sins may be forgiven, inasmuch as He to whom
it belongs in His judicial capacity to inflict punishment, in
order to uphold the eternal law of righteousness. Himself
endures suffering, and so satisfies the claims of the eternal law,
1 The Atonement, p. 386. .
2 Ibid. p. 391,

384 THE THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
The second portion of Mr. Dale's theory follows upon the
consideration of the second question proposed, concerning the
relation between the Lord Jesus Christ and the race whose sins
needed remission. This is the subject of the 10 th lecture.
This relation of Christ to mankind is part, it is said, of a
larger question — the relation of Christ to the created universe;
stiU it is sufficient to consider the specific relation of Christ to
the human race. Now, it had been matter of knowledge to the
apostles that their Christian life and all its prerogatives and
hopes had come to them through Christ, and were not the
immediate effect of the Father's power and love ; hence it
would appear they believed, at any rate they testified, that in
Christ all things consist ; Christ is the representative of the
Christian Church in this sense, that He is the Ufe and power
of the Church : " We dwell in Him, He dwells in us, and
He is the living prophecy of the height and glory of our
holiness;"^ " ' Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch can
not bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more
can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the
branches : He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same
bringeth forth much fruit : for apart from me ye can do no
thing.' This is an exhaustive statement of the truth ; to this
neither saint nor apostle can add anything; we truly live only
as we Uve in Christ."* Out of this relation to Christ arises
the relation of the Christian to the Father : through Christ's
original, eternal, and unique relationship to the Father, His
foUowers are raised into a fellowship with God, which renders
possible a freedom and blessedness of communion with Him
which is unspeakable and fuU of glory. In short, it is- the
testimony of Scripture (corroborated, too, by the Christian
consciousness) that " the power and perfections of our moral
and spiritual life are a perpetual revelation of the power and
perfection of the Ufe of Christ ; " further, that " our relation
to the Father is determined by the relation of Christ to the
Father."^ These investigations into the relations of Christ to law
and humanity enable, in the esteem of the Congregational
1 The Atonement, p. 414. ' Ibid. pp. 418, 419.
3/6id. p.420.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE, 385
lecturer, a theory of the atonement to be constructed. The
general outlines of that theory may be stated in four proposi
tions. The death of Christ is the objective ground on which
sms are remitted (we condense and change the order of Mr.
Dale's propositions), first, because that death was a revelation
of that righteousness of God which must otherwise have been
revealed in the infliction of the penalties of sin upon the
human race ; secondly, because, m consequence of the relation
between Christ and His followers, the submission of Christ to
the righteous authority of the law expresses and involves that
of His disciples ; thirdly, because that death rendered possible
the retention or the recovery of the original and ideal relation
of man to God through Christ, which sin had dissolved, and
the loss of which was the supreme penalty of transgression ;
and, fourthly, because that death involved the actual destruc
tion of sin in aU those who through faith recover their union
with the Father.^
The first criticism which is suggested by this theory of the
Congregational lecturer, is the erroneous meaning attached, as
has so often been done durmg the course of the study of the
atonement, to the word theory. Theory is not used in the
scientific sense of generalization or hypothesis, but in the meta
physical sense of something that explains. Mr. Dale speaks,
indeed, somewhat slightingly of " theological theories " which
are " empirical classffications of Scripture texts,"* apparently
including in his censure those theories which accurately
express and colUgate empirical classifications of Scripture texts.
True, he seems to define a theory as an " accurate inteUectual
expression ;"^ but when we ask, of what ? the reply seems to
be, amidst considerable verbiage and inconsistency, an accurate
intellectual expression of what has been immediately revealed
to the spirit.* Mr. Dale certainly does not recognise as a
theory of the death of Christ "the accurate inteUectual
expression" of the united testimonies of Scripture. A
reference to his actual use of the word theory shows that
the idea attached by him to the word would seem to be
something that explains. Thus, in one place it is said " that
' The Atonement, pp. 430-432. = Ibid. p. 18.
3 Ibid. p. 19. * Ibid. p. 18.
2 B

386 THE THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
these four propositions include a complete theory of the rela
tion of the death of Christ to the remission of sins : I am not
presumptuous enough to imagine, but if they can be sustained
they offer some explanation of the great fact that the death of
Christ did not merely manifest the infinite mercy of God,"
etc.^ Again, on the very threshold of the study of the
theory of the atonement, it is said that the object is " to dis
cover why it is that the remission of sins is granted to men on
the ground of the death of Christ."* Now it is not the why
but the how that is the object of search of the inductive
method. The Congregational lecturer's use of the word
" theory " makes it evident that he has not yet learned to apply
the inductive method. to theology.
StUl, to show that a use of a word is different to ours,
is not to show that such usage is incorrect. We aver it is
incorrect. We are aware that the very existence and value of
what is called "Speculative Theology" is at stake ; nevertheless
we hold this conception of a theory to be the fruit and the
root of all the mischievous study of theology which has
made that study a laughing-stock or a scarecrow. The sub
jective method — the method of discovery by "ingenious
guessing," as Mr. Lewes has sagaciously labeUed it — retains
its hold to so large an extent in the study of theology, that
theology stiU remains what natural science once was, the arena
of irreconcUable hypotheses and the self-styled judge of truth
without any recognised criterion. In his neglect of the
inductive method, the Congregational lecturer is simply not
beyond his contemporaries; for, whUst science has been revolu
tionized by the rejection of hypotheses as truth which cannot
be verified by comparison with the facts of nature, theology
has not yet surmounted the metaphysical stage, and consciously
adopted inductions from instead of hypotheses about Scripture.
Theologians now are, as men of science once were, content to
ignore the process of verification, and as a result theology is,
as science was, a jumble of conflicting opinions, irresolvable
by any recognised method. When wiU the obvious panacea
for this confusion be resorted to ? When will theologians so'
1 The Atonement, p. 432.
2 Ibid. p. 355.

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE, 387
shift their point of sight as to plant the foot firm and true upon
the terra fi/rma oi the verifiable ? The Eeformation, with its
exaltation of Holy Scripture to the proud position of the
authoritative revelation of theological facts, pointed the way
towards unanimity of belief, — why has that way not been
persistently trodden ? When once the theologian distinctly
asserts the position that the Scriptures are to him what nature
is to the natural philosopher, — the unquestioned and the
unquestionable source and text of every truth and theory he
advocates, — the way wUl be opened towards unanimity of
belief, and the method with aU gainsayers wUl then be the
exceptionaUy brief, and not very difficult, one of the mainten
ance of the universal postulate of the superhuman origin of
the Scriptures. If no opinion were held to be indefectible
truth with respect to the revelations of God to man, which a
true scientific investigation of the Scriptures did not warrant,
the study of the science of theology would have commenced
its onward and irreversible course. Would that the wise
words of Bacon were more generally taken to heart : " Sacred
theology ought to be derived from the word and oracles of God,
and not from the light of nature or the dictates of human
reason;" or those yet wiser words: "The use of human
reason in religion is of two sorts : the former, in the conception
and apprehension of the mysteries of God to us revealed; the
other, in the inferring and deriving of doctrine and direc
tion thereupon : the former extended to the mysteries them
selves, but how ? — by way of illustration, not by way of
argument." Theology wiU once more regain her position as
queen of the sciences, when, speculation occupying its appro
priate subordinate position as framer of hypotheses (to be
accepted as truth only when proved to be complete inductions
from Scripture), dogmatics becomes biblical theology, and
apologetics a vindication of the supreme authority of the
Bible. To Ulustrate the futiUty of the subjective or metaphy
sical method, the theory of the Congregational lecturer must
take the place of " the melancholy example." What is proven
in Mr. Dale's theory is proved by Scripture, and what is
unscriptural is unproven. The elaborate show of reasoning is
only cogent when it is a bare re-statement of scriptural asser-*

388 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
tions, and the lengthy parade of ethical principles is a pile of
premises which simply repeat and do not prove the foregone
conclusion ! We appeal to the details of the theory in iUus
tration. For the proof of the postulate in the first half bf his argu
ment, that which concerns the relation between Christ and
law, Mr. Dale confessedly appeals to Scripture. Does he any
less appeal to Scripture in the three stages of his subsequent
inquiry ? Let us see.
The relation between God and the eternal law of righteous
ness is first examined, and what is said ? That the wUl of
God is not the origin of the eternal law of righteousness, nor
is God the involuntary servant of that law, but in God that
law is actively asserted. On what grounds are these statements
made ? On three, presumably : — First, " that the wUl of God is
not the origin of the antithesis between right and wrong ; for
were goodness good only because God commands it, or evil evU
because God forbids it, it would be difficult to account for the
recognition of moral obligation where the existence of God is
doubted or denied." Why so ? What would Mr. Dale say
to a paraUel argument : " If life is life, and death is death, only
because in God we live and move and have our being, it
would be difficult to account for the sense of Ufe where the
existence of God is doubted or denied 1 " Surely God might
be " the origin of the antithesis between right and wrong,"
and He might implant in man a faculty analogous to His
own, the working of which might be quite irrespective of belief
in His existence. Further, it is argued that "righteousness
is the fulfilment of moral obUgations, and moral obUgations
can never be originated by mere wiU, even if that wUl be the
wiU of God;" but how does Mr. Dale know this ? Is he
arguing from human analogy or from express knowledge of the
divme nature ? Even if he is arguing from analogy, who has
introduced him into such an intimate acquaintance with the
secrets of the divine attributes and counsels, that by his
unaided reason, quite apart from any revelation, he is enabled
to argue from the commonplace of human voUtion to the
rationally unknowable volition of the unapproachable God ?
We do not care to foUow him in his singular analysis of a

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELLj AND DALE. 389
duty which precedes the divine commands ; his argument, by
the way, requires what he soon after sets himseU to combat —
a duty which precedes the divine existence ; aU we say is
this. Where does Mr. Dale obtain his knowledge of the divine
wUl ? If from the Bible, what good reason can be given for
endeavouring to shore the divine revelation by the specula
tions of human reason ? A further argument employed by
Mr. Dale is, that we " instinctively reject " the idea that the
law of righteousness is " independent and supreme, claiming
aUegiance from the Creator and His creatures." Again we
ask. Why so 1 Do men, altogether apart from the knowledge
acquired from the Scriptures, reject this idea ? Assuredly
not. But we join issue with Mr. Dale at the very outset of
his speculations ;¦ " In God the eternal law of righteousness is
actively asserted," is the conclusion at which he first arrives.
We beg, with all respect, to ask five questions : First, Where
does Mr. Dale obtain his knowledge of God ? secondly. Where
does he obtain his knowledge of the divine eternity ? thirdly.
Where does he obtain his knowledge of the divine righteous
ness ? fourthly. Where does he obtain his knowledge of a law
of righteousness ? fifthly. Where does he obtain his knowledge
of the eternity of that law ? — all of which things are asserted
in his proposition ; for if there is no God, or if God be not
eternal and be not righteous, or if there be no law of righteous
ness, or if that law of righteousness be not eternal, the law
of righteousness cannot be eternaUy asserted in . God. We
presume that Mr. Dale would confess that his knowledge of
God and the divine attributes had been acquired from revela
tion, but would add that the existence and eternity of the law
of righteousness is the unaided testimony of conscience. We
cannot relinquish to him even this outwork of his argument.
There is undoubtedly a faculty in man which judges of right
and wrong, just as there is a faculty which distinguishes
between light and dark, and a faculty which discriminates
harmony and discord ; the Congregational lecturer quotes ap
provingly those " noble words" of Butler : "There is a superior
principle of reflection or conscience in every man, which dis
tinguishes between the internal principles of the heart as well
as his external actions, which passes judgment upon himself

390 THE THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF
and them, pronounces determinately some actions to be in
themselves just, right, and good, others to be in themselves
evU, wrong, unjust, which, without being consulted,, without
being advised with, magisterially exerts itself and approves
or condemns him, the doer of them, accordingly." Well and
good ; but the pupU goes beyond the master, and finds proof
in the existence of conscience, not only of the existence of an
adjudicator of right and wrong, but of the eternal existence
of a law of righteousness. We quote his own words : " Even
in the absence of the knowledge that God requires us to be
righteous, conscience confesses that the law of righteousness
has an eternal and necessary authority ; " " Conscience, in the
earliest and most rudimentary stages of its development,
recognises in particular actions the distinction between good
and evil, and affirms that the idea of goodttess involves the
obUgation to be good; as conscience acquires clearness and
strength of vision, it discovers, what was implicitly contained
in its earliest judgments, that the distinction between good
and evil is not arbitrary, contingent, and mutable, but is the
exypression of an eternal and necessary law." Apart from
Scripture, conscience does no such thing ; apart from Scrip
ture, an eternal law of righteousness — whether an objective or
subjective law is meant' by the term, to which we ought to
conform — is not given in conscience. It might be as justly
argued that an eternity of sunlight was guaranteed by the
human eye. The fact is, that it is the divine revelation which
takes the rudimentary promptings of conscience and imparts
to them strength and objectivity. For our part, we believe
that Mr. Dale has introduced undesirable confusion into the
study of the atonement by the use of this phrase, " the eternal
law of righteousness." The scriptural testimony is that God
is righteous, and this is at once simpler and less liable to
confusion. Mr. Dale ought to avoid the reintroduction into
theology of the old nominalist and realist controversies, and
should have been on his guard against erecting into concrete-
ness abstract names. Without the risk of arousing insoluble
speculations upon the pre-existence or co-ordination of law
and God (speculations which, after aU, are but the premature
deliveries of the inapt marriage of word and thought), the

BUSHNELL, CAMPBELL, AND DALE. 391
Scriptures simply assert that the attribute of righteousness,
which man knows something about from the very nature of
his spiritual constitution, exists m God. To say, " God is
righteous," is decidedly to be preferred to saying, " In God
the eternal law of righteousness is actively asserted."
Let us not be misunderstood. In Mr. Dale's conclusions we
largely coincide ; with him we say, " Christ is God ; God is
righteous ; God displays His righteousness by punishing wrong
doers ; God remits that punishment by the substitution of a
divine act of at least equal intensity, and so remains righteous."
What we assert is this, that aU these statements are but
re-statements of Scripture truths, and owe their validity not
at all to reasonings from ethical .principles or common analo
gies, but solely to the revelations of God in Holy Writ : the
unaided reason of man did not give these truths, neither can
it explain them ; and so far from constituting a theory, they
are the very things which a theory should embody.
With respect to the second portion of Mr. Dale's theory, —
the relation of Christ to the human race, — he is there con
fessedly on Scripture ground, and does not pretend to gain any
knowledge whatever from other sources. Eeason is employed
by him, to repeat the words of Bacon, " in the conception and
apprehension of the mysteries of God to us revealed." Yet
even in this chapter there is a lack of clearness of vision, and
an undesirable hesitancy through an inabUity to entirely cast
off what has been called the representative, in preference to the
substitutive, view of the atonement. The relations of the pre-
existent Christ to the Father are expounded with considerable
power, but become subsequently but one weight in a wavering
balance, the other being some intangible hjrpothesis about
the second Adam. AU the elements of the atonement men
tioned in these lectures have received their fittmg place
and due proportions in the theory previously advanced as
the scriptural theory of the work of Christ in the remission
of sins.A Uttle more lucidity of thought and statement, and these
Congregational Lectures might have been a permanent contri
bution to theological literature ; as it is, their exegesis, their
major portion, suggests rather than suppUes a method which

392 THEOEIES OF THE ATONEMENT OF BUSHNELL, ETC.
used alone would be largely inconsequent ; their theory, the
minor portion, being based on a misapprehension, neither
enlightens the subject of the atonement by valuable human
analogies, like the theories of Anselm, Grotius, or Bushnell,
nor supplies a consistent view of the diversified statements of
Scripture ; their interspersed apologetics are but ad hominem
replies to fleeting literature.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS.
"Multum et solide significatur, ad Vetus Testamentum timorem potius perti-
nere . . . quamquam et in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat." —
AuGrsTiNE, Qumstiones in Exodum, Ixiii.
NOW that the lengthy disquisition upon the nature of that
work of Christ which rendered possible a remission of
sins — that is to say, upon what is commonly called the atone
ment — is concluded, rapid progress may be made in the settle
ment of the New Testament doctrine of Sacrifice.
It has been seen in the study of the Mosaic worship that
its several rites were at once symboUcal and typical, — in
other words, that they were symboUcal of truths then actuaUy
revealed, and symbolical of revelations yet to be made ; it has
been seen, in fact, that those rites of the pre-Christian times
were material embodiments of certain doctrines which in more
appropriate and harmonious form the future should produce.
It has also been seen, in the review of the New Testament
testimonies, that that T^ork of Christ was designated sacrificial
which found its necessity in the righteous Being of God and
in the fallen nature of man, was actuaUy a vicarious bearing
of the punishment aUotted to the sms of the world, and resulted
in such a reconciliation between holy God and sinful man that
the consequences of the FaU niight be obliterated. It has been
further seen that the moments of the work of Christ in human
redemption were designated under a variety of figures derived
from the Old Testament worship, because the elements of that
worship lent themselves with a singular appropriateness, more
readUy perceptible to the apostles than to us, to the communi
cation of the first principles of the new faith. The question

394 THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
previously started may now be disposed of, — whether this
description of the work of Christ, and especially of His death,
under sacrificial analogies, was anything more than figurative ?
whether such a description was based on a fleeting and
intangible resemblance, or on something more ? whether this
facility of pictorial representation resulted from a pre-ordained
connection between ' the two dispensations ? whether, to be
brief, this sacrificial work of Christ was that final and com
plete work for which the pre-Christian dispensations had been
preparing the way — the antitype, to use a technicality pre
viously defined, of which the Patriarchal and Mosaic rituals
were the types ?
At the risk of proUxity, it wiU be advantageous to recapitu
late the exact difference represented by type and antitype.
Type and antitype do not mean different things under the
same form, but the same thing under different forms. Type
and antitype are so related to each other by a pre-established
harmony, that the type teaches by figure what the antitype
teaches by fact. The type indeed suggests, in spite of a large
pretence, what the antitype displays without , pretence. The
type had an extrmsic, the antitype an intrinsic, merit. The
analogy between the symbol and the thing symboUzed may be
faint and arbitrary in the type ; in the antitype the distinction
between the symbol and the thing symbolized has vanished,
and distant analogy has become perfect induction.^
It is evident, therefore, that if the New Testament use of
sacrificial terminology is anything more than figurative, — if
the sacrificial conceptions of the apostles are the substances
of which the rites of Moses and the patriarchs were the
shadows, — then a comparison of the sacrificial worship of the
Old and New Testament should show that the sacrifices of
the New are embodiments without anything of accommodation
or mere mstitution of those truths which the sacrifices of the
Old represented with considerable latitude, nay, are those very
truths themselves. If the sacrificial doctrme of the New
Testament is that more perfect form for which the doctrine of
Mosaism paved the way, then the former should show itself
upon analysis to be that related form to which the latter
1 See pp. 157, 158.

.THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 395
pointed. In short, if these several forms of doctrine are
indeed related as type and antitype, this should be apparent
upon comparison. To such comparison we proceed, restrict
ing ourselves in the present instance to the atonements effected
under the two Covenants,
Let the question be re-stated. The Scriptures speak of two
methods of atonement, which is, being interpreted, of covering,
of neutralizing, of so rendering sm inert, that it ceases to
arouse the righteous anger of God and thus becomes the
means of restoring communion between the creature and
Creator.' These two methods of atonement may, without
much danger of misunderstanding, be generaUy termed the
Mosaic and the Christian. The Mosaic method — we are at
present concerned simply with its objective side — was by the
legal manipulation of animal blood, legal correctness consisting
in an obedient fulfilment of an appointed ritual, the leading
features of which were eminently adapted to express symboli
cally that the Ufe of an animal physically immaculate had
become, when presented before God, the instrument in obtain
ing remission of sins. The Christian method of atonement
was, as it is figuratively put so frequently, by the blood of
Christ, — that is to say, by that surrender of life on the part of
the sinless Emmanuel which was a. vicarious endurance of the
penalty decreed by God upon the sin of man. The question
is, "Are these two modes of atonement related to each other as
type and antitype ? "
Several considerations suggest the probabUity of that con
clusion ; for, in the first place, the Mosaic Law itself did not
profess to be a final revelation, and distinctly pointed to a
future time for an explanation of its difficulties. The Law
gave no immediate replies to the numberless problems which
it seemed constructed to insinuate. As we' have previously
said, in sUghtly different words, it aroused the mind by
many a, piece of inconsequent reasoning, it suggested possible
solutions of numerous difficulties in the far future, it told a
mystic and eluding tale to the imaginative and spirituaUy-
minded, but it had no express statements upon the most
j)erplexing detaUs of its ritual to be read by aU and mastered
' See pp. 98 and 139.

396 THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS!
without special preparation. The Jew who had any faith at
all in the divine origin of the Mosaic worship might rest, as
he presented his sacrifice of blood, with priceless spiritual
advantage upon the divine words, " I have given it to you on
the altar to make an atonement for your souls ; " upon any
final cause of such gifts he might speculate endlessly, he could
not unquestionably fathom ; nevertheless, he could not ignore
the fact that, if the word of his God stood sure, this sanguinary
worship was transitional, and was preparing the way for an
atonement yet to come.
Secondly, the entire announcements of the prophets tended
to deepen the sense of the transitional nature of Mosaism, and
its method of atonement. " Behold, the days come, saith the
Lord," wrote Jeremiah, "that I wtU make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not
according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of
the land of Egypt ; which My covenant they brake, although .
I was a husband to them, saith the Lord : but this shall be
the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel : After
those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts ; and wiU be their God, and
they shall be My people. And they shaU teach no more
every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying.
Know the Lord : for they shall all know Me, from the least
unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive
them their iniquity, and I wUl remember their sins no more."'
To which closing words the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews expressively adds, when quotmg them : " Where
there is remission of these, there is no more offering for sin."*
Thirdly, the prophetic intimations of the Old Testament,
besides intensifying the popular apprehension of the transi
tional nature of Mosaism, made announcements concerning
the coming kingdom of God which received a literal fulfil
ment in the death of Christ. We refer, of course, to the
series of Messianic prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, Zechariah, and Malachi, which have been passed under
brief review in the preceding book. Thus, as has been seen,
1 Jer. xxxi. 31-34. . « Heb. x. 17.

THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 397
Isaiah, in his climacteric prophecy, spoke of the Branch, at
once Mighty God and Son of a virgin, the Servant of Jehovah,
Who, knowing no sin, would offer His life as a trespass-offering ;
and Daniel announced the very year of the crucifixion of
Jesus as the time when reconciliation should be made for
iniquity, and sacrifice of the Old Testament form should cease
for ever. To such mmute prophecies (on any theory of their
authorship at any rate antecedent to the birth of Christ), and
to such exact fulfilment, considerable argumentative force is
justly attached.
Fourthly, the New Testament represents the whole code of
Christianity as fulfiUing the entire code of the preceding dis
pensations, Jesus Himself speaks oi fulfilling the Law. He
acknowledged its divine origm; He quotes its precepts as
irrefutable testimony ; He refers men to the commandments,
as pointing out to them the path of life ; He derives from the
Law dogmatic witness to the truth ; and yet He claims to
fulfil the Law, — that is to say, to repeat the Law in so altered
a form as to render it obsolete,' And this fulfilment is
pecuUarly visible in the ceremonial features. The Old Testa
ment worship is'everywhere considered in the New as a means
to an end, that end being the truth as it is in Jesus, or, as
that introductory ceremonial has been elsewhere denominated,
as a primer carefully accommodated to the previous acquire
ments of its learners, and preparatory to the more explicit,
reasonable, and permanent education of the Christian system.
" Weak through materiaUsm," " a shadow of commg events,"
" a pedagogue to lead the way to Christ," were the New
Testament criticisms upon Mosaism ; and such sentiments are
the keys to the Christian conception of the previous revela
tions.* Fifthly, the Mosaic and Christian methods of atonement
are so universal as to be mutuaUy exclusive. If one is
trusted to, the other cannot be. Putting aside the Mosaic
distinction of race, and the Christian absence of any such dis-
1 Compare the very able chapters on "The Gospel and the Law" and " Of
the Law" and "Of the Gospel," in the first and second volumes of Eeuss's
History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age.
=< Rom. viu. 9 ; Heb. x. 1 ; Gal. iu. 24.

398 THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS,
tinction, it remains true that the atonements by the blood of
animals and by the blood of Christ achieved forgiveness for
the same class of persons, and for those alone. By the aton
ing rites of Judaism^ national and personal, forgiveness was
obtained for all sins which were not committed in open
rebeUion against the Most High; the atonement of Christ
obtained forgiveness for the same class of sins, and was power
less to claim forgiveness for deliberately, wilfully, and deter
minedly unrepenting offenders. Thus, then, the singular fact
arises, that at different times in the history of the world, divine
revelations were made of methods of forgiveness for exactly
the same classes of sins, essentially different in their nature.
If a Jew was forgiven by the merits of the Mosaic method of
atonement alone, he stood in no need of the atonement of
Jesus ; if a Christian was forgiven by the merit of the death
of Christ, for him the Jewish ritual of sin-offerings was super
erogatory. Does it not seem to follow that, if both methods
of forgiveness were of divine origin, they must have been
related as shadow and substance, symbol and thing symboUzed,
type and antitype ?
Sixthly, on the supposition that the Christian atonement
was the antitype of the Mosaic, the unexplained elements of
the atoning ritual of the latter are readily explicable. It was
seen in our examination of the Mosaic injunctions, that when
all due allowance had been made for the essential, symboUc,
and sacramental nature of those injunctions, there still remained
many things to perplex and disturb in these professedly divine
revelations. There was, for example, the cardmal difficulty of
reconcUing the giving of so materialistic a worship by Him,
Whose nature must never be sensuously represented, and Whose
most fitting designation was, " I AM." And in the matter of
the sacrificial ritual, there was much that remained unsolved
when aU was said that the Law could say. When once the
first principle had been fully grasped of life for life, of the life
of a physically immaculate and selected animal for the life of
man, an exquisite beauty of adaptation would be apparent in
the details of presentation and slaughter, and a soothingly
expressive consolation ; but what Ught beyond the divine,
will had been unquestionably thrown upon the fundamental

THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 399
necessity for this extraordinary principle ? With all its
eloquence of symbol and potency of sacrament, it has again
and again been seen during the course of the preceding book,
that there were in the cycle of the Jewish ritual numerous
features unexplained and discomposing, which, but for the
tranquiUizing effect of a belief, firm and immovable, in an
unfolding providence that had not said its final word, might
have been sufficient to shake the faith of the conscientious
and rationaUy-minded to its very foundation. Now in Christ
a key to these unexplained difficulties is afforded, and this is
manifestly so in the matter of atonement. Atonement, as we
have seen times and again, was effected under the Law by the
presentation upon the appropriate altars of the blood of certain
domestic animals ; and, with aU the light of the Old Testa
ment revelations, there were questions with respect to the
generic and specific selection of those animals, their slaughter
and subsequent manipulation, which must have been sources
of mental disquiet, if not of actual doubt, on the part of the
inteUigent inquirer ; it is these very questions which receive
a satisfactory solution in the death of Christ, It is the death
of Christ which first places in a clear Ught the peculiar selection
of victims under the Law, Those victims consisted of oxen,
sheep, goats, doves and pigeons ; and U it be asked what prin^
ciple or principles governed their selection, the reply is not
easy so long as the eye is fixed upon the Law, and when the
reply is made it is not very intelligible. All that the Law
seemed to need was victims which were possessed of Ufe, and
which were genuine gUfcs, inasmuch as they were the products
of the toil of the offerers. But had these been the only prin
ciples of selection, there was no reason why many another
kind of beast or bird, which formed part of the offerer's pro
perty, might not be presented. It would appear that yet
another principle guided the selection, the prmciple that
eligible animal offerings should be chosen from those domestic
creatures which stood in the most intimate relations with
man. It was the sheep and the lambs, the buUocks and the
calves, the goats and the kids, the pigeons and the doves of a
pastoral people which were to be brought to the holy altars.
Creatures which were at once genuine sacrffices of living

400 THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS,
things, and at the same time, according to the frequently cited
and feUcitous phrase of De Maistre, "the most human offer
ings," were alone, it would appear, legaUy avaUable for sacrifice.
And if Christ be the antitype of these victims, the reason is
plain. A human offering would, of course, have been the most
expressive symbol ; but human sacrificing being interdicted by
the exceptionaUy humane reUgious code of Mosaism, creatures
possessed of Ufe, human property, the product of maq's vital
energies, and the means by which those energies are recruited,
the darUngs of a people whose whole associations were with
the shepherd life, were ordered to be offered in lieu of human
sacrifices. Before the atonement of Christ, the selection of
victims was in part unintelUgible ; after that atonement, the
unintelligible was lucid as a pure spring. So, too, it was the
sacrffice of Christ which first laid bare the purpose for the
immaculate physique demanded of the victims presented at the
altars. This immaculate physique symboUzed, as in the case
of the priesthood, the hoUness of the substituted victim. How
pretentiously, as far as the animal was concerned! for its purity
was simply physical, the accident of its birth and completely
disassociated from the results of voUtion. Yet in Him, Who
knew no sin, the holy in Ufe and the guileless in birth, the
purpose of this pretentious symbol receives a solution, and a
brUUancy of meanmg is reflected where before there was
accommodation and extreme mental aUowance. And it is iu
the death of Christ alone that the Mosaic first principle of
atonement by blood finds its rationale. To present the blood,
to plead the forfeited life of a lamb, or an ox, or a goat, to
say nothing of a pigeon, how could that avail before God ?
why should such a presentation be commanded and reiterated
by the Jehovah of the Jew ? Was it not the testimony of
the deepest instincts of our .nature, as weU as of its most
universally acquired habits, that the blood of bulls and of goats
can never take away sin ? What, then, was the significance
of this first principle ? Eeasonable as were the subjective
conditions of atonement, deserving as they were of the loudest
and most solemn repetition, what was there but mysteriousness
in the objective side, to the intelUgently and seriously mmded?
But the whole thing is clear if it be acknowledged that the

THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 401
death of Christ, the penal and vicarious surrender of His sinless
Ufe, was the antitype towards which these earlier rites design
edly pointed. If those rites were instituted not simply to
impress the Jewish mind with the sense of the mercy and
forgiveness that there is in God, but; to famUiarize the mind
with those ideas of a valid sacrifice which were fulfiUed in
Christ, what is otherwise a gigantic difficulty has become level
to the simplest comprehension. One may well wonder how
the sprinkling of animal blood upon an altar could break the
force of the sins man had committed before God. " The blood
atones through the soul," it is said. Well and good ; but how
comes it that the soul of an animal can atone ? Figuratively
alone, it would appear, or, to speak more accurately, prospecT
tively only. When Christ, however, presented the fact of His
proffered Ufe before the God of heaven, and a valid equivalent
had been offered for the punishment due to the sins of the
world, it could be readily understood why these initiatorj'- types
and shadows might be wisely permitted.
But aU mere suggestions, valuable and well-nigh conclusive
as they are, apart, the question is whether the atonement of
Christ was the antitype of the Mosaic atonement; and this
question resolves itself into another, — whether, assuming the
pre-ordained connection between the Old and New Covenants,
to which, as has been seen, the Scriptures bear abundant testi
mony, the atonement of Christ teaches by fact what the
Mosaic atonement proclaimed merely by symbol The reply
must be in the affirmative.
There were four questions which were investigated in the
chapter upon the " Sacramental Significance of the Mosaic
Injunctions," — viz., the nature of the Mosaic atonement, its
method, its extent, and its efficacy. It was asked, what
that atonement was in itself ? how it was effected ? whom it
concerned ? and was its effect permanent or transitory ? Now,
as regards the nature of the atonement, the definition need not
vary ; m the New Covenant, as in the Old, to atone is to cover,
— so to enrobe the sinner that his sin no longer arouses the
divine anger ; and such a word as atone, or any of its derivai-
tives, most amply expresses the effect of the work of Christ in
the remission of sins ; the consequences, too, of the atonement^
2 c

402 .THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS'.
«nder both dispensations, was the remission of sins contracted
by nature or by design. But a comparison of the answers
returned by the Old and New Testaments to the remaining
questions, conclusively shows that the atonement of Christ is
the antitype foretold by type and prophecy.
Thus, it is unquestionable that the atonement of Christ is
said in the New Testament to have been wrought without
proviso ; whereas the Mosaic atonement, efficacious as it was,
was effected by a manifest and confessed accommodation. The
Mosaic atonement was sacramental ; the Christian worked by
its native potency : to put the same thing in logical language,
the former was an invariable antecedent, the latter was an
efficient cause. This is manifest upon the sUghtest com
parison; and after our detailed examination of the atoning
work of Christ, and of the significance of the Mosaic offerings
of blood, it is unnecessary to accumulate proofs. Time after
time throughout the course of this inquiry, it has been seen
how large a licence was demanded when the blood of bulls
and of goats was supposed to take away sin ; time after time
has it been remarked how great a claim was daUy made upon
the credence of the Jew : there is no inherent impossibiUty in
what is ascribed to the blood of Christ. Granted the several
.postulates of the Gospel, that Christ is God ; that He is Creator,
Preserver, Lawgiver, and Judge; that He has decreed the
punishment of sin by death ; that, to restore His creation and
uphold His law. He has Himself assuined a sinless humanity
and submitted to the penalty of death ; and shrink as we may
from the idea of vicarious punishment, it cannot at any rate
be declared impossible for such a scheme of salvation to effect
what it pretends. But we have not to do with a priori pos-
sibiUties and impossibilities. What we have to do with is the
Scripture testimonies, and these plainly assert that the death
ai Christ achieved by inherent merit what the death of sacri
ficial victims sacramentaUy achieved.
, Again, an argument for the antitypical nature of the atone
ment of Christ may be drawn from the extent of that atone
ment. None but Jews were permitted to offer sin-offerings,
.although foreigners were legally allowed to present burnt-offer-
4ngs (which had a minute element of atonement attached to

.THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 403
them). None but Jews were permitted to piresent offerings
proper for sin or for trespass, or to participate in the great
festal offerings when sin-offerings were presented,, or have the
smaUest share in the solemn ceremonial of the Day of Atone
ment. One of the principal features, on the other . hand, of
the Christian faith, is that it recognises " neither Jew nor Greek,
circumcision nor un circumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond,
free ; but Christ is all and in aU." What foUows. ? Does not
this, — that by the forbearance of God 'it was that the Jews, who
had been specially chosen, as the channels of His merciful reve
lations, had also been specially chosen to receive by sacramental
Tites, and not by a truly potent sacrifice for sm, the forgiveness
of sins and the life of intercommunion ? If the sin-offerings
of the Jew were otherwise than sacramentally efficacious, must
.they not have been equally efficacious if presented by Gentiles ?
The very restrictions of the efficacy of the Mosaic sacrffices
to a single nation is proof positive that in themselves those
sacrifices possessed but a symbolic significance, that they
achieved by a divine accommodation what they were in them
selves impotent to effect. The universality with which the
Christian faith is ordered to be preached is thus a conclusive
argument for the antitypical nature of that atonement which
is that faith's corner-stone.
Further, there is the authority of the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews for the argument in behalf of the antitypical
nature of the death of Christ to be drawn from the fact that
that death happened once for aU ; and the argument of that
Epistle may be prudently quoted here in the place of any
words of ours, inasmuch as it would be just as cogent by
whomsoever or whensoever . it was employed : " The Law
having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image
of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they
offered year by year continuaUy, make the comers there-'
unto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be
offered? because that the worshippers once purged should
have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrffices
there is a remembrance of sins again made every year. For
it is not possible that the blood of ImUs and of , goats, ahopld
take away sins. Wherefore,. when (Jesus) cometh into the

404 THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS,
world. He saith. Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but
a body hast Thou prepared me : . . . Lo, I come to do Thy
wUl, 0 God. . . . By which wiU we are sanctified through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" '
The fact that the Mosaic sin-offerings called for frequent
repetitions, whilst the sin-offering presented by Christ was
offered once for aU, infalUbly points to the antitypical nature
of the latter.
Such, then, is the Scriptural argument respecting the rela
tion between the sacrificial doctrines of Atonement under the
Law and under the Gospel. The pouring out of the blood of
Christ was not a figurative atonement merely, which some
subtle and intangible analogy permitted to be so described ;
the death of Christ was not an atonement as discontent is a
wmter, or death is sleep's brother, or beUs are music's laughter,
or quietude is* the crown of life, or riot is hundred-headed;
the death of Christ was that true and unpretending atonement
to which every previous atoning rite had pointed. It was the
pre-Christian atonement that was figurative. And this must
have been much more evident to those who had daUy wit
nessed the Temple ritual running its accustomed round than to
us. " There is such a deep-set, grandly real, and wide-reach
ing correspondence, that no man fresh in the sentiments of the
altar could well miss it or fail to be strangely impressed by it.
Here is the first-born, the unblemished beauty, the chaste
Lamb of God ; never came to mortal eyes any such perfect
one before. And the expense He makes under His great love-
struggle and heavy burden of feeling ; His Gethsemane, where
the burden presses Him down into agony ; His Calvary, where,
in His unprotesting and lamb-Uke submission. He allows Him
self to be immolated by the world's wrath, — what wUl any one,
seeing aU this, so naturally and so inevitably caU it as His
sacrifice for the sins of the world ? His blood, too, the blood
of the incarnate Son of God, blood of the upper world haU as
truly as of this, when it touches and stains the defiled earth
of this planet, — what so sacred blood on the horns of the altai
and the Ud of the mercy-seat did any devoutest worshipper
at the altar ever see sprinkled for his cleansing! There his
1 Heb. X. 1-10.

THE ATONEMENTS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 405
sin he hoped could be dissolved away, and it comforted his
conscience that, by the offering of something sacred as blood,
he could fitly own his defilement, and by such tender argu
ment win the needed cleansing. But the blood of Christ, —
He that was born of the Holy Ghost, He that was Immanuel,
— rwhen this sprinldes Calvary, it is to him as if some touch
of cleansing were in it for the matter itself of the world. In
short, there is so much in this analogy, and it is so affecting,
so profoundly real, that no worshipper most devout, before the
altar, having once seen Christ, — who He is, what He has done
by His cross, and the glorious offering He made of Himself in
His ministry of good, faithful unto death,— who will not turn
away instinctively to Him, saying : ' No more altars, goats, or
lambs ; these were shadows, I see ; now has come the substance.
This is my sacrifice, and here is my peace — the blood that
was shed for the remission of sins ; this I take and want no
other.' "1 ^ BushneU, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p, 405,

CHAPTER IX,
HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT,
" Die neue Bund ist nicht das Ende, sondern die Verklarung des Opfers,''^
Hengstenberg, Die Opfer der heiligen Schrift, p. 48.
ONE large portion of the New Testament doctrine of
Sacrifice is now complete, that which is concerned
with what we have frequently termed, in obedience to com
mon usage, " the Sacrifice of Christ," — in more precise language,
"the Work of Christ, which rendered possible a remission of
sins.'' That work has been seen to be the surrender of His
sinless self to death that He might vicariously bear the
penalty decreed upon the sins of the world. Into the specu
lative bearings or justification of this redemptive work of
Christ we have not entered ; it has been enough for us to
obtain the scriptural testimony as to the special nature and
effects of that work. If it has seemed to some that in our
examination of the work of Christ in its generality we have
gone too far afield, we simply request them to suspend their
judgment for a chapter or two, when it will be evident that
we have not yet finished our references to that more general
aspect of the Saviour's office. Before we pass on, however, to
the remaining portion of the New Testament doctrme, we
would say just a word upon the terminology hitherto em
ployed. It must have become abundantly evident that the
death of Christ, manifestly sacrificial as it was, — connected,
that is to say, with the sacrificial ritual of the Old Testament,
— can only be figuratively described as a sacrifice. It was only
figuratively that the death of Christ coiUd be called a sin-
offering, or a burnt-offering, or a trespass-offering ; what the
death of Christ actually was, was an atonement. Instead of
being appropriately called by any single specific name selected

HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 407
fyom the list of sacrifices, the death of Christ answered to the
whole atonement by blood which entered into every sacrifice
of the Old Covenant. The death of Christ was the antitype
of the pre-Christian atonement, whether Patriarchal or Mosaic;
Not only, then, have we had to do with one-haU of the New
Testament doctrine of Sacrifice, but, by reason of the inner
-connection of that death of Christ with the Mosaic injunc
tions, we have also disposed of one-half of the Old Testament
doctrine. The study of the atonement of Christ has com
pleted the study of the atonem„ent as distinguished from the
presentation of Mosaic sacrifice. To the counterpart of Mosaic
presentation we now proceed.
In the brief analysis of the New Testament doctrine of
Sacrifice given in the first chapter of this book, that doctrine
was stated to consist of two sections, the New Testament
doctrine of the Sacrifice of Christ, and the New Testament
doctrine of the Sacrifice of Man. To the latter — a less com
monly treated yet equally essential doctrine — we now ad
vance. We shall, in the first place, substantiate by excerpts
from the Scriptures the assertion that the lives and labours of
Christian believers are described under sacrificial analogies ;
and in the second place, we shall collect the principal moments
of the work so described,^these two points wUl occupy this
chapter ; then, following the method previously pursued, we
shaU demonstrate in the next chapter that the human sacri
fices of the New Testament are the antitypes of those of the
Old. It is especiaUy deserving of note that the apostles, who
had passed their early life in the admiration and practice of
the Jewish sacrificial system, employ the technicaUties of that
system to describe the life and duties of the Christian be
liever, as well as the work of Christ. Even James, the
fragments of whose history and extant writings all point to
his high appreciation of the Mosaic worship, says : " Pure
worship ' and unpolluted in the estimation of God our Father
is this. To visit orphans and widows in their affiiction, and to
preserve oneself unspotted from the world;" and, exhorting
the proud to " draw near to God," he adds, as if the rites of
1 Jas. i. 27 : epurxlx, i.e. "a form of divine worship."

408 HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
purification had no longer any place in his thoughts, "purify
your hands, ye sinners ; and make your hearts chaste, ye
double-minded." ' So Jude, in his splendid doxology, appeals
to Him Who is able to keep from faUing, and to present before
the presence of His glory as spotless sacrifices.* Peter de
signates the Christian disciples , of the Asiatic Churches " a
spiritual house, for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ ; " ^ and a
little later, quotes the very words of the original covenants
— " a royal priesthood " — to describe the relation of these
beUevers to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.*
So also Peter speaks of the forgiveness of sins of which the
Christian has become conscious as " a purification of his old
sins," ° and of the holiness of the Christian to be desired'
at the last day as a being " without spot and blameless." *
In the writings of Paul, these sacrificial designations of
Christian discipleship are, as might be expected from their
larger extent, yet more numerous. Thus, to quote a passage
previously cited, Paul beseeches the Eomans to " present their
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God ; " ' and in
the same Epistle describes the Gentiles who had joined the
Christian faith as " an acceptable offering." * So in the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians he speaks of the Corinthians
as " anointed " to the priesthood,' and as " a sweet savour " of
1 Jas. iv. 8 : Kx/xplrxTs x'^fst where xxlxpi^oi is the equivalent of taker, the
Hebrew word for Mosaic purifying.
^ Jude 24 : ' Afia/iovs ; xiiufoog being the technical term for the spotless sacrifi
cial victim. See LXX., Lev. xiv. 32, xv. 13, etc.
^ 1 Fet. u. 5 : Otxog wysvfzxTixo;, els Upurst/fiix xytoy, xviy'lyxxi ^ytv/iurixxs Sv^ixg,
etc. Compare the use of oTxas in LXX., Ex. xxiii. 19, where it stands for the
Hebrew bayith, as applied to the Tabernacle, and the use of Updreufia in Ex.
xix. 6.
* 1 Pet. ii. 9 : 'Upxr:i>/ix iixaixnoy. Compare Ex. xix. 6.
^ 2 Pet. i. 9 : Taw xaSxpirfioZ Tuy ^xXxt xutov xfixpTtm. Compare LXX., e.g.
Lev. xiv. 32, xv. 13.
* 2 Pet. iii. 14 : "AgnXoi xx) ifiufttiTii. Compare 1 Pet. i. 19, and note 3.
^ Eom. xii. 1 : IlxpxirT^tfxt rx vufixTX ufiwy ^titrixv l^uffxy aytxy tm Qeu ihxpiffroy.
Compare, on use of ii/flx. Appendix I.
* Eom. XV. 16 : Upotipepx ihrpotSixTos. Compare, on trpotipofx. Appendix I.
' 2 Cor. i. 21 : 1S.pi<rxg ; xt'>o> is the equivalent oimashath, "to anoint," "tp
consecrate to a sacred use," applied in LXX. to the priesthood, the Tabernacle,
the altars.

HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 409
the sacrifice of Christ,' and as the " temple of God." * The
apostle caUs the faith of the PhUippians a " sacrifice and
priestly mmistration," * and their monetary contributions " an
odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to
God."* To Titus Paul speaks of Christian disciples under
the express language of the ancient covenant as " a peculiar
people,"* and he counsels Timothy as to a "purified heart and
conscience." ^ The Apostle John has also something to say
in his brief Epistle about the "anointing" of Christians to
their sacred duties, and tells in the Eevelation of an " altar,"
" a temple," a " lamb," " blood," and " priests." The author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews admonishes his hearers to " offer
thank-offerings to God- — that is, the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to His name," and " to do good and impart," for with
such sacrifices God is well pleased.'
Now, in the consideration of these apostolic descriptions of
the life and labours of the Christian believer under sacrificial
analogies, it will greatly conduce to accuracy and sharpness
of conception, if the method already pursued with respect to
the parallel descriptions of the work of Christ be rigidly
foUowed, and we ascertain, first, the apostolic doctrines of the
state of man under the Gospel in their diversity, and, secondly,
the New Testament doctrine in its completeness. And the
examination of the testimonies of the several apostles will
become the more conclusive if the preceding order of exami
nation be reversed. To show most strikingly that the work
of Christ was described by the apostles under language bor
rowed from the Old Testament worship, it was necessary to
show that such language was employed by those apostles
whose antagonism to Judaism was the most pronounced, as
1 2 Cor. ii. 15 : EliuSix. See note 4.
^ 1 Cor. iii. 16 : T»y »««» to! eioS. Compare the common LXX. phrase, i vxog
xvpiou, e.g. 2 Chron. xviii. 16 ; Jer. yii. 3.
' Phil. ii. 17 : Bvirix xx) Xuroupylx ; Xuroi/pylx is the Greek equivalent for
abhodah. See LXX., Ex. xxxviii. 21 ; Num. iv. 25, etc.
¦* Phil. ii. 17 : 'Offfiny luothixs, Sutrixy SsxTflv tuxpsffToy Tif 6s^. Compare LXX.,
Gen. viii. 21 ; Ex. xxix. 18 ; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, etc.
' Tit. ii. 14 : Axh trtpiovnoy. Compare Ex. xix. 5.
' 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 9 ; 2 Tim. i. 3, ii. 22 : KxpSlx, tvyninns, xxtxpi. On use
of Kxixpi, see p. 408, note 1.
' Heb. xiii. 15, 16 : euriay xhioioj;. Compare LXX., Lev. vii. 3, 5.

410 HUMAN SACIilFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
weU as by those who looked with evident fondness upon their
ancient faith. To show most strikingly that the objective
side of the Judaic sacrificial worship feU into complete disre
gard with Christian teachers, it is advisable to show that such
neglect is as conspicuous in those who were friendly as in
those who were antagonistic to the earlier faith.
It followed from the general teaching of our Lord HimseU
concerning His relation to the Old Testament dispensation,
that He should regard the relation of man to God effected
by Himself as a novel one, at once ratifying and superseding
the Old Testament dispensation and its statutes. He who
declared His blood to be that of the New Testament, also
declared, as Jeremiah had further prophesied, that iniquity
would now be forgiven, and the law written on the inward
parts. His death. He said, should witness the rendmg
asunder of the Temple veU, and the subversion of the ancient
sacrificial worship.' If the terms of the cultus instituted in
the wUderness were to be still applied to human acts, those
terms must bear a different sense. The mediation of a
priesthood was at an end ; Jesus announced Himself as the
Way to the Father by Whom all should approach ; and to the
significant words, " Every^ one which seeth the Son and be
Ueveth on Him may have everlasting life," the yet more
significant words were added, " Him that cometh " (whether
priest or common Israelite or Gentile) " I wiU in no wise cast
out." * So also the days of material sacrifices are no more ;
the sole conditions of introduction into the kingdom of heaven
are, faith in Himself and an unreserved surrender to Himself
Those words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria are, in
fact, a summary of the new relations introduced by Him
between man and his Maker : "Woman, believe me, the hour
cometh, when ye shaU neither in this mountain, nor yet at
Jerusalem, worship the Father. . . , The hour cometh, and
now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father
in spirit and in truth : for the Father seeketh such to worship
Him, God is a Spirit : and they that worship Him must
worship Him in spirit and in truth," ^
' Matt. xxiv. 1, etc. ; Mark xiii. 1, etc. ; Luke xxi. 5, 6, 20.
''^ John vi. 37, 40. 3 John iv. 21-24,

HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 411
trhe Apostle John, as his Epistle and the Book of the
Eevelation testify, comes nearest to the teaching of Jesus
upon the changed conditions of human approach to the
Deity, Faith in Jesus is the one prerequisite to a Ufe in
Christ, which is in reality a Ufe in God,' and a life that is
eternal.* Those who have faith in Christ are conscious of a
cleansing of their inmost selves by the blood of Jesus,^ and,
in spite of frequent lapses into sin which they cannot but
confess, are nevertheless conscious of the forgiveness of their
sins ; * they are born of God ; * they are sons of God ; ^ their
faith blossoms into love,' obedience,* righteousness,' self-abne
gation.'" Nothing whatever is said by John respecting the
so-called ceremonial injunctions of the law, and most assuredly
no exhortation is uttered concerning the duty of the observ
ance of those injunctions ; indeed it is evident that, in the con
ception of John, " old things had passed away, all things had
become new." The Jew or the GentUe who had been previously
banished to the courts of the Temple could now approach the
Holiest itself by the blood of Jesus ; and the life of the beUever
was a life of loving feUowship with the Father and the Son,
in which the truest acts of worship were the labours and
patience of a life of self-sacrifice in the service of God and man.
The ,same features of the proximity of God to the Christian
believer, and the abolition of the Mosaic restrictions, together
with the possibiUty of a Ufe of self-surrender and the abroga
tion of the materialistic rites of Judaism, are yet more con
spicuous in the teachmg of Paul None wiU question that
faith in the atonement wrought by Christ " becomes, with
Paul, the starting-point of the Christian life. This faith
produces the sense of justffication,'* the assurance of adoption,"
and the progressive change of sanctification.'* Through faith
Christ dweUs m our hearts,'* and we receive a quickening of
our mortal bodies,'® the earnest of eternal life." The Ufe of
1 1 John iii. 23, v. 4, 5. ^1 John ii. 25, v. 11, 13. ' 1 John i. 7, 9, ii. 1, 2.
* 1 John ii. 12, iii. 5. '1 John iii. 9, "1 John iii, 1.
' 1 John ii. 9, 10. « 1 John ii, 2, iii. 22, v. 2. » 1 John iii. 11.
i» 1 John iii. 16, 17. . " Eom. iii. 22, 25, iv. 16, 24 ; GaL ii. 16, iii. 22.
" Eom. iii. 28, iv. 1 ; Gal. ii. 17. " Eom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26.
" 1 Thess. iv. 3, v. 23. i' Gal. ii. 20 ; Eph. i. 10, iii. 17.
1' Eom. viii. 11 ; Eph. ii. 1. " Eom. v. 21, vi. 22, 23.

412 HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.'
faith is the life of a new creature,' a death to sin and a life
to God,* a yielding unto God as those who are aUve from
the dead.** This life of faith is also a life of hope,* and a life
of charity.* In fact, faith having come, the whole aspect of
Ufe, whether on the Godward or manward side, is metamor
phosed ; for Godwards, the Ufe is a life of sonship,* obedience,'
and 'righteousness;* and manwards, a life of phUanthropy and
good works,^ prayer,'" the giving of thanks," stedfastness in
daily calling,'* the due use of gifts,'^ are forms of divine ser
vice : repression of the flesh,'* the earnest running of life's
race,'* the patient endurance of suffering,'* are fields of sacri
fice. According to Paul, every beUever in Christ has received
the priestly privilege of being made nigh unto God," and in
his priestly vocation needs offer no incense but prayer, no
peace-offering but thanksgiving, no sacrifice of atonement but
the blood of Christ, no bloodless sacrifice but the deeds of a
life of faith, utterance, knowledge, and liberality. The true
circumcision are those " who worship God in the spirit and
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and place no reliance upon the
material." '* Indeed, as a contrast to the exhortations of Moses
to the IsraeUtes, nothing can be more instructive, by way of
placing in a strong light the altered relations of New Testa
ment times, than the Pauline exhortations. If Paul writes to
the Ephesians, the burden of his appeal is, that " they walk
worthy of the vocation with which they are called, with all
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one
another in love ; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace," fighting, praying, watching." " What
soever ye do in word or in deed, do all in the name of the
Lord Jesus," *" is his advice to the Colossians. To the Philip-
plans he writes : " Eejoice in the Lord alway : and again I say,
1 2 Cor. V. 17. » Eom. vi. 11 ; CoL iii. 43 ; 2 Cor. ii. 16.
' Eom. vi. 13. * 1 Cor. xiii. 13 ; Eom. viii. 24.
» 1 Cor, X. 3 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Col. iii. 14. « Eom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 26.
' Eom. vi. 16, xvi. 16 ; 2 Cor. x. 5, 6 ; Heb. v. 9. s phU. iii. 9.
» 1 Cor. X. 3 ; Eph. ii. 10. i» Phil. iv. 6 ; 1 Tim. ii. 2.
11 1 Thess. V. 18. " 1 Cor. vii. 18-24. " 1 Cor. xii.
1* 1 Cor. vi. 15 ; CoL iii. 5. " 1 Cor. ix. 24, 25. " PhiL i. 29.
" Eph. ii. 13, 18 ; comp. Heb. iv, 6, x. 19.' is Phil. iiL 3.
"Eph. iv. 1-4, vi. 14-19. , 20 Col. iii. 17.

HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 413
sRejoice. Let your moderation be known unto aU men. The
Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing ; but in everything
by prayer and suppUcation, with thanksgiving, let your re
quests be made known unto God. And the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding, shaU keep your hearts and
minds through Christ Jesus." ' To Titus he says : " The
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men, teaching us, that, denying ungodUness and fleshly lusts,
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present
world ; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear
ing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave
Himself for us, that He might redeem us from aU iniquity,
and purify unto HimseU a peculiar people, zealous of good
works.".* Or, recapitulating his masterly summary of Chris
tian ethics which he has appended to that unparalleled
compendium of Christian doctrine, the Epistle to the Eomans,
what a changed world greets us in the very opening verse,^
with its description of " living sacrifices " ! — a world which
becomes yet more strongly emphasized when it is seen that
these " living sacrifices " are lives of unreserved surrender to
God, characterized by nonconformity to the world, sobriety of
self-esteem, due employment of gifts, appropriate social, com
mercial, and reUgious conduct, patience, prayer, charitable
dispositions, hospitality, a forgiving spirit, honesty, sympathy,
due subjection to political authorities, — ^in short, a putting on
of the Lord Jesus.
' Further, not only do we find a relinquishment of the dis
tinctive elements of the Jewish ritual of atonement by animal
blood, and of worship by presentation in kind, on the part of
those apostles who are manifestly at the greatest remove from
conceptions essentially Mosaic, such as Paul and John, but the
same relinquishment is equaUy conspicuous on the parts of
Peter, James, and Jude, whose evident concern it was to make
the transition to the new rigime as gentle as possible. Paul,
in the energy of his mission to the GentUes, seemed to care
little for the contrast between circumcision and uncircum-
cision ; Peter, in firm adherence to his Master's command that
the gospel should be first preached at Jerusalem, was scrupu-
1 Phil. iv. 5-8. ' Tit. ii. 11-15. ' Eom. xii., etc.

414 HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
lously careful not to offend national susceptibilities hy^Hr
protrusion of minor points of difference ; and yet in Peter and
Paul alike we see the advocacy of a different mode of worship,
and the proclamation of a- changed relation between man and
God. In the First Epistle of Peter the same elements of the
earthly Ufe of the Christian are visible, as have already been
seen in the words of Jesus, as well as of Paul and John,
•Faith in Jesus is the foundation-stone of a living temple, a
spiritual house ; believers in Christ are its priests, the sacri
fices they offer are spiritual sacrifices.' Believers in Christ
are, indeed, what the Jewish people aspired to be, " a chosen
race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ;" and
"they show forth, as their predecessors in the election of God
never could, the praises of Him who caUed them out of dark
ness, as from a second Egypt, into His marvellous light.* If it
be asked, how these praises are displayed, the natural mference
from the remainder of Peter's Epistle is by self-surrender to
the wUl of God in aU the relations of life, by obedience to the
divine commands in the inner and outer world, in the circle
of home, in the realm of society, in the sphere of religion. The
methods of worship recognised by Peter are spiritual sacrifices,^
prayer,* and watchfulness.* So far also from any Mosaic
restrictions being placed upon the approach to God, Jesus is
the only High Priest,* and aU His disciples enjoy the priestly
right of divine access.'
The Epistle of James also contributes its element of proof
to the astonishing contrast between the position of the believer
under the Law and under the Gospel. Here, again, it is evident
that faith in Jesus* has introduced the believer into new
relations with his Maker. The ceremonial of Mosaism is no
longer binding; its ethical precepts are the mam concern.
That love' and good works'" are produced in his Ufe, is to be
the Christian's main concern. It is heavenly wisdom to be
pure, peaceable, gentle, persuasible, merciful and fertUe in
goodness, open-handed and open-hearted," Indeed, no more
1 1 Pet. ii. 5-7, ' 1 Pet, ii, 9, ' j pg^. ^5 « ^ p^^ j^_ 7
" 1 Pet. iv. 7. ' 1 Pet. ii. 5; 7 1 p^^ ii. 9. s j^g. ii. i_ 24.
» Jas. ii. 8. 1" Jas, ii. 14, etc, 11 Jas. iii. 17.

HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 415
striking testimonies can be adduced of the changed face of
reUgion, than that James, himself a Jew, with Jewish leanings
even in his Christian profession, addressing Jews, should utter
such sentiments as these : " Draw nigh to God, and He wiU
draw nigh ta you ;'" " Is any among you afflicted? let him pray;
Is any merry? let him sing psalms ; Is any sick among you? let
him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over
him ; " * " Confess your faults one to another;"* " The effectual
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much;"* " Pure
religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this. To
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world," *
And, finally, a similar conception of the earthly life of the
Christian man is deducible from the brief Epistle of Jude.
Faith is stUl the one foundation.* " Faith certainly appears
here in its objective signification ; but the word of God, once
delivered to the saints, is to be vitally believed,' so that the
edifice of spiritual Ufe is to be built thereon,* — faith thus
appearing a subjective condition of salvation. Added to this,
the denial of the Lord Jesus Christ forms the direct opposite
to the state of a true Christian;' and in every stage of the divine
economy of grace, in the Old Covenant as in the New, unbelief '"
was the object of God's displeasure and judgment." " Chris
tian life is to.be " a building up of yourselves on your most
holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost," and keeping " your
selves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord
Jesus Christ unto eternal life."'* Jude also implies that the
Christian believer is the true priest,'^ Christ the one High
Priest,'* and the true sacrifice a life of growth in the holy faith
of Jesus.'* Thus, then, by an examination of the words of Jesus and
His apostles, it has become evident that, under aU varieties of
speech and argument, there was a complete unanimity with
respect to the changed relations of the ordinary Christian
1 Jas. iv. 8. ^ Jas. v. 13, 14. ' Jas. v. 16. * Jas. v. 16.
» Jas. i. 27. « Jude, v. 20. ' Jude, v. 3. » Jude, v. 20-
» Jude, V. 4. 1" Jude, v. 5.
11 Schmidt, Biblische Theologie des N, T. (translated in Foreign Theological
Library, p. 370).
" Jude, vv, 20, 21. " Jude, v. 24. " Jude, v. 24. '* Jude, v. 20.

416 HUMAN SACEIFICES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
believer as contrasted with the Jewish layman. According to
the unanimous teaching of the New Testament, the earthly
life of the disciple of Jesus was very different to that of the
disciple of Moses ; the relation to God was different in each
case ; the method of divine worship was different ; there was
a conspicuous difference in the feature of mediation ; and,
lastly, although by no means least, there was a permanence,
there was an adaptation, and there was an universality in
the Christian relations which rendered Christianity in those
respects wholly foreign to Judaism. For the sake of clearness,
it wiU be desirable to place in more orderly and succinct
sequence the leadmg features in which, as regards the earthly
life of the Christian, we have seen the apostles and their
Master to have been completely agreed.
In the first place, then, it is the unquestionable teaching of
the New Testament, that faith in the atonement of Jesus is
the invariable origin and the unintermittent accompaniment of
the Christian Ufe.
Secondly, by virtue of that faith in the atonement of Jesus,
the Christian believer is enabled to approach the Most High
without any mediator but Jesus ; in other words, to repeat the
sentiment of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, by
virtue of " the blood of Christ," the brotherhood in Christ may
boldly enter even the Holiest, where God dwells.
Thirdly, this privilege of approach to God by means of the
atonement and intercession of Jesus, is circumscribed by no
ritual restrictions, but is avaUable at any time and at any
place. Fourthly, the Christian method of worship (with one excep
tion, which we reserve for the present) is by prayer, thanks
giving, and self-surrender, without any further admixture of
symbolism than these things imply.
And, lastly, self-surrender being a form of divine service, it
is possible to worship God by an obedient and faithful dis
charge of all the manifold duties of Ufe personal, social, civil,
and reUgious,

CHAPTER X.
HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD
COVENANTS.
"OTi fily oZy XI iv^x) xx) eixxpnTTixi, ti^o ruy i^iaiy yiyofltyxi, TiXuxi /iovxt xx)
lixpsrroi gin ri Biui (uirixi, xa) xutos (fifci. — JuSTIN MaktYE, Dialogue C.
Tryphone, cap. cxvii.
THE vast change effected in the relation of man to his
Maker by the atonement of Christ may be iUustrated
by a comparison of the teaching of the prophets, the flower of
the Old Covenant, and the Apostles, the flower of the New.
In both there is the same emphatic declaration of the moral
side of aU true religion. If Isaiah writes so vividly : " To
what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices imto Me ?
saith the Lord : I am fuU of the burnt-offerings of rams, and
the fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not m the blood of calves,
or of lambs, or of he-goats. . . . Wash you, make you clean ;
put away the evil of your doings from before Mme eyes ; cease
to do evil ; learn to do weU ; " just as vividly, and a trifle more
incisively, James writes : " A man may say. Thou hast faith,
and I have works : show me thy faith without thy works, aiid
I wUl show thee my faith by my works. Thou beUevest that
there is one God; thou doest weU: the devUs also believe, and
tremble. But wUt thou know, 0 vain man, that faith without
works is dead ? " Nevertheless, in spite of their unanimity
upon the practical aspects of true reUgion, the prophets present
considerable contrasts to the apostles in the consciousness of
their personal relation to God, and tn their teaching as to the
relation attainable by man. With the pfophet the symbolic
ritual of the Mosaic worship is the medium of divine approach ;
with the apostle, it is prayer and thanksgiving and works that
conduct into the divine presence. A prophet may have a
vision in the Temple of the Lord of Hosts, and an audience of
2 D

418 HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS.
angels as they sing their Trisagion, but he cries astonied,
" Woe is me ; " such visions too were occasional, if not rare :
the apostles proclaim to all the possibiUty of approach at any
time to the Holiest, if certain conditions be fulfiUed. The
prophets exultingly proclaim an atonement to be effected, and
a Prince by whom peace shall be vouchsafed to the human
conscience ; the apostles glory in an atonement accomplished
once for all, in a Prince Who has assumed His crown, and
Whose reign of peace shall know no end. Faith in God for
what He will perform is the undertone of prophecy ; faith in
God for what He has performed is the undertone of the
apostolic testimony. Or, to place the contrast yet more strik
ingly, read side by side the Prophecy of Malachi and the
Epistle to the Galatians ; prophet and apostle are lamenting a
lapsed religion, but in how different a manner 1 prophet and
apostle are proclaiming a method of reformation, but of how
different a kind !
StUl, the readiness with which the relations between the
Christian believer and his God may be described under the
language of the sacrificial observances of Mosaism, a single
glance renders apparent. How vividly, for example, the
characteristics of the Christian Ufe are depicted to him who is
famUiar with the rites of the Tabernacle and Temple I As he
reads, the Christian is a priest, his body is a temple, his Ufe
is a sacrifice ; the varied acts of worship of a transformed
burnt-offering, a transformed peace-offering, a transformed sin-
offering, even of a transformed paschal feast, may be his special
privUeges since Christ has died. In the manifold analogies,
indeed, between the worship of the Old Testament and that of
the New, there is scarcely a single feature of the Mosaic cultus,
varied as it was, which might not be appropriately and tellingly
employed in Christian preaching or teaching as a figurative
representation of Christian privileges and duties. But we do
not delay to exempUfy this possibiUty of the figurative employ
ment of the ancient rites at greater length ; any reader of
Christian books, or hearer of Christian exposition, is famiUar
with these figurative appUcations of the Mosaic injunctions ;
it is with the more precise and scientific employment of these
rites we are more directly concerned.

HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS. 419
It is in the activities and passivities of the Christian Ufe
that the true antitypes are to be found of the numerous details
of the Mosaic injunctions, other than those concerning the
method of atonement, the high-priesthood, and the Tabernacle.
Just as the atonement by blood has its antitype m the atone
ment made by the death of Jesus ; just as the high-priesthood
of Aaron and his successors has its antitype m the heavenly
intercession and mediation of Jesus ; just as the Holy Place
and the Holiest have their antitypes in the Christian Church
and the heavenly world, so the remaming elements of the
Mosaic ritual (and a fortiori of the ritual of the Patriarchs)
— viz., the rites of purification and sacrifice, and the duties and
amenities of the priesthood — ^have their antitypes in certain
aspects and functions of the earthly life of the Christian
believer. And we say a^ects and functions advisedly ; for,
although loosely considered, it is true, the Christian might be
regarded as the antitype of many observances, yet, if accuracy
be desired, it is not in the Christian life most generaUy con
sidered, but in certain aspects and functions of that life, that
the antitypes in question are found. The ceremonial law,
in fact, wisely interpreted, may become as valuable a guide
and monitor in the conduct of the reUgious life of the Christian
as is the moral law, to adopt the commonly recognised dis
tinctions, in the conduct of the Christian's moral life. This
point, so important in the study of the connection between
the Old and New Testaments, may be judiciously illustrated
at greater length. It is part of a wider question. It has been
a commonly expressed opinion among typologists, that there
may be but one antitype to a variety of types; thus Epiphanius,
in a frequently quoted passage, described Christ as an offering,
a sm-offermg, a priest, an altar, a high priest, a sheep, a lamb,
aU in aU in fact. That this opinion rested upon a confused
apprehension of the nature of type and antitype, has been
already seen in the examination of the figurative application of
sacrfficial language to the Ufe and work of Christ. Figuratively,
the death of Christ may be caUed a burnt-offering, a peace-
offering, a sin-offering,* a trespass-offering, a meat-offering, or a
drink-offering, any analogy, near or remote, sufficmg in justi
fication of a merely figurative usage ; antitypicaUy regarded,

420 HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS.
however, the death of Christ was seen to have had but one
type in aU the round of ancient sacrificial observance, that type
entering, it is true, into every section of that observance — the
element of atonement by animal blood. It is only by poetic
Ucence that Christ may be caUed a peace-offering or a sin-
offering ; and nothing but confusion thrice confounded can
result from attaching to such phrases anything but a figurative
sense. Such figurative usage has undoubtedly its value in
caUing attention to the foundation of the analogy which ren
ders the figure in any degree appropriate : the error is in sup
posing a figure of speech to possess an argumentative force.
That Christ should be the antitypical high priest is perfectly
intelligible and true, inasmuch as in Christ and in the Aaronic
priest there is the same essential significance, expressed
symbolically in the latter case, and without the medium of
symbol in the former ; for a simUar reason, that Christ by the
exceptional potency of His death upon the cross should be
the antitypical atonement, is also true as weU as intelligible ;
but to say that Christ was the antitypical sin-offering or peace-
offering, is to launch into a wild and harbourless sea of con
flicting opinions, and to cominit oneself to such conclusions
as that, inasmuch as the offerer himseU slew the victim he
presented, Christ slew Himself, and that, masmuch as the
offerer shared in the sacrificial feast, Christ partook of His
own offering to cement His relations with the Father. The
fact is, that confusion is only avoided by remembering that
the thing represented may have many figurative synonyms,
but the thing typified has but one type. It is in the several
aspects of Christ's life that there seems a plausible reason for
assuming that there may be but one antitype to a series of
types ; but if these aspects be distinctly brought into view, it
will be found that there is no vaUd reason to doubt that in
the preordained revelations of God there is but one antitype
for each type. Thus, should it appear that Christ is at once the
antitypical atonement and the antitypical high priest, further
reflection shows that it is the blood of Christ — the life poured
out on Calvary — that is the atonement, 'and the pleading and
presentmg that blood before the Father which constitutes the
priesthood of Jesus. A paraUel confusion has also been largely^

HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS. 421
introduced into the investigation of type and antitype in the
sacrffices presented by man under the two Covenants ; it is in
the characteristic aspects and functions of the Christian life,
not in that Ufe in its generality, that antitypes are to be found
of the characteristic reUgious acts of the Ufe of the Jew.
The intricacies of the more precise and scientific employ
ment of the ancient rites in their connection with the Christian
dispensation, will display a beautiful contrivance and an ex
quisite adaptation, if but a single principle be carried in the
hand as a clue to the labyrinth. That principle is, that it is in
what we have termed the "Essential Significance" of the several
Mosaic rites we are to look for that preordained connection
with something not as yet revealed which constitutes a type.
It is the dogmatic statements of the Mosaic dispensation which
receive elucidation from the dispensation introduced by Jesus,
and it is therefore in those dogmatic statements that the key
is found to the mazes of Typology. Let the essential signifi
cance of the Mosaic injunctions be firmly and accurately
grasped, and Typology, as far as regards that branch which
concerns our subject, speedily yields up its treasures ; let the
essential signfficance be ignored or loosely apprehended, and
Typology passes into a contemptible aUegorizing. And this
is no mere empirical principle ; this principle is a consequence
of the preordained fact of development in revelation. Had
the truth as it is tn Jesus been fuUy revealed in Eden, types
and antitypes would have had no place. It was not so. The
ultimate truths of the Christian faith were to be imparted
after a passage through lower stages, after a presentation of
the same truths in more material forms ; hence types and
antitypes. Thus it was the wUl of God that it should be
revealed to man tn due time, that by virtue of the mediation
and atonement of Jesus he might be restored to the primitive
bUss and reUgious privUeges of Paradise ; now, unless man
was to be debarred from sharing in those blood-bought blessings
untU the death of Christ had actuaUy taken place in history,
that great truth of atonement must be revealed in symbol, a
divine interpretation of the symbol being at the same time
imparted. If, then, in after times, it is our desire to trace the
progress of the divine plan of revelation, it must be by the

422 HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS.
comparison of these divine interpretations with the truths of
the Christian system. In finding, for example, the preordained
connection between the sacrifices of the New and Old Cove
nants, it is the essential significance of the pre-Christian
sacrifices which suppUes us with the necessary point of
departure. The Christian is the antitype of the Jewish priest. What
in the Aaronite appeared in symbol, appears in the Christian
without any admixture of symbol. It is the Christian who
possesses pre-eminently the four attributes which make up
the biblical conception of a priest; for, " called " as he is "in
Christ Jesus," according to the common apostolic phrase, the
Christian displays his evident divine election; in his unre
served surrender, which has not even shrunk from leaving
all that he may follow Jesus, there is a genuine and unvar
nished acceptance of the divme caU ; not only is he " caUed,"
but he is " caUed to be a saint," and thus, by the very pre
rogative of his vocation, he possesses the attribute of righteous
ness ; whUst, if the Jewish priest gloried in his exceptional
privilege of divine approach, what words can convey the
superior nature of the Christian's right of access ! The Chris
tian enjoys in fact what the Aaronite enjoyed in figure ; hence
he is the antitypical priest. And the same truth is equaUy
conspicuous when the priestly functions are regarded. It was
the duty of the priest to present symboUc sacrifices of atone
ment and worship ; it is the Christian's function to plead
before God the one sacrifice of atonement, and to present
offermgs of more real worship. To the Jewish priest it was
aUowed to enter the Holy Place and worship the Most High,
secret behind the veil, with mcense and bread and oil, these
thmgs becoming by the divine mercy sacraments of divinely
answered prayer, divinely accorded sustenance, and divinely
imparted Ught ; so into a nobler holy place the Christian is
permitted to enter, where, hidden as God stUl is behind the
veU, and invisible by those who are yet in the flesh, the
Almighty is far more truly near and approachable; so the
Christian may present before God his spiritualized offerings of
prayer and bread and oil, which become to him, also by the
mercy of God, sacraments of holiest blessing. Whatever

HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS. 425
privUege the Jewish priest enjoyed, whatever characteristic he
possessed, those privUeges and characteristics every Christian
has in less material form, and therefore in fuller measure.
Leaving it to our readers to expand and apply the thought
that the pleading before God in prayer, at the various crises of
life, the merits of Jesus for the remission of original sin in its
numerous mamfestations is the antitype of the several rites
of cleansmg, we pass on to the comparison of the several sacri
fices presented under the two dispensations.
Let the general ritual of Old Testament sacrifice be primarily
examined. Again, we repeat, this ritual wUl beautifuUy illus
trate the relation between human sacrifices under the New
and Old Covenants if two things be borne in mmd, — viz.,
the fact that the antitype of that atonement which was wrought
by blood has been found in the atonement by the blood of
Jesus ; and, secondly, the essential significance of the sacrifices
genericaUy and specifically considered.
The common symbolic^lements of the Mosaic sacrifices, as
has been abundantly seen in the earlier part of this work, were
the presentation, the imposition of the hand, the manipulation
with the blood, the cremation, and the sacrificial feasting. Each
of these symbols finds its antitype in the sacrifices of the
Christian life. In the solemn presentation of a victim at
the altar, the offerer expressed his desire to approach the
Majesty on High in the appointed way ; is it not the same
desire which every Christian expresses, when, relying on the
work of Jesus, he approaches God in any eUgible form of the
multiform Christian worship, but without the medium of
symbol ? The Jewish worshipper laid his hand upon his
sacrifice to identify it with himself, to signalize that offering
as pecuUarly his own ; is not that symboUc act exquisitely
superseded as weU as unsymbolicaUy expressed when the
Christian believer deUberately consecrates himself, or his
substance, or his activity, according to the form his self-
sacrffice assumes, unreservedly to the divine service ? The
blood manipulation blended the element of atonement with
every ancient sacrffice of whatever kind ; is not the antitype
of that imposing rite to be found in that faith in the death of
Jesus which intermingles in every act of Christian service ?

424 HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS.
How the divine acceptance, too, which was signffied by the
sublimation by the holy fire, fades away into nothingness as
compared with the acceptance of every gift of which the
Christian is conscious ! And as for the sacrificial feast, by
which the Father assures His son of the privilege of com
munion, what is that in comparison with the intercourse, non-
figurative and spiritually engrossing, which is vouchsafed to him
who, experiencmg the sense of the divine adoption, gives now
himself and now some fruit of his labour to his God ? Verily,
with respect to the possibilities and amenities of service, as
weU as the nature of the atonement, the Law had but a shadow
of good thmgs to come.
Every deliberate recourse to God in which the Christian
pleads the blood of Jesus for his sin, is an antitypical sin-
offering. That recourse, as was the case in the pubUc and
private offerings enjoined by Moses, may have been prompted
by some special sin, or by that overwhelming sense of general
sinfulness which the knowledge of God evokes ; but, in either
case, the pleading at the footstool of the Almighty the one
potent atonement, is the offering to God without symbol what
the Jew symbolicaUy presented in his sin-offering. " If any
man sin," wrote the Apostle John, " we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and He is the atonement
for our sins." ' It is the prayer of faith which urges this atone
ment to the very face of the Almighty. That request that' the
" heart " may be " sprinkled from an evU conscience " is the
genuine sin-offering to which the ancient typical offermg pointed.
The reparations by every repentant Zacchseus for wrongs
done are the antitypical trespass-offerings. Conscience-money
for frauds in human and divine things, when presented by the
Christian in recognition of the death of Jesus, is the true
asham. And it is worthy of remark that, if the Old Testa
ment asserted by its typical offerings that even restitution to
man was ineffectual unless an atonement was made before
God by blood, the New Testament no less clearly asserts that
the atonement of Christ wiU not suffice to obtain forgiveness
for wrongs done, unless the pleading of that atonement be
accompanied by appropriate restitution. But we pass on.
1 John ii. 1, 2.

HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDER THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS. 425
Any act of seU-surrender, whether mental or material, is an
antitypical burnt-offering. What the Jew expressed by figure
when he brought his buUocks, his sheep, his kids, or his doves,
the Christian expresses by facts when he presents before God
in self-sacrifice his vows of aUegiance, his deeds of self-abnega
tion, his substance, his energies, his thoughts, his desires. Yet
not even these are acceptable without a remembrance of the
blood of Jesus ; but if to their presentation before God there
is superadded a beUef in Jesus' finished work, if, therefore,
both gUts and atonement are laid at the throne of the Heavenly
Majesty, then the true burnt-offering has been brought which
God wUl foUow with His gracious acceptance.
And not to delay longer upon what has received sufficient
iUustration, any offering of seU or substance by the believer in
Jesus, which is intended to arouse or cement communion with the
Father of Spirits, is the antitypical peace-offering. The prayer
of faith, the intercommunion of spirit, the act of self-denial
which the offerer presents in testimony of his desire for divine
feUowship, any feeling, or desire or act which is believingly
laid before God with a request that He would manifest Him
self, these things are the realities, without any intervention
of pre-Christian symbolism, for which those shadows of the
ancient festal offerings prepared the way. It may be left to
the reader to supply the Christian antitypes to the tithes and
first-fruits and meat-offerings and drink-offerings, — to all the
various injunctions of the sacrificial law which have not been
individuaUy passed under review.
The five points, then, in which, at the close of the previous
chapter, the New Testament doctrine of the Sacrifices possible
to man was summarized, may be precisely expressed in the
terminology of Mosaism. Translated mto sacrificial language,
those points are : —
First, By virtue of the atonement of Jesus, itseU antitypical
of the ancient atonement by animal blood, antitypical sacrifices
may be offered by the Christian beUever.
Secondly, By virtue of the atonement of Jesus, and that
present pleading of the atonement before God which constitutes
the antitypical high-priesthood, the Christian believer has been
admitted to the office of the antitypical priest.

426 HUMAN SACEIFICES UNDEE THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS.
Thirdly, The office of priesthood to which the believer is
admitted is circumscribed by no ritual restrictions, but is avaU
able at any time and in any place.
Fourthly, The priestly service of the Christian (with one
exception, for the present reserved) is the presentation before
God of such antit3rpical sacrifices as prayer and thanksgiving
and acts of seU-surrender.
Fifthly, SeU-surrender being a form of priestly service, it
is possible to discharge the priestly office by an obedient and
faithful presentation before God of all the manifold duties of
Ufe — personal, social, civU, and religious.

CHAPTER XI.
THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE.
"Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in uni verso mundo, purum
sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est ei. " — Iebn.eus, Coivtra
Hcereses, Lib. IV. cap. xviii.
BY the judicious introduction, in the former part of this
treatise, of a weU-known theological technicality, we
were enabled to convey a difficult truth with exactness ; by
applying the name "sacrament" to the Mosaic sacrifices, their
precise use in the pre-Christian economy was simply and
clearly indicated. Nor in the use of this word was there
attached to it any new or unusual meaning. A sacrament
was defined to be a means of grace, an instrument in the
hands of the divine mercy for effecting that which no instru
ment could effect by its inherent power — a material channel
for a spiritual blessing. Just as, in the Christian dispensation,
the fooUshness of preachmg becomes by the concurrence of the
Spirit the agent of conversion and edification, so the Jewish
sacrifices wrought, by the divine co-operation with human
adoring acts, spiritual results beyond their highest capacity.
And, we repeat, in thus laying the word sacrament under con
tribution, we are but using a term perfectly intelUgible to by
far the larger part of Christendom, perfectly intelUgible at any
rate by the Greek and Eomish Churches, by the Lutheran
Church, and by the Eeformed Churches, whether of Scotland,
Switzerland, HoUand, or England, as is proved by their
recognised Confessions of Faith. Thus the Greek Church
teaches : " The sacrament is a material and visible rite, which
carries into the soul of the beUever the invisible grace of
God.'" In the Boman Catechism, which expands at some
' 'Optoio^os 'O/ioXoyix riif Kxio\4Xtig xx) ' ArorToXixris 'BKxXur'xg Trig 'AvarsXixif,
reprinted in Kimmel, Libri Symbolici Ecclesice Orientalis, 1843.

428 THE SACRIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE.
length the brief statement of the Tridentine decree, de Sacra-
mentis, that sacraments are those things " by which all true
righteousness has its commencement, or when begun is
increased, or when lost is restored,"' it is written: "To
expound at greater length what a sacrament is, it must be
taught that it is something suUmitted to the senses, which has
by divine institution the power of symboUzing and effecting
hoUness and righteousness."* The Augsburg Confession, the
recognised Confession of the Lutheran Church, asserts : "By
the agency of the word and the sacraments, the Holy Spirit is
imparted by instruments, so to speak, Who accomplishes faith,
where and when it seems good to God, in those who hear the
gospel" * A simUar definition is given by the Westminster
Confession, but in somewhat more figurative and less precise
language : " Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the cove
nant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent
Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him.
. . . There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacra
mental union, between the sign and the thing signified, whence
it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are
attributed to the other." * To these testimonies may be added
that of the Thirty-nine Articles : " Sacraments ordained of
Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's pro
fession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual
signs of grace and God's goodwUl towards us, by the which He
doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but also
strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." *
Now this same technical designation wiU enable us to
briefly and precisely describe an aspect of the New Testament
doctrine of Sacrffice which has scarcely been touched upon
Hitherto, viz. the relation of those sacrffices to their spiritual
effects. In our study of the New Testament doctrine of the
Work of Christ, we saw that amongst the effects wrought by
the death of Christ there was the restoration of the Christian

1 Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini, Sessio Septima, Decret. de Sacra-
mentis. 2 Catechismus Romanus, Pt. II. de Sacramentis, cap. i. § ii.
^ Gonfessio Augustana.
* Westminster. Confession, cap. xxvii. §§ 1, 2. ' Art. xxv.

THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE. 429
believer to the Father's friendship, as weU as the forgiveness
and neutralization of the believer's sin. And it has just been
seen that this Ufe of restored commumon with the Father
displayed itself in the believer by a ceaseless seU-surrender
which assumed the form of a daUy and hourly obedience to the
Father's will ; in other words, this Ufe of restored intercourse
with God manifested itself by a life of self-sacrifice which
eminently gave expression to its deepest wishes by acts of
sacrifice. To these truths the New Testament adds another,
that these verj- acts of sacrifice, these acts of prayer and thanks
giving and surrender, become themselves the channels of divine
blessings, and the instruments by which a deeper assurance of
the divine favour is attained ; these sacrifices of the Christian
become, in fact, endowed with a sacramental power. By the
atonement of Jesus every act of the beUever becomes a sacra
ment. Thus faith itself becomes the channel for the sense of
ju.stification ; the characteristic acts of Christian worship are
sacramental, since prayer in its various forms of petition or
thanksgiving or communion becomes the instrument of the
divine favour, of the divine acceptance, of the divine sancti
fication, and of the divme intercourse. The very discharge as
in the divine sight of aU the manUold duties of life, is itself
a series of sacraments, and the performance of these common
duties is itself a most blessed means of grace.'
1 Of course the author is aware that this use of the word sacrament is not war
ranted by its etymology. Sacrament is a translation (in the most literal sense of
the word) of the Latin sacramentum, a derivative of sacrare, the synonyms of
which are such words as dedicare, initiare. The classical use of the word was
twofold; it stood for the sum of money which was deposited by litigants with
the Pontifex Maximus according to Eoman law, and it also stood for the military
oath of allegiancfi (see Varro, De Lingud Latind, Book IV.). Further, the word
sacrament is of course not a biblical term. All the author asserts is that he has
exercised the acknowledged privilege of explorers, and adopted this word to
express concisely and clearly a most important distinction; and that in this
adoption, for the purpose of accurate knowledge, he has only been assign
ing to the word in question a definition commonly given and coromonly
understood. The first traces of this use of sacramentum are to be found in
Tertullian, who occasionally employed it as a synonym for /turTnpioy, which had
already acquired the modem idea of sacrament; and from the time of Tertullian
until now the word has been in common use with theologians with a more or less
definite, but paral|lel, connotation. It may be of interest to know that Tertul
lian, according to Eiickert, used sacramentum in four different senses, three of
which have fallen into abeyance (see RUokert, Das Abendmahl, p. 315).

430 THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPER.
If, then, in the Old Testament, the doctrine of Sacrifice
resolved itself ultimately into two principles, that of atone
ment and that of presentation, this is equaUy the case with
the doctrine of the New Testament, although, in accordance
with the scriptural system of development, these two prin
ciples assume different forms. Both under the Old Covenant
and under the New, the forgiveness of sins by virtue of their
atonement is equaUy taught ; but the symbolic and typical
atonement by animal blood of the Old has assumed a higher
phase in the New, and has become the actual and antitypical
atonement by the death of Jesus. So also the possibUity of
approach to God by the medium of sacrifice was proclaimed in
the Old Testament and in the New ; but the symbolic and
typical presentation of flesh and com and wine of the Old
has become transformed into the genuine and antitypical
presentation in the New of head and hand, of heart and
sympathy, of wUl and act. And the paraUel between the
two dispensations is similarly maintained in the matter of
sacraments ; for whUst in the two cases the acts of sacrifice
are themselves different, they equally produce their accredited
effects by the interblending of supernatural power.
But there are two Christian rites which have in aU Protes
tant Churches monopolized the sacramental idea, and which
undoubtedly occupy a peculiar place in the Christian system.
In these two instances, the characteristic feature of Mosaism,
the conveyance of reUgious truth by symbol, has been
retained, and, if the testimony of the Gospels and Epistles
be received, by the divine command. Of course we refer
to the rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These rites
occupy, as we have said, an exceptional position in the
Christian system ; for whilst the contrast between Mosaism
and Christianity is nowhere more clearly seen than in the fact
that the worship of the former, whatever else it was, was
palpably symboUc, the worship of the latter as palpably
substituted word and act for rite and image ; nevertheless,
astonishing though the fact may be, the Christian faith has in
these two instances evident recourse to sensuous presentment. .
With the initiatory rite of Baptism we are no further concerned
than to draw attention to the paraUel position it holds with

THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE. 431
the Christian sacraments of prayer and faith and seU-abnegation;
with the Lord's Supper the case is different. By the circum
stances of its institution, the Lord's Supper is largely connected
with the Jewish sacrifices ; and not only the words of its
inauguration, but the time, seem to suggest some sacri
ficial import. From this one symbolic sacrament so closely
alUed with our subject, we have intentionally kept aloof in our
previous exposition ; now the examination of the New Tes
tament doctrine of Sacrifice can only be completed by a
determination from scriptural evidence of the leading features
of the great controversy which this rite has evoked within the
Christian Church.
The questions to be decided are, first, " Was the Lord's
Supper a sacrifice ? " and, secondly, " If so, in what sense ? "
It is advisable to place before ourselves the scriptural
evidence avaUable. There are five passages of Scripture which
directly refer to the Lord's Supper,' or, as it is also termed in
the New Testament, "the Table of the Lord'" (possibly "the
Breaking of Bread "') ; or, as it was termed in more modem
times, "the Eucharist;"* or, as if it were the sacrament ^ar
excellence, " The Sacrament." These passages are contained in
the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew, the fourteenth chapter
of Mark, the twenty-second chapter of Luke, the sixteenth and
seventeenth verses of the tenth chapter, and the twenty-third
to the twenty-ninth verses of the eleventh chapter of the
First Epistle to the Corinthians. These passages plainly
teach : —
First, That the Lord's Supper was mstituted at the Paschal
Feast of which our Lord and His disciples partook on the
night preceding His crucifixion.
Secondly, That the materials employed in its institution
were bread and wine.
1 Asr^vdv Kopixxoy, 1 Cor. xi. 29.
2 Tpxtrif^x xvpiou, 1 Cor. X. 21.
' KXa«s rou xpTov, Acts iL 42. It is questionable whether this referred to the
Lord's Supper.
* 'Ev^xpirrix (Latinized into Eucharistia), because, as Chrysostom says. In
Mattheum, Homilia xxv. 3, roXXm 'urTiy tiipyirti/ixToiy xyx/i-yMig was already
in common use in the time of Irenaeus, and thenceforth became the common
designation employed by the Fathers and during the Moyen Age.

432 THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE.
Thirdly, That the ritual adopted was, with the bread — a
blessing, a breaking, a distribution with the words, " This is
my body," and a partaking by the disciples ; with the wine — a
taking of the cup, a blessing, a distribution with words to the
effect, " This is my blood, shed for the remission of sins, the
blood of the New Covenant," and a partaking by the disciples.
Fourthly, That the design of the rite was to hold the
death of Christ in memorial, and to " eat the body " and
" drink the blood " of Christ ; subsidiary designs being the
avowal of faith in His death, and the avowal of union with
those who hold that faith.
Fifthly, That the prerequisites for profitable participation
are, a desire to hold the Lord's death in remembrance, and
abUity to discern the Lord's body.
Having, therefore, the scriptural statements before us, we
return to our question : " Was the rite of the Eucharist a
sacrifice, or was it not ? " Many difficulties have been imported
into the discussion, not the least of which have arisen from a
faUure to state exactly what is meant by the term " sacrifice."
In the great sacramental controversy, it is imperative that
there should be at the outset a definition of terms ; friends
wUl infaUibly be classed with foes, and foes with friends, by
any neglect of this first prmciple of aU discussion. For our
part, we prefer to advance to the main question by first ascer
taining whether the Lord's Supper was in any way connected
with the Old Testament doctrine of Sacrifice, and so deserving of
the appellation " sacrificial."
That the Lord's Supper was intended by its Founder to be
understood as in some way connected with the ancient sacri
fices, may be inferred from the foUowing particulars : First, the
time of its institution; second, the symbols selected; and,
third, the words addressed to the communicants.
In the first place, it is unquestionable that our Lord insti
tuted His memorial feast whilst celebrating, in company with
His disciples, the great Paschal Supper. The Synoptists are
unanimous in affirming that the meal of which our Lord par
took on the eve of the crucifixion was the Passover meal, —
the lamb which had been previously selected and solemnly
slain in the precincts of the Temple, and which was eaten with

THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPER. 433
serious rites when the evening shades fell upon the 14th
Nisan. It is true that the Apostle John speaks of the unwiU-
ingness of the Pharisees to enter the judgment haU on the
morning of the hurried trial, " lest they should be defiled, but
that they might eat the Passover ; " nevertheless, before reject
ing, as so many have done, either the testimony of the S3Tiop-
tists or that of John as untrustworthy, it is certainly prudent
to inquire whether any reconcUiation of the discrepancy is
possible. And it happens that a solution of the difficulty,
which has not a vestige of strain, is to hand. That reconciUa
tion is, that when the Apostle John refers to " eating the Pass
over," he does not of necessity refer to eating the Paschal
lamb ; and that when he speaks of the preparation, he means
the preparation for the Sabbath, and not the preparation for the
Feast of Unleavened Bread. In support of these assertions the
foUowing facts may be adduced. It is the common custom
with John, as it was with certam writers of the Old Testa
ment, to designate the whole Feast of Unleavened Bread by the
name of Passover; and according to weU-accredited testi
monies, there were special feast-offerings, or chagigah, which
were partaken of on the day succeeding the Passover supper :
" to eat the Passover " may, therefore, mean " to continue the
celebration commenced on the previous evening." Further,
the word " preparation," U the testimony of Josephus as weU
as of the evangeUsts be received, seems to have become a
common appeUation for the day preceding the weekly Sab
bath ; the preparation of the Passover would thus be the day
of preparation for the Sabbath tn the Week of Unleavened
Bread — that is to say, the Friday, as commonly supposed.
StUl, this is " the most Utigated of questions in the criticism
of the Gospels ; " ' and, without any pretence at finaUy dispos
ing of the matter, we simply state what seems an adequate
resolution of the difficulty, at the same time emphaticaUy
reasserting that, whatever be the interpretation of the words
of John, that interpretation can neither outweigh nor invali
date the united testimony of the other evangeUsts.*
1 Tholuek, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis, chap. xiii. ver. 1 (translated in
Foreign Theological Library).
' The ablest and most judicial summary of th,is great controversy known to
2e

434 THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE.
Secondly, the elements selected by our Lord to become the
impressive symbols of His Supper were inseparably associated
in the mind of the Jew, and therefore in the minds of the
apostles, with sacrificial observance. Unleavened bread and
wine formed, as has been so frequently seen in the former
part of this work, the common material of the minchah ; and,
as far as the one element is concerned, — that sacred unleavened
bread which was inextricably interwoven with thoughts of the
Passover, the shew-bread, and every offering of cooked meal
which was made in the holy places by priest or layman,- — its
one connection for the Jew was with the rites of sacrifice. But
a further point may be urged : wine and unleavened bread were
the common accompaniments of the Paschal lamb. With
regard to the unleavened bread, the divine command at the
primary institution of the Passover was so peremptory, that, in
presence of the words, " They shaU eat the fiesh in that night,
roast with fire, and unleavened bread. . . . In aU your habita
tions ye shall eat unleavened bread," its continuous use cannot
be doubted. And that at the time of our Lord wine was also
a feature of the Paschal feast is indubitable. Many changes
had come over the letter, U not over the spirit, of the Sinaitic
injunctions, and this of wine at the Passover was one. From
Jewish writings extant which refer to that time, the Paschal
celebration would seem to have been as follows : The supper
began with a cup of wine ; the bitters were then set upon the
table, and afterwards unleavened bread, the charoseth (or bitter
the author is that given in The Bible Student's Life of our Lord in its Historical,
Chronological, and Geographical Relations, by the Eev. Samuel Andrews, pp.
368-397. It is to be regretted that the valuable and eloquent Life of Christ,
by Dr. F. W. Farrar, should have given a wide circulation to the opinion that
this feast at which our Lord presided "was not the ordinary Jewish Passover,
but a meal eaten by our Lord and His apostles on the previous evening, Thurs
day, Nisan 13, to which a quasi-Paschal character was given, but which was
intended to supersede the Jewish festival by one of far deeper and diviner signifi
cance " (see Excursus x. : Was the Lord's Supper a Passover ?). That this last
Supper was not of a " quasi-Paschal character," a single fact is sufiicient to show,
— a "quasi-Paschal" lamb no priest would have slain on the day before the
legal time. Nor is the difiiculty removed by Canon Farrar's statement, that
"the Synoptists, while they speak of bread and wine, give not the remotest
hint which could show that a lamb formed the most remarkable portion of the
feast." But is it so ? What, then, did Mark and Luke mean by speaking of
the Day of Unleavened Bread, ' ' when the Passover must be killed " ?

THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED's SUPPEE. 435
sauce made of raisins, dates, and vinegar), the lamb, and the
chagigah or peace-offering. The head of the household then pro
nounced a blessing, and, taking the herbs, dipped them m the
charoseth, and he and aU with him ate " as much as an oUve ; "
then came a second cup of wine, and after sundry blessings
and explanations of the object of the feast, there was a free
eating of the flesh of the chagigah and the roasted lamb, fol
lowed at intervals by two other cups of wine and the smging
of the HaUelujah Psalms.' It is confessedly difficult to decide
upon the minor features of the several benedictions and the
traditional customs currently adopted at the commencement of
this era, but there is no room for doubt that wine (red wine,
" that it should taste and look " like wine, as the Babylonian
Talmud expressively says) formed as constant a feature as
the unleavened bread.
Thirdly, the very words addressed by our Lord to the
disciples would establish in their minds some connection
between this newly instituted rite and the sacrificial worship
of Mosaism. Especially were there two expressions in which
this connection would be infallibly suggested— that which
referred to His blood as that of the New Covenant, and that
which designated this Supper a " memorial." The scene which
by way of contrast Jesus caUed up by His reference to the
New Covenant has been already referred to ; * the words imply
that, with all the differences of ritual, circumstances, and sur
roundings, there was some fundamental resemblance between
the newly instituted rite and that ancient ceremony performed
by Moses ; there can be no contrasts between utterly diverse
things, and the contrast between the New Covenant and the
Old pointed to some latent bond of union. And it is also
remarkable that the uncommon word "memorial," "remem
brance," " anamnesis," — " This do for my memorial," — was also
employed in connection with sacrfficial ceremonies of various
kinds ; the shew-bread was " for a memorial," ^ " the blowing
of trumpets " was to constitute the burnt-offerings and festal-
offerings " a memorial " before God.*
1 See Lightfoot, Horce Hebraicce et Talmtidicce, Exercitationes in Matt. xxvi.
26; also the erudite article on the "Passover," by Dr. Ginsburg, in Kitto's
Cyclopaedia. ^ See p. 276. » Lev. xxiv, 7. * Num. x. 10.

436 THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPEE.
Thus, then, it would appear that there is abundant evidence
for concluding that the Lord's Supper was, and was intended by
its Founder to be, in some way connected with the sacrificial
ceremonies of the pre-Christian dispensation. The Lord's
Supper was in some sense a sacrifice — that is to say, it had
some manifest connection with the sacrificial injunctions
propounded by Moses; but the great question is, in what
sense ? To generaUy describe the great Christian sacrament
under so loose and (even when scripturaUy used) so compre
hensive a term, is to do but little. The point in dispute is
not whether the Eucharist may be loosely designated a sacri
fice, but whether it is a sacrificium propitiatorium. Jn what
sense, then, was tlie LordSs Supper intended by our Lord and
described by His apostles to be a sacrifice? ^
A reply to this important question wUl be found by con
sidering — ^first, the symbols employed ; secondly, the words of
institution ; and thirdly, the inanifest purpose of the rite.
Too much stress can scarcely be laid upon the fact that
bread and wine were the symbols" employed by the Lord, —
bread and wine, not flesh and blood. By the very selection
the new rite was thus alUed with the bloodless offerings of the
Old Testament, and removed from the category of the offerings
of blood. The entire ritual of blood was thus passed over, and
those elements only were transferred into the characteristic
rite of the new rigime which an elaborate education had
shown to possess no potency of atonement. What must have
been the inevitable inference made by the apostles when once
their minds were free and open to the novel influences and
customs which were beginning to environ them ? It was
bread and wine which constituted the materials of the great
Christian rite ; but bread and wine it was only possible under
the dispensation of their boyhood to present in company with
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and never with sacrifices
for sin and trespass ; bread and wine it had only been possible
to present to God under the preliminary Jewish scheme after
atonement had been made by the effusion of blood. What
foUowed ? Must , not the conclusion have slowly but irre
sistibly dawned upon them that this ordinance was a some
thing only now become possible, since an atonement for sin

THE SACEIFICE OF THE LOED's SUPPER. 437
was as good as made once for all ? The mere use of these
symbols, after the long mitiatory education of Mosaism, quite
apart from the things they symboUzed, would unerringly
suggest that they were in some way connected with a finished
atonement. If the Supper was a sacrifice, it was not a sacri
fice for sin.
Then, in the second place, the exact nature of this symboUc
sacrffice may be gathered from the words of its institution.
These words were in effect these three : — " This is My body,"
spoken at the distribution of the bread ; " This is the blood
of the New Covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins,"
spoken at the distribution of the wine ; and, " This do for My
memorial," also spoken, according to the testimony of Luke,
at the distribution of the bread, and, accordmg to the testi
mony of Paul, with which that of Luke is not inconsistent, at
the distribution of the wine. It is convenient to commence
with the third, although each of these sayings has its import
ance for the question in hand. The exact significance of these
words might be conveyed by the following paraphrase :
" Celebrate this rite, and so perpetually recall Me and My
work to mind." It is unnecessary to enter upon the much
debated point whether the rite is to recall the death of Christ
to the mind of man, or to the mind of God. Now, singularly
enough, the Passover itself was enjoined by the Lord with
these words : " This day shaU be unto you for a memorial"
What, then, the Passover had been to the Jews — a sacred
reminiscence, that henceforth this Supper should be, as sacred
and memorable a reminiscence. As, when the Jewish year had
run its course, the first month of the opening year was con
secrated by that national remembrance of the deliverance from
Egypt at the Passover, so from- time to time in the Christian
life there should be a season of solemn remembrance when the
deliverance wrought by Jesus on Calvary should be recaUed
to mind. The paraphrase recently made may therefore be
appropriately expanded to include this manUest reference,
thus : "Celebrate this rite, as you and your fathers throughout
your national history have celebrated the Passover, not for a
memorial of the deliverance effected at the Eed Sea, but for
My memorial, to recaU Me and My work of deliverance to

438 THE SACRIFICE OF THE LOED'S SUPPER.
mmd." But it was a pecuUar aspect of Christ's nature, a
precise feature of His great work, which was to be recalled.
"For My memorial" is limited by "This is My body," " This
is My blood." Upon the symbolic nature of these, statements
it is unnecessary to linger. Those who msist upon the Uteral
meaning being attached to the words, " This is My body,"
ought in all consistency to insist upon the Uteral meaning
being attached to the words, "This drinking cup is the New
Covenant; " but we are not aware that the transubstantiation'
or consubstantiation' of the chalice has ever been advocated :
all we would say is, that the apostles, from the whole experience
of their Uves, were familiar with the symbolic nature of the
Jewish sacrifices of every kind, and the phrase would be no
more strange to them, as the Lord distributed the bread with
the words, " This is My body," than the phrase, " This is the
blood of the Covenant." * What it is important to remember^
is, that both these phrases, the one spoken at the distribution
of the bread and that spoken at the distribution of the wine,.
alike pointed to the death of Christ, the broken body, the spUt
blood, as the subject of remembrance. The sacrifice of the
Lord's Supper was thus a sacrifice alUed to the Paschal
sacrifice, but memorializing the atonement wrought by the
death of Jesus.
Further, in addition to being a sacrifice m remembrance of
the death of Christ, it may be inferred from the purposes
assigned for its institution, that the Lord's Supper was to be
a sacrament. To its symbolic nature it added a sacramental
That such also was its purpose might be assumed both from
its divine institution at all, and from the position it occupied
relatively to the sacramental sacrifices of Judaism ; in fact, it
would be next to impossible, on the one hand, to dissociate
from the fact that our Lord Himself had instituted this rite
the further fact that it was instituted to work some spiritual
advantage, and, on the other hand, for the apostles, with all
' This word was first used by Hildebert of Tours, — Sei-mo v.. In Ccena
Domini. '¦' In Ex. xxiv. 8, Moses is represented as saying in the Hebrew, " Behold the
blood of the Covenant ; " significantly enough, in Heb. x. 20, this is rendered by
" This is the blood of the Covenant," the Hebrew hinneh by the Greek toSto.

TKIE SACEIFICE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 439
the prepossessions of their early religious training, not to see
in this ordinance ^^a means of divine blessing. But the express
words of the Newr Testament countenance the sacramental
import of the Eucha|,rist " Take, eat, this is My body;" "Drink
ye aU of it, this blocpd shed for the remission of sins," — these
very words imply a satcramental significance. " Eat this body "
is the command, not V' eat this bread," — " drink this blood "
was said, not " drink t^iis wine ; " it is no mere eating bread
and drinking wine in reimembrance of the dead, it is a spiritual
participation, renewed kt every celebration, in the effects
wrought by the death o-f Jesus. Besides, how could Paul
dweU upon the abUity to discern the Lord's body as the
necessary prerequisite for communion, unless that prerequisite
was to conduct into some^j^reat privUege ? A participation
on the part of a sceptic migllt equally serve to keep the name
and work of Christ in remembrance; none but a beUever could
receive sacramental advantage.
From an examination of S^cripture, then, reason has been
seen for concluding that in a certain loose sense the Lord's
Supper may be called a sacrifice., inasmuch as it was deUber
ately associated by its Founder with the sacrificial rites, the
rites of presentation and atonement, of the Old Testament.
Eeason has also been seen for coi^ eluding that, if the more
precise sacrificial nature of the Eucharist be desired, that rite
was allied to the rites of prestentation which the Law per
mitted to be made when atonement had been secured by the
effusion of blood, and that the Ate in question in its mmost
nature symbolicaUy represented the atonement wrought by the
death of Jesus, and sacramentally renewed the benefits of that
atonement in the soul of the ^oelieving celebrant. But the
main elements of the scriptuial • conceptions of the Lord's
Supper wiU be more vividly seem in contrast with the various
views of that ordinance which h^ve obtained during the history
of the Christian Church.

CHAPTER XII.
A EEVIEW OF OTHEE VIeVvS UPON THE
HOLY EUCHAE/iST.
" Wherever there is a deep truth unrecognise/d, misunderstood, it will force its
way into men's hearts : it will take pernicious j forms if it cannot take healthful
ones." — F. W. Eobektson, Sermon on the PLrst Miracle, "The Glory of the
Virgin Mother. " / ,
IN answer to the questions whsither the Lord's Supper is a
sacrffice ? and if so, in wh/at sense ? the reply has been
made that the Lord's Supper, lUke the Paschal meal, is a
sacrifice, a presentation to God,/ at once symboUc and sacra
mental, — symbolic, since, underjthe forms of broken bread and
effused wine, the dead body ^ind spUt life of Him Who has
remitted our sins by His des/th is called to mind ; and sacra
mental, inasmuch as the remembrance of the death of Christ
under these symbolic form:^ is the divinely appointed channel
of a special apprehension of \:ind participation in the power of
that death, the symbolic wine( becoming spirituaUy stimulating,
and the symboUc bread spiritually sustaining. These views
we must now be able to substantiate when they are contrasted
with all others.
Five principal views have foeen held upon the nature of the
Lord's Supper, the Eomanifetj the Lutheran, the Calvinistic,
the ZwingUan, and the Socanian. To bring what we hold to
be the scriptural view tnjfo due prominence, we shaU pass these
several theories under /review.'
Various incompatj/ble theo^ries of the Eucharist were advo
cated by leading ytheologiaiis of the great Western Church
prior to the Couiicn of Treilt; but, inasmuch as it is held that
the decisions of that CouncSU are decisive as to what, on pain
of excommunication, a Eornanist must beUeve, we caU by the
name of Eomanist that vieY first authoritatively defined in

A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 441
the Canones et Decreta Contiilii Tridentini. In the thirteenth
session a decree was made, and certain canons appended,
" Concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist." The
decree ran as foUows : " The sacrosanct oecumenical and
general synod of Trent, lawfuUy assembled in the Holy Ghost,
under the presidency of the legate and nuncii of the Apostolic
See, albeit met under the special leading and guidance of the
Holy Ghost to propound the true and ancient doctrine con
cerning the faith and the sacraments, and to prepare a remedy
for aU the heresies and other most serious mconveniences by
which the Church of God is at this time unhappily disturbed
and spUt into many and diverse sects, had from the very first
made a special determination to tear up root and branch the
tares of execrable errors and schisms which the enemy in these
calamitous times of ours has sown in the doctrine of the
faith and the use and cultus of the holy eucharist, which, be
it remembered, our Lord left in His Church as a symbol of the
unity and love by which He desired all Christians to be bound
and united together. Therefore the same sacrosanct synod,
transmitting that healthy and sound doctrine conceming this
venerable and divine sacrament of the eucharist, which the
catholic church, instracted by Jesus Christ our Lord Himself
and His apostles, and taught by the Holy Ghost Who daily
suggests to it all truth, has always retained and wiU pre
serve tUl the end of time, prohibits aU the faithful m Christ
from beUevffig concerning the most holy eucharist, or from
presuming to teach or preach anything else than what is
expounded and defined tn this decree." In the first chapter
of the decree the doctrine of the Eeal Presence is then stated :
" At the outset the sacred synod teaches and openly and simply
professes that, after the consecration of the bread and wme,
there is really and substantially contained in the blessed
sacrament of the eucharist, under the form of these sensible
things, OUT Lord Jesus Christ very God and verily man.
Nor is there any contradiction in saying that our Lord Him
self always sits at the right hand of the Father in the heavens
according to the natural mode of existence, and that neverthe
less His substance is sacramentally present to us in many
other places, and in that method of existence, which, scarcely

442 A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST,
describable in words although that is possible with God, we
can readUy come to understand by thought iUumined by
faith, and ought most constantly to believe. For so aU our
elders, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who
have discoursed concerning this most holy sacrament, have
openly professed that our Eedeemer instituted this admirable
sacrament at the last supper, when, subsequently to the bene
diction of the bread and wine. He averred in clear and eloquent
words that He proffered them His own very body and His
own blood {se suum ipsius corpus illis prcebere ac suum san-
guinem) ; and since these words, kept in mind and related by
tbe holy evangeUsts, and afterwards repeated by the godhke
Paul, present that appropriate and most evident signification,
according to which they were understood by the Fathers, it is
truly a most scandalous shame that they should be twisted by
a few contentious and wicked men into fictitious and ima
ginary tropes, in which the truth of the flesh and blood of
Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sentiment of the
church, which, always regarding with grateful and ready mind
this most excellent benefit of Christ as the piUar and prop of
the truth, has abhorred as Satanic these renderings devised by
impious men." The second chapter thus proceeds to state the
reason of the institution of this sacrament : " Therefore our
Lord, when about to depart from this world unto the Father,
instituted this sacrament, in which He poured forth, so to
speak, the riches of the divine love to man, making a memo
rial of His wonderful works, and exhorted us in its participa
tion to cultivate His memory, and to announce His death
untU He should come to judge the world. For He wished
this sacrament to be taken as a spiritual food for souls, by
which those who Uve in His Ufe might be fed and comforted ;
for He said, ' He who eateth me, shaU live by me ; ' and as
an antidote by which we might be freed from daily faults and '
preserved from mortal sins. He wished it, besides, to be a
pledge of our future glory and perpetual felicity, and thus a
symbol of that one body, of which He is Himself the head,
and to which He wished us as members most closely joined
together in the bond of faith and hope and charity to be
united, that we might aU say the same thing, and that there

A EEVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 443
be no division amongst us." The superexcellence of this
sacrament is next treated : " This indeed is common to the
most holy eucharist and the other sacraments, that it is a
symbol of a sacred thing, and a visible form of an invisible
grace; but the excellency and peculiarity of this sacrament
lie here, that the other sacraments only have a power of
sanctifying when they have been used, but the eucharist is a
source of sanctity before use {ante usum). For the apostles
had not received as yet the eucharist from the hand of the
Lord, when He nevertheless Himself affirmed that it was His
own body He proffered ; and it has always been believed in
the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration
the true body of our Lord and His true blood, together
with His soul and divinity, existed under the form of bread
and wine {statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri
corpus verumque ejus sanguinem sub panis et vini specie una
cum ipsius anima et'divinitate exsistere) : but indeed that the
body existed under the form of bread and the blood under
the form of wine from verbal necessity {ex vi verborum),
whUst in fact the body existed under the form of wine and
the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under both,
by the natural influence of that connection and concomitance,
by which the parts of Christ our Lord, Who has now risen
from the dead never more to die, are mutuaUy connected;
moreover the divinity is there, because of that admirable
hypostatic union of His Person with body and soul. Where
fore it is most true that He is contained under each or either
form. For the whole and undiminished Christ {totus enim et
integer Christus) exists under the form of bread and under
any portion of that form, and the whole Christ exists under
the form of wine or any of its portions." In the next chapter
the term " transubstantiation " is adopted : " Now, since Christ
our Eedeemer has said that what He offered under the form
of bread was reaUy His own body, the Church of God has
always been so convinced, and this sacred synod now declares
it afresh, viz., that by means of the consecration of the bread
and wine a conversion has been made of the whole substance
of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord, and
of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His

444 A REVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST;
blood ; and this conversion is conveniently and appropriately'
called by the holy catholic church ' Transubstantiation.' "
Other chapters foUow, which need not be recapitulated, upon
the ritual to be observed in the ordinance, upon the reserva
tion of it for the sick, upon the suitable preparation for parti
cipation, and upon the reasons for its frequent use. To the
decree certain canons were added which served to bring the
express teaching upon the subject into greater prominence, as
the decree itself says : " Since it is not enough to say what is
true without detecting and rebutting error, it has seemed good
to the sacred synod to append these canons, tn order that aU,
the catholic doctrine being weU known, may also understand
what ought to be guarded against and avoided as heresies.
The foUowing are these admonitory canons : 1. "If any one
shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist
there is truly, reaUy, and substantiaUy contamed the body
and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord -
Jesus Christ, and thus the whole Christ, but shall say that He
is only present there symboUcaUy, or figuratively, or poten- i
tiaUy ; let him be anathema." 2. "If any one shall say, that
in the sacrament of the blessed eucharist there remains the
substance of the bread and wine, together with the body and
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shaU deny that wondrous
and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread
'into the body, and of the whole substance of the wme into
the blood, the forms merely of bread and wine remaining,
which conversion indeed the cathoUc church most aptly
caUs transubstantiation ; let him be anathema." 3. " If any
one shall deny that in the venerable sacrament of the
eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and
under the smgle parts of each form when they are separated ;
let him be anathema." 4. " If any one shaU say, that after
the completion of the consecration there is not in the admir-'
able sacrament of the eucharist the body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ, but that that only happens in usu, when
it is partaken of, and not before or after, and that the true
body of the Lord does not remam in the consecrated wafers
or particles, which are reserved or remain after communion ;
let him be anathema." 5. " If any one shall say, either that

A EEVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 445
the chief fruit of the most holy eucharist is the remission of
sms, or that other effects do not proceed from it ; let him be
anathema." 6. "If any one shall say, that in the holy sacra
ment of the eucharist Christ the only begotten Son of the
Father is not to be adored by external ritual also, and that
He is not to be reverenced either tn pecuUar festive celebra
tion or to be solemnly borne about in procession, according to
the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church, or
that He should not be publicly proffered to the people for
adoration, and that His adorers are idolaters ; let him be ana
thema." 7. " If any one shall say, that the holy eucharist
ought not to be reserved in the sacristy, but that it should be
necessarily distributed immediately after consecration to those
who are present, or that it ought not to be carried to the sick
with due reverence ; let him be anathema." 8. "If any one
shall say, that Christ as exhibited in the eucharist is only
spiritually to be eaten, and not sacramentally and reaUy as
well; let him be anathema." 9. "If any one shaU deny that
the faithful in Christ of both sexes, individuaUy and coUec
tively, when they have attained years of -discretion, should
commune every year at Easter at least, according to the in-
j unction of holy mother church ; let him be anathema." 10.
"If any one shaU say, that the celebrating priest himself
may not partake ; let him be anathema." The eleventh
canon, which need not be quoted at length, insists upon the
fact that faith is not sufficient preparation for communion,
without auricular confession.
To these Tridentine statements upon the Eucharist, the
foUowing extracts from the decree and canons of the Twenty-
second Session, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, should be
added : " Since under the former covenant, according to the
Apostle Paul, there was on account of the weakness of the
Levitical priesthood no finality, it was necessary, according to
the ordinance of God the Father of mercies, that another priest
should arise after the order of Melchisedec, Jesus Christ our
Lord, Who might be able to complete aU, as many as should
be sanctified, and bring them to perfection. He Who was
God therefore and our Lord, although He was about to offer
HimseU to God the Father once upon the altar of the cross

¦446 A REVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST.
by the medium of death, iu order that He might there work
eternal redemption, yet because His priesthood was not to be
extinguished by death, at the last supper on the night in
which He was betrayed, in order that He might leave a sacri
fice to His chosen spouse the church, as the nature of man
requires, by which that cruel death once accomplished upon
the cross might be represented, and His memory remain to
the end of time, and the salutary virtue of that death be
applied to the remission of those sins which are daUy com
mitted by us, declaring that He was eternally appointed a
priest after the order of Melchisedec, offered His body and
His blood to God the Father under the forms of bread and
wine, and delivered them to His apostles under the symbols
of the same things that they might partake, thus constituting
them priests of the New Testament, and enjomed them and
their successors in the priesthood to offer by these words,
' This do in remembrance of me,' as the cathoUc church has
always understood and taught. For, the ancient passover
having been celebrated, which a multitude of the children of
Israel offered as a memorial of the exodus from Egypt, He
appointed as a new passover that He HimseU should be
offered by the church by the agency of the priests under
visible signs, for a memorial of His passage from this world
to the Father, when He redeemed us by the pouring out of
. His own blood, and snatched us from the power of darkness
and transferred us to His kingdom. And this indeed is that
pure offering which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness or
wickedness of the offerers, which clean offering the Lord by
the mouth of Malachi predicted should be offered in every
place to His name, which should be great among the GentUes,
and which the Apostle Paul clearly hints at in his letter to'
the Corinthians, when he says that those who have been
polluted by partaking of the table of demons, cannot be par
takers of the table of the Lord, understanding in both places
by the table, the altar. This, in fine, is that offering which
was prefigured by the various forms of sacrifices in the time
of nature and of. the Law, seeing that it embraces all the good
things signified by them, as if it were the consummation and
completion of them aU." These opinions were also thrown into

A EEVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 447
strong reUef by appropriate canons. Thus the first canon
says: "If any one shaU say that there is not a true and
proper sacrifice offered to God in the mass . . . ; let him be
anathema." The third canon says: "If any one shall say
that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise or of
giving of thanks, or that it is a bare commemoration of the
sacrifice completed on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacri
fice ; or that it benefits the participant alone, and ought not to
be offered for the sins, penalties, satisfactions, and other neces
sities for the living and for the dead ; let him be anathema."
The decisions of the Tridentine CouncU have been given at
some length, because, in addition to their expression of the
Eomanist sentiments concerning the Eucharist, they present a
characteristic example of the ecclesiastical arrogance and the
scholastic pecuUarities of statement which are largely the
secret of the sway which the Church of Eome, that most
singular compound of truth and error, possesses and maintains.
These decisions — to omit the rhetorical fulness of expression as
well as minor pomts of ritual and exhortation — sanction the
following assertions conceming the Lord's Supper : First, the
Lord's Supper is a symbolic representation of the Lord's death
— this is everywhere implied and occasionaUy expressly stated,
although it must be admitted that the symbolic significance
of the Supper is sometimes said to be seen in its being a
symbol of unity, and even a symbol of the Church ; secondly,
the Lord's Supper is, by a process of transubstantiation con
sequent upon the priestly consecration, an actual re-presentation
of the body and blood of Christ ; thirdly, the Lord's Supper is
in the common sense of the word a sacrament, and also in an
unusual sense, since the elements employed are not merely
channels : of divine influence, but possess a potency of their
own as the body and blood of Christ ; and, fourthly, the Lord's
Supper is thus a true, a propitiatory sacrifice, is in fact that
sacrifice which aU the varied sacrifices of the Old Testament
foreshadowed. Into the thrUlmg controversy concerning that
" tremendous mystery '' of the Mass, we do not purpose pre
cipitating ourselves ; all we propose is, in pursuance of our
special plan, to make a few criticisms suggested by our peculiar
standpoint.

448 A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
And, in the first place, be it remarked that, with aU its
ostentatious display of perspicuity, there is one standing
inconsistency in the Tridentine theory of the Eucharist ; it is
overlooked that the elements employed cannot be at once the
body and blood of Jesus, and the symbols of that body and
blood. And yet such is the Tridentine theory ; for, m the third
chapter of the 13th decree already quoted, it is said that the
Eucharist possesses this in common with other sacraments, that
it is Symbolum rei sacrce, — a symbol of a sacred fact, that sacred
fact being, as the whole definition shows, the death of Christ,
with its adjuncts the broken body and the blood shed ; and in
the same chapter it is said, that " immediately after consecra
tion there exists under the form of bread and wine the very
body and very blood of our Lord, together with His soul and
divinity." What can be made of this use of language ? It
is perfectly true that the word "symbol" is not employed in the
Tridentine decrees in the precise and technical sense every
where adopted in this book, and it is true that there is some
ambiguity in answering the questions as to what invisible
grace is expressed by the visible forms adopted ; none the less
is there a gross misuse of language, which undoubtedly covers
a considerable mental confusion. To caU wine a symbol of
blood, or bread a symbol of flesh, is inteUigible enough ; to say
that the bread is flesh and the wine is blood is inteUigible in
verba U not in re ; but to say, as the Tridentine decree does in
effect, that the bread is at once the symbol of the flesh of
Christ and the flesh itself, and that wine is at once the symbol
of the blood of Christ and the blood itseU, is to utter a deUberate
contradiction. Agam, the objection to the doctrine of the Eeal Presence
may be urged, as has been previously remarked, that if it is
founded upon the Uteral interpretation of the words, " This is
My body," consistency demands that there should be a strictly
literal interpretation of the words which accompanied the
distribution of the wine. The previous objection was based
-on a misuse of language, this on a hesitant method of bibUcal
interpretation. Further, our special subject of inquiry suggests that to caU
the Eucharist a sacrificium propitiatorium is contrary to the

A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 449
usage of the Old Testament and the express statements of the
New. What the New Testament actually asserts concerning
the nature of the Eucharist has been already passed under
review in the last chapter, and the conclusion arrived at was,
that in a certain loose sense the Eucharist might be regarded
as a sacrifice, inasmuch as it had some paraUeUsm with the
Mosaic rites of presentation, but that to call it a " propitiatory
sacrffice " was to ignore not only the absence of blood from
the ritual, but the absence of any single allusion in the New
Testament which might substantiate such a designation.
Besides, there was not throughout the whole Old Testament
a single mstance in which a sacrifice could be called a sacri
ficium propitiatorium in the Eomanist sense ; propitiatory
sacrifices by sacramental power — by the sacramental appUca
tion of the eternal hypothesis of the death of Jesus — there
were in abundance ; but propitiatory sacrifices which wrought
by some inherent power, and which, to adopt the Tridentine
technicality, were valid ante usum, were unknown to the
Law. Nor is there any authority for saying that in the Eucharist
all the sacrificial types find their antitype. A Eomanist
would probably rejoice in the conclusion that such a propitia-
. tory sacrifice as his faith celebrates was unknown to the Law,
for he would see in this a substantiation of the beUef of his
co-religionists in the unique nature of the Mass ; as a sacrffice
sui generis, it would be to him, as the Tridentine Council
asserted, " that offering which was prefigured by the various
forms of sacrffice in the time of nature and of the Law — ^the
consummation and completion of them aU." Such a con
clusion is contrary to the results of our whole discussion ; and
it must stand or faU with the acceptance or the rejection of
the general conclusions arrived at. Proceeding cautiously
and in strict harmony with the express statements of the
Scriptures, we have seen an entire cultus prescribed and to
some degree explained tn the Old Testament, and we have
subsequently ascertained, in our study of the New Testament,
that aU these earlier sacrifices were but material and transi
tional forms of that spiritual' surrender which the death of
Christ has rendered possible to man. To say that the
2f

450 A REVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST.
essential significance of the Mosaic sacrifices in all their
variety of range, the one unexplained portion of the Old
Testament doctrine, finds its adequate explanation in the
institution of the Eucharist, is to falsify and narrow, to say
nothing of minimizing the contrast between the old and the
new, the exhilarating doctrines of the apostles upon the spiri
tual priesthood and the spiritual sacrifices even in common
things possible to every believer without distinction of rank
and caUing.
Lastly, we would urge, on the authority of the Old Testa
ment and New Testament sacrifices, that to invoke the aid of
a priestly transubstantiation to give effect to the sacramental
character of the Eucharist is to multiply miracles unneces
sarily. The Eomanist himseU finds the whole reason of the
Eucharist in a spiritual appUcation — we leave out of sight for
the moment whether that application be equally effectual with
or without faith in the recipient of the body and blood of
Christ, that is to say, in a personal participation in the atone
ment of Christ : why, then, does he find it necessary to
enlarge and confuse the conception of a sacrament in this one
instance ? A sacrament is a symbol which works the effect
of the thing symbolized by the gracious intervention of the
Father of Mercies : why, then, is it found necessary in this
case of the Eucharist to define a sacrament as a symbol and
more than a symbol, which works its effect by its individual
potencj'- ? We would place the Eomanist, in fact, upon the
horns of the dilemma, that either the atoning sacrifices of the
Old Testament wrought their effects by a priestly transub
stantiation into the very body and blood of Christ, or, U the
ancient effusion of blood worked sacramentaUy, a simUar
sacramental appUcation of the merits of the one atonement is
all that is needed to explain the one apostolic adoption of the
material form of Mosaism.
The second theory of the Eucharist we have mentioned, is
the Lutheran. The Confessions of the Lutheran Church
resemble those of the Church of Eome, inasmuch as they
teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ. The
teaching of the two Churclies differ in this respect : the Eoman

A REVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 451
and Greek Churches maintain that there is a change of sub-
Stance in the bread and wine immediately consequent on the
consecration, so that, the forms of bread and wine remaining,
the whole bread has been changed into the body, and the
whole wine has been changed into the blood of Christ; whereas
the Lutheran Church teaches only a presence of the body and
blood of Christ in and under the bread and wine, incapable of
further explanation. Thus, it is said in the Augsburg Con
fession : " It is taught concerning the Lord's Supper, that the
body and blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed
to those who partake, and those who teach otherwise are cen
sured." So also it is asserted in the Articles of Smalkald :
" Concerning the sacrament of the altar, we believe that the
bread and wme in the Supper are the true body and blood of
Christ, and are to be given to and taken by not only pious
but wicked Christians." In Luther's Catechismus Major, the
question is asked, "What, then, is the sacrament of the altar?"
and the reply is given : " It is the true body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ in and under the bread and wine instituted
, and commanded by the word of Christ to be eaten and drunk
by us Christians." At greater length the Formula Concordice
states : " We believe that in the Supper of the Lord the body
and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and
that they are truly distributed and taken with the bread and
wine. We believe that the words of the testament of Christ
are not to be otherwise received than as the words themselves
literally express, so that the bread does not signUy the absent
body of Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but
that by means of a sacramental union the bread and wine are
truly the body and blood of Christ ; " and some pages farther
on : " Further, we reject and condemn that Capemaitic eating
of the body of Christ, which the Sacramentarians maliciously
ascribe to us, contrary to the testimony of their own conscience,
after so many protestations on our part, in order that they
may bring our doctrine into disrepute with their hearers,
representing, forsooth, as if we teach that the body of Christ
is to be torn with the teeth and digested in the human body
like any other food. But we beUeve and assert, according to
the clear words of the testament of Christ, a true but super-

452 A EEVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
natural eating {veram sed supernaturalem manducationem) of
the body of Christ, just as we also teach that the blood of
Christ is truly but supernaturally drunk {vere, supernaturaliter
tamen). But this no one can comprehend with the human
senses or reason ; wherefore in this matter, as in other articles
also of the faith, our inteUect ought to submit itself to the
obedience of Christ. For this mystery is revealed in the
word of God alone, and is understood by faith alone." Yet
farther on the Formula of Concord also distinctly asserts : " It
is taught that just as there are in Christ two distinct and
unchanged natures inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper
there are two different substances, viz. natural bread and the
true natural body of Christ, at the same moment present in
the appointed administration of the sacrament." Or the same
theory may be expressed in the more guarded and phUosophic
manner of the modern Lutheran theologians ; thus, a Danish
professor writes : " The Lutheran doctrine is opposed not only
to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but to the Calvinistic
separation of heaven and earth likewise ; Christ is not in a
Uteral manner separate from His believing people, so as that
they must go to heaven in order to find Him : Christ is on
the right hand of God, but the right hand of God is every
where, Dextera Dei ubique est. And therefore He is present
whoUy and entirely {totus et integer) in His Supper, wherein
He in an especial manner wills to be. There are not m the
ordinance two acts, one heavenly and one earthly, distinct
from each other, but the heavenly is comprehended in the
earthly and visible act, and is organicaUy united therewith,
thus constituting one sacramental act. The heavenly substance
is communicated in, with, and under the earthly substances.
And as the sacramental communion is not a partaking of the
corporeal nature of Christ apart from His spiritual nature, no
more is it a mere partaking of the spiritual nature of Christ
apart from His corporeity ; it is one and undivided, a spiritual
and corporeal communion." '
The Lutheran theory may therefore be summarized thus :
First, the Lord's Supper is a symboUc representation of the
Lord's death ; secondly, it is in some sense an actual represen-
1 Martensen, Christian Dogmatics (T. & T. Clark), p. 436.

A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 453
tation of the Lord's death ; and, thirdly, it has a peculiar
sacramental efficacy not only as the earthly mstrument by
which the divine power works, but as itself in some mysterious
way the body and blood of Christ. Into any detaUed exami-
na,tion of this theory it is unnecessary to enter. The same
criticisms whicli invaUdate the Eomish theory affect this in
a less degree. Thus, in the first place, the theory is based
upon an inconsistent literalism ; secondly, it admits confusion
into the idea of a symbol ; thirdly, it adduces an unnecessary
adjunct to produce an effect purely sacramental.
A third view of the Eucharist is the Zwinglian. Zwingli
contended against any presence of Christ in the Supper,
and any partaking of Christ. A lucid statement of his
pecuUar views was given in the address which was sent by
the CouncU of Zurich to pastors and preachers, in which,
amongst other things, it was said : " The Supper of the Lord
is no other than a feast of the soul ; and Christ instituted it
as a remembrance of HimseU. When a man entrusts him
self to the passion and redemption of Christ, he is saved ; a
sure visible sign of this He has left in the emblems of His
body and blood, and bids them both eat and drink in remem
brance of HimseU." ' So also in his famous treatise. On True
and False Beligion, he asserts : " The Eucharist or Synaxis
or Lord's Supper is therefore nothing else than a commemora
tion, by which those who firmly believe themselves to have
been reconcUed to the Father by the death and blood of Christ
announce this vivifying death {haTic vitalem mortem anhunciant),
that is, praise, rejoice, and publish. Now it therefore foUows
that those who come together to this practice or festivity that
they may commemorate the death of the Lord, that is, that
they may proclaim that they are members of one body, testify
by that act that they are one bread."' The main feature of
the view of ZwingU was that he forcibly, although not always
consistently, maintained the symboUc nature of the Eucharist,
1 Winer, A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the Various
Communities of Christendom (T. & T. Clark), p. 269.
" Zwinglii Opera, edit. Schuler et Schulthess, vol. iii. p. 263. Other allied
passages are, voL ii. pp. 1-223 ; vol. iii. pp. 145, 228, 239-272.

454 A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.
denying at the same time (to adopt our common technicality)
any sacramental efficacy.
Nearly allied to the Zwinglian theory was the Socmian,
which also denied any sacramental power in the Lord's Supper,
whilst clearly propounding its symboUc nature. Thus, in his
brief tract upon the Lord's Supper, Socinus himself wrote :
" What nearly all imagine, viz. that in this rite our faith at
any rate is confirmicd, cannot be thought true by any possi
bility, since it is neither proved by any sacred testimony, nor
is there any reason why such a thing shoiUd happen. For
how can that confirm our faith, which we ourselves do ? " or,
to quote a modffication of this opmion made upon the next
page : " It is to be remarked," he says, " that faith may indeed
be confirmed and increased in the act of celebrating the Lord's
Supper, but not by the taking of the bread and wine, nor by
any divme virtue, . . . but by mutual exhortations and the
mutual example of obedience to the precepts of Christ, by the
solemn commemoration and united celebration of the benefits
of God and Christ, and finally by the divine word itseU added
to the whole ceremony." In like manner it is said in the
Eacovian Catechism : " (The Supper of the Lord) has been
instituted by Christ m order that the faithful may break and
eat its bread in company, and drink from the cup, for the sake
of proclaiming His death. . . . (To proclaim the Lord's death)
is publicly and reverently to return thanks to Christ, that He
of His ineffable love towards us aUowed His body to be tor
tured and so to speak broken, and His blood to be shed, and
to extol and celebrate this benefit of His. Is there no other
cause why the Lord instituted the Supper ? None at aU ;
although men have imagined many, when some say that it
is a sacrifice for the living and for the dead. Some by its
practice hope to attain to the remission of sins and to
strengthen faith, and affirm that it recaUs to mind the death
of the Lord."
Now, how far the Zwinglian and Socinian views were scrip
tural in their denial of a sacramental efficacy has been already
shown in the preceding chapter, and we need not repeat what
was there said.' To one point, however, but slightly touched
1 Pp. 438, 439.

A REVIEW OF OTHER VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST. 455
upon previously, attention may advantageously be drawn, viz.
the familiarity of the apostles with the sacramental significance
of the Old Testament rites. Amidst those rites the apostles
had been born and bred, and reverence for them and their
methods was an inseparable part of their mental furniture ;
the question then suggests itself, whether the institution of the
Lord's Supper was not a direct address to that mental attitude ?
Types and. ceremonies were ending in antitypes and a spiritual
worship, with one conspicuous exception ; the question is,
whether this Passover of the New Testament would not
inevitably carry on the thoughts to a sacramental potency,
and whether, in fact, the ordinance itself had not been divinely
selected in order that the thoughts of the apostles might be so
directed. If the apostles regarded the Mosaic rites as sacra
mental, could they have failed to regard the one element of
the new worship which resembled the old as sacramental too ?
To answer in the negative is to ignore the entire education of
the Jew, divinely sanctioned, even divinely prearranged.
The remaining view is that of Calvin and the Eeformed
Churches, which, amidst much want of clearness and precision,
is substantially the view advocated in this book as the scrip
tural one — viz., that the Lord's Supper is at once symbolic
and sacramental, that is to say, that it is a symbolic represen
tation of the death of Christ, and at the same time a sacra
mental application to the soul of the believer of the merits
of that death. The views of Calvin may be most readUy
extracted from his Institutes, in the seventeenth chapter
of the fourth book of which he treats methodically of " the
Sacred Supper of Christ and what it confers upon us." It is
unnecessary to enter upon his lengthy discussion of the signi
ficance of the Supper, and his laborious refutation of contrary
opinions ; a single sentence wiU convey his special standpoint:
" I say, then," he says, "(as also has always been beUeved in
the Church and is taught to-day by aU who entertain right
opinions), that the sacred mystery of the Supper lies in two
things : in the material symbols, which are presented to the
eyes and represent to us invisible thmgs according to our
weak power of comprehension, and in the spiritual truth which

456 A EEVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHAEIST.
is at once figured and exhibited by these symbols. ... I say,
then, that in the mystery of the Supper, Christ is traly
presented to us by means of the symbols bread and wine,
and thus His body and His blood, in which He fulfilled all
obedience whilst achieving righteousness for us, by which fact,
forsooth, we in the first place coalesce into one body with
Him, and then bping made partakers of His substance, we also
experience in the communication of all good things some moral
support."' The same view has been well expressed in the
Westminster Confession as foUows : " Worthy receivers, out
wardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do
then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnaUy
and corporaUy, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ
crucified, and all benefits of His death. The body and blood of
Christ being then not corporaUy or carnally in, with; or under
the bread and wine ; yet as reaUy, but spiritually, present to
the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements them
selves are to their outward senses." ' It is such views of the
Eucharist which insist upon the symbolic aspect of the feast,
and at the same time and equaUy upon its sacramental aspect,
which alone express with any accuracy the biblical conception
of the great New Testament rite, and which, harmonizing in
significance as weU as in form with the rites of the Mosaic
worship, preserve and Ulustrate the continuity of the divine
revelations. The New Testament doctrine of Human Sacrffice is now
complete. Briefly stated, that doctrme is, that by means of
the atonement of Christ it is possible for man to offer to the
Almighty spiritual sacrifices, that is to say, the entire product
and the isolated acts, social, civU, and religious, of a chastened
and believing spirit. Sacrifice is no longer, it has been seen,
a presentation of bloody and bloodless material, but a pre
sentation to God of the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, in'
reliance upon the finished work of Christ. It has been further
seen that, as in the case of the Old and New Testament
doctrines of Atonement, so also in that of the Old and New
1 Institutio Christiance Religionis, Tholuck's 2d edition. Part II. p. 407.
''Cap. xxix. sec. 7.

A EEVIEW OF OTHEE VIEWS UPON THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 457
Testament doctrines of Presentation, the ancient and modern
forms are related to each other as type and antitype, this
explaining that, and that foretelling this. In fact, it has
become evident during the course of this discussion, that, for
the unresolved features in the essential signfficance of sacrifice
properly so called, a parallel interpretation has been found to
that which removed the great cardinal difficulty of the essential
significance of atonement by effusion of animal blood ; for, as
in the latter case the mystery vanished in the Ught of the
cross, so in the former perplexity has ended in the light of the
self-surrender which the cross first made possible. If it has
been further seen that in one conspicuous mstance the sensuous
form of the Mosaic and Patriarchal worship was retained in the
New Testament, it has also become evident that so extremely
exceptional a retention was speciaUy made to answer an impor
tant end ; it was not that such a survival of ritual stamped
the whole character of the age in which it was employed, but
it was that, in addition to the secondary effect of establishing
continuity by an intermediate form, this was manifestly a
" survival of the fittest," a deUberate selection of a rudimen
tary form of reUgious service on the ground of general utiUty.
Mosaic in form but Christian in essence, the Lord's Supper
enforced Christian consolation the more admirably for its
Mosaic method of sensuous appeal. The Lord's Supper was
not a contradiction to the Christian doctrine of Sacrifice ; it
was an Ulustration of that doctrine under pre-Christian forms.
Thus, in the course of our continued inquiry, the New Testa
ment doctrine of Human Sacrifice has been stated, and the
doubtful elements of the Old Testament doctrine have been
elucidated.

CHAPTER XIII.
SACEIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WOELD.
" As the Jewish high priest, after the solemn sacrifice for the people on the
great Day of Atonement, went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the
victim and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, so Christ has entered into heaven
itself to present (as it were) before the throne that sacred tabernacle which was
the instrument of His passion, — His pierced hands and wounded side, — in token
of the atonement which He has effected for the sins of the world." — J. H. Nkw-
MA.N, Sermon for tlie Feast of tlie Ascension, " Mysteries in Eeligion."
IN the chapter upon the New Testament doctrine of the
Work of Christ, that doctrine was stated to consist of
three sections, — tbe doctrine of the necessity, of the nature, and
of the effects of the work of Christ. The necessity, first seen in
time at the Fall, lay in that righteousness of God which could
not grant an unconditional forgiveness to the sinner, and m
that divine love which yearned with an inexpressible and
paternal yearning after the prodigal child ; it lay in the con
scious and unconscious consequences of that "first disobe
dience " in the nature of man ; and it further lay in the very
nature and office of the Word, Whose it was to create and pre
serve and judge, — in all things reveaUng the Father. The
nature of that work of Christ, it was seen, was twofold, — the
tasting death for every man, the voluntary and vicarious sub
mission to the by us unkno\vn and unknowable curse pro
nounced upon sin ; and, in the second place, the impartation
of a divine life, by the aid of which the sinful propensities of
frail human nature might be corrected and the unhinged
balance restored. As to the effects of the work of Christ, it
was seen that the opponent attributes of the Father were at
once reconciled and brought into play, the office of the Son
was not only preserved intact but made nobly conspicuous,
whUst man himseU was started upon that career of resuscita
tion which was only to have an end in complete restoration at

SACRIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WORLD. 459
the resurrection of the just. It was also evident that this
work of Christ had been an eternal postiUate in the counsels
of the Deity, having been, indeed, the mainspring which guided
and set in equable motion the wheels within wheels of the
providential government of man.
In the chapter upon the New Testament doctrine of the
Work of the Believer, it was said that the beUever shared in
the benefits of that work of Christ, amongst other benefits
accruing to faith being the ability to approach the Most High
without ritual restrictions and without any intercessor but
Jesus, and the ability to worship God by prayer and thanks
giving and acts of self-abnegation. To assist divine worship,
it was afterwards remarked, the rite of the Eucharist was
instituted. Now, in connection with these two phases of New Testa
ment doctrine, it has been no part of our labours to enter into
the perplexing theological questions as to the exact boundaries,
or the efficient and instrumental causes, of so-called justifica
tion and sanctification ; nor has it been any part of our plan
to apportion the precise limits of what is achieved by Christ,
and what by man, in the ultimate salvation of the soul ; all
we have had to keep steadily in view has been, not at aU
these controverted and exasperating questions, but the rela
tions of these two phases of doctrine to the scriptural doctrine
of Sacrifice. Interesting and consolatory as it undoubtedly is
to draw the line firmly at the part performed by the death of
Christ, and the part performed by the deeds of man in the
remission of sins, that agreeable study has not fallen withm
our duty ; what we have placed before ourselves to mvestigate,
is the part assumed by Christ and that assumed by man in
the presentation of sacrifice.
And, in continuing the elaboration of the scriptural doctrine
of Sacrifice, it has been evident that the two New Testament
doctrines above mentioned were readily translatable into sacri
ficial language. It was, it may be said, to render sacrifice,
which had become distasteful by the intermixture of sin, again
acceptable to the righteous and loving God ; it was to restore
the Word to His exalted priestly office, which had been con
travened by the FaU ; it was to render possible to man the

460 SACRIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WOELD.
Paradisaic sacrificial privUeges which he had forfeited, that the
work of Christ was necessary. So also the results of the work
of Christ may be described as being the reintroduction of inter
rupted sacrifices, and the reclothing human sacrifices with an
atmosphere acceptable unto, God. Further, the one side of
the method of restoration, the death upon the cross, may be
denominated the offering of an atoning life, the other side may
be named the endowing human acts and feelings with sacra
mental efficacy. There was, in fact, — not to delay upon addi
tional illustration, — in the New Testament doctrines of the
Work of Christ and the Work of Man a wide-reaching and
minute correspondence with the sacrificial provisions of the
Old Testament, which rendered the latter a most convenient
and vivid means for the presentation of the former.
Nor was this possibUity of translation into sacrificial
language, it has been further seen, founded upon a mere
evanescent analogy, upon an intangible figure of speech.
With all the frequency of merely figurative usage, — and it
has been apparent that such a usage was very common in the
New Testament, — there was also a most intimate connection
everywhere latent. To a resemblance tn one respect, possibly
quite secondary, which amply sufficed to make a figurative
employment not unsmtable and often teUing, there were super
added resemblances so numerous and vital as to constitute, if
not identity, at any rate a preordained connection of relations.
The fact is, as has now become evident, there was a most
accurate correspondence in part and in whole between the
sacrificial cultus of the Old Testament and the ethical economy
of the New, a correspondence divinely planned and progi'es-
sively revealed. The sensuous worship of the post-Paradisaic
and pre-Christian times received its very validity from the,
more spiritual worship of the apostolic and post-apostoUc
periods, just as the culture of chUdhood has its ultimate
authorization in the cultivated man. The very form which
the Patriarchal and Mosaic worship assumed was dictated by
the revelation yet to come ; every detaU of the rites of atone
ment by blood had its final end and initial origin in the
eternally predestined surrender of Christ to death, and every
detail of those ancient rites of presentation in kind had its

SACEIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WORLD. 461
final end and initial origin in the surrender of body, soul, and
spirit, which that death rendered possible and acceptable. By
virtue of the New Testament teaching concerning the work of
Christ and the work of man, the unexplained features of the
previous dispensations had their predetermined and necessary
explanation ; by virtue of the Old Testament doctrine of Atone
ment and Presentation, the leading features of the New Testa
ment dispensation have their predetermined and necessary
Unks of connection. The biblico-theological conception of
sacrifice is not complete, unless to the statement that the
sacrifices of Christian beUevers receive an atoning and sacra
mental value by the one offering and the eternal priesthood of
Jesus, the counter-statement be added, that the atoning and
sacramental force of the sacrifices of pre-Christian times were
equally due to that same offering and priesthood. It is the
teaching of the New Testament that the atonement of Golgotha
is potent from the Fall to the Last Judgment, and was the
efficient cause of the acceptable worship of the Jew or his
patriarchal ancestors as much as of the Christian. Had the
Old Covenant not been foUowed by a New, God would have
left HimseU without an interpreter ; had the New not been
preceded by the Old, He would have left HimseU without a
witness. But the New Testament not only retrojects its doctrine of
Sacrifice into the past, it projects it into the future.
ItseU the complement to the teaching of its predecessors,
the New Testament doctrine of Sacrifice knows no complement
to itself in this present world. Briefly stated, the New Testa
ment doctrine of Sacrffice is that, by the potency of the atone
ment of Jesus, the beUever in that atonement may present
himself, as Paul puts it, a "living sacrffice, acceptable unto
God ; " this doctrine is nowhere regarded as transitional. Very
different is the teleology of the Jewish and Christian offerings,
for the Christian claims to know no supplanting until the
heavens are roUed together as a scroll, when it shall be trans
lated without seeing death. The High Priest of the Christian
profession, as contradistinguished from His predecessors of the
Tabernacle and the Temple, is " a priest for ever ; " the atone
ment by means of which the Christian preacher proclaims remis-

462 SACEIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WOELD.
sion of sins is " one sacriflce for sins for ever ; " the boldness
" to enter into the hoUest by the new and Uving way " is com-
imngled with no dread of a further development of the divine
will ; the apostle who beseeches us to give our " bodies " as
"living sacrffices" has just expressed his conviction that
" neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor prmcipalities, nor
powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor
depth, nor any other creature, is able to separate us from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." In this respect,
as in so many, the truth as it is m Jesus is pleromatic.
But the New Testament doctrine of Sacrifice is not yet
wholly stated. The New Testament projects these doctrmes
of the Sacrifice of Christ and the Sacrifice of Man into the
heavenly world. Amidst the little that is revealed of that
mysterious future, of that " Sabbath that rematneth," of that
"joy of the Lord," of that splendid fruition of all the up
heavals and disruptions, the denudations and depositions, the
retrogressions and developments of human history, the outlines
of the Christian doctrine of Sacrifice are clearly discernible.
For, in the first place, if the atonement of Christ stands
prominently forward in the apostolic conceptions as the one
source of the devoted Ufe of service now possible to man, the
atonement of Christ is quite as truly the ultimate and eternal
cause of the service of the redeemed in the world to come.
This is the unanimous teaching of the apostles. Paul writes
to the Eomans : " Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ
that died, yea rather, that is risen again. Who is even at the
right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession for us." '
The Apostle John speaks of " the Advocate with the Father." ^
Peter dwells exultantly upon the " glory " given to Christ
which His followers shall share. Jude closes his brief Epistle
with the magnificent doxology to Him Who can present us
faultless before the presence of His glory. So, too, the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, falUng back upon the expres
sive symbols of the Mosaic law, boldly states the unchange
able priesthood of Christ and the eternal validity of the one
atonement.* And, significantly enough, as prison walls fell
1 Eom. viii. 34. 2 1 John ii. 1.
' Heb. vii. 24-27, viii. 1, 2, ix. 24-26.

SACEIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WORLD. 463
away and the glimpse of the Mediterranean was lost in the
blaze of the waU-less heaven and the roll of the glassy sea,
and the Apostle John gazed through the open door upon the
things which should be hereafter as well as upon the things
which were, to the azure throne girt with its rainbow before
which the elders were casting their crowns as they sang,
"Thou art worthy, 0 Lord, to receive glory and honour
and power: for Thou hast created all things," there suc
ceeded the song of redemption, loud as the sea, sweet as a
harmony of harps, " Worthy is the Lamb that was slain."
Indeed, amongst the many wonders of that book of wonders,
there is no fact more potent than the prominence at all
great moments of the Lamb as it had been slain ; yea, in the
new heavens and the new earth, there is still seen the same
prominent figure. It is true that we are here in the realms of
mystery ; but, as Dr. Newman justly said in the sermon which
was quoted at the head of this chapter, " These and similar
passages (unquestionably) refer us to the rites of the Jewish
law. They contam notice of the type, but what is the anti
type ? We can give no precise account of it. For consider,
why was it that Christ ascended on high ? With what object ?
What is His work ? What is the meaning of His interceding
for us in heaven ? We know that, whatever He does, it is
the gracious reality of the Mosaic figure. . . . Instead of
explaining. Scripture does but continue to answer us in the
language of the type ; even to the last it veils His deed under
the ancient figure. Shall we, therefore, explain away its
language as merely figurative, which (as the word is now
commonly understood) is next to saying it has no meaning
at all ? Far from it. . . . We will studiously keep to the
figure given in Scripture ; we will not attempt to interpret it,
or change the wording of it, being wise above what is written.
We will not neglect it, because we do not understand it. We
wiU hold it a mystery, or (what was anciently caUed) a truth
sacramental — that is, a high invisible grace lodged m an out
ward form, a precious possession to be piously and thank
fuUy guarded for the sake of the heavenly reaUty contamed
in it." ' 1 Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 210, 211.

464 SACRIFICE IN THE HEAVENLY WORLD.
The apostles also, in the second place, clearly teach that the
heavenly Ufe wiU be a Ufe of uninterrupted and unsymbolic
sacrifice, — a blissful restoration of the obedient service and
sacred communion of Eden. The golden age of self-sacrifice
is ever in the future, not in the present or the past. The
very glorying of the Church in the purification by the blood
of the Lamb, is that such purification has constituted its
members " kings and priests." ' To have merited the " Well
done, good and faithful servant : thou hast been faithful over a
few things," is to be rewarded by an appointment to serve " in
many things." Whenever the curtain is lifted from the unseen
world, thb scene witnessed is of unrestricted intercourse with
God through the Son, and of unintermittent service of God
through the merits of the Lamb. " And I saw no Temple
therein : for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the
Temple of it. . . . And there shall be, no more curse : but
the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and His
servants shall serve Him : and they shaU see His face ; and
His name shaU be in their foreheads." ^
In such manner, by the projection of the atonement and
high-priesthood of Jesus, and of the priesthood of the Chris
tian into the heavenly world, the cycle of the scriptural doc
trine of Sacrffice is completed ; " Paradise Lost '' has become
" Paradise Eegained."
' Eev. i. 5, 6, v. 10. 2 Rgy, ^xi. 22, xxii. 3, 4.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE SCEIPTUEAL DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE—
CONCLUSION.
"Si salus quseritur, ipso nomine Jesu docemur, penes eum esse ; si Spiritus
alia quaelibet dona, in ejus unctione reperientur ; si puritas, in ejus conceptione ;
si redemptio, in ejus passione ; si absolutio, in ejus damnatione ; si maledic-
tionis.remissio, iu ejus cruce ; si satisfactio, in ejus sacrificio ; si purgatio, in
ejjus sanguine." — Calvin, Institutio Christiance Religionis, Lib. II. cap. xvi. §19.
THE aim placed before ourselves at the outset of this long
inquiry was to extract from the Scriptures their doc
trine of Sacrifice. Having prepared ourselves for this journey
through a largely unexplored country by taking correct bear
ings of the district to be traversed, and by arming ourselves
with the necessary instruments, we have now successive'/
surveyed and mapped down the salient thusiological features
of what might not inappropriately be designated the Palaeozoic
or Patriarchal Period, the Mesozoic or Mosaic Period, and the
Kainozoic or Christian Period, bestowing what glances were
possible upon the fascinatuig period now in process of forma
tion. Our purpose being now fulfilled, it may be useful to
present a summary of the results obtained.
The scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice is the scriptural doc
trine of the worship of God by the presentation of gifts;
that is to say, by the presentation of that which has been of
some cost to the offerer. This doctrine treats of five distinct
periods, during each of which this worship by presentation
possessed characteristic and instructive features both of re
semblance and difference.
The first phase of the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice was
the Paradisaic. In the bUssful state of their primeval crea
tion, our first parents were able tO' present to God their every
thought and act and feeUng. Whether or not they also made
2 G

466 THE SCEIPTUEAL DOCTRINE OF SACEIFICE  CONCLUSION.
presentations to the Most High of the fruits of their divinely-
instituted toil, we cannot say for certain, although, as we
have seen, such a presentation would have been in harmony
with aU we know of the artlessness and simpUcity of that
life in the garden of the Lord. At any rate, that exceptional
life of fearless intercourse was itseU an oblation of the saint-
Uest and most expressive kind. This first period, the period
of unmterrupted sacrifice, came to an end at the Fall.
The problem which subsequent sacrifice in any form had to
solve was, to render possible to man and acceptable to God
that self-sacrifice which was the invariable expression of the
religious life of unfaUen man ; in other words, to remove the
obstacles to the restoration of the paradisaic state of obedi
ence and blessedness, — those obstacles lying in the fallen
nature of man and the unchangeable nature of God ; man
resting beneath the divine ban, and becoming daUy more
unable to offer an acceptable sacrifice in the absence of that
divme influence withdrawn because of sin, and God, by the
immaculate holiness of His ineffable Being, refusing of moral
necessity to accept any sacrifice from a sinful creature. How
the problem was solved by divine love, has been seen. The
three succeeding phases of sacrifice were etemaUy pre
arranged and divinely revealed, in order that the paradisaic
form of unreserved sacrifice might • be placed once more
within the reach of man. Each of these phases has its
cogency in the eternal hypothesis of the atonement effected
upon the cross m time; but each, whilst conveying that
lUtimate substantiation of its power in its peculiar form, was
exquisitely adapted to impart in a manifestly increasing mea
sure the divine truths of the forgiveness of sins and the
possibUity of restored communion, — that is to say, the divine
truth of a possible renewal of self-sacrifice.
The second phase of the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice
was the Patriarchal. When Abel, acting upon his inward
prompting, embodied in outward form, itseU suggested by an
extraordinary divine act, the emotions which agitated him,
and presented before God his fat firstlings, his offering was
graciously and unmistakably accepted, and he himself was
accounted righteous not because of the intrinsic worth of his

THE SCEIPTUEAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE  CONCLUSION. 467
sacrifice, but because for two reasons, viz. the motives which
prompted it and its objective suggestiveness, the sacrifice
became a sacrament, and conveyed to Abel the blessings of
the divine favour. This primary animal sacrifice, as we have
seen, having been rendered innocuous by the corrective reve
lation made to Abraham, became the model of the sacrificial
worship of patriarchal times. Its ritual was augmented, its
use was extended. On the one hand, it gave rise to a rudi
mentary institution of a priesthood, and of speciaUy conse
crated places for worship ; it was adapted, on the other, to
satisfy the manifold religious needs of man, so differently
aroused and so variously directed. From the retroflected
light of more modern times, it is evident that these patriarchal
sacrifices were at once symboUcal, typical, and sacramental ;
they expressed the self - sacrifice of the worshipper, they
pointed the way to the atonement to be revealed in the ful
ness of time, they were the divinely appointed channels for the
blessings of sanctification and justification, wrought by virtue of
the ideaUy consummated death of Jesus. It is even evident
from the records that in some manner these several elements
of significance were apprehended by the worshippers them
selves of that early time. Thus the animals they offered in
sacrifice were manifestly symbolical of their personal self-
surrender; their several sacrifices were as manUestly the
sacramental instruments of the sense of the divme forgiveness
and of the possibiUty of acceptable worship ; and if the
typical nature of the unexplained elements of animal sacrifice
was not occasionally suggested to the more pious worshipper,
at any rate the prophetical office of the type was recognised,
and these unexplained elements were understood to foreshadow
and prepare the way for further revelations. This second
stage of the doctrine of Sacrifice was the first introductory
stage to a better time ; it had its own emphatic messages of
the merciful forgiveness and approachability of God, and with
those messages it awakened an expectancy of greater things
to come.
The third phase of the scriptural doctrine of. Sacrifice was
the Mosaic. Eetaining the same general features as were
conspicuous in the Patriarchal Age, — repeating, in fact, the

468 THE SCEIPTUEAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE^CONCLUSION.
same intellectual difficulties without any more adequately
solvmg them, — the Mosaic doctrine, divinely given as it was,
was but the patriarchal doctrme in fuUer detaU, and with
slightly more satisfying interpretation. The comparatively
undifferentiated ritual of Abel and Abraham became largely
differentiated at Sinai ; and after the transitional ceremonies
of the Passover and the Solemn League and Covenant had
prepared the way, a varied and extended system of sacrificial
worship was imparted to Moses, every detaU of which dis
played an exquisite adaptation to the religious wants of the
Israelite. Thenceforth high priest, priests, and Levites, ac
credited with sacred attributes and enjoying exceptional privi
leges, performed a minutely developed worship of purifications
and sacrifices in holy places, splendidly equipped and solemnly
consecrated. Thenceforth divinely appointed ministrants, at
a divmely appointed spot, presided with divmely appomted
rites at a divinely appointed sacrificial worship. Into the
details of the legal injunctions, which have been classified
and expounded in the earlier part of this work, we need not
again enter. Suffice it to say that, generaUy regarded, the
Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice, whUst pre-eminently adapted to
arouse and satisfy reUgious wants, was nevertheless but intro
ductory. Its several injunctions, like the rites of the Patri
archal Age, had a symbolic, a sacramental, and a typical
significance. UnUke the patriarchal rites, these Mosaic in
junctions had also what has been termed an essential signffi
cance, or an express interpretation of its difficult symboUsm.
The Mosaic injunctions were therefore valuable, first, for the
elementary truths which were divinely revealed and sym
boUzed by them ; secondly, for the spiritual satisfaction they
imparted as divinely constituted sacraments ; and, thirdly, for
the attitude of suspense and expectation which the unex
plained portions, conjointly with the express revelation of the
will of God concerning the future, infaUibly aroused. Then
there was another point, as we have seen, besides the greater
detail and clearer interpretation in which the Mosaic doctrine
of Sacrifice excelled the Patriarchal, that point being the more
elaborate provision made for the assimUation and development
of this worship by places, persons, rites, and seasons. Thus

THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE  CONCLUSION. 469
an mstructive national history convincingly imprinted upon
the national conscience the importance attached by God to
this worship "by blood and bloodless offerings, whUst the fer
vent utterances of psalmists and prophets perpetuaUy reiterated
the pleasure to be derived from the revealed system of wor
ship, and the pain and degradation which inevitably ensued
upon forgetfulness of that worship. Further, as time rolled
on, revelations were vouchsafed by the mouths of prophets,
which showed with increasing clearness the divine purpose in
these seemingly supererogatory if not revolting rites, until at
length the announcement was distinctly made, that in such a
person and at such a time the problem of sacrifice, hitherto
temporarUy solved, should be solved afresh, all provisional
expedients of form or rite being thenceforth abolished. The
Mosaic doctrine of Sacrifice had an ostensible reference to
the religious wants of the Jewish people, and an equaUy
ostensible reference to the times to come ; it was consciously
practical and consciously transitional
Eegarding, therefore, the two phases of Old Testament
teaching just reviewed, so manifestly simUar amidst much
diversity, we see that the advance made in pre-Christian times
towards the solution of the problem of sacrifice was briefiy
this : Man is permitted to display his seU-sacrifice before
God under the material form of animal and vegetable offerings.
If we ask the reason of the acceptability of such offerings, the
reply must be, " Such sacrifices were acceptable to God, inas
much as they were typical and symbolical ; in their symboUc
and typical nature lay the roots of their sacramental validity."
If the question be further asked, of what they were typical,
it must be replied, that for a time their typical significance
consisted in simply pointing to a revelation yet to be given
for a solution of the numerous difficulties asso.ciated with these
phases of sacrifice, but that at length their typical significance
was seen to consist in prefigurmg the atonement to be made
on Golgotha. In fact, broadly and briefly stated, the Old
Testament solution of the problem of sacrifice was this, that
material sacrifices were acceptable to God which consisted of
objects of cost and of blood, the former symboUzing the self-
surrender of the offerer, the latter symbolizing the means by

470 THE SCEIPTUEAL DOCTEINE OF SACRIFICE — CONCLUSION.
which that self-surrender is made acceptable, and both
typifying the atonement and the sacrifices of Christian times.
The Old Testament doctrine was itself introductory, and,
whUst sacramentaUy powerful because of the eternal hypothesis
of the atonement of Christ, it cleared the road for a more
complete solution. The Canon of the Old Testament closed
with exciting descriptions of the glorious revelations with
which the future was pregnant, and then prophecy, havmg
done its work, was silent for centuries.
The fourth phase of the Christian doctrine of Sacrifice was
the Christian. In this the types and shadows of the past
have been swallowed up in fulfilment. From a reUgious
service which, revealed as it was, was yet symboUc, and^
sacramental as it was, was yet typical, there has sprung a
religious service revealed just as truly and unsymbolic, sacra
mental, and antitypical Both in the matter of atonement and
in the matter of presentation, there has been an apotheosis.
The luminous figure of the Crucified One occupies the place of
the rites of blood, and the gladsome self-surrender of disciples
takes the place of the incessant presentation of flesh and fruits
in aU the tiresome variety of the legal offerings. It is as if
the trumpet had sounded, and aU had been changed in the
twinkling of an eye into a more glorious life; or, to use a more
matter of fact Ulustration, it is as if, the school days once ended,
difficulties in method and matter of education have become
clear to the thoughtful and active man. To a degree, in the
change of custom, the believer in the atonement of Jesus is
enabled to present himself a livmg sacrifice unto God as his
first parents did in Eden. It is true that in one respect the
syipbolic form of previous eras is retained! and the atonement
of Jesus is remembered in the present as it was typified in the
past, but this is but an apparent exception to the change that
has passed upon all; this symbolic service is an aid to worship,
not an indispensable channel; and it would no more stamp
the Christian epoch as simUar to the Mosaic, than the presen
tation of material offerings by Adam and Eve in the garden
bridged over the gigantic interval between the paradisaic and
patriarchal states.
The fifth and last phase of the scriptural doctrine of

THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTEINE OF SACEIFICE  CONCLUSION. 471
Sacrifice is the Heavenly. In this, the eternal priesthood of
Jesus subsisting, every redeemed soul wUl become a priest in
the everlasting temple ; and in this, by the illimitable mercy of
God, sin and its consequences upon sacrifice being for ever
done away, man wiU have fought his way through the neces
sary clouds and darkness of the material, through the no ess
necessary darkness and clouds of the spiritual, to the un-
dimmed vision and never lapsing ministry of the unchanging
world, — from the ignorant mnocence of Eden right through
the know'ledge of good and evU to the heaven of deUberate
choice. " And I saw a new heaven and a new earth : for the
first heaven and the first earth were passed away ; and there
was no more sea. . . . And I heard a great voice out of heaven
saying. Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He
wiU dwell with them ; and they shaU be His people, and God
HimseU shall be with them, their God. And God shaU wipe
away aU tears from their eyes ; and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shaU there be any
more pain : for the former things are passed away."
And now the author takes his fareweU of his patient reader
with many regrets, not the least poignant of which arise from
the sense of possible misguidance. Tmth is like the sun in
the solar system, unmoved and immoveable ; those who live
in its Ught and warmth are never motionless. Simple revolu
tion in the lapse of time suffices to present the onlooker with
new scenes. To point our instruments towards the glorious
object of our search, is to arouse the exasperating thought that
it is but a reflected image we see, which wiU vary with our
position, and is possibly distorted by the atmosphere through
which we peer. " What is truth indeed ? " we may ask with
subtle Plato as well as jesting PUate. In itself the change
less ; to us the ever-changing. Other observers, too, are at
their posts watching, through what mtermediate atmosphere
it is hard, if not impossible, to teU ; we and they roll on our
ceaseless course and in our appropriate orbits ; we have our
days and nights, our winters and our summers, and they, we
know, have theirs; to us they seem to retrograde and stand stiU
and advance, and we to them. None the less is every tiniest

472 THE SCEIPTUEAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE— CONCLUSION.
observation, by whomsoever made, of value. Observations
from many sides, at many times, and from many points of view,
may mutually correct each other, and one day coalesce into
a beautiful harmony. Truth is fixed, and one day after the
labours of many explorers, human views of truth may them
selves become immutable. And our figure reminds us that to
know truth and to live by it are different things. The sun
would still shoot forth its vivifying and enlightening rays, if
there were no such thing as solar science ; and he may rejoice
in the glorious rest of the scriptural doctrine of Sacrifice, who
cannot map its phases or trace its growth. Christ is still aU
in all, if our little systems have not their day ; unreserved
surrender is stUl possible and profitable since He has died ;
access into the Holiest may yet be our invariable hope
through the intercession and offering of the High Priest after
the order of Melchisedek. The Church of Christ on earth has
its new song, if it has not its infallible theology, and nothing
can rob it of its mighty hope that one day to the song of
redemption, the knowledge, the invariable science of redemp
tion will be superadded. , TiU then, let the " search after
truth " be our work and our reward.
Lauda Sion salvatorem,
Lauda ducem et pastorem
In hymnig et canticis ;
Quantum potes, tantum aude.
Quia major omne laude,
Nee laudare sufficis.
Sit laus plena, sit sonora.
Sit jocunda, sit decora,
Phase vetus terrainat.
Vetustatem novitas,
TJmbram fngat Veritas,
Noctem lux eliminat.
Bone pastor, panis vere,
Jesu, nostri miserere,
Tu nos pasce, nos tuere,
Tu nos bona fac videre
In terra viventium.
Tu qui cnncta scis et vales,
Qui nos pascis hie mortales,
Tu nos ibi commensales,
Coheredes et sodales
Fac sanctorum civium.

APPENDIX.

I.
ON THE HEBEEW SACEIFICIAL TEEMINOLOGY
AND ITS HELLENISTIC EQUIVALENTS.
NOT simply to substantiate the definition of the scriptural
conception of Sacrifice given in the introduction to this
book, but to lessen difficulties which must arise at every step
in our discussion if a precise use of words be not adopted by
the writer and understood by the reader, it seems advisable to
coUect into one view once for all the terms commonly employed
in Holy Scripture to designate the several varieties, classes,
and attributes of sacrifice, to deduce from their etymology and
usage the exact significance attached to them, and to enumerate
the several English words selected as synonymous. It was the
absence of some such connected view of scriptural terminology
which caused the translators of the Authorized Version to miss
or curtail the meaning of many an important passage in both
Testaments. It is therefore proposed to examine, in the first
place, the Hebrew sacrificial terms of the Old Testament,
whether specific or generic, giving at the same time the English
words regarded in this treatise as equivalents; and, in the
second place, in prospect of the examination to be subsequently
undertaken into the sacrificial language of the New Testament,
to extract from the Septuagint those Greek words which were
regarded by the LXX. as nearly as possible equipollent with
the Hebrew.

A. — The Hebrew Sacrificial Terminology.
(1.) The Specific Terms.
The principal varieties of the Jewish sacrifices — not includ
ing those like the shew-bread, the tithes, and the first-fruits,
about which there is no possibility of difficulty either in Hebrew

474 APPENDIX.
or EngUsh — were known by the names of olah, tsevach, shela
mim, chattath, asham, minchah, and nesek.
1. Olah (n^j)) is not, as Ewald has maintained, a derivative of
a root ul (iiiy), meaning to glow or burn} but of a root alah
(n?j?), to go up. This word is used in Gen. xix. 28 of the ascent
of smoke, and in Judg.' xx. 40, Jer. xlviU. 15, of anything which
when burned turns to smoke. It is also used of the passage from
a lower position to a higher, such as from one nation to another,
from one place to another, e.g. Gen. xiii. 1 ; Ex. i. 10 ; 1 Kings
xii. 27. Two opinions have hence been held as to the significance
oiolah, the one tracing its use to the entire ascension of the sacri
fice it signified in smoke to God ; the other, to the raising of the
sacrifice from the earth where it was slain to the altar-hearth
where it was consumed. According to the former view, the
exact significance of olah would be the offering that rises to God
in smoke ; according to the latter, the offering that is lifted upon
the altar. The former opinion seems the more probable, inas
much as it presents a tangible distinction between one kind of
sacrifice and another, whereas the latter would equaUy apply to
many Jewish sacrifices. But the etymology of the word, how
ever interesting, is not indispensable. Olah is exclusively used
for that variety of animal sacrifice which was completely burned
upon its presentation at the altar : its synonym in Hebrew is
kalil (77?)) or whole-offering. Eeserving whole-offering for the
word just mentioned, we may use as equivalents of olah either
hitmt-offering (the word commonly used in the Authorized
Version) or holocaust.
2. Tsevach shelamim (CwB' n3T) is the singular form of that
variety of sacrifices named shelamim, the singular form shelem
being found but once, in Amos v. 22. These shelamim have
been very variously translated. Josephus translated the word
by yjupiBTripitii heloi, and he has been followed by Luther in
his Bible {Dank-opfer), and by Eeland, Gesenius, de Wette,
Maur, EosenmiUler, Winer, Ewald, Knobel, Hofmann. The
common equivalent in the Septuagint version of Samuel, Kings,
and Proverbs is ilprivmri 6ugia, which is paraUeled by the Vul
gate sacrificia pacifica, by the Authorized Version with its
peace-offerings, and by Tholuck, Kahnis, Delitzsdh, Kurtz, .
Oehler, with their Friedensopfer. In the Pentateuch, Joshua,
Judges, ChronicJ.es, Ezekiel, the Septuagint renders this variety
of sacrifice by eiarnpkv ; which precedent was foUowed by PhUo,
Calvin, Outram {Sacrificia salutaria), and by Hengstenberg,
Keil, Oehler, Bunsen {Heilsopfer). Bahr renders by Erstatt-
1 Alterthiimer, 3d ed., note on p. 64.

THE HEBEEW SACEIFICIAL TEEMINOLOGY. 475
ungsopfer (restitutionary offering); Baumgarten, by Vollen-
dungsopfer (consummatory offering) ; Ebrard, by Bezahlungsopfer
(sacrifice in payment of debt) ; Neumann, by Seligkeitsopfer
(the offering of the happy). An inspection of these various
meanings reduces the main differences of interpretation to two —
one class of translators, under the several names of thank-offer
ing, peace-offering, consummatory-offering, offering of the saved,
offering of the happy, regarding these offerings as the sacrifices
of those who are living in the sense of the divine favour ; and
the other class, under the names of payment and restitution
offering, seeing in these offerings a method of thanking God for
His mercies by the repayment of part. For each of these views
derivation is pleaded. Two derivations of shelamim have been
suggested. According to the one, the word is derived from
shalem, the same word as salem, which means primarUy to be
whole, and hence to be at peace, to have friendship with any one :
the shelamim would thus be sacrifices made in assurance of
peace with God. The other derivation is from the Piel form of
the same root, which signifies to make whole, and hence, as a
secondary meaning, to heal a breach by making some recompense ;
this would make the shelamim sacrifices of restitution. Ety
mologically, the settlement of these rival hypotheses is ddubt-
ful ; usage makes, however, the whole matter clear. For, first,
it should be borne in mind that these offerings were not merely
made upon the receipt of blessings, but sometimes before re
questing some good ; such a usage would seem to exclude the
latter etymology. Secondly, whenever more sacrifices than one
were offered, sin-offerings came first, burnt-offerings second,
and peace-offerings third ; if these offerings were intended to
heal a breach by recompense, they should be presented first, and
not last. Thirdly, the peculiarity of the ritual is decisive ; it
is not the sprinkling of blood, or the presentation, that is empha
sized, but the concluding meal to which God has invited His
servants as His guests. Postponing, then, for the present, the
examination of the word tsevach, which in its present connec
tion simply expresses the singular number, it may be stated
that, in accordance with their essential meaning, the shelamim
may be always translated, as in the Authorized Version, by
peace-offerings. Three varieties of the shelamim call for passing notice — viz.,
the tsen^ach nedhavah (naii n3T), exactly rendered by free-will
or voluntary peace-offering ; the tsevach nedher (Ti3 nat), or votive
peace-offering ; and the tsevach-al-todhoh (rvSprbv nnr or nnt
n-ilnn), or peace-offerings of thanks, todhoh being- from Hiphil of
root yadhah, to cause to throw, to raise, more restrictedly, to

476 APPENDIX.
raise the hand, and hence to give thanks. There will be no fear
of confusion U these varieties are called voluntary, votive, and
thank-oSerings. 3. Chattath (DKlsri), from a root meaning to miss a mark, as
an archer does, or to make a false step, is the Hebrew word for
a sin ; occasionally it signifies not a concrete and single act,
but the abstract sinfulness. As a secondary meaning, it is used
for that variety of sacrifice which is rendered in the Authorized
Version sin-offering, and this synonym may be retained. It is
necessary to remember, however, that the word is applied in
the Old Testament to sacrifices of the same essential signifi
cance, but of very different character in detail. Thus it is used
of the sin-offering of individuals, whether of the priesthood, of
the government, or the ranks of the people (see Lev. iv. and v.,
passim), and whether they were offered for an unintentional
breach of one of the commandments, for such offences as with
holding the whole truth in a court of law, for an involuntary
infringement of the laws of purification, or for breaking an
oath. It is also used for offerings commanded to remove un
cleanness (see Lev. xiv. 22, xv. 15, 30), for the goat which was
slaughtered on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi 3, 5), for the
bullock killed at the consecration of Aaron (Lev. viii. 2), and
for the calf and kid immolated at the consecration of the Taber
nacle (Lev. ix. 2,3); whilst the , offerings made at the monthly
and festal celebrations are also designated sin-offerings (see
Num. xxviii. and xxix., passim). Nevertheless, it is not difficult
to see the common element which underlies aU these cases.
As the shelamim were offerings made in and for the sense of
the divine communion, although they were presented now as
votive and now as voluntary and now as thank-offerings, so
the sin-offerings, under all their variety of form, were brought
to the Most High to obtain the sense of the divine forgiveness.
4. Asham (DE'X), from a root signifying negligence in gait,
and also, by an ethical application of the same idea, failure in
duty, stands primarily for guilt, and secondarily for a sacrifice
for guilt. Its use, like that of chattath, is, however, considerably
more limited, and may be tolerably well conveyed by the
synonym employed by the Authorized Version, viz. trespass-
offering. The very name of this variety of sacrifice shows that
it must be nearly aUied to the chattath, and some have not
hesitated to say that they are, as their names etymologically
are, identical Much difficulty has been found in defining
the exact distinction between the trespass and sin offerings.
Indeed, as Kurtz' has said : " In the whole province of Biblical
1 Alttest. OpfercuUus, § 93.

THE HEBEEW SACRIFICIAL TEEMINOLOGY. 477
Theology, there is scarcely a question to be found, the answer
to which has given rise to so much loose thinking as this, and
at the correct solution of which Biblical Science has arrived
so late, although the data for that solution are clearly to
hand in the Bible." Some have said the difference is merely
verbal; others have pronounced it arbitrary and incompre
hensible; others have found in the sin-offerings sacrifices
for unintentional wrong-doing, and in the trespass-offerings
sacrifices for sins that were deliberate ; and others, again,
¦have recognised in each sacrifices for the atonement of sins, the
former of omission, and the latter of commission. Nor were
the Eabbis themselves agreed upon the point, for some regarded
sin-offerings as enjoined for sins of ignorance, and trespass-
offerings for sins of negligence ; others saw in these a satisfaction
for manifest transgression, and in those a satisfaction for doubt
ful transgression.' It was the investigations of Eiehm and
Eink which first dispelled the confusion which reigned over
this subject. Now, as Fairbairn has . shrewdly said in his
Typology^ "the difficulty, if not altogether caused, has been
very much increased, by the mistake of supposing the directions
regarding the trespass-offerings to begin with chap. v. (in Lev.),
whereas they really commence with the new section at ver. 14,
where, as usual, the new subject is introduced with the words :
' The Lord spake unto Moses, saying.' These words do not occur
at the beginning of the chapter itself; the section to the end of
the 13th verse was added to the preceding chapter regarding
the sin-offering, with the view of specifying certain occasions
on which it should be presented, and making provision for a
' cheaper sort of sacrifices for persons in destitute circumstances.
But in each case the sacrifice itself, without exception, is
called a sin-offering (vers. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12). In one verse,
indeed (the 6th), it is said in our version : 'And he shall bring
his trespass-offering ; ' but this is a mere mistranslation, and
should have been rendered as it is in the very next verse,
where the expression in the original is the same : ' And he
shall bring for (or as) his trespass.'" An induction of the
several instances in which ashamim were enjoined will make
the significance clear. In the primary law of Leviticus three
classes of sin are mentioned as requiring trespass-offerings, two
of which concern the relation between God and man, and one
the relation between man and his neighbour; these three
classes of sin are : any unintentional negligence in presenting
' Those who would like to know more of these opinions may refer to Knobel,
Leviticus, pp. 396, 397 ; and Wangemann, vol. i. pp. 307-312.
' Vol. iL pp. 343, 344.

478 APPENDIX.
the various gifts prescribed by the Law ; any unintentional
infringement of a divine command ; and certain deceitful viola
tions of the rights of property, such as the unlawful detention
of things committed to a man in trust, or the deceitful appUca
tion of the principle, "finding is keeping." From these instances,
it would appear that trespass-offerings were enjoined in all
cases where the sins which had been committed aUowed of
restitution in kind. This inference is borne out by the peculi
arity of the ritual which constituted the act of monetary
redemption the most prominent feature, and by the other
instances subsequently mentioned, in which trespass-offerings
were presented by divme command, as in the case of the
Nazarite who had broken his vow (Num. vi. 12), and the con
valescent leper (Lev. xiv. 12) ; for the Nazarite, according to
the stipulation, had broken his vow without intent, and a
trespass-offering was to be brought as for the unintentional
infringement of a divine command. With respect to the leper,
the trespass-offering was stiU offered in atonement for infringe
ment ; for leprosy was everywhere regarded by Mosaism as a
puidshment for the breach of some commandment, and it was
peculiarly fitting that when punishment was removed restitution
should be made. So also the case mentioned in Lev. xix. 20,
22, is a manifest infringement of the rights of property. Tres
pass-offerings were therefore sacrifices for sins, which admitted
of valuation and recompense.
5. Postponing for a few lines the analysis of minchah (HH?!?),
let it suffice to say in this place, that, in its most limited
appUcation, it is used for that variety of sacrffice which con
sisted of meal, cooked or uncooked, and might be fittingly
translated by meal-offering or bread-offering. In the Authorized
Version it is mvariably rendered by meat-offering, a seeming
misnomer to modern ears, accustomed as they are to associate
the idea of animal flesh with meat, but easily explained by the
Old English usage, according to which, just as the word bread is
used in the phrase, " to take one's bread out of one's mouth," to
signify any variety of food, speakers of three centuries ago used
meat to express the same idea of any kind of food (compare
Hab. iii. 17 and John iv. 32, 34). With this explanation we
shall not err, seeing the great difficulty of changing names which
have become technical, if we use the words meat-offering and
meal-offering as synonyms.
6. Nesek (103), from a root to pour out, is used for something
which is poured out in honour of any one, and hence for a
libation ; which word may be employed for it as well as that
commonly used in the Authorized Version, viz. drink-offering.

THE HEBREW SACRIFICIAL TERMINOLOGY. 479
(2.) ^e Generic Terms.
We now proceed to the Hebrew generic terms, a more im
portant inquiry.
1. The first word which calls for examination is minchah
(nnjD), one meaning of which has recently been stated. Min
chah, from a root manach, to give, is used in a variety of senses,
each, however, being perfectly clear from the context, and
having the same fundamental idea. It is sometimes employed,
as we have seen, to designate the meal- or mea^-offering of
Leviticus, — e.g.. Lev. ii., passim. Sometimes it has a slightly
wider significance, and stands for bloodless as opposed to blood
sacrifices, — e.g., Ps. xl. 7; Isa. xix. 21; Dan. ix. 27. OccasionaUy
a blood sacrifice, such as the morning or evening offering of a
lamb, is intended, — e.g., 1 Kings xviii. 29 ; 2 Kings iii. 20 ; Ps.
cxii. 2 ; Dan. ix. 21. More generaUy still, it is used for any
sacrificial gift, — e.g.. Gen. iv. 3, 4, 5 ; 1 Sam. xxvi. 1 9 ; 1 Chron.
xvi. 29 ; Mal. i. 10. Minjihah is even used for any \iit from
man to man, as weU as from man to God, — e.g.. Gen. xxxii. 1 3 ;
2 Sam. viii. 6 ; 2 Kings viii. 8. A comparison of these several
applications of the word shows that the radical meaning is
never lost, but that it invariably signifies a gift to God, in which
the idea of giving or presentation, and nothing else, is prominent.
Thus the meal-offering, as we shaU afterwards see, was that
Levitical sacrifice which expressed not atonement nor compen
sation nor self-surrender, but presentation, the act of giving at
aU ; so of the bloodless sacrifices generaUy, which were made
not in atonement for sin, but when atonement had been effected
by other means. So of the daily sacrifices, it was the fact of
their presentation itself which was especiaUy important. As
synonyms for the most Umited usage of the word, the words
bread-offering, meal-offering, or meat-offering may be employed ;
for the synonym of minchah, when opposed to sacrifices of
atonement, bloodless sacrifices wiU suffice; and for the more
general meanings of the word, sacrifice, offering, oblation, pre
sentation may be used indiscriminately. Let it be noticed in
passing, that minchah in its widest sacrificial application sum
marizes all varieties of sacrifices, animal or non-animal, atoning
or eucharistic, and, in that case, is exactly rendered by a gift
to God.
2. The next generic term is tsevach (nar), which wiU require
careful investigation from the inadequacy and confusion of the
meanings commonly assigned in lexicons, in the Authorized
Version, and in works upon the Levitical sacrifices. Tsevach
is from a root tsavach, to slaughter, especiaUy (as Oehler has

480 APPENDIX.
pointed out ') to slaughter for food. Hence this same root is
employed to express the idea of slaying those sacrifices, part of
the ceremonial of which, as in the Passover and peace-offering,
consisted of a sacrificial feast. On the surface, it would thus
seem that tsevach might be adequately rendered either by fiesh
food, or, when applied to sacrifices, since meat-offerings would
arouse erroneous associations, by festal - offerings. Now, in
gathering together instances of the various usages of tsevach
from the Old Testament, it is seen that there are numerous
passages where its significance is equivocal, and must be deter
mined by the usage elsewhere ; such passages it is unnecessary
to enumerate. A common employment of the word is, as we
have already seen, to express the singular form of the shelamim
and its varieties ; in Josh. xxii. 27, however, tsevach evidently
means something different from peace-offerings, and hence it is
no cause for surprise that, in 2 Chron. xxix. 31, tsevochim are
distinguished from thank-offerings. In a large number of pas
sages tsSach is opposed to olah, as if they constituted together
a well-defined class of sacrifices, which might be conveyed in
English by some such phrase as " holocausts and merocausts,"
or " whole and part burnt-offerings." Often tsevach clearly
stands for a sacrifice which culminates in a sacrificial meal, —
e.g.. Num. xxv. 2; Deut. xii. 27; 1 Sam. ii 13; Ezek. xlvi 24;
Hos. ix. 4. Quite as often it as clearly stands for any variety
of animal sacrifice, — e.g., 2 Chron. vii 12 ; Ps. U. 17, 19; Prov,
XV. 8 ; Eccles. v. 1 ; Isa. i. 1 1 ; Hos. iii. 4 ; and in the common
phrase, tsevach uminchah. In the former case, it is equivalent
to festal-offering ; and in the latter, to blood-sacrifice. It would
thus appear that we are confronted by a variety of irreconcil
able meanings. Careful analysis will show such an opinion to
be premature. There are in reality but two distinct significa
tions — the one directly associated with the etymology, and the
Other an expansion of that meaning. The more common mean
ing of tsevach is an animal sacrifice, part of which was subse
quently eaten by the offerer; this may be briefly rendered by
festal-offering. It is this signification which is the key to unlock
most of the various uses previously catalogued ; for, inasmuch
as the peace-offerings and thank-offerings were but varieties of
the festal-offerings, the contrast with those sacrifices before
mentioned is explained ; and inasmuch as festal-offerings were
partly given to God in fire and partly consumed by man, the
usage with olah is also explained ; nor could anything be more
accordant with universal language than that such a generic
word as tsevach should be made use of to express the singular
^ Herzog, Real-Encyclopadie, vol. x. p. 627.

THE HEBREW SACEIFICIAL TEEMINOLOGY. 481
form of a specific plural like shelamim. The only other class
of cases where tsevach is found, is where it stands for animal or
blood sacrffices generaUy ; this usage is to be relegated to the list
of examples where, part of the connotation faUiug into abeyance,
words become in the natural course of things wider in meaning.
3. Ishsheh (HE'S) is a generic word of wider appUcation than
the preceding, being a legal designation for every altar sacrffice,
whether animal or bloodless. It is placed in connection with
the burnt-offerings,— e.^r., Ex. xxix. 18, Lev. viu. 28; with the
peace-offering, Lev. iii. 3, xxii. 22 ; with the sin-offering. Lev.
iv. 35, V. 1 2 ; with the trespass-offering. Lev. vii. 5 ; with the meat
offering. Lev. xxiii. 1 3 ; with the drink-offering, Lev. xxiii. 1 3,
Num. XV. 10 ; and with animal sacrifices generally. Lev. xxii. 27.
The etymology is simple — from esh,fire; the word thus signi
fies an offering made by fire. Such a signification wUl apply to
aU cases of its occurrence, it being understood that the offer
ings so designated were some wholly' and some partiaUy con
sumed. Gesenius endeavoured to prove that ishsheh was also
used of offerings which did not come upon the altar fire
at all; but the only instance he adduced. was that of the
incense which accompanied the shew-bread, e.g. Lev. xxiv. 7-9 ;
an insufficient proof, for, even in the absence of express com
mands, the unvarying meaning of ishsheh in other places consti
tutes quite proof enough that when the shew-bread was removed
this very incense was burnt upon the golden altar; besides,
Josephus expressly states that this incense was so burnt {Antiq.
iii. X. 7), and on such a point change would scarcely have
been introduced into the Mosaic Law. The equivalent of the
word hereafter adopted is either fire-offering, or, as in the
Authorized Version, offering made by fire. That the altar fire
was originally of divine origin, and that this fire was the visible
means by which each sacrifice was made to rise towards heaven,
seem to imply that the generic word laid stress not upon the
fact of sacrifice, but upon the person to whom sacrifice was
made ; in other words, the calUug a sacrifice ishsheh pointed to
the fact that it was a presentation to God.
4. We now advance to that generic term which was the most
precise and technical of aU, qorban (|3")©. This word is used in
the Law and elsewhere to describe the genus of which animal,
vegetable, and mineral sacrifices of all kinds were species. It
is applied to the burnt-offering, Lev. i. 10, 14; to the peace-
offering, Lev. iii. 1, 2, etc.; to the thank-offering and votive-
offering. Lev. vii. 13, xxvu. 9, 11 ; to the sin-ofiering. Lev. iv.
23, 28 ; to the trespass-offering. Lev. vii. 38 ; to the meal-
offerino- Lev. vii 14; to the Passover, Num. is. 7, 13; to the
2 H

482 APPENDIX.
sacrifice of the Nazarite, Num. vi 14; to aU public sacrifices.
Num. xxviU. 2 ; to the first-fruits (under the Aramaic form of
the word), Neh. x. 35 ; and even to offerings made of spoils,
Num. xxxi. 50 ; in short, qorban is the word which expresses
what every form of sacrifice shared in common. Now qorban is
from a root qorav, or qorev, meaning to approach, come near to,
and hence, by a more limited application of the general idea,
to approach God ; a verb which is used of the ministry of the
priesthood in the Holy Place, — e.g., Ex. xl. 32, Lev. ix. 7,
xvi. 1, xxi. 17, xxu. 3 ; and of the approach of the people to the
sanctuary by means of sacrifice, Lev. xvii. 5. From this radical
significance, it is not far to the meaning in the case of a deriva
tive noun, that by which approach is made ; in other words, remem
bering the express words by which the Pentateuch conditioned
divine approach : " They shall not appear before me empty "
(Ex. xxiii 15, xxxiv. 20; Deut. xvi 16); indeed, bearing in
mind the cardinal principle of scriptural sacrifices, — the worship
by presentation, — it is not farto the signification of a gift to God.
But we are not left to conjecture or to phUological analogy, nor
even to inference, for we have conclusive bibUcal evidence that
such was the common acceptation of the word ; in the seventh
chapter of Mark the very word is used and translated by the
unequivocal Greek word dupov : 'Eai/ s/V^j avipums tm •jrarpl ri rfi
ILriTp'r xop^&v, 0 sSTiv hupov, 0 eav l§ J/toD u^e\ri6jjs (Mark vU. 11).
This xop^eiv, 0 idTiv hupov, must Settle the meaning once for aU of
the Hebrew qorban. Qorban is a gift made in the service of
God, a gift to God. (3.) The Attributive Terms.
There stiU remain to be considered a few sacrificial terms of
frequent use in the Old Testament.
1. First and foremost comes that most important word kipper
(laa), variously translated in the Authorized Version by make
atonement, purge, purge away, reconcile, make reconciliation,
pacify, pardon, be merciful, and put off, upon the right under
standing of which so large a portion of the Old Testament
doctrine of Sacrifice depends. The value and indispensableness
of a precise connotation must be our only apology for an
exhaustive study, as far as lexicography can assist, of this much
used and much abused word. We propose to consider, first, its
several forms ; secondly, its several grammatical constructions ;
thirdly, its etymology ; and, lastly, its usage, each as bearing
upon the point at issue, and by such an examination to define
the precise scriptural significance of the term. The forms

THE HEBEEW SACEIFICIAL TERMINOLOGY. 483
under which the root kaphar appears are not numerous. In
Kal it is found but once ; and even in that instance doubts
have been expressed by Fiirst as to whether the word is not
from an entirely different root, a denominative of kopher
{asphalt). A Nithpael and a Hithpael form are each found
once. There is also a nominal derivative in kopher. The usual
verbal forms are, however, the Piel and Pual Turning to the
etymology of the root, it is happily the case that no doubt has
been expressed upon this head, the cognate dialects giving
unanimous and unquestionable testimony that the root signifies
to cover. The Piel form might thus be expected to give an
intensive form of the same idea. Much interest centres in
the various constractions under which the Piel form of kipper
is grammatically employed. Sometimes it is followed by a
simple objective case, signifying the covering "of iniquity"
(Ps. Ixxiii 38; Dan. ix. 24), "of the face of an enemy" (Gen.
xxxii 21), "of the land of promise" (Deut. xxxii 43), "of the
holy place," or " of the house of Aaron." Accordmg to the more
usual construction, however, the thing or person covered is ex
pressed by the preposition al (pv) and its consequent case ; as in
such instances as the following : to throw a covering " over her "
(Lev. iv. 20), " over him " (Lev. iv. 35), " over them " (Lev. iv. 20),
" over himseU," " over the people," " over the children of Israel,"
etc., " over sins " (Ps. Ixxis. 9), " over iniquity " (Jer. xviu. 2),
"over the sins which he hath sinned" (Lev. v. 18), "over
souls" (Ex. xxx. 16), "over the horns of the altar" (Ex.
xxx. 10); sometimes, and not infrequently, the preposition
baadh (13J3) is used to express the same idea more completely,
as in the phrases, to throw a covering round one's sin,
round one's house, round the congregation. That by which the
covering was effected was commonly conveyed by the prepo
sition b' (a), and sometimes by the preposition min (ip) ; as,
for example, in the phrases, to cover anything or anybody over
"by blood" (Ex. xxx. 10), "by a sin-offering" (Lev. iv. 26),
"by a ram," "by mercy and truth" (Prov. xvi. 6). The place
where the covering was effected is also designated by the prepo
sition b' (a), as in the phrase baqqodesh — in the holy place.
The person from whom covering was made was signified by the
preposition I' (?), — e.g., to cover up "from the face of the Lord"
(Lev. V. 26 (Heb.), vi 7 (A. V.)), "from thy people" (Deut.
xxi. 8). In addition to these general statements, an examina
tion of the grammatical structure, side by side with an examina
tion of the usage (which we may conveniently anticipate), shows
that the covering of a person means the covering oi his sin ;

484 APPENDIX.^
compare, for example, such a phrase as this, "And the priest
shall throw a covering over him, over the sin which he hath si/nned "
(Lev. iv. 35,' or v. 13). The full construction of kipper would
thus seem to be, " to throw a covering over a man, that is to
say, over his sin, from the face of God by means of a sacrffice
presented in a holy place." The construction thus suggests
that the process of covering was some method of concealing or
neutralizing sin that it should not offend the Deity. But what
says the common usage of the word, as determined from the
various contexts, to the significance of this technical covering ?
It has been suggested that "to cover" means in sacrifice to
render invisible; another suggestion is, that it is to protect from
danger ; whilst yet a third opinion considers that it is to remove
the power of the divine anger. Which of these opinions does
the usage of the Old Testament show to be correct ? or is it
possible that the Old Testament gives instances of each ? It
will be readUy seen that neither the view that kipper signifies
a hiding from view, nor the view that it signifies a shielding
from danger, will explain the majority of scriptural connections.
It is true that the former is seemingly substantiated by Jer.
xviii. 23, where "to cover iniquity" is paraUeled by "blotting
from sight;" and the latter by Deut. xxxii 43, "He will cover
His land," where the prospect held out apparently is of a God
Who wUl shield His people. But it must not be overlooked
that a meaning to be presently stated is equaUy appUcable to
both these passages, and that meaning, as we shall presently
show, is almost universal in those passages where the context
can render aid. When Gesenius and others maintained that
Isa. xxviu. 18, confessedly a difficult and abnormal passage,
countenances this notion of "rendering invisible," the reply, is
simple, as Ku^tz has shown, viz. that Isaiah meant not that
the covenant with death should be rendered invisible, since,
although invisible, it might be operative. And palpably this
passage is no gain to the view that the word signifies protection
from danger ; for, so far from saying that the covenant with
death shaU be protected from danger, he asserts the opposite,
that it shaU be utterly destroyed. Proceedmg to a more
detailed examination, it needs scarcely be said that there are, of
course, very many passages which cannot render any assistance
1 The author, of course, refers to the Hebrew, and not the English version.
He has not deemed it necessary to refer to the numerous lapses of the English
translators. An egregious instance occurs in Lev. v. 10, where the Authorized
Version runs : " And the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sins
which he hath sinned," which should run, "with his sin-offering which lie hath
offered." The reading of the A.V. cannot be held for a, moment, if it be com
pared with the manner of rendering of Lev. iv. 35 and v. 13.

THE HEBEEW SACEIFICIAL TEEMINOLOGY. 485
at all to the special inquiry ; stUl it is necessary to study with
extreme care any case in which the context renders the sUghtest
assistance to the comprehension of the usual significance of
the word before us. Now, such a study undoubtedly favours
the view that the conception conveyed by kipper was this, — a
covering of such a kind as to render the divine anger inoperative.
A variety of passages rise to mind. Take, for example,
Ps. Ixxviu. 38 : " But He, being fuU of compassion, covered their
iniquity, and destroyed them not : yea, many a time turned He
His anger away, and did not stir up all His wrath," where, in
the first half of the verse, the covering of iniquity is manUestly
the preliminary to withholding destruction, and, in the second
half, the parallelism of thought demands that the equivalent to
the covering iniquity should be the turning away of anger ; in
this case, therefore, the covering iniquity would seem to be the
interposing of something which should remove the power of
sin to arouse the divine wrath. Again, in Deut. xxi. 8 : " Cover
Thy people Israel, 0 Lord, and lay not innocent blood unto Thy
people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them,"
the prayer to be uttered by the elders evidently is, that the
divine mercy should be so displayed in answer to their united
deed, that the blood of the murdered man should no longer cry
for vengeance; here, again, the covering besought is such as
would render the divine retributive anger inoperative. So in
Prov. xvi. 14, when it is said : " The wrath of a king is as mes
sengers of death : but a wise man will cover it," the meaning
clearly is, that a wise man will so neutraUze the royal anger by
his tact and sagacity that no messenger of death shall go forth.
Further, when Elihu says (Job xxxvi. 18): "Because there is
wrath, beware lest He take thee away with His stroke : then a
great covering cannot release thee," his argument unquestionably
is, that the very existence of the divine anger at human sin
should inspire caution, leSt its. punitive power should be expe
rienced ; and the implication is also unquestionably that, if the
stroke of the divine wrath has not already fallen, a covering
may prevent its descent. In Gen. xxxii. 21, Jacob solaces him
self, on the despatch of each contingent of cattle, with the
thought : " I wUl cover his face with the present that precedeth
me, and wiU afterwards see his face; peradventure he wUl
' accept of me ; " here, again, the same significance is seen. Then,
in the Korahitic rebeUion, when wrath was already gone forth
from the Lord, and the plague was begun, Aaron was despatched
by Moses with a censer to cover the people, — in other words,
to avert the punishment that was descending (see Num. xvi. 46 ;
compare Num. vUi. 19 and xvU. 11). In fact, it is this concep-

486 APPENDIX.
tion of neutraUzing and rendering inoperative the punitive
wrath of God that everywhere underlies the scriptural use of
kipper, with one exception, the passage previously quoted, Isa.
xxviii. 18 : " Your covenant with death shaU be covered," where,
instead of the significance of neutralizing the divine anger, a
secondary sense would seem to be intended. Commonly, as we
have seen, kipper signifies to render the divine anger inoperative,
and so to abolish it ; in this instance, as is so commonly seen in
language, the limitation falls out of notice, and kipper signifies
to abolish simply. Let it be noted that the effect ascribed to
kipper is either forgiveness of sins (Lev. iv. 28, 31, 35, v. 10,
13, 16, 18, 26; Num. xv. 28, etc.), or removal of uncleanness,
e.g. Lev. xii. 7, 8.
2. It may be weU to mention the verbs gaal (pNJ) and
padhah (n"!!), and their several substantive forms, which, in
their sacrificial connections, we have invariably translated by
redeem or ransom, or their derivatives. Both these verbs
appear from theU usage, as weU as etymology, to signify
primarily to release, as from subjection, adversity, iniquity; and,
secondarUy, the sacrificial sense, to release by the payment of
an equivalent value. " To redeem " was to obtain release by the
presentation of an equivalent gift; a "redemption" was the
release so obtained, and sometimes the gift by which release
was obtained.

B. — The Hellenistic Equivalents of the Hebeew Saceificial
Terminology.
Having now completed our survey of the Hebrew sacrificial
terminology, it behoves us, in order to obtain a basis for the'
comparison of the sacrificial language of the New Testament
with that of the Old, to ascertain what Greek words were con
sidered by the translators of the Septuagint as equivalent to
the Hebrew, and thus build up a sacred Greek temunology.
Now, immediately we open the Septuagint, it is evident how
difficult a task in this respect was that of the interpreters;
Language appUed with a minute exactitude to the ritual of a
monotheistic and exclusive faith was to be rendered by a
phraseology, the whole associations of which were with an
utterly alien faith, at once polytheistic and heathenish. To
convey the injunctions of the ceremonial worship of Jehovah,
the only words eligible had been used for ages in connection
with the rites and temples of Chronos and Dionysos, Zeus
and Aphrodite I The inevitable result foUowed. There was a

HELLENISTIC EQUIVALENTS OF SACRIFICLAL TERMINOLOGY. 487
loss of precision, and a consequent confusion of ideas in the
Hebrew mind perfectly distinct. Leaving out of the question
the heathen notions of expiation and sacrifice which the Greek
words, from their literary and popular employment, would
inevitably suggest, the Septuagint bears abundant witness to
this loss of precision. Ka^Tao/ta, originally signifying, for
example, the fruits which were offered to Demeter at the
Eleusinia or Thesmophora, has come in the Septuagint to stand
now for a fire-offering, and now for a holocaust. Aupov, which
Homer could employ to describe the offering Hecuba bore to
Athene, does duty for minchah, qorban, nedher, and todhor. @va!a
is the synonym sometimes oi festal-offering, sometimes of burnt-
offering, sometimes oi fire-offering, and sometimes of offering in
general. Perhaps the most vivid sense of the almost insuperable
difficulty under which a Greek translator laboured, wUl be given
by a perusal on the part of the reader of the extant translations
from the Hebrew of Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila, which,
since the laborious restoration from the quotations of Patristic
writers effected by Montfaucon, may be seen side by side with
the Septuagint in Origen's Hexapla. Nevertheless, instead of
showing astonishment and regret at the laxity of the Greek
version, we ought rather to be amazed that, by means of the
devices open to translators, — by paraphrase, by coining new
words, by the adaptation of words already in use, which are
etymologicaUy similar or simUar by custom, by giving as equi
valents words of wider or more restricted meaning, — the Seventy
contrived to render as weU as they did the sacrificial language
of the Pentateuch. The difficulty of translation has been
strongly insisted on, because mutatis mutandis a paraUel diffi
culty is met with in any English translation.
For the sake of expediting and facUitating our subsequent
progress, a bird's-eye view of the sacrificial terminology of the
Septuagint is appended.
1. Olah, burnt-offering or holocaust, is variously translated.
Its common equivalents are words expressly coined for the
purpose by composition with SXog, — ^viz., oXoxairw/ia, oXoxauruaig,
iXoxdp'irufii.a, and oXoxdpvusi;. On the principle of rendering a
specific by a generic word, xdpiria/ia, x.dp'?rueig, and 6vaia are occa
sionaUy used. By an adaptation of a word which never has such
a meaning in classical Greek, olah is once rendered by am<popd.
(Ps. L 21).
2. Shelamim, peace-offering, is rendered paraphrastically by-
means of eurripiov in some connection, such as 6v//,ct, eur^piov, 6\ieia
eurripiov, Svgia a'heaias etarfjpiov, and TeT^ilusie ^ou eur^piou. Once it
is rendered by aurfipm alone. Trommius, in his Concordantice

488 APPENDIX.
in Septuaginta Interpretes, gives cXoTiadrmi/.a, gurripiou as thrice
occurring ; but, apart from the a priori improbabUity of such a
reading, recent manuscript investigations have shown these
readings of the Codex Alexandrinus to be erroneous. The
varieties of shelamim are rendered by 6ue!a alvisius, lu^ri, and
ixoidiov. 3. Chattath, sin-offering, is once rendered by dyvie/ict, once
by i^iXaeiioi, once by dp.d,pTniJ,oL, twice by aywir/Aos, but commonly,
adapting the Hebrew idiom to the Greek, by aiiaprla.
, 4. Asham, trespass-offering, becomes, by substituting a more
generic idea, iXae/j,6g and xa6apig/^6g, each once. It is occa
sionally given by paraphrase as tA. mpl (or ump) ayvoia;, and
TO Ttjs ^deavos. By mistranslation or confusion of ideas,
asham is twice rendered by dfi,apT'ia, the other two cases men
tioned by Trommius being erroneous references, due to his
oversight of the manifest inversion of phrase. Commonly,
after the Hebrew analogy, asham is rendered by irXri/jii/iiXeioi.,
and hence twice by vXri/i/isXTifia, and once by vXrip./ji.sXri6i(.
5. Minchah has a variety of synonyms, the translators
apparently thinking it advisable to particularize its several
meanings. For meal-offering they used Susia as,ij.idaXi(as, and
sometimes es,u.iSaXi; alone ; or, neglecting the differentia alto
gether, they used hata, 6valae/j.a, or that singular adoption from
the Hebrew word itself, p,amd. For minchah, bloodless sacri
fices, the common word is ^\ieia ; and, in books later than the
Pentateuch, fLamd occasionaUy : once -rpoa^opd is used. Qvgla, is
also the adopted equivalent of minchah when it signifies blood--
sacrifice. Minchah in its most general sacrificial sense is
rendered by 6tjgla or dupov; and in its signification of gift from
man to man, by hupov, sometimes also by ^swoi/ and /j-amd. It is
noteworthy that the phrase tsevach uminchah, which in Hebrew
is a summary for sacrifices of aU kinds, is translated m Isa. xix..
20 by the single word hgia.
6. Nesek is invariably gnvdrj.
7. Lshsheh seems to have given some trouble. Its common
synonym is xdpirui/ia, and once xdpwugts. Nine times it is trans
lated by Svgi'a. and once by 6vglagp,a,. In isolated passages it is
paraphrased by ret 6ugia,^of/,eva, itdwa roD mphg, {oi aproi) vpoxilfisvoi.
By the adaptation of a word of narrower import, ishsheh becomes
oXoxaiiToi/ia. ¦ 8. Qorban is dupov with one exception, when it is rendered by
,the verbal form btapiTrai.
9. Kipper is once rendered by a6mia, once by apln/Jii, and once
by iXeois ymp-ai. By a Umitation of idea, it is once translated
by iyxcL^cLpiZw, once by xaSapiH^ta, once by xaSaphg ylvofiai, and'

ON AZAZEL. 489
once by iripixadapl^u. By an enlargement of idea it is twice
rendered by a(paipsu and ayidt^u respectively. Thrice 'iXdgxo,u.a.i
is found as its synonym. But the common and frequent equiva
lent is s^iXdo/iai.
Kopher is rendered once by mpixd6upp.a, once by s^rkae/Lu,
twice by aXXay^a, and the remaining times by Xvrpov.
10. The various forms of gaal und padhah are rendered by
X\)Tp6u mostly, the substantive form being Xurpov, and occasionally
Xirpiiigis.

II.
ON AZAZEL.

In connection with the rites of the Day of Atonement, it is
said in the choice of the two goats that they were to be pre
sented before the door of the Tabernacle, and that Aaron was
to " give lots over them . . . one lot for Jehovah, and the other
lot for Azazel." It has been a matter of considerable con
troversy what is the significance of this word Azazel, which
occurs only four times in the Old Testament, and always in
connection with the ceremony of the Day of Atonement ; nor
can it be said that any tolerable unanimity of opinion has been
arrived at. With a leaning to the opinion that so marked an
opposition between Jehovah and Azazel implies that Azazel is
not only a person, but an antagonist of high rank in the spiritual
sphere, such as the Old Testament conception of Satan, the
author does not pretend to resolve the question, but simply to
give a brief summary of the considerable mass of investigations
relating to the subject. And even this he does not desire to
do de novo. In Fairbairn's Typology, Appendix II. in the second
volume, so able and clear an abstract of previous investigations
has been given, that the author recapitulates this abstract,
addmg however, in brackets, any further remarks he desires to
make. "The term Azazel," says Fairbairn, "which is four times
used in connection with the ceremony of the Day of Atone
ment, and nowhere else, is stiU a matter of controversy, and its
exact and determinate import is not to be pronounced on with
certainty." "1. One of the earliest opinions prevalent upon the subject
regards it as the name of the goat himself: Symmachus, rpdyog

490 APPENDIX.
ampyaiiivoi; Aquila, rpdyog dmXiXvfi/isvo;; Yulg.,hircus emissarius;
so also Theodoret, Cyril, Luther, Heine, Vater, [Bauer, Calov,
Godwyn] and the EngUsh translators, scapegoat. When taken
in this sense, it is understood to be compounded of az (rj?), a
goat, and azal (?TK), to send away. The chief objections are,
that az never occurs as a name for a buck or he-goat (in the
plural it is used as a general designation for goats, but in the
singular occurs elsewhere only as a name for a she-goat), and
that in Lev. xvi. 10 and 26, Azazel is expressly distinguished
from the goat, the one being said to he for the other. For these
reasons, this view is now almost entirely abandoned." [It
should be added, however, that this view, which has so many
weighty authorities in its favour, has been revived of late years
by one of the greatest authorities upon Old Testament theology,
Hofmann, who would translate the word in his Schriftbeweis
by Fernling. The one great obj ection, that Azazel is distinguished
from the goat, since the goat would thus seem to be described
as for the goat, Hofmann puts aside by the very pertinent
remark that it is the lot and not the goat which is described in
Leviticus as being for Jehovah and for Azazel. There is no
contradiction, whatever improbable conjunction there may be,
in saying, as the Authorized Version, for example, says, " one lot
for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat."]
" 2. It is the name of a place, either a precipitous mmmtain
in the wilderness to which the goat was led, and from which he
was thrown headlong, or a lonely region where he was left : so
Pseudo-Jonathan, Abenezra, Jarchi, Bochart, Deyling, Eeland,
Carpzov, [Vatablus, Lund, Clericus, Jahn.] The chief objection
to this view is, that it does not seem to accord with what is
said in verse 10: 'To let him go for Azazel into the wilder^
ness,' which would then mean, ' for a desert place into a desert
place.' "
" 3. It is the name of Satan or an evil spirit : so the LXX.
dmwop.'nccTo; (which does not mean ' the sent away,' the scape
goat, as most of the older interpreters took it, and as we are
StiU rather surprised to see it rendered by Sir J. Brenton in his
recent translation of the LXX., but ' the turner away,' ' the
averter.' See Gesenius, Thes. ; Kurtz, Mos. Opfer, p. 270). So
[the Book of Enoch], probably Josephus, Antiq. iii. x. 3,
[Origen], and many of the Eabbins. In the strongest and most
offensive sense this opinion was espoused by Spencer, Ammon,
EosenmiiUer, Gesenius, [von Colin, Meier, de Wette, George,
Eeinke], who all concur m holding that by Azazel is to be un
derstood what was caUed by the Eomans averruncus, a sort of
cacodaemon inhabiting the desert, and to be propitiated by

ON AZAZEL. 491
sacrifice, so that the evUs he had to inflict might be averted.
The opinion was first modified by Witsius (who is also sub
stantially followed by Meyer, Turretin, Alting, etc.) to indicate
Christ's relation to the devil, to whom He was given up to be
tried and vexed, but whom He overcame. And in recent times
it has been stUl further modified by Hengstenberg, who says
in his Christology, on Gen. iu. : ' The sending forth of the goat
was only a symboUcal transaction. By this act the kingdo'm
of darkness and its prince were renounced, and the sins to
which he had been tempted, and through which he had sought
to make the people at large or individuals among them his own,
were in a manner sent back to him; and the truth was ex
pressed in symbol, that he to whom God grants forgiveness
is freed from the power of evU.' The opinion has been still
further explained and vindicated by the learned author in his
Eg. and Books of Moses, where he supposes the action to carry
a reference to the practice so prevalent in Egypt of propi
tiating, in times especially of famine or trouble, the evil god
Typhon, who was regarded as pecuUarly delighting in the
desert. This reference he holds, however, not in the gross
sense of the goat being a sacrifice to the evU spirit ; for both
goats he considers to have been the Lord's, and this latter only
to have been given up by the Lord to the evil spirit, after the
forgiven sins were laid upon it, as indicating that that spirit
had in such a case no power to injure or destroy. Comp. Zech.
iii 1-5. Ewald, KeU, Vaihinger (in Herzog's Encycl.), [Wan
gemann, Sehultz, Knobel], concur substantially in the same
view." " 4. Many of the greatest scholars on the continent, Tho
luck first [in this Fairbairn is in error ; J. D. Michaelis stated
this years before Tholuck], then Steudel, Winer, Bahr, [Paulus,
PhUippson, Kiiper], take the word as the Pealpal form of azal
(?\V), to remove, with the omission of the last letter and the
putting in its place of an unchangeable vowel; so that the
meaning comes to be, for a complete removal or dismissal.
Kurtz hesitates between this view and that of Hengstenberg,
but in the result rather inclines to the latter. Certainly the
contrast presented respecting the destinations of the two goats
is best preserved by Hengstenberg's. But still, to bring Satan
into such prominence in a reUgious rite — to place him in a sort
of juxtaposition with Jehovah in any form — has an offensive
appearance, and derives no countenance from any other parts
of the Mosaic religion."
Fairbairn's own view is different from any of these. " To
have," he says, " the iniquities conveyed by a symboUcal action

492 APPENDIX.
into that desert and separate region, into a state of obUvion,
was manifestly the whole intention and design of the rite.
And why might not this condition of utter separateness or obli
vion, to render the truth symbolized more distinct and tangible,
be represented as a kind of existence, to whom God sent and
consigned over the forgiven iniquities of His people? Till
these iniquities were atoned for, they were in God's presence,
seen and manifest before Him ; but now, having been atoned.
He dismisses them by a symbolical bearer to the realms of the
ideal prince of separation and obUvion, that they may never
more appear among the Uving."

III.
ON THE JEWISH INTEEPEETATION OF ISAIAH LIII.
The author has no intention of defending at length the inter
pretation given of the prophecy of the suffering Servant of
Jehovah, but he is desirous of attracting notice to a most im
portant element of decision which has recently been promi
nently brought before the religious world by the researches of
a German theologian, viz. the fact that very many Jewish com
mentators themselves have seen in this prophecy an express
announcement of the sufferings of the Messiah. These re
searches were pubUshed in a brief tractate of 100 pages by Dr.
Wiinsche, entitled " Yissurey Hammashiach oder die Leiden des
Messias in ihrer Uebereinstimmung mit der Lehre des alten Tes
taments und den Ausspriichen der Babbinen in den Talmuden,
Midraschim, und andern alten rabbinischen Schriften" "The
Sufferings of the Messiah in their agreement with the Teaching
of the Old Testament and the Decisions of the Eabbis m the
Talmud, Midrash, and other ancient Eabbinic Writings." Those
who have not already perused this book wiU find in it not only
Germanic erudition, but erudition of a rare and exegeticaUy
important nature. A brief summary of the contents and some
translated extracts are appended.
Having said in his preface that modern Judaism and Chris
tendom know little of a Messiah at all, to say nothing of a
suffering Messiah : " There is no question of a suffering Mes-
sia,h, say both parties ; the Old Testament knows nothing of
such a person, nor do the writings of the ancient synagogue i
The suffering Messiah is a mere product of thought, a phantom

THE JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH LIII. 403
or a fog-spectre, which has had its origin in the morbid brain
of some loose thinkers of the post-Christian age," Dr. Wiinsche
asserts, on the contrary, that the ancient synagogue knew a
suffering Messiah, and that in the Talmud and Midrash the
suffering Messiah is a prominent figure ; and this assertion he
undertakes to substantiate by a number of authentic extracts
from the ancient rabbinic literature : " It will be our aim to
show . . . that the ancient synagogue never represented the
Messiah to itself otherwise than as suffering and offering Himself
for the sins of His people. To this end we shall adduce a
numerous selection of proof passages from the Talmud, the
Midrash, and a few other ancient rabbinic writings."
Dr. Wiinsche divides his investigation into two parts, the first
of which deals with comments upon the Old Testament state
ments, and the second of which shows by extracts " that the
ancient synagogue always recognised in its non-controversial
writings a suffering and dying Eedeemer." The first part he
again divided into two sections, in one of which he treats of the
biblical sacrifices as a symbolic and typical prophecy of a suf
fering and dying Messiah, and in the other of which he treats
of the Old Testament verbal prophecies of a suffering and
atoning Messiah ; in both sections iUustrating his point not
alone by an examination of the biblical statements, but by
an examination of the Jewish interpretations of those state
ments. Now, no more conclusive and interesting illustration
of Wiinsche's method can be found than his remarks upon the
53d of Isaiah, which we translate at some length.
Having shown by extracts that the principal non-Messianic
Jewish interpreters regard the Servant of Jehovah to be the
whole Jewish nation or individual holy men (as Eabbi Easchi,
Abenezra, Kimchi, Abarbanel, Lipmann, and Eabbi Isaak), or
else regard the Servant of Jehovah as a different person to the
Messiah (as did Abenezra and Abarbanel, and Eabbi Saadia
Gaon), Dr. Wiinsche proceeds to say that " all must have often
recognised that they were opposed in their interpretations to
the ancient synagogue : the ancient synagogue, cleaving to the
traditions of the fathers, and not yet concerned with contro
verting Christians, continuaUy referred this chapter to the
Messiah." "We give," he writes, "authentic passages in which this
meaning is found. In the first place, Jonathan— the Chaldee
paraphrast, if aUowance is made for a few distortions— has
already the Messianic interpretation. His paraphrase of cap.
Ui 13-15 is as foUows [we omit the Hebrew, and give a re-
translation of Wiinsche's German translation] : ' See, my Ser-

494 APPENDIX.
vant Messiah has prospered, has thriven, has increased and
become very strong. As the Israelites have long expected Him,
since their position dwindled among the nations, and their
briUiance was no more among the sons of men ; so wUl He
scatter many nations, kings wiU be dumbfoundered at His
presence, they will lay their hands upon their mouths when
they shaU see what had not been told them, and shaU take to
heart what they have not heard.' The sense of the paraphrase
before us is this : ' Israel, hard pushed by suffering and anxieties
in the exile, longs for the appearance of the Messiah, by whose
aid it wUl vanquish its enemies, who have no suspicion of the
state of the case.' The error of the translation Ues in this, that
what is said of the sufferings themselves is transferred by the
paraphrast to the people. The following passage suffers from
the same error (cap. liii. 1-3) : ' Who believes our report ?
And the strength of the arm of the might of Jehovah, to whom
is it now revealed ? And the Eighteous One {i.e. the IsraeUtish
people) grows strong before Him (that is, the Messiah). See,
like young shoots which sprout, and like a tree which sends its
roots to the brooks of water, so is the holy race increased in the
land which needed its own {i.e. the Messiah). His aspect is no
common one (profane), and His terror is no common terror, but
a holy glance is His glance, each one who looks upon Him
regards Him fuU of longing. Even if despised. He makes the
glory of all kingdoms to vanish, they become weak and mourn ;
He is as a man shaken by pains and troubles ; as He removes
the sight of His majesty from us, we are despised and lose
respect.' (Wiinsche continues the citation to the close of the
chapter, conclusively showing that the Chaldee paraphrast to
some extent held to the point at issue : " In spite of many per
versions," as he says, " the paraphrase of Jonathan regards the
Messiah as a Eedeemer and Atoner: He gives His soul to
death, and through His intercession represented the people
before God.")
" A very ancient witness which refers the Isaianic prophecy
to the Messiah, is the Midrash Tanchuma, which says : ' It is
the King Messiah, Who thrives, advances, and is very exalted ;
He thrives more than Abraham, is more exalted than Moses,
and more exalted than the ministering angels.'
" Abenezra and Abarbanel further expressly ratify in their
expositions the fact that the passage was appUed by their ances
tors to the Messiah. The former observes : ' Many apply the
section to the Messiah, because our ancestors have said that on
the same day on which the Temple should be destroyed the
Messiah would be born, and that He would be bound in chains.'

THE JEWISH INTEEPEETATION OF ISAIAH LIII. 49.5
The latter says : ' The first question is, of whom this prophecy
speaks ; for, behold, the wise men of the Nazarenes have applied
it to that man who was hanged in Jerusalem towards the end
of the second Temple, who was in their opinion the Son of the
ever-adorable God, and had assumed human nature in the bosom
of the Virgin, to adopt their form of expression ; and Jonathan
Ben Usiel has actiially expounded the prophecy of the coming
Messiah, and that is the opinion of the wise in many of their
Midrash.' "Also E. Moses Alshech (who lived in Palestine in the
middle of the sixteenth century) referred (cap. Ui 13-15) to
the Messiah, and to His lordship gained by suffering and woe ;
but chap. liii. applies, he thinks, either to Israel or to Moses.
But this ambiguity in the appUcation shows that the prophecy
had aroused considerable misgivings in his mind. The Messi
anic meaning attached to the three last verses of chap. Ui is as
follows (cap. lit. 13):' Behold, my Servant will act wisely, etc.
This prophecy is difficult to adapt, and to dovetaU with the
straightforward sense, so that its words may harmonize and its
thoughts correspond one with the other, and beginning and end
adjust themselves in an appropriate relation. And behold, I
have conceived interpretations which differ considerably from
one another, which do not agree throughout in their results,
and which in their detaUs considerably deviate from the evident
sense. And I, in my poverty, — what I have to say more is no
effluence of wisdom. I should come very short of that if it hap
pened that I accommodated the words to the evident sense which
I must choose, and bring into harmony the parts of speech and
conjunctions, and showed what was involved and what not.
My opinion is this : Behold, our wise men have unanimously
determined, and have received from tradition, that these words
refer to King Messiah. Therefore, also, have we followed their
example, that the Person of the prophecy is David the Messiah,
as is recognised, and the Scriptures themselves confirm, since
Ezekiel says, in the name of God : " And my Servant David
shall be King over them." Therefore, also, the saying is suit
able for him, " My Servant wUl do wisely," since what is dark is
learnt from what is clear. . . . Behold, He wUl do wisely, i.e.
my Servant wUl prosper. That is the King Messiah, since He
wiU do wisely, as it is said. And David did wisely in aU His
ways. And there are four worlds which surround us, — the
sublunary world, the angelic world, the steUar world, and the
higher world. He wiU prosper in aU these worlds, for He wiU
thrive in this world and wiU exalt himself above the steUar
world, as was the case with Joshua when he said. Sun, stand

496 APPENDIX.
stiU in Gibeon, and it was so. And He wiU exalt Himself above
the world of angels, since they also go at His bidding (comp.
1 Sam. xxii. 14). He wiU finally be very exalted, since He will
also thrive m the higher world before God, the ever-iadorable,
in accordance with what our Eabbis have said upon that verse
(Ps. ii. 8), Ask of me, since He wiU be like a beloved Son who
rejoices before His Lord, and His Lord says to Him, Ask of me.
Behold, this is His thriving in four worlds, spoken of here and
expressed by the four words — He thrives. He eosalts Himself, He
is extolled, and very high. AU four intertwine themselves, as has
been said.'
"Ver. 14. 'Truly, behold, our wise men have said that of all
the sufferings which have come into the world, a third has
fallen to David and the Fathers, a second third to the time of
the exile, and the third third to King Messiah. We now
expound according to the sense. There are punishments for
sin and punishments for love which the Eighteous One bears
for the sins of the generations. Therefore, in truth, the man is
astonished who does not know how far the gift of the recom
pense extends itself, and he says, Can it be the wUl of God, that
if a man sins or his whole genei?ation. He should be angry with
a perfectly righteous man, who has never sinned, and put on
him the sins of all evU-doers, so that these may rejoice, and the
righteous one may suffer pain ? ShaU the offender be fat and
strong, but he be plagued and smitten ? Shall they sometimes
delight themselves in his misery and ridicule his sufferings
with the wine of their feasts, whilst he is stUl smitten on their
behalf? In order now to reniove misgivmg at this contrast,
God comes, be it accidentaUy or designedly, and makes known
to them how far the merit of those extends who bear the
sufferings of the generation and exempUfy King Messiah, Who
carries the sins of the chUdren of Israel, and behold. His reward
is with Him (Isa. xl. 10). The meanmg is this : God, the ever-
adorable, holds converse with the Israelites with whom He has
already spoken until now, and said. Withdraw, withdraw, since
not in haste should you go forth ; and He speaks to them in
great love, as one speaks with his dear son, and says : Have I
not said that Jehovah would go before you, and that He who
gathers you is the God of Israel : and do you not wonder that
all your sin has been blotted out and abolished to the uttermost
by all this goodness ? Although we stUl deserve to wander
about in pain and to be compelled to buUd the Temple, as was
the case with the second Temple because of Cyrus ! But look
and see, how great is the might of Him Who be.ars the sins for
all generations ! For from the greatness which I wUl lend to

THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL IX. 497
the King Messiah, you cannot perceive how infinitely good are
the sufferings of love for those who bear them !' . . . Ver. 15.
As through His sufferings a fourfold honour is His, so will He
sprinkle many nations through the same with honour (as is
said, Isa. Ixui. 3) : And their juices shaU be sprinkled, i.e. their
blood, ' since they were before Him like the breach of waters '
(2 Sam. V. 20). ' Even so great shaU His works be in the eyes
of the nations.'
" From the 53d chapter we extract simply the passage, ver. 1,
since in it the Messianic reference of Alshech is yet more
clearly set forth : ' And over whom is the arm of the Lord re
vealed, as it is revealed over Him ? For although the arm of
Jehovah rested upon Moses in the Eed Sea, stUl it . was only
revealed to the Lord of the sea ; but now, over whom has it
been so universaUy revealed as over the King Messiah ? '
"FinaUy, there yet remains one witness which refers the 53d
of Isaiah to the Messiah. It is a prayer of the synagogue
which is offered every year by pious Jews at the Passover.
The order of words is as foUows : ' Hasten our redemption,
my Beloved, before the end of the vision draws nigh; haste,
since the shadows flee away. He wiU be prosperous and high,
and very exalted, although He is now despised; He will
do wisely, and punish and sprinkle many.' In this prayer there
are three verses of our prophecy recognisable at a glance, viz.
Isa. Iii 13, liii 3, and UU. 13. David Levi, an English Jew,
writes as a comment in his edition of the Massora, 'that this
prayer appUes to the true Messiah,' and the Amsterdam edition
does the same. How is it possible that in prayer to the
Almighty a passage of the Old Testament can be appUed to the
Messiah, and in controversy with Christians the fact be denied ?
There is only one escape possible; either the prophet treats
m his prophecy of the Messiah, or he is speaking of another
person. But in the latter case the prophecy is stiU unfulfilled."

IV.
ON THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL IX.
It is doubtful whether any portion of Scripture has been the
subject of a keener controversy than the seventy weeks of the
prophecy of Daniel. Nor is such a controversy inexpUcable,

498 APPENDIX.
for it becomes a stone of stumbling to aU varieties of interpre
tations, rationalistic, critical, anti-prophetical, anti-inspirational.
If the exposition given in the text be conceded, there is an end
to the denial of a supernatural element in Scripture, whatever
be the form that denial has assumed. Not uninteUigibly,
therefore, a considerable Uterature has accumulated upon this
subject ; and the derided preacher who turned his hour-glass
for the third time as he announced to his audience the sixty-
seventh exposition of the weeks of Daniel, was considerably
beneath the mark. In fact, several most erudite inquiries have
been undertaken into the mere history of the question; and
curious students wUl find much interesting matter concerning
the interpretations advanced during the Patristic Age in an
article by Professor Eeusch of Bonn in the Tiibingen Theolo
gische Quartalschrift, 1868, p. 535, etc., concerning the inter
pretations in the Middle Ages in the well-known Bihlia
Illustrata of Abraham Calov, and concerning the interpretations
of more modern times in Havernick's Commentar 'tiher Daniel,
or in an able article in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken
for 1863, p. 497, etc.
The several interpretations may be roughly placed in four
classes, — first, those which find the seventieth week not in the
life of Christ, but in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes;
secondly, those who find the seventieth week in the years of
the pubUc ministry of Christ ; thirdly, those who find it in the
second advent of Christ ; and, fourthly, those who combine the
first and third, and see a historical reference to Antiochus and
a typical reference to the second advent. The first view,
advocated so long ago as the fifth century by Julius HUari-
anus, has been ably expounded and defended by the leading
rationalist divines of Germany, most conspicuous amongst these
being Eichhom, von Lengerke, Bertholdt, Ewald, and especiaUy
Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, 1850; and Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen
und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel, 1839. The inves
tigations of the second class — the most popular and continuous
of aU the investigations, being advocated by a distinguished
succession of great exegetes from the earliest days of the
Church until now — have become famiUar to English inquirers
by several emment recent works, — e.g.. Dr. Pusey's Daniel the
Prophet ; and the translations of Auberlen's and Hengstenberg's
great works : Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel (T. & T.
Clark), and Hengstenberg's Christology (T. & T. Clark) ; if to
these Havernick's Commentar iiber Daniel be added, the best
that has been said from this side wiU be known. The opinions
of the third class, which see in this prophecy an eschatological

THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL IX. 499
reference to the history of the kingdom of heaven from the
days of Daniel to the second coming, have been clearly and
fuUy expounded by Keil, Biblischer Gommxntar, Daniel (trans
lated in Foreign Theological Library), and KUefoth, Commentar
ilber Daniel. The fourth class, which apparently partakes of
the nature of a compromise between the subjective and objec
tive schools of Biblical Theology, has been most carefuUy stated
by Delitzsch in his article upon Daniel in Herzog, vol. iii, and
by Hofmann in his several works.
It needs scarcely be added that the view declared for in the
text, is that which has upon its side not only the great weight
of authority, but also the unparaUeled evidence of manifest
divine adaptation ; and be it noted that, concerning this view,
the words of Havernick are not extravagant when he says, speak
ing of the exegetical opinions of the Church until within the last
hundred years: "It was generaUy conceded, notwithstanding
aU minor differences as to the detaUs of this prophecy, that the
central meaning of the seventy weeks was to be sought in the
life of Christ ; and the diversities in the interpretation of details
may aU be reduced to those that flow from three sources — a
difference in the starting-point, a difference in the chronology
of the life of Jesus, a difference in the chronological methods
selected by the various commentators as a basis."

INDEX.

-PASSAGES OF SCEIPTUEE EEFEEEED TO.

Genes

IS.

ii. 17, .

. 317

iii. i.

. 317

iii. 15, .

. 52

iv. 3, 5, .

. 479

viii. 20, .

43; 47

viii. 21, .

310, 409

xii. 7, 8, .

43, 47

xiii. 1, .

. 474

xiii. 4, .

. 43

xiii. 8, .

. 47

xiii. 18, .

. 47

xiv. 18, .

. 47

xix. 28, .

. 474

xxi. 33, .

. 43

xxii. 1-14,

. 47

xxii. 2, .

. 43

xxii. 7, .

. 43

xxii. 18, .

. 52

xxvi. 25,

43, 47

xxviii. 10,

. 43

xxxi. 54,

43, 46

xxxii. 13,

. 479

xxxii. 21,

483, 485

xxxiii. 20,

43, 47

xxxv. 1, .

. 43

xxxv. 2, .

. 47

xxxv. 17,

. 47

xlvi. 1, .

43, 46

xlix. 10,

. 52

EXOE

us.

i. 10, .

. 474

ii. 16, .

. 47

iii. 1,

. 47

iii. 5, .

. 71

iii. 6,

. 163

xii.,

61, 83

xii. 48, .

. 84

.xiii. 3-10,

. 83

xiii. 12, .

. 70

XV. 30, .

. 82

xix. 5, .

. 181

xix. 5, 6,
xix. 7, .
xix. 10, .
xix. 15, .
xxi. 30, .
xxiii. 15,
xxiii. 16,
xxiii. 19,
xxiv. ,
xxiv. 8, .
xxiv. 9, 10,
xxiv. 10,
xxv. 8, .
xxv. 9, .
xxv.-xxvii., .
xxvi. 18-23, .
xxvi. 32, 37, .
xxvi. 36,
xxvii. 20, 21, .
xxvii. 21,
xxviii. 40,
xxviii. 42,
xxix. 1-17,
xxix. 18,
xxix. 21,
xxix. 42-45, .
xxx. 7, 8,
xxx. 10, .
xxx. 10-16,
xxx. 16, .
xxx. 34-38, .
xxxii. 25,
xxxii. 30,
xxxiv. 10, 11,
xxxiv. 18-21, .
xxxiv. 20,
xxxv. 20-29, .
xxxv. -xxxviii.,
xxxvi. 25-27,
xxxvi. 34,
xxxviii. 21,
xxxix. 27,
xxxix. 28,
xxxix. 3^,

PAGE
169, 282 93 7572
275 482 83
82, 9061
276, 277, 439182116

70,

7065 65
116
65, 7082907171 70
409, 481
214 90
82
483 140483 82
182 140 181 83
482 82 6565
116 907171 90

xl. 12-15,
xl. 32, .

PAGE 70
482

Leviticus. . 76
.3, . . . 142
.5, . . .77
.9, . . 310, 409
. 10, . . . 481
. 13, . 310, 409
.. 14, . . . 481
17, . 310, 409
. 479
' . 133
. 70
. 78
. 481
. 75
. 481
79, 146
. 214

ii. 13,
ii. 14,
iii., .
iii. 1, 2,
iii. 2,
iii. 3,
iv.,iv. 6,
iv. 13,
iv. 14, 23
iv. 17,
iv. 20,
iv. 22,
iv. 23, 28
iv. 24,
iv. 26,
iv. 28, 31
iv. 29,
iv. 33,
iv. 35,
iv. v.,
V. 1,
V. 1-13.
V. 5,

V. 7, 18,
V. 9,
V. 10, 13
V. 11,
V. 12,
V. 13,

28,

35,

16,

104142214

104481 75
483486 7575
481, 483, 484 476
105, 214, 273, 477146143 142129214 486

25, 30, 34,

18, 26,

81, 133 481484

502

INDEX OF TEXTS.

V. 14,
V. 15,
V. 17,
V. 18,
V. 26,
vi. 1-7,
vi. 3,
vi. 7,
vL 13,
vi. 25,
vii. 3, 5,
vii. 11-36
vii. 12,
viL 13,
¦vii. 14,
vii. 16,
vii. 1 8,
vii. 20, 21,
vii. 38,
viii. 1,
viiL l-3f
viii. 2,
viii. 26,
viii. 28,
ix. 2, 3,
ix. 11,
ix. 19,
ix. 24,
X. 9,
X. 11,
X. 16-20,
xi. 19-24,
xii. 1-8, .
xii. 7, 8,
xiv!'?, 16, 27,
xiv. 12, .
xiv. 22, .
XV. 1-15,
XV. 15, .
XV. 16, 17,
XV. 18, .
XV. 19-24,
XV. 25-30,
IV. 30, .
xvi.,
xvi. 1, .
xvi. 3, 5,
xvi. 4, .
xvi. 10, 26,
xvi. 14, 15, 19
xvi. 21, .
xvi. 26, 28,
xvi. 29, 30,
xvii. 3, 5,
xvii. 5, .
xvii. 8, .
xvii. 10, .
xvii. 11, .
xvii. 16, .

51

100,

FACE 80
104214
104, 483 483
80, 146 71
483126 80
409 7878
481481142
273 72
481
214 70
476 34
481476482 34
35, 126
71, 142 69
142 7374
486 75
214478476 75
476 737373 75
476 84
482476 116
490
,214
124, 136 73
142 65
482 77
214
125, 147
214, 273

xvii. 16, 30, 34,
xviii. 19,
xix. 8, .
xix. 20, 22,
XX. 18, .
XX. 19, .
XX. 20, .
xxi. 1-4,
xxi. 5, .
xxi. 7, .
xxi. 16-24,
xxi. 17, .
xxii. 3, .
xxii. 8, .
xxii. 9, .
xxii. 14, .
xxii. 18, 25,
xxii. 22, .
xxii. 27, .
xxiii., xxiii. 4-8,
xxiii. 13,
xxiii. 15-21,
xxiii. 17, 29, 33,
xxiii. 34-43,
xxiv. 5-9,
xxiv. 7, .
xxiv. 7-9,
xxiv. 14,
xxiv. 15,
xxvii. , .
xxvii. 9, 11,
xxvii. 26,
xxvii. 30-33,
xxvii. 31-33,
Numbers
iii. 28, .
iii. 47-51,
iv. 1-49,
iv. 5,
V. 7, .
v.- 31, .
vi. 12, .
vi. 14, .
viii. 5, 22, 23,
viii. 7, .
viii. 10, .
viii. 19, .
ix. 1-14,
ix. 7, 13,
ix. 13, .
X. 10, .
xiv. 32, .
xiv. 33, .
xiv. 34, .
XV.,
XV. 3, .
XV. 10, .
XV. 17-21,

PA6£ 146 73
72, 73
478 73
214273 7171 7170
482482 71
273 104 77
481481106 83
481 83
142 8382
435481 123
214, 273 82
481 70
82 69

26,

. 65
. 82
. 69
. 69
142, 143
. 273
. 478
. 482 69
. 214
. 123
. 485
. 83
. 481
214, 273
. 435
. 214
. 273
. 214
. 77
. 78
. 48
. 142

XV. 22, .
XV. 27-31,
XV. 28, .
xvi.,xvi. 39, .
xvi. 46, .
xvii. 11, .
xviii. 1-7,
xviii. 8-11,
xviii. 15, 17,
xviii. 21-32,
xviiL 22,
xviii. 26-28,
xix.,xix. 4, 18, 19,
xix. 7, .
xix. 7-22,
xix. 9-22,
xix. 17-19,
xxiv. 17,
XXV., xxv. 2, .
xxvii. 18,
xxviii. 2, '
xxviii. 16-25,
xxviii. 26-31,
xx-viii. xxix.,
xxix. 7, .
xxix. 12-38,
xxx. 16, .
xxxi. 48-54,
xxxi. 50,
xxxv. 11, 12,
xxxv. 11, 22,

21.

PAGE
. 104
. 104
. 486
. 182
. 67
140, 485
. 485
. 69
70, 82
. 70
69, 82
214, 273 7074
214 277
. 73
. 219
. 215
. 147
. 182
. 480
. 123
. 482
. 8383
. 476
. 142
. 83
. 214
82, 140
. 482
. 104,
. 104

Deutekonomy.
vi. 4, 5, .
vii. 6, .
X. 12, .
xi. 26, 28,
xii. 27, .
xiv. 2,
XV. 19, .
xvi. 1-8,
xvi. 9-12,
xvi. 13-16,
xvi. 16, ' .
xvii. 18, 19,
xviii. 15,
xxi. 8, . . 483,
xxiii. 10,
xxvi. 18,
xxviii. 58-60,
xxix. 1, .
xxix. 19-26,
xxix. 29,
xxx. 9-11,
xxx. 10, .
xxx. 24-26,
xxxi. 9-13,

143282143 181480282 70

83
482 169 147485 73
282
169 69
169 326 169169169

INDEX OF TEXTS.

503

xxxi. 10-13, .

83

2 Kings.

jfAuc;

Psalms.

tAlilS

xxxii. 43, . 483, 484

iii. 20, .

479

iv. 5, . . . 195

xxxiii. 10,

69

viii. 8, .

479

XV. 1, 2,

195

xii. 10, .
71
XX. 3,
194
Joshua.
xxv. 11,
193
L7,8, . .
181
1 Chronicles
xxvi. 6,
195
iii. 5, .
75
vii. 4-10,
192
xxvii. 6,
194
iii. 10, .
182
ix. 22, .
203
xl. 6,
196
iv. 10-14,
182
X. 2, . .
69
xl. 7,
479
V. 15, .
71
xvi. ,
192
xiii. 1,
193
vi..
182
xvi. 3, .
184
xliii. 3, 4
195
ix. 21, 27,
69
xvi. 29, .
479
L5,
194
xviii.,
182
x-vii..
184
1. 12-14,
195
XX. 3-9, .
104
xviii. 17,
184
L21,
487
xxii. 27, .
480
XX. 3-5, .
192
Ii. 1,
193
xxiv. 4-10,
70
xxi. 26, .
192
Ii. 16,
195
xxii.,
184
Ii. 17, 19
480
Judges.
xxiii. 30,
193
liv. 6,
193
ii. 11-19,
182
xxiv. 11-19, .
184
Ixiii. 1,
193
ii. 11-23,
183
xxviii., .
184
Ixvi. 13-15,
193
v., .
183
xxviii. 19,
203
Ixviii. 38,
194
vi..
183
Ixxiii. 38,
483
vi. 21, .
35
2 Chronicles
Ixxviii. 38,
485
vii.L27, .
72
V. 12, .
69
Ixxix. 9, .
483
xi..
183
V. 13, 14,
193
xcvi. 8, .
194
xiii. 16-20, .
203
vii. 1, . .3
5, 193
cvii. 21, 22,
194
xvi. 7, .
183
vii. 12, .
480
cxii. 2, .
479
xvii.-xxi..
183
xvii. 8, 9,
69
cxvi. 17, .
194
XX. 18-48,
143
xxix. 1, 5,
76
XX. 40, .
474
xxix. 31,
480
Peo-\'EKBS.
xxxi. 21,
193
ii. 18, . . . 317
1 Samuel.
iii. 9,
. 194
ii. 13, .
480
Esther.
V. 5i
. 317
ii. 18, .
72
viii. 15, .
116
vii. 27,
. 317
ii.-iv., .
183
X. 2,
. 317
xiii. 9-14,
184
Ezra.
xi. 4,
. 317
XV. 6,
76
i. 1,
217
xii. 29,
. 317
xxi. 5, .
72
iii. 10, 11,
188
xiv. 9,
. 194
xxii. 18, .
72
vi. 1-12,
217
XV. 8,
196, 480
xxvi. 19,
479
vi. 22, .
192
xvi. 6,
. 483
vii. 11-26,
218
xvi. 14,
. 485
2 Samuel.
ix. 8, .
217
xvii. 1,
. 196
V. 7,
184
xxi. 3,
. 196
V. 21, .
184
Nehemiah.
xxix. 18,
. 194
V. 24, .
116
i. 3,
217'
vi. 12-18,
184
ii. 3, 5, .
217
Ecclesiastes.
vi. 14, .
72
iii. 34, .
217
V. 1, . . • 480
vi. 16, .
184
iv. 1, .
217
vii..
184
vii. 4,
217
Song of Solomon.
viii. 6,
479
X. 24, .
188
iii. 10, . . . 116
viii. 14-18, .
184
X. 34, .
X. 35, .
82
482
iv. 3, . . . 116
1 Kings.
xi. 3, ' .
69 ¦
Isaiah.
viii. 62-64, .
xi. 4-13,
xii. 26-33, .
xii. 27, .
xiii. 1-6,
xiv. 12, 13, .
xviiL 29,
185185
'185 474
186186479
xiii. 31, . Job.
L 5, . .
xxiii. 3, .
xxxiv. 31,
xxxvi. 18,
824791
214 485
i. 11,
i. 22,
iv. 2-6,
viL 14-16
ix. 6-8,
X. 15,
xL,
)
4BU
116 211
211211131211
504

INDEX OF TEXTS.

PAGE

PAGE

PAGE
xii. ,
. 211
ix. 27, .
479
xi. 5,
308
xvi. 5, .
. 211
X. 1-3, . . .
217
XV. 4, .
^
317
xix. 16, .
. 131
XX. 18, .
,
316
xix. 21, .
. 479
Hosea.
XX. 28, .
274
315
xxv. 6-8,
. 211
iii. 4, . . .
480
xxiv. 1, .
,
410
xxv. 8, .
. 317
iii. 4, 5, .
208
xxvi. 26,
,
316
xxvi. 1, .
. 211
iv. 12-27,
206
xxvi. 28,
267,
276,
309,
xxvii. 13,
. 211
ix.i, . . .
480
315
xxviii. 16,
. 211
xxvi. 66,
,
.
317
xxviii. 18,
. 486
Joel.
xxix. 18, 19, .
. 211
i. 3, . . .
206
Mark.
xxxii. 1-3,
. 211
ii. 23, 28,
208
vii. 11, .
,
,
482
xxxii. 17-20, .
. 211
iii. 20, 21,
207
X. 45, .
,
.
274
xxxv..
. 211
xiii. 1, .
,
409
xliL 1-9,
. 211
Amos.
xiv. 24, .
267,
276
309
xlix. 6, 7,
. 212
V. 21-27,
206
xUx.-lvii.,
. 211
V. 22, .
474
Luke.
L5, 6, . .
. 212
viii. 4-7,
205
L 10, .
,
143
Iii. 13-liii., . 21
2, 492
ix. 11, 12,
209
ii. 26, .
,
,
316
liii. 4, 6,
. 274
ii. 30, .
.
310
liii. 5, 7,
. 278
Micah.
xxi. 5, 6, 20
•
410
liii. 12, , .
. 278
V. 2,
209'
xxiL 19, 20,
315
Ix. 17, ,
. 116.
xxii. 20,
267,
276
309
Ixi. 10, .
. 116
Nahum.
xxiii. 15, 22
,
317
i. 15, . . .
205
xxiv. 20,
.
317
Jeremiah.
xxiv. 46, 47,
.
315
iv. 4, . .
. 207
Habakkuk.
xviii. 2, .
. 483
ii. 18, 19,
206
John.
xviii. 23,
. 484
iii. 17, .
478
i. 1-19, .
.
296
xxiii. 6-8,
. 215
i. 14, .
306
xxxi. 30-34, . 21
6, 396
Zephaniah.
i. 29, 267,
273,
310
315
xxxi. 31-33, .
. 276
i. 7, . . .
207
ii. 19, .
.
306
xxxiii. 17, 18,
. 215
ii. 9-11, .
207
iii. 14-17,
.
315
xlviii. 15,
. 474
iii. 26, .
318
Iii. 12-23,
. 206
Haggai.
iv. 21-24,
,
410
i. 7, 10, .
205
iv. 32-34,
.
478
Lamentation
i.
L 8,
203
V. 24, .
318
i. 19, . .
. 195
ii. 3-9, .
207
vi. 37, 40,
410
ii. 6, . .
. 195
vL 51, .
.
315
iv. 5, . .
. 116
Zechariah.
viii. 4, 6,
320
iv. 6,
. 195
iii.,
220
viii. 51, .
318
iv. 7, 8, . .
195
iii. 1-5, .
vi. 9-15, .
491220
viii. 53, .
X. 11, 15, 18
316315
Ezekiel.
viii. 19, .
205
X. 17, 18,
322
xvi. 60-63,
215
ix. 9, .
205
xi. 4, .
.
316
xvii. 22-24, .
215
xi. 12-13,
219
xi. 25, .
318
xxiii. 36,
214
xii. 10, .
219
xi. 26, .
318
xxxvi. 23-25, .
215
xiii. 1, .
219
XV. 12, 13,
315
xxxviL 24-27,
215
xiii. 6, .
219
XX. 25, .
155
xl.-xlvi.,
203
xiv. 20, 21,
220
xL-xWii.,
205
Acts.
xlvi. 24, .
480
Malachi.
ii. 42, .
431
xlvii. 1-12, .
215
LIO, . . .
479
vii. 43, 44,
155
L 11, . . .
220
X. 43, .
.
315
Daniel.
ii. 7, 8, .
69
xiii. 38, 39,
.
315
V. 7, 16, 29, .
116
iii. 3, . . .
220
XX. 28, .
309
316
viii.,
216
xxii. 4, .
,
316
ix. 21, .
479
Matthew.
xxiii. 25,
155
ix. 24, .
483
viii. 3, . .
308
xxiii. 29,
317
ix. 24-27,
216
X. 21, .
.
316
xxv. 11, .
317
INDEX OF TEXTS.

505

PAGE
Romans.

vii. 6,

PAGE
. 293

XV. 12-33,

PAGE
. 294

i. 1-7, .

. 279

vu. 10, .

. 291, 318

XV. 57, . . 293, 294

L4,

. 292

vii. 11, .

. 317

i. 8,

. 280

viL 13, .

. 317

2 Corinthians.

i. 8-15, .

. 279

viL 14, .

. 291

L 9, 10, . . . 317

L 17, .

. 279, 290

vii. 17, .

. 291

L 21, . . . 408

i. 18-21, .

. 291

viL 18, 19,

. 291

ii. 15, . . . 409

i. 18-32, .

. 279

vii. 24, .

. 291

ii. 16, . . . 412

I 24, .

. 291

vii. 25, .

. 292

iii. 7, . . . 317

i. 28, .

. 291

viii. 1, .

. 293

iv. 10, . . . 294

i. 32, .

. 317

viii. 2, .

. 293

iv. 13, . . . 294

iL, .

. 279

viii. 2, 6,

. 317

V. 14, . . . 292

ii. 3, 7, 8,

. 290

viii. 3, .

162, 291, 292,

V. 14, 15, . . 315

ii. 12, .

. 291

293, 315

V. 17, . . . 412

ii. 15, .

. 279, 291

viii. 6, .

. 291, 294

V. 18, 19, . 292, 315

ii. 16, .

280, 291

viii. 7, .

. 291

V. 20, . . . 292

iii. 20, .

279, 291

viii. 8, .

. 291

V. 21, . 293, 315, 321

iii. 21-26,

. 279

viii. 9, .

. 397

vL 18, . . . 292

iii. 22-26,

. 411

viii. 10, .

. 291

viL 10, . . .317

iii. 24, .

. 290

viiL 11, .

292,. 293, 411

X. 6, 6, . . . 412

iii. 24, 25,

. 267

viii. 12, .

. 291

iii. 24-26,

. 315

viii. 13, .

. 293

Galatians.

iii. 25, .

309, 315

viii. 15, .

. 411, 412

L 4, . . 267, 315

iii. 26, .

. 293

viii. 18, .

. 294

iL 16, . . . 411

iiL 28, .

293, 411

viii. 24, .

. 317, -412

ii. 17, . . . 411

iv. 8, 27,

. 293

viii. 29, .

. 292

iL 20, 293, 294, 315,

iv. 16, .

. 290

viii. 32, .

. 315

411

iv. 16, 24,

. 411

viii. 32, 33,

. 293

iii. 13, . . 293, 315

iv. 25, .

. 315

viii. 34, .

. 292, 462

iii. 22, - . . . 411

V. 2, .

280, 294

viii. 39, .

. 290

iii. 24, . . . 397

V. 6,

. 291, 292

xii..

. 413

iiL 26, . 411, 412

V. 6-10, .

. 315

xii. 1,

. 268, 408

iv. 3, . . . 291

V. 7, .

. 290

xiv. 17, .

. 294

iv. 4, . . . 292

V. 8, .

. 292

XV. 6,

. 292

V. 6, . . . 413

V. 8, 9, .

. 315

XV. 16, .

. 408

V. 26, . . . 293

V. 9, 267, 2i

1, 293, 309

xvi. 26, .

. 412

V. 11, .
. 267
Ephesians.
V. 12, .
. 318
1 COK]
nthians.
i. 6, 7, . . . 315
V. 12, 14, 17, 5
il, . 317
i. 4,
. 293
i. 7, . 267, 281, 309,
V. 14, .
. 156
i. 17, .
. 281
511, 315
V. 16, 18,
290, 291
i. 30,
292, 293, 315
i. 10, . . 27, 411
V. 17, .
291, 294
ii. 7, .
. 291
ii. 1,
. 411
V. 18, .
. 293
iii. 11, .
. 281
ii. 2, 3, .
. 291
V. 19, .
290, 292
iii. 16, .
. 409
ii. 4, .
. 290
V. 20, 21, 29
0, 294, 316
iii. 17, .
. 294
iL 5, .
. 293
V. 21, .
. 411
V. 7,
281, 310, 315
ii. 6, 8, .
. 290
vi. 2, 4, . .
. 293
vL 15, .
. 412
ii. 10, .
. 412
vL 8,
. 294
vi. 23, .
. 294
ii. 12, .
. 291
vL 10, .
. 293
vii. 18-24,
. ' .412
ii. 13, .
. 309
vi. 10, 16, 23,.
. 317
ix. 24, 25,
. 412
ii. 13, 18,
281, 412
vL 11, .
. 315
X. 3, .
. 412
ii. 16, .
. 315
vi. 12, .
. 294
X. 11, .
. 156
iii. 8,
. 293
vi. 13, .
. 412
X. 16, .
. 281, 309
iii. 11, .
. 291
vi. 16, .
291, 412
X. 21, .
. 431
iii. 19, .
. 294
vi. 17, .
. 165
xi. 25, .
. 309
iv. 1-4, .
. 412
vi. 19, .
. 291
xi. 26, 27,
. 309
iv. 18, .
. 291
vi. 21, 23,
. 318
xi. 29, .
. 431
iv. 20, .
. 294
vi. 22, 23, .
. 412
xiL,
. 412
iv. 22, .
. 291
vi. 23, .
291, 294
xiii. 13, .
. 412
iv. 24, .
. 293
vii. 5, 10, 13, 2
4, . 317
XV. 3, .
267, 292, 315
V. 2, . 28
1, 310, 315
506

INDEX OF TEXTS.

PAGE
V. 25, . . . 315
vi. 14-19, . . 412
Philippians.
i. 20, . . . 317
L 29, . . . 412
ii. 6, 7, . . . 292
ii. 17, . . . 409
ii. 21, . . . 316
iii. 3, . . . 412
iii. 9, . . . 412
iii. 17, . . . 166
iii. 21, . . . 294
iv. 5-8, . . .413
iv. 6, . . . 412
iv. 18, . . . 269

Colossians,
L 4, . .
L 13, 14,

L14,L 15, 17,
i. 20,
L 21, 22,
L27.ii. 13,
ii. 20,
iii. 3,
iii. 4,
iii. 5,
iiL 6,
iii. 10,
iii. 14,
iiL 17,
iii. 43,

. 293
. 315
267, 281, 309, 311
. 292
293, 309
267, 292
. 294
291, 293
. 293
293, 294
. 294
291, 412
. 290
. 293
. 412
. 412
. 412

1 Thessaloniaits.
L 7, . . . 156
292, 293

L 10,
iv. 14,
V. 9,
V. 10,
V. 18,
V. 23,

294
290, 316
292, 315
. 412
. 294

2 Thessalonians.
L 8, 9, 10, . . 290
iL 13, 14, . . 291
ii. 16, . . . 293

1 Timothy.

i. 3, . .

409

ii. 2, . . .

412

ii. 5, 6, .

315

JL 6, . 282, 310

311

iii. 9, . . .

409

iv. 10, .

292

2 Timothy.

L3,

409

PAGE
PAGE
L- 9, 10, .
. 291
x. 1-10, .
. 404
L 10, .
. 317
X. 2, . .
. 308
ii. 8,
. 292
X. 5-14, .
. 283
iL 22, .
. 409
X. 8-12, .
. 310
iv. 1, .
. 293
X. 10, .
X. 10-14,
. 315
. 315
Titus.
X. 11, 12,
. 268
i. 2,
.
. 291
X. 14, .
294, 308
ii. 11-15,
.
. 413
X. 17, .
. 398
ii. 13, 14,
. 315
X. 18, .
. 308
ii. 14,
282,
308, 311,
X. 19, .
309, 412
409
X. 19-21,
. 308
iii. 4,
. 292
X. 20, .
307, 439
iii. 5,
. 293
X. 21, .
X. 29, .
. 308
. 309
Philemon.
xi. 2, . .
. 294
iiL 21, .
•
. 294
xiL 2, .
xii. 24, .
. 294
. 283
HEBRBV7S.
xiii. 10, .
. 283
i. 3,
294, 308
xiii. 12, .
309, 315
iL 9,
294,
315, 317
xiii. 15, 16, .
268, 409
ii. 10, ' .
. 294
xiii. 20, .
. 309
iL 17, 283
294,
308, 315
iii. 1, ' .
283, 308
Jamf
s.
iii. 17, .
. 294
i. 15, .
. 317
iv. 6,
. 412
i. 27, .
407, 415
iv. 8-10, .
. 294
iL 1,
276, 414
iv. 14, .
283,
294, 308
iL 8,
. 414
iv. 15, .
294, 321
iL 14, .
. 414
V. 6,
. 308
u. 18, ¦
. 277
V. 7,
. 317
ii. 19, .
. 276
V. 9,
. 412
ii. 24, .
. 414
V. 10, .
. 308
iii. 2, .
. 277
V. 29, .
. 294
iii. 17, .
. 414
vi. 20, .
283, 308
iv. 8, .
408, 415
vii. 16, .
. 283
V. 1,
. 277
vii. 17, .
. 308
V. 13, 14,
. 415
vii. 21, .
. 308
V. 16, .
. 415
vii. 24-28,
283, 462
vii. 25, .
. 294
IPet
ER.
viL 26, .
308
310, 321
i. 1, 5, 13,
. 288
vii. 27, .
. 310
i. 2, . . 2*
J7, 289, 309
viiL 1, .
308, 462
i. 2, 5, 9, 20,
. 288
viii. 4, .
. 308
i. 9,
288
viii. 5, .
. 155
L 10, 11,
288
viii. 6, .
. 310
L 12, 21,
288
ix. 9,
. 150
i. 14,
289
ix. 11, .
307, 308
L 16, .
289
ix. 11-14,
. 283
L 18, .
311
ix. 12, .
310, 315
L 18, 19,
268
ix. 13, 14,
. 268
L 19, .
'. 289, 309
ix. 14, .
308, 309
i. 24, .
. 289
ix. 15,
. 315
ii. 5, . 26
8, 289, 408,-
ix. 24, .
. 307
414
ix. 24-26,
. 462
ii. 5-7, .
. 414
ix. 24-28,
. 310
ii. 6,
. 288
ix. 26, 27,
283, 315
ii. 9, . 2
89, 408, 414
ix. 27, .
. 315
iL 11, .
. 289
ix. 28, 309, 310, 315, 321
ii. 21, .
. 289
A. 1, .
.
. 397
iL 22, .
. 2J
9, 321
INDEX OF TEXTS.

507

PAGE
PAGE
PAGK
ii. 23,
,
,
.
278
ii. 12, .
. 411
ver. 24, .
. 408, 415
ii. 24,
278,
288,
289,
316
iL 15, 17,
295
vers. 24, 25,
. 277
ii. 25,
,
278
ii. 25, .
. 411
iii. 18,
,
278,
289,
316
ii. 29, .
. 295
Eevelation.
iv. 1,
.
289
iii. 1,
295, 411
L 5,
. 309
iv. 2,
289
iii. 2,
. 296
i. 5, 6, .
268, 316, 464
iv. 7,
,
414
iii. 5,
283,
295, 310,
iL 11, .
. 317
V. 1,
289
321
iv..
. 284
V. 3,
.
166
iii. 7,
. 295
v., .
. 284
V. 4,
•
•
289
iii. 9,
iii. 11,
. 411
. 411
V. 6,
V. 9, .
. 268
. 309, 315
2 Petee
iii. 14,
316
317, 318
V. 10, .
. 464
L 2,
.
.
290
iiL 16,
295, 315
vi. 9, .
. 307
i. 4,
289,
290
iii. 16, 17
» .
. 411
vii. 4,
. 307
i. 9,
290
408
iii. 22,
. 411
vii. 9, .
. 284
L 11,
,
290
iiL 23,
. 411
vii. 14, .
. 309, 315
L 16,
290
iv. 9,
. 295
viii. 3, .
. 307
ii. 1,
278
iv. 10,
282, 316
viii. 5, .
. 307
ii. 10-22.
290
iv. 16,
. 295
ix. 13, .
. 307
ii. 20,
290
iv. 17,
. 295
xL 1,
. 307
iii. 14,'
408
V. 2,
. 411
xi. 2, 19,
. 307
V. 4, 5,
. 411
xiL 11, .
284, 309
1 John.
V. 6,
283, 309
xiv. 8, .
. 307
L 1,
.
296
V. 8,.
. 309
xiv. 17, .
. 307
L 5,
295
V. 11, 13
,
. 411
XV. 5,
. 307
L7,
268
,283
309
,315
V. 12,
. 295
xvi. 7, .
. 307
L 7-9,
308
411
V. 16, 17
. 317
xviL 14, .
. 284
i. 9,
295
xix. 7-9,
. 284
L 17,
295
Jude.
xix. 13, .
. 309
L 18,
296
ver. 3,
'. 415
XX. 6, 14,
. 317
ii. 1,
294
464
ver. 4,
. 415
xxi. 3, ,
. 307
iL 1, 2,
411
424
ver. 5,
. 415
xxi. 22, .
. 307, 464
iL 2,
268,
282,
295,
ver. 11,
. 277
xxii. 1-3,
. 284
316
411
ver. 20,
. 415
xxiL 3, 4,
. 464
ii. 9, 10
,.
.
411
vers. 20,
21, ¦
. 415
INDEX OF SUBJECTS, NOTES, QUOTATIONS, ETC.

Small numbers (here placed in brackets) which precede the
nurribers of pages refer to notes.

Abaelard, theory of atonement, 341.
Abarbanel, on Isa. liii., 494.
 on origin of sacrifice, (2) 41.
Abel's sacrifice, congruity of theory
of, with later practice, (1) 41.
 divine recognition of, 35.
 eucharistic, 37.
 origin of, 39.
Abenezra, on Azazel, 490.
 on composition of laver, (3) 67.
 on Isa. liii. , 494.
Abraham, sacrificial revelation granted
to, 47.
Acacia, employment of, in Tabernacle,
65.
 symbolism of, 116.
Alford, on Blood of Covenant, (2) 276.
 on Petrine idea of salvation, (4)
288.
 . on significance of Petrine re
demption, (1) 278.
 on various readings of eucharistic
passages, (1) 276.
 on various readings of Col. i. 14,
(9) 281.
Allegorical theories of sacrifice, review
of, 223.
Allegorizing of Origen, 223.
Alshech, on Isa. liii., 495.
Altar, generally, 45, 117.
, Altar of burnt-offering, injunctions
concerning, 67.
 essential significance of, 92.
 symbolism of, 117.
Altar of incense, essential significance
of. 92. . „,
 injunctions concerning, 67.
Alting, on Azazel, 491.
Ambrose and doctrine of atonement,
325.

Amnion, on Azazel, 490.
Andrews, on paschal nature of eucha
rist, (2) 434.
Anointing oil of priesthood, (1) 72.
Anselm, quoted on exceptional nature
of Christ's death, 321.
 theory of atonement, 337.
ApoUonius Ehodius, on IXugT^fiov, (1)
280.
Aquila, on Azazel, 490.
Aquinas and doctrine of atonement,
(2) 340.
 quoted on method, 17.
Archer Butler quoted on typical sig
nificance of Mosaism, 166.
Ark of covenant, essential significance
of, 92.
 injunctions conceming, 68.
 symbolism of, 117.
Arminian theories of atonement,_343.
Arnold, Matthew, quoted on a time to
speak, 349.
Articles of Smalkald, on eucharist, 451.
Asham, Hellenistic equivalents of,
488.
 signiflcance of, 476.
 See Trespass-Offerings.
Aspersion of blood, antitype of, 423.
 general injunctions concerning,
126.
 symbolism of, 124.
Assimilation of Mosaic doctrine
effected by— divided monarchy in
IsraeL 185 ; divided monarchy in
Judah, 186 ; Ha^ographa and their
authors, 191 ; historical books of
Hagiographa, 191 ; Joshua, 182 ;
Judges, 182 ; Moses, 180 ; poetical
books of Hagiographa, 193 ; pro-
phejiical books, 206.

510

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Athanasius and doctrine of atonement,
336.
Atonement, apprehension of, aided by
doctrine of sacrifice, 24.
 day of, essential signiflcance of,
107.
 injunctions concerning, 84.
 symbolism of, 135.
 Mosaic, efficacy of, 146.
 essential significance of, 98, 482.
 extent of, 143.
 method of, 139.
 New Testament doctrine of,
biblico-theologioally considered, 314.
 dogmatically considered, 314.
 review of theories of. See Review
of
Atonement of New Testament anti-
typical of that of Old, 394.
Atonement of Old and New Testaments
compared, 393.
Auberlen, on seventy weeks, (3) 218,
498.
Augsburg Confession, deflnition of
sacrament, (2) 148, 428.
 quoted on eucharist, 451.
Augustine, quoted on Old Testament,
29.
 quoted on paradisaic sacriflce, 32.
 quoted on relation of Old Testa
ment to New, 266, 392.
Azazel, 84, 136, 489. .
Baehr, canon for the discovery of the
symbolic, 113.
.  contributions to the literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59, (1) 244 ; reviewed,
244.
 priesthood, (1) 69.
 purifications, (3) 72.
 sacrifices, (3) 76.
 ^ tabernacle, (1) 64.
 temple, (1) 185.
 times and seasons, (13) 82.
 on essential significance of purifi
cation, (1) 97.
 on essential significance of taber
nacle, (5) 65.
 on form of cherubim, (1) 68.
 . on inner covering of tabernacle,
(5) 65.
 on interpretation oi Azazel, 491.
 on interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 on nature of shesh, (3) 366.
¦  on nature of patriarchal sacriflce,
(1)48.
 on significance of waving, 131.
 quoted on study of Mosaic cultus,
88.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.

Basil the Great, doctrine of atonement,
335.
Bauer, on Azazel, 490.
Baumgarten, synonym of shelarfiim,
475.
Baur, quoted on Origen's theory of
atonement, 334.
Ben Gerson, on origin of sacrifice, (2)
41.
Bernard, doctrine of atonement, 335.
Bertholdt, on seventy weeks, 498.
Bible, apprehension of, aided by doc
trine of sacrifice, 21.
Biblical theology, nature and method
of, 18.
Biblico-theological theories of atone
ment, 314.
 Old Testament sacrifices, 244 ;
transition to, 233.
Bisligagah, intei-pretation of, 103.
Bleek, quoted on nabhi, 201.
Blemishes of sacrifices, (1) 77.
Blood, antitype of, 399, 419.
 essential significance of, 98.
 injunctions concerning, 73, 76.
 sacramental significance of, 1,46.
 symbolic significance of, 124,
140.
Bloodless sacrifices, essential signifi
cance of, 106.
 injunctions conceming, 81.
 symbolism of, 132.
Bochart, on Azazel, 490.
Boldich, contribution to literature of
priesthood, (1) 69.
Bossuet, quoted on significance of
Jesvs, 286.
Brass, employed in Tabernacle, 66.
 symbolism of, 116, 118.
Braun, contribution to literature bf
priesthood, (1) 69, (6) 71.
Bimsen, on interpretation of Lev. xvii.
11, (2) 100.
 on synonym of shelamim, 474.
Burnt-offering, antitype of, 425.
 essential significance of, 101.
 injunctions concerning, 76.
 . symbolism of, 130.
 synonym of olah, 474.
Bushnell, origin of sacrifice, (1) 42.
 quoted on connection between
Mosaism and Christianity, 404.
 quoted on nature of type, 160.
 quoted on Old Testament as a
language for New, 305.
 quoted on pre-Christian atone
ment, 138.
 theory of atonement, 362.
Butler, quoted on biblical study, 22,
35.
Buttmann, on iXarrxfiot, (1) 280.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

511

Buxtorf, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 69.
Byssus, what, (3) 66.
Cain's sacriflce, 35, 41.
Calov, contribution to literature of
seventy weeks, 498.
 on Azazel, 490.
Calvin, quoted on eucharist, 455.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
CaMnistic theory of eucharist, 466.
CampbelL M'Leod, theory of atone
ment, 349.
Canon for study of symbolism, 110.
Carlyle, quoted on symbolism, 110.
Carpzov, contribution to literature of
priesthood, (1) 69.
 on Azazel, 490.
Catechismus Major, quoted on eucha
rist, 461.
Celsus, quoted on experience as a source
of knowledge, 179.
Chagigah, 433.
Chattath, Hellenistic equivalents of,
488.
 signiflcance of, 476.
 See Sin-Offering.
Cherubim, form of, (1) 68.
 symbolism of, 116.
Cheyne, on yazzeh, (2) 213.
Chrysostom, interpretation of euclia-
ristia, (4) 431.
 on origin of sacrifice, (2) 41.
 (juoted on divine plan in Law, 67.
Classical sacrificial terms not ideutieal
with Hellenistic, 271.
Classification of theories of atonement,
328.
 eucharist, 440.
 Old Testament sacrifice, 221.
Cleansing. See Purification.
Clericus, on Azazel, 490.
 on yanzeh, (2) 213.
Clothing. See Vestments.
 of Levites, (8), 69.
Colours of Tabernacle, injunctions con
ceming, 66.
 symbolism of, 116.
Combustion, antitype of, 423.
 symbolism of, 126.
Concluding meal, symbolism of, 127.
Gonfessio Augustana, quoted on nature
of eucharist, 451.
 quoted on nature of sacrament,
428.
Gonfessio Orthodoxa, quoted on nature
of sacrament, 428.
Confession, "Westminster, quoted on
nature of eucharist, 45l.
 quoted on nature of sacrament,
428.

Connection between Old and New
Testament sacrifices, 304, 312, 393,
417.
Conisecration of priesthood, injunctions
concerning, 70.
 symbolism of, 119.
Contrast between prophets and apostles.
Corrective revelation granted to Abra
ham, 47.
Court of Tabernacle, essential signi
ficance of, 91.
 injunctions concerning, 66.
 symbolism of, 118.
Coverings of Tabemacle, 65.
Crawford, quoted on possibility of
doctrine of atonement, 326.
 quoted on revealed character of
atonement, 312.
 quoted on sacrificial terminology
borrowed from heathenism, 271.
Crell, contribution to literature of
atonement, (1) 333.
Cremation. See Combustion.
Cremer, on l>.a.irTripiov, (1) 280.
 scriptural conception of death, (1)
319.
Creuzer, quoted on symbol, 112.
"Criticism," referred to, 18, (1) 69,
168, (1) 183, (3) 209, 264.
Curcellseus, theory of atonement, 347.
Cyril, on Azaael, 490.
 on origin of sacriflce, (2) 41.
Dale, on nature of patriarchal sacrifice,
(1) 48.
 quoted on absence of subjective
side in Mosaism, 141.
 quoted on Mosaic ransoms, 275.
 quoted on linguistic use of Old
Testament, 306.
 theory of atonement, 376.
Davison, on incomprehensible nature
of type, 160.
 on origin of sacriflce, (2) 42.
 on reserve of Law, (2) 89.
 on silence of Mosaism as to its
own symbolism, 112.
 quoted on moral and predictive in
prophecy, (1) 204.
 quoted on prophecy, 89.
Day of atonement, essential signiflcance
of, 107.
 injunctions concerning, 84.
 symbolism of, 135.
Death, scriptural conception of, 316.
Deflnition of sacrifice, 26.
Delitzsch, labours in Old Testament
exegesis referred to, (6) 195.
 on imposition of hand, (1)
124.

512

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Delitzsch, on interpretation of Lev.
xvii. 11, (2) 100.
 on nature of patriarchal sacrifice,
(1) 49.
 on recognition of Abel's sacrifice,
(3) 35.
 on seventy weeks, 499.
 on significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106.
 on yazzeh, (2) 213.
 quoted on interpretation of types
in Christ, 160.
De Maistre, on combustion, (1) 127.
 quoted on sacrificial victims,
261.
Deutsch, quoted on effect of Exile,
188.
Development of Mosaic doctrine by
prophetical books, 209.
Development of patriarchal sacriflce,
44.
De Wette, contribution to literature of
atonement, (1) 100.
 on Azazel, 490.
 synonym of shelamim, iii.
Deyling, on Azazel, 490.
Diestel, on biblical method, (1) 19.
 . on yaazeh, (2) 213.
Difl'erence between sin and trespass-
offerings, (3) 80.
Difficulty in study of Mosaic sacrifice,
63.
^-^ pre-Mosaie sacriflce, 31.
Dion Chrysostom, on iXxi/Tifm, (1)
280.
Divided monarchy, assimilation during,
186.
Divine recognition of Abel's sacrifice,
35.
Division of Hagiographa, 190.
 of Mosaic injunctions, 63.
 of prophecy, 204.
 of subjects, 27.
 of theories of atonement, 328.
 of theories of eucharist, 440.
 of theories of sacrifice, 220.
Dorner, contribution to doctrine of
person of Christ, (2) 322.
 quoted on value of biblical theo
logy, 18.
Drechsler, on division of Isaiah, . (4)
209.
Drink-offering, essential signiflcance of,
106.
 injunctions conceming, 82.
 synonym of nesek, 478.
Duns Scotus, theory of atonement,
340.
Duties of priesthood in Mosaic times,
injunctions concerning, 70.
 symbolism of, 119.

Duties of priesthood, symbolism of, in
post-Mosaic times, (1) 70.
Ebrard, contribution to literature of
Mosaic sacriflce, (3) 76.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on interpretation of Lev. xviL 11,
(2) 100.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 synonym of shelamim, 475.
Ecce Homx), quoted on significance of
Lamb of God, 267.
Effects of work of Christ, 300.
Efficacy of Mosaic atonement, 146.
 New Testament atonement a
proof it is antitypical, 403.
Eichhom, on seventy weeks, 498.
 on yazzeh, (2) 213.
Emerson, quoted on great men, 188.
Ephod of priests and laity, (2) 72.
Epiphanius, quoted on sacrificial names
of Christ, 304.
Essays and Reviews, quoted on Jetrish
nation, 24.
 quoted on seculum rationalistieum,
233.
Essential significance of atonement, 98.
 bloodless offerings, 106.
 burnt-offering, 101.
 Mosaic injunctions generally, 88.
 peace-offering, 101.
 presentation, 98.
 priesthood, 93.
 purification, 95.
 tabernacle, 90.
 times and seasons, 106.
 trespass-offering, 105.
Eucharist instituted at Passover, (2)
443.
 in what sense sacrificial, 432.
 not an antitype of all sacrifices,
449.
 not a sacHJicium propitiatorium,
436, 445.
 review of theories of, 440.
Eusebius of Csesaiea, on origin of sacri
fice, (2) 41.
Ewald, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 69.
 of priesthood, (1) 69.
 of purifications, (3) 72.
 of sacrifices, (3) 76.
 of tabemacle, (1) 64.
 ; of times and seasons, (13) 82.
 labours in Old Testament exegesis
referred to, (6) 195.
 on Azazel, 491.
 on etymology of olah, 474.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on "the priest," (12) 71.
 on sacrifice of rest, 82.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

513

Ewald, on seventy weeks, 498.
 on significance of nabhi, (1) 201.
 on synonym of shelamim, 474.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 quoted on effect of Exile, 188.
 quoted on signiflcance of nabhi, (1)
201.
Exclusive atonement of Old and New
Testaments an argument for anti-
typical character of latter, 397.
Expiatory nature of patriarchal sacri
fice, (1) 48.
Explanation of Old Testament an
argument for antitypical nature of
New, 398.
Extent of Mosaic atonement, 143.
— jr- of New Testament atonement a
proof it is antitypical, 402.
Faber, on origin of sacriflce, (2) 42.
 on prophetic element in Mosaic
sacrifices, (1) 161.
 quoted on Mosaic symbolism. 111.
Fairbairn, canon for discovery of sym
bolic, 114.
 contributions to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 priesthood, (1) 69.
 purifications, (3) 72.
 sacrifices, (3) 76.
 tabemacle, (1) 64.
 times' and seasons, (13) 82.
 on Azazel, 489.
'  on expiatory nature of patriarchal
sacrifice, (1) 49.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 inner covering of tabemacle, (5) 65.
 interpretation of Lev. xviL 11, (2)
100.
 origin of Abel's sacrifice, (1) 39.
 recognition of Abel's sacrifice, (3)
35.
 signification of purification, (1)97.
 signification of trespass-offering,
(1) 106.
 quoted on asham, 80.
 nature of prophecy, 202.
 scriptural significance of type, 156.
 source of confusion between sin
and trespass-offerings, 477.
Farrar, on non -paschal nature of
eucharist, (2) 434.
Feasts. See Times and Seasons.
Festal-offering synonym of tsevach, -479.
Figurative use of sacrifices to describe
work of Christ, 304.
 work of man, 418.
Fire-offering synonym of ishsheh, 481.
First-fruits, essential significance of,
106.
 injunctions conceming, 8.^. 2

Folly of iniquitous observance of
Mosaic sacrifice exposed in poetical
books of Hagiographa, 194.
 iu prophetical books, 206.
Forgiveness of sins and Mosaic atone
ment, 145.
 and patriarchal atonement, 48.
Formula Concordice, quoted on eucha
rist, 451.
Friederich) contribution to literature of
Tabemacle, (1) 64.
 on inner covering of Tabernacle,
(5) 65. _
 on significance of Tabemacle, (1)
82.
Frommann, contribution to literature
of Johannine doctrine, (1) 287.
Fuel as a sacrifice, (7) 82.
Fulfilment of prophecy an argument for
antitypical nature of New Testament
atonement, 396.
Furniture of Tabernacle, essential sig
nificance of, 92.
 injunctions conceming, 67.
 symbolism of, 117.
Oaal, Hellepistic equivalent of, 489.
 significance of, 486.
General ritual of sacriflce, 125.
George, on Azazel, 490.
Gesenius, on Azazel, 490.
 on Exodus xxvi. 36, (6) 65.
 on ishsheh, 481.
 on Isa. xxviii. 18, 484.
 on synonym of shelamim, 474.
 on yajmeh, (2) 214.
Ginsburg, on paschal celebration, (1)
435.
Gnostic theory of atonement, 329.
Gnosticism, general view of, 329.
Godwyn, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 on Azaael, 490.
 quoted on study of Mosaism, 25.
Gold employed in tabernacle, 66.
 symbolism of, 116.
Gramberg, on significance of puriflca-
tion, (1) 97.
Greek Church on sacraments, 427.
Gregory the Great and the atonement,
335.
Gregory Nazianzen and the atonement,
336.
Grotius, on fat of firstlings, (2) 34.
 theory of atonement, 343.
Ground-plan of tabemacle, injunctions
concerning, 66.
 symbolism of, 116.
Habits of priesthood, injunctions con
cerning, 71.

514

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Habits, symbolism of, 119.
Hagiographa, division of, 190.
 what, 189.
Hagiographio conception of Mosaic
sacrifice, 189.
Hamilton, quotation from Lessiiig, 349.
Harless, on Eph. ii. 13, 18, (8) 281.
Hasaeus, contribution to literature on
shittim, (4) 65.
Havernick, contribution to literature of
seventy weeks, 498.
 on imposition of hand, (1)1 24.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 quoted on seventy weeks, 499.
Hebrews, testimony of Epistle to, to
sacrificial nature of work of Christ,
283.
Hegel, quoted on symbolism, 44.
Heine, on Azazel, 490.
Hellenistic sacrificial terms not to be
confounded with classical, 271.
Hendewerck, on yaazeh, (2) 213.
Hengstenberg, canon for discovery of
symbolic, 114.
 contributions to literature of
Mosaism, 251.
 of sacrifice, (3) 76.
 of tabernacle, (1) 64.
 labours in Old Testament exegesis
referred to, (6) 195.
 on Azazel, 491.
 on expiatory nature of patriarchal
sacrifices, 48.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 on Messianic conception of patri
archs, (7) 52.
 on seventy weeks, 498.
 on significance of Tabemacle, (1)
82.
 on significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106.
 quoted on apotheosis of sacriflce in
New Testament, 406.
 heaving and waving, 131.
 relation between sacrifice and
prayer, (1) 51.
 seventy weeks, 218.
 subjective accompaniment , of
Mosaic sacrifices, 143.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Hess, on sanitary purpose of Mosaism,
(3) 170.
Hesychius, on l>.xirTripiai, (1) 280.
High priest, essential significance of,
95.
 injunctions concerning, 71.
 symbolism of, 120.
 when appellation first used, (12)
7L

Hildebert of Tours, coiner of transub
stantiation, (1) 438.
Historical books in Jewish canon, (1)
280.
Hitzig, labours in Old Testament
exegesis referred to, (6) 195.
 on seventy weeks, 498.
 on ya/z/zeh, (2) 214.
Hofmann, contribution to literature of
Mosaic sacrifices, (1) 76.
 on Azazel, 490.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 on recognition of Abel's sacrifice,
(3) 35.
 on seventy weeks, 499.
 on significance of Petrine redemp
tion, (1) 278.
 OU significance of tabernacle, (1) 92.
 on synonym of shelamim, iii.
Holocaust. See Burnt-Offering.
Holy of Holies, essential significance of,
91.
 injunctions concerning, 66.
 symbolism of, 118.
Holy place, essential significance of, 91.-
 injunctions conceming, 66.
 symbolism of, 118.
Horns of altar, symbolism of, 117.
Hugo, St. "Victor, theory of atonement,
335.
Human sacriflces in New Testament,
407.
Hupfeld, contribution to literature of
times and seasons, (13) 82.
Huther, on significance of Petrine re
demption, (1) 278.
Ignoeantly, through ignorance, inter
pretation of, 103.
'IXxo'fi.os, signification of, (4) 282.
'ixacrifiov, signiflcation of, (1) 280.
Importance of inquiry for apprehension
of Bible, 21.
 Judaism, 23.
 atonemenj;, 24.
 sacerdotalism, 25.
Imposition of hand, antitype of, 423.
 etymological significance of, (2) 77.
 symbolism of, 123.
 various interpretations of, (1) 124.
Incense, essential significance of, 106.
 injunctions concerning, 82.
Iniquitous observance, consequences of,
exposed, by Hagiographa, 194.
 prophets, 205.
Injunctions, Mosaic, concerning blood
less sacrifices, 81.
 burnt-offerings, 76.
 incense, 81.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

51;

Mosaic, conceming

Injunctions, Le-vites, 68.
 peace-offering, 78.
 priests, 70.
 purifications, 72.
 shew-bread, 81.
 sin-offering, 79.
 Tabernacle, 64.
 times and seasons, 82.
 trespass-offering, 80.
 division of, 63.
Irenaeus on origin of sacrifice, (2) 41.
 quoted on diabolic reference of
atonement, (2) 334.
 quoted on sacrificial nature of
eucharist, 427.
Isaiah, unity of, assumed, (3) 209.
Isaianic office in doctrine of sacriflce,
209.
Ishsheh, Hellenistic equivalents of, 488.
— — signification of, 481.
Jacob, EabM, on paradisaic sacrifice, 33.
JAhn, on Azazel, 490.
¦James, doctrine of, on human sacrifice,
413.
 testimony to sacrificial nature of
work of Christ, 276.
Jarchi, on Azazel, 490.
Jesus, testimony to sacrificial nature of
His work, 274.
Jewish in-terpretation of Isa. liii., 492.
John, on the work of Christ, 296.
 doctrine of, on human sacrifice,
411.
 literature of doctrinal system of,
(1) 287.
 testimony to sacrificial nature of
work of Christ, 282.
John the Baptist, testimony to sacrifi
cial nature of work of Christ, 273.
Josephus, comparatively useless for
study of Mosaic sacrifices, 63.
 on Azazel, 490.
 significance of Tabernacle, (1) 92.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Joshua, assimilation of doctrine of sacri
fice effected in time of, 182.
JoVett, quoted on desirability of a
chronology of prophets, 200.
 on vagueness of word sacrifice, 26.
Judaism, apprehension of, aided by
doctrine of sacrifice, 23.
Jude, doctrine of, on human sacrifice,
413.
 testimony to sacrificial nature of
work of Christ, 276.
Judges, assimilation of doctrine of sacri
fice effected in times of, 182.
Julius Hilarianus, on seventy weeks,
498.

Justin Martyr, on origin of sacrifice, (2)
41.
 quoted on sacrificial nature of
prayers and thanksgiving, 417.
Kahnis, quoted on sacrificial blood,
125.
 signiflcance of atone, 139.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Kalil, 474.
Kalisch, canon for discovery of sym
bolic, 114.
 contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 69.
 priesthood, (1) 69.
 sacrifices, (3) 76.
 on expiatory nature of patriarchal
sacrifices, (1) 48.
 human sacrificing, (5) 47.
 imposition of hand, (1) 124.. .
 origin of sacrifice, 32.
 shechar, 81.
 meanings of hohen, (2) 93.
 verbal utterances accompanying
imposition of hand, (7) 143.
 place in study of Mosaism, 242.
 quoted on futility of typical expo
sition, 156, (5) 160.
 on north side, (2) 78.
 sacrificial blood, 125. '
 significance of Mosaism, 173.
Keil, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 priesthood, (1) 69.
.  purification, (3) 72.
 Tabemacle, (1) 64.
 Temple, (1) 185.
 times and seasons, (13) 82.
.  sacrifices, (3) 76.
 on Azazel, 490.
 . on expiatory nature of patriarchal
sacrifice, (1) 49.
 fat of firsstlings, (4) 34.
 form of cherubim, (1) 68.
 imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 inner covering of Tabernacle, (5)
65.
 interpretation of Lev. v. 1, (1)
273.
 interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11, (2)
100.
 nature of shesh, (3) 66.
 origin of sacrifice, (1) 42.
 seventy weeks, 498.
^ — significance of purification, (1) 97.
 signiflcance of Tabernacle, (1) 82.
 significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 quoted on religious value of
Chronicles, (1) 191.

)16

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Keil, synonym of shelamim, 474.
Kipper, Hellenistic equivalents of, 488.
 significance of, 482.
Klaiber, contribution to literature of
Mosaic sacrifices, (2) 76.
 quoted on scriptural conception
of death, 318.
Kliefoth, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 on paradisaic sacrifice, (2) 33.
 on seventy weeks, 499.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
Knobel, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 sacrifices, (3) 76.
 Tabemacle, (1) 64.
 labours in Old Testament exegesis
referred to, (6) 195.
 on Azazel, 491.
 imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 innerooveringof Tabemacle, (5) 66.
 interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 interpretation of nasa avono, (1)
273.
 significance of Tabernacle, (1) 82,
 sins of ignorance, 104.
 on various -views upon asham, (1)
477.
 yaazeh, (2) 213.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 quoted on sins of ignorance, 104.
 quoted on skin of sea-cow as a
covering for Tabernacle, (2) 66.
 synonym of shelamim, iii.
Kiiper, contribution to literjiture of
priesthood, (1) 69.
 of sacrifices, (3) 76.
 on Azazel, 491.
 on ephod of priests and laity, (2)
72.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106.
 on place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 quoted on nature of prophecy, 202.
 quoted on significance of atone
ment, 99.
Kurtz, contribution to literatm-e of
Mosaism, (1) 69.
 priesthood, (1) 69.
 purifications, (3) 72.
 sacrifices, (3) 76.
¦  Tabemacle, (1) 64.
 times and seasons, (13) 82.
 on Azazel, 490.
 expiatory nature of patriarchal
sacrifice, (1) 48.

Kurtz, on imposition of hand, (1)124.
 on inner covering of Tabernacle,
(5) 65.
 on interpretation of Lev. xviL 11,
(2) 100.
 on interpretation of Isa. xxviii.
18, 484.
 on significance of purification, (1)
97.
 Tabemacle, (1) 82.
 trespass-offering, (1) 106.
 place in study of Mosaism, 262.
 quoted on relative significance of
animals and plants as materials for
sacrifice, 133.
 on sacrificial meal, 127. -
 on significance of trespass-offer
ing, 476.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Landerer, on biblical method, (1) 19.
Leper, purification of, injunctions con
ceming, 75.
 symbolism of, 121.
Lessing, quotation on education of
human race, 258.
Levites, clothing of, (8) 69.
 injunctions conceming, 69.
Leyrer, contribution to literature of
purification, (3) 72. . ' ¦
 Tabemacle, (1) 64.
 times and seasons, (13) 82.
 on inner covering of Tabernacle,
(5) 66.
 on significance of purification, (1)
97.
Lightfoot, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 on expiatory nature of patriarchal
sacrifice, (1) 49.
 on girdle of priest, (10) 71.
 on Paschal celebration, (1) 435.
Limborch, theory of atonement, 346.
Literature of Mosaism, (1) 59.
Litton, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 on origin of sacriflce (2), 42.
 on symbolism as inferentially
known, 112.
 quoted on absence of prophecy in
types, 161.
 symbolical nature of ancient reli
gions, 164.
 ¦ symbolism of Mosaic sacrifices, 132.
 typical theories, 89.
Living water, what, (1) 74.
Lord's supper. See Eucharist.
Lowman, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 69.
 of priesthood, (1) 69.
 of Tabernacle, (1) 64.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

61^

Lowman, contribution to literature of
sacriflces, (3) 76.
 on indirect purpose of Mosaism,
170.
 place in study of Mosaism, 242.
 quoted in approval of Mosaism,
174.
Lowth, quoted on figurative use of
Mosaic cultus, 304.
 Messianic psalms, 198.
 ¦ religious aim of Mosaism, (1) 170.
Lubbock, quoted on evolutional nature
of sacrifice, 32.
Lund, on Azazel, 490.
Luther, Catechismus Major, on eucha
rist, 451.
 on Azaael, 490.
 on interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 on significance of Tabernacle, (1)
82.
 quoted on folly of typical inter
pretations, 156.
 synonym of shelamiim, 474.
Lutheran Church on nature of sacra
ment, 428.
Lutheran theory of eucharist, 460.
AuTfov. See Ransom.
M'CoSH, quoted on theological abuse
of word type, 155.
Magee, on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on origin of sacriflce, (2) 42.
 on patriarchal sacrifice, (1) 49.
 on "process of time," (3) 34.
 quoted on sacrificial nature of
work of Christ, 285.
 sins of ignorance, 104.
 Spencer's influence, 239.
Maimonides on origin of sacriflce, (2) 41.
 on significance of purification, (1)
97.
 Tabernacle, (1) 82.
 quoted on living water, (1) 74.
 sinning with a high hand, (6)
142.
Manipulation of blood. See Aspersion.
Marbach, contribution to literature of
Mosaic sacriflces, (3) 76.
Marsh, quoted on nature of type, 158.
Martensen, quoted on nature of eucha
rist, 452.
 nature of type, 157.
Materials of Tabernacle, injunctions
conceming, 65.
 symbolism of, 116.
Maur, synonym of slielamim, 474.
Maurer, on ya/zizeh, (2) 213.
Meal-offering, ) essential significance
Meat-offering, \ of, 106.
 injunctions concerning, 81.

Meat-offering, etc., symbolism of, 133.
 synonyms of minchah, ii?,, 479.
Mercy-seat. See Arh of Covenant.
Messianic and sacrificial teaching of
Old Testament united by prophecy,
209.
Messianic conceptions of patriarchal
age, 52.
 Hagiographa, 196.
 prophets, 207.
Method of investigation generaUy
stated, 18.
 in description of work of Christ,
linguistic and biblico-theological,
270, 272.
 in doctrine of atonement of
Christ, 313.
Method of Mosaic atonement, 139.
Method of New Testament atonement,
a proof it is antitypical, 402.
Michaelis, on Azaael, 491.
 on sanitary purpose of Mosaism,
(3) 170.
 on significance of combustion, (1)
127.
 puriflcation, (1) 97.
 symbolism of calves at Dan and
Bethel, (5) 185.
Midrash on Isa. liii., 492.
Milraan, quotedin approval of Mosaism,
173.
 on time of Judges, 182.
Minchah, HeUenistic equivalents of,
488.
 meaning of, (1) 34, 478, 479.
Minor purposes of Mosaism, 170.
Mishna Middoth, quoted on garments
of priesthood, 70.
Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch stated
by itself, (3) 169.
Mosaic sacrifice an advance upon patri
archal, 59.
Moses, assimUation of doctrine effected
in lifetime of, 180.
Nabhi, interpretation of, 201.
Nasa, interpretation of, (1) 214.
National conception of Mosaic sacrifice,
179.
Nature of Mosaic atonement, 139.
 of New Testament atonement a
proof it is antitypical, 401.
 of type, 154, 394.
 of work of Christ, 299.
Necessity of work of Christ, 297.
Neseh, HeUenistic equivalent of, 488.
 significance of, 478.
Nethinim, who, (2) 69.
Neumann, contribution to literature of
Tabernacle, (1) 64.
~ of sacrifice, (3) 76.

518

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Neumann, on imposition of hand,.(l)
124.
 on inner covering of Tabernacle,
(5)65.
 on origin of sacriflce, (1) 42.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 ¦ quoted on origin of sacriflce, 31.
 . synonym of shelamim, 475.
Newman, quoted on eternal priesthood
of Christ, 458, 464.
New Testament description of work of
Christ as sacrificial, 270.
 doctrine of atonement, 312.
 human sacrifice, 407.
 human sacrifice generaUy con
sidered, 265.
 non-transitional in time, 460.
 postulate of Old Testament, 460.
 projected into eternity, 462.
 work of Christ, 286.
 views of Judaism, an argument
for antitypical nature of New Testa
ment atonement, 397.
Nitzsch, quoted on nature of type, 158.
Nonnus, on Sxairr^piov, (1) 280.
Notes on —
Absence of thoroughgoing theory of
atonement before Anselm, 335.
Alford's view of Petrine salvation,
288.
Apparatus for sacrifice in Herodian
Temple, 77.
Assumed unity of Isaiah, 209.
Biblical method, 19.
Blemishes of ineligible -victims, 77.
Clothing of Levites, 69."
Congruity of theory of Abel's sacri
fice with later practice, 41.
Difference between sin and trespass
offering, 80.
Duties of priesthood in later times,
,70.
Editions of Spencer, 233.
Expiatory sacrifice in pre-Mosaic
times, 48.
"Fat of firstlings," 34.
Form of cherubim, 68.
Greek rendering of Ex. xxiv. 8, 438.
Historical books of Hebrew canon,
181. ¦
'IXafffios, 282.
' IKarrnpiov, 280.
Interpretation of John i. 29, 273.
 1 John i. 7, 282.
 Lev. xvii. 11, 100.
 nabhi, 201.
 nasa, 214.
 trespass-offering, 106.
 . yazzeh, 213.
Literature of apostolic doctrine, 287.
 bloodless sacriflce, 81.

Note? on —
Literature of Mosaism, 59.
 priesthood, 69.
 purification, 72.
 sacrifices, 76.
— ^— Socinianism, 333.
 Tabemacle, 64.
 Temple, 185.
 times and seasons, 82.
Living water, 74.
Minchah, 34.
Nature of shesh, 66.
Nethinim, 69.'
Non-dogmatic Christianity of Apos
toUc Father.?, 334.
Origin of sacrifice, 41.
Paschal nature of eucharist, 430.
Phrase, 1 Pet. i. 2, 277.
Position of flrst covering of Taber
nacle, 66.
" Process of time," 34.
Eabbinic interpretation of abstinence
from wine, 71.
Eecognition of Abel's sacrifice, 35.
Eelation of sacrifice to prayer, 51.
Eitual of peace-offering, 78.
Sacrificial interpretation of .Eph. ii.
13, 18, 281.
Shittim, 65, 116.
Textual criticism of phrase spoken at
the Last Supper, 276.
Translations adopted of poetical
books, 195.
Use of " redeemed" by Peter, 278.
Use of tsevach, 46.
Various interpretations of combus
tion, 127.
 imposition of hand, 124.
 priest, 93.
 purification, 97.
 Tabernacle, 92.
 views of Aquinas on atonement
of Christ, 340.
Word sacrament, 429.
Year of crucifixion, 219.
Oehler, contributions to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 . priesthood, (1) 69.
 purifications, (3) 72.
 sacrifices, (3) 76.
 Tabernacle, (1) 64.
 times and seasons, (13) 82.
 on biblical method, (1) 19.
 continuity of Scripture, (1) 23.
 expiatory nature of patnarchal
sacrifice, (1) 48.
 . form of cherubim, (1) 68.
 imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 interpretation of Lev. x-vii. 11,
(2) 100.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

519

Oehler, origin of sacrifice, (1) 42.
— - significance of nabhi, (1) 201.
 significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106. ^'
^  yazzeh, (2) .213.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.
 quoted on aspersion of blood in
sin-offering, 129.
 kingdom of Israel, 186.
 nature of prophecy, 202.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Oil, essential significance of, 106.
 injunctions concerning, 82.
Olah, Hellenistic equivalents of, 487.
 signiflcance of, 474.
— • — See Burnt-Offering.
Origen, aUegorical interpretation of
, Mosaic sacrifice, 223.
 foUowers of, 228.
 on Azazel, 490.
 on iuirieo and "hZpov, (1) 35.
Origin of sacrifice, 31.
 views upon, (2) 41.
Outram, contribution on literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 of priesthood, (1) 69.
 of sacrifices, (3) 76.
 of tabemacle, (1) 64.
 on anointing oU of priesthood,
- (1) 72. ¦
 on formula of confession accom
panying imposition of hand, 143.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 123.
 on origin of sacrifice, (2) 41.
 on relation between sacrifice and
prayer, (1) 61.
 place iu study of Mosaism, 240.
 quoted on distinction between
symbol and type, (2) 154, 159.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Owen, quoted on prefigurement of
Christ in ancient sacrifices, (1) 160.
 on times and seasons of patriar
chal sacriflces, (2) 46.
Padhah, HeUenistic equivalents of, 489.
 signiflcance of, 486.
Paradisaic sacriflce, 32.
Pascal, quoted on figurative nature of
Mosaism, 153.
 Jewish religion, 177.
Passover, essential significance of, 107.
 injunctions conceming, 83.
 transition to Mosaism, 60.
-Patriarchal doctrine, difficulties in
study of, 31.
 non-evolutional, 31.
Patriarchal sacrifice, and forgiveness of
sins, 48,
 and religious hfe, 53.
 development of, 44.

Patriarchal Sacrifice, expiatory nature
of, (1) 48.
 origin of, 32.
 summary of doctrine of, 53.
PaiU, literature of doctrinal system of,
(1) 287.
 on sacrifice of man, 411 .
 on sacrificial nature of work of
Christ, 278.
 work of Christ, 290.
Paulus, on Azazel, 491.
 yazneh, 'iii.
Payne Smith, quoted on Messianic
Psalms, 197.
 quoted on typical conception of
Old Testament, (2) 150.
Peace-offering, antitype of, 425.
 essential signiflcance of, 101.
 injunctions conceming, 78.
 symboUsm of, 130.
 synonym of shelaniim, 474.
Pentateuch, Mosaic authorship of,
stated in Scripture, (3) 169.
 unity of, assumed, 169.
 unity of, stated in Scripture, (2)
169.
Pentecost, injunctions concerning,
83.
Person of Christ, bibUcal conception
of, 322."
Peter, Uterature of doctrinal system of,
(1) 287.
 on sacriflce of man, 413.
 on sacrificial nature of work of
Christ, 277.
 on work of Christ, 288.
PhiUppson, on Azazel, 491.
PhUo, comparatively useless for shidy
of Mosaism, 63.
 • contributions to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
^— of Tabernacle, (1) 64.
 on position of Tabemacle in court,
(4) 66.
 on signiflcance of Tabemacle, (1)
92.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
 view on slaughtering by priests
erroneous, (3) 77.
Pliny, on dress of Egyptian priesthood,
(3) 66.
Prayer and sacrifice, relation between,
(1)5L
Prerequisites of priesthood, injunctions
conceming, 70.
 symbolism of, 119.
Presentation, essential significance of,
98.
 symbolism of nte of, 123.
Priesthood, antitypically considered,
419.

520

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Priesthood, duties of, in post-Mosaic
times, (1) 70.
 essential significance of, 93.
 injunctions conceming, 70.
¦  Uterature of, (1) 69.
 meaning of, 93.
 representation of work of Christ,
307.
 symbolism of, 119.
Primitive sacrifice, non-evolutional,
32.
PrivUeges of priesthood, injunctions
concerning, 70.
 symbolism of, 119.
Prophecy, coroUary from definition of,
202.
 di-vision of, 202.
¦  nature of, 201.
 sacrificial teaching of, 204.
 task of, in relation to sacrifice,
200, 204.
Ilpo^mm, signiflcation of, (1) 201.
Prophetic element in Mosaic sacrifice,
160.
Prophetic estimate of Mosaic sacrifice,
200.
 -writings aided assimUation, 204.
Pseudo- Jonathan, on Azazel, 490.
Purification, antitype of, 424.
 aqueous, 73.
 as figuratively descriptive of work
of Christ, 308.
 bloody, 74.
 essential significance of, 95.
 injunctions concerning, 72.
 Johannine conception of, (3) 282.
 literature of, (3) 72.
 national, 75.
 of dead, 74.
,  of leper, 75, 121.
 symbolism of, 121.
 various interpretations of, (1)-
Q1.
Pusey, on seventy weeks, 498;
Pye Smith, on Messianic conception of
Patriarchs, (7) 52.
 on origin of sacrifice, (2) 42.
 on person of Christ, (1) 323.
Qorban, HeUenistic equivalents of,
488.
 signification of, 481.
Rabbi Abarbanel, on origin of sacri
fice, (2) 41.
Rabbi Ben Gerson, (2) 41.
Rabbi Jacob, quoted on Paradisaic
sacrifice, 33.
Ea,bbinic formula of confession, 142.
 interpretation of asham, ill.
 interpretation of Azazd, 490.

Rabbinic interpretation of imposition
of hand, (1) 124.
 interpretation of Isa. UiL, 492.
 interpretation of priestiy absti
nence from wine, (5) 71.
 interpretation of Tabernacle, (1)
92.
 testimony to ritual of peace-offer-
ing, (4) 78. . .
Eacovian Catechism, contribution to
literature of atonement, (1) 333.
 Catechism, on nature of eucharist,
454.
Eansom, Hebrew synonyms of, 486.
 Mosaic injunctions concerning,
82..
 Petrine conception of, (1) 278.
Eecognition of Abel's sacriflce, 35.
Redemption. See Ransom,.
Eeinke, on Azazel, 490.
Eeland, contribution to Uterature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 on Azazel, 490.
 on blemishes of sacrificial victims,
(1) 77.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Eelation between prayer and sacrifice,
(1) 51.
 of Mosaic doctrine to religious
Ufe, 148.
 of Mosaic doctrine to forgiveness
of sins, 138.
 of patriarchal doctrine to reUgious
Ufe, 53.
 of patriarchal doctrine to remis
sion of sins, 48.
EeUgious life and Mosaic doctrine,
148.
 life and patriarchal doctrine, 53.
 satisfaction of Mosaism acknow
ledged in Hagiographa, 191, 193.
 in prophets, 205.
Eemission of sins and Mosaic doctrine,
138.
 of sins and patriarchal doctrine,
48.
Eenan, quoted on Semitic monotheism,
24.
Eest, as a sacrifice, 82.
Eeusch, contribution to literature of
seventy weeks, 498.
Eeuss, contribution to literature of
PauUne doctrine, (1) 287.
 on gospel and law, (1) 397.
Eevelation, testimony of Book of, to
sacrificial nature of work of Christ,
283.
Eeview of sacrificial theory of Bahr,
244.
 of sacrificial theory of " Criti..
cism," 254.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

521

Eeview of sacriflcial theory of Heng
stenberg, 251.
 of sacrificial theory of Kurtz, 252.
 of sacrificial theory of Lowman,
, 242/
— ¦— of sacrificial theory of Origen, 223.
 of sacrificial theory of Outram,
240.
 of sacrificial theory of Spencer,
233.
 of theory of eucharist of Cal-vin,
455.
¦  of theory of eucharist of Luther,
450.
 of theory of eucharist of Eome,
440.
 of theory of eucharist of Socinus,
454.
 of theory of eucharist of Zwingle,
453.
 of theory of atonement of Abaelard,
341.
 '- of theory of atonement of Anselm ,
337.
 of theory of atonement of Armi
nians, 343.
 of theory of atonement of Bush
nell, 362.
 of theory of atonement of Camp
bell, 349.
 of theory of atonement of Curcel
laeus, 346.
— — of theory of atonement of Dale,
376.
 of theory of atonement of Duns
Scotus, 340.
 of theory of atonement of Fathers,
333.
 oftheoryofatonementof Gnostics,
329.
 of theory of atonement of Grotius,
343. ¦
 of theory of atonement of Lim
borch, 346.
-^ — of theory of atonement of Unita
rians, 331.
Eeynolds, quoted on Lamb of God, 274.
Eiehm, contribution to Uterature of
trespass-offering, (2) 80.
 on significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106.
Eiggenbach, contribution to Uterature
of Tabernacle, (1) 64.
 on inner covering of Tabernacle,
(5) 65.
Eink, contribution to literature of
trespass-offering, (2) 80. _
 onsignificance of trespass-offering,
(1)106. „, , ,,,,„,
Eitschl, on imposition ot hand, (1) 124.
 place in study of Mosaism, 252.

Eitschl, quoted on Scriptural testimony
to sacrificial nature of Christ's work,
270.
Eitual, of sacrifice, antitypically con
sidered, 423.
 generally described, 125.
Eobertson, quoted on persistency of
truth, 440.
Robinson, quoted on fat-tailed sheep,
(3) 78.
Eoman Catechism, quoted on nature
of sacraments, 427.
Eomanist theory of eucharist, 440.
EosenmiiUer, on Azazel, 490.
 on yazaeh, (2) 213.
 on synonym of shelamim, 474.
Eiickert, on TertuUian's use of sacra
mentum, (1) 429.
SAALSCHfJTZ, on sanitary purpose of
Mosaism, (3) 170.
 on significance of purification, (1)
97.
Sabhal, interpretation of, (1) 214.
Sacerdotalism combated by doctrine
of sacrifice, 25.
Sacrament, confusion in Tridentine
definition of, 450.
 etymology of, (1) 429.
 nature of, 426.
 of Lord's Supper. See Eucharist.
 scriptural evidence upon, 431.
Sacramental nature of Eucharist, 438,
460, 464.
 Mosaic sacrifices, 138.
— - New Testament sacrifices, 428.
Sacrifice, antitypically considered, 419.
 completion of cycle of, 464.
 defined, 26, 481.
 figuratively descriptive of work of
Christ, 308.
 general ritual of Mosaic, 125.
 Uterature of Mosaic, (2) 76.
 New Testament doctrine of, gene
rally considered, 265.
 New Testament, non-transitional,
461.
 New Testament, postulate of Old
Testament, 460.
 New Testament, projected into
eternity, 462.
Sacriflce of Christ generally considered,
265.
 of covenant, 61.
 of eucharist, 432.
 of man generally considered, 268,
407.
 of man, sacramental, 428.
 of New and Old Covenants, 417.
 vagueness of term, 26.
Sacrificial feast, antitype of, 424.

522

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Sacrificial feasts, injunctions concern
ing, 78.
— — symbolism of, 131.
Sacrificiv/m propitiatorium, is the
eucharist such, 436, 445.
Sanitary purpose of Mosaism, 170.
Sartorius, contribution to literature of
sacramental significance of Mosaism,
(2) 148.
.  quoted on Paradisaic sacrifices, 33.
Saubert, contribution to literature of
priesthood, (1) 69.
Sohleiermacher, on bibUcal method, (1)
19.
Schleusner, on scriptural conception of
death, 319.
SchUchting, contribution to literature
of atonement, (1) 333.
Schmidt, quoted on Jude's conception
of faith, 415.
Schijberlein, on expiatory nature of
patriarchal sacrifice, (1) 49.
Sehultz, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 of priesthood, (1) 69.
 of sacrifice, (3) 76.
 of Tabernacle, (1) 64.
 of times and seasons, (13) 82.
 on Azazel, 491.
 . on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on relation between tabernacle
and synagogue, (15) 90.
Selden, contribiition to literature of
priesthood, (1) 69.
Septuagint as an interpreter, 271,
— ' — on Svffiu and "hupov, (1) 35.
 . on IXaffTVipiov, (1) 280.
 on interpretation of Lev. xvii. 11,
(2) 100.
 synonym ofshelamim, 474.
Seventy weeks of Daniel, 216, 497.
Shechar, 81.
Shedd, quoted on absence of dogma in
' Apostolic Fathers, (1) 334.
Shesh, what, (3) 66.
Shew-bread, essential significance of,
106.
 etymology of, 81.
 injunctions concerning, 81.
 symbolism of, 133.
Shittim, what, (4> 66, 116.
Silver, employed in tabernacle, 66.
 symboUsm of, 116.
Sinlessness of Jesus, scriptural concep
tion of, 320.
Sin-offering, antitype of, 424.
 essential significance of, 102.
 injunctions conceming, 79.
 not trespass-offering, (3) 80.
.  symbolism of, 1 28.
 synonym of chattath, 476.

ofof

Smalkald, Articles of, on eucharist, 451.
Socinian contribution to Uterature of
atonement, (1) 333. '
 theory of eucharist, 454.
Socinus, quoted on eucharist, 454.
Sommer, on significance of purification,
(1) 97.
Spencer, contribution to Uterature of
Mosaism, (1) 59, (1) 179.
 of purification, (3) 72.
 of sacrifices, (3) 76.
 editions of works, (2) 233.
 on Azazel, 490.
 on form of cherubim, (1) 68.
 on signification of purifying, (1)97.
 place in study of Mosaismj 233.
Spiritual sense of Origen, 224.
SpoUs as offerings, 82.
-^ — essential significance of, 106.
Stanley, quoted on aUegorical interpre
tations; 220.
 on Jews, 23.
Steudel, contribution to literature of
sacrifices, (3) 76.
 on Azazel, 491.
 quoted on subjective side
Mosaic sacrifice, (6) 143.
Stockl, contribution to Uterature
sacrifices, (3) 76.
 on imp.osition of hand, (1) 124.
Subjective side of sacriflce recognised
in Hagiographa, 192.
 in Law, 141.
^^  ^ in patriarchal age, 37, 45.
 in prophets, 206.
Summary of biblico-theological theories
of Old Testament sacrifice, 256.
 of essential significance of Mosaic
injunctions, 108.
 of human sacrifice under New and
Old Covenants, 430. , -
 of Mosaic injunctions, 85.
 of New Testament doctrine of
atonement, .324.
 of New' Testament doctrine of
atonement as compared with that of
Old, 404.
 of New Testament doctrine of
atonement, biblico-theologically con
sidered, 314.
 of New Testament doctrine of
human sacrifice, 415, 456.
 • of New Testament doctrine
human sacrifice as expressed in
sacriflcial language, 425.
¦ of New Testament doctrine of
sacriflce, 458.
 of sacramental significance
Mosaic injunctions, 150.
 of symbolic significance of sacri
ficial ritual, 137.

of

of

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

523

Summary of symbolic significance of
species of sacrifice, 138.
 of typical significance of Mosaic
injunctions, 166.
Sykes, on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
Symbolical significance of acacia, 116.
 of ark of covenant, 117.
 of aspersion of blood, 124.
 of bloodless sacrifices, 132.
 of brass, 116.
 of burnt-offerings, 130.
 of cherubim, 116.
 of colours, 116.
 of combustion, 126.
 of concluding meal, 127.
 of gold, 116.
 of ground plan, 116.
 of horns of altar, 117.
 of imposition of hand, 123.
 of Mosaic injunctions generally,
110.
 of peace-offerings, 130.
 of priesthood, 119.
 of purification, 121.
 of sUver, 116.
 of sin-offering, 128.
 of tabernacle, 115.
 of times and sea.sons, 134.
 of trespass-offering, 129.
Symbolism, canon for study of. 111.
 what, 110.
 where to be expected, 113.
Symmachus, on Azazel, 490.
Tabeenacle, antitype of, 419.
 essential significance of, 90.
 figuratively descriptive of work of
Christ, 306.
 injunctions conceming, 64.
 Uterature of, (1) 64.
 symboUsm of, 115.
 various interpretations of, (1) 92.
Tabernacles, Feast of, injunctions con
ceming, 83.
Talmud, comparatively useless in study
of Mosaism, 63.
 contributions to literature of
Mosaic sacriflces, (3) 76.
 on north side, (2) 78.
 on rite of waving, 131.
-^ — on Isa. luL, 492.
 on yazzeh, (2) 213.
 quoted on garments of priesthood,
(6) 70.
Task of prophecy in relation to Mosaic
sacriflce, 200, 204.
Taylor, quoted on'patriarchal age, 30. .
Temple, literature of, (1) 185.
Terminology of sacrifice in Hebrew and
Greek, 473.
Tertullian, on origin of sacrifice, (2) 41.

TertuUian, on sacramentum, (1) 429.
Thalhofer, contribution to Uterature of
bloodless sacrifices, 81.
Thenius, contribution to literature of
Temple, (1) 185.
 on yazzeh, (2) 213.
Theodoret, on origin of sacrifice, (2)
41.
 on Azazel, 490.
Theories, review of. See Review.
Theorj"-, equivocal use of word, 326.
Thirty-nine Articles, on nature of
sacrament, 428.
Tholuck, contribution to Uterature of
priesthood, (1) 69.
 of sacrifices, (3) 76.
 on Azaael, 491.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
 on Paradisaic sacrifice, 33.
 on significance of Tabernacle, (1)
82.
 place in study of Mosaism, 262.
 quoted on nature of type, 158.
 quoted on non-Mosaic nature of
division of law into moral and cere
monial, 143.
 quoted on paschal controversy,
433.
 quoted on significance of bloodless
offerings, 134.
 quoted on typical conception of
Old Testament, 150.
 quoted on varieties of doctrine,
325.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Thomson, on reddened ram's skin, 66.
 on imposition of hand, (1) 124.
Times and seasons, essential signifi
cance of, 108.
 injunctions concerning, 82.
 Uterature of, (13) 82.
 . symboUsm of, 134.
Tischendorf, on various readings of
eucharistic passages, (1) 276.
-^ — of text of Col. i. 14, (9) 281.
Tithes, essential significance of, 106.
 injunctions concerning, 69, 70,
82.
Transition to New Testament doctrine,
268.
Transitional nature of Mosaism an
nounced by itself, 161.
 ¦- by prophets, 207.
 an argument for antitypical
nature of "New Testament atone
ment, 395.
Trespass-offerings, antitype of, 424.
 essential significance of, 105.
 injunctions concerning, 80.
 not sin-offerings, (3) 80.
 symbolism of, 129.

524

INDEX OF SUBJECTS, ETC.

Trespass-offerings, synonym of asham,
476.
Tridentine canons and decrees, quoted
on eucharist, 440.
Tridentine CouncU, on nature of sacra
ment, 428.
Trinity, doctrine of, assumed, 313.
Tsevach, meaning of, (1) 46, 479.
Tsevach shelamim, 474.
Turretin, on Azaael, 491.
Tylor quoted on evolution, 32.
Type, nature of, (1) 154, 394.
 value of before and after anti
type, 169.
Types of New Testament doctrine, 272,
(1) 287.
Typical significance of Mosaic sacrifice,
153.
Ugolino, contribution to literature of
Mosaism, (1) 59.
 of priesthood, (1) 69, (6) 71.
 of purification, (3) 72.
 of Tabemacle, (1) 64.
Umbreit, on yazaeh, (2) 213.
Uncleanness. See Purification.
Undi-vided monarchy, assimilation of
doctrine during, 184.
Unitarian doctrine of atonement, 331.
Unity of Pentateuch, assumed, 168.
 stated in Scripture, (2) 169.
"Vaihinger, on Azaael, 490.
"Value of type before and after antitype,
159.
"Van Oosterzee, quoted on principles of
Mosaism, 168.
"Van Til, contribution to literature of
Tabernacle, (1) 64.
Varro, on sacramentum, (1) 429.
"Vatablus, on Azazel, 490.
"Vater, on Azazel, 490.
"Vestments of priesthood, essential sig
niflcance of, gift of, 106.
 injunctions concerning, 71.
 symbolism of, 119.
Veysie quoted on figurative nature of
Christ's death, 306. ,
Voluntary offering, Hebrew synonym
of, 476.
Von CbUn, on Azazel, 490.
Von Gerlach, on form of cherubim, (1)
68.
Von Lengerke, on seventy weeks, 498.
Votive offering, Hebrew synonym of,
476,

Vulgate, on interpretation of Lev. xviL
11, (2) 100.
Wangemann, contribution to literature
of Mosaism, (1) 59.
 of priesthood, (1) 69.
 of sacrifices, (S) 76.
 of times and seasons, (13) 82.
 on Azaael, 491.
 on significance of trespass-offering,
(1) 106, (1) 477.
Warburton, on nature of type, 168.
 on origin of sacrifice, (2) 41.
 on "process of time," (3) 34.
— — quoted on possibUi-ty of doctrine
of atonement, 326.
 quoted on sacrificial nature of
Christ's death, (1) 286.
Weiss, contribution to literature of
Petrine doctrine, (1) 287.
Westminster Confession, on nature of
. eucharist, 457.
 on na-ture of sacrament, 428.
Wieseler, on date of crucifixion, (1)
219.
 on seventy weeks, 498.
Winer, on Azaael, 491.
 on yaaaeh, (2) 213.
- — on Zwinglian theory of eucharist,
453.
 synonym of shelamim, 474.
Witsius, contribution to literature of
Tabernacle, (1) 64.
— — on Azazel, 490.
Wood-offering, essential significance of,
106.
 injunctions conceming, 82.
Work of Christ, as expressed in sacri
ficial language, 304.
 as illustrated by priesthood, 307.
 as illustrated by purifications,
308.
 as iUustiated by sacrifices, 308.
 as iUustrated by Tabemacle, 306.
 bibUco-theological doctrine of,
288.
 dogmatic doctrine of, 297.
 New Testament description of, as
sacrificial, 270.
— — New Testament doctrine of, 286.
Wiinsche, on Jewish interpretation of
Isa. UiL, 492.
Tazzeh, signification of, (2) 213.
Zwinglian theory of eucharist, 453.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

I In one volume 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
AN ENTIRELY NEW TRANSLATION.
"WITH COPIOUS MOTES, HISTORICAL AND EXPLANATORY, BT
Rev. J. G. PILKINGTON, M.A.,
Vioar of St. Mark's, West Hackney.
' "The notes are the most complete we have seen, and the general appearance and
getting-up of the volume are very superior to any edition now to be had, or, as far as we
know, ever published.' — Chwrch Bells.
' This edition is not a mere translation: the translator's notes are invaluable ; and, in
fact, without such notes, very much of the work would be unintelligible.' — Noncon
formist, ' The most edifying book in all the patristic literature. . . . Certainly no autobio
graphy is superior to it iu true humility, spiritual depth, and universal interest.' — Dr.
Schaff. In two volumes 8vo, price 21s.,
THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By Dp. G. F. OEHLER,
Professor of Theology in Tiibingen.
' Crowded with fresh and keen suggestions upon all the difficult topics which occur to
the student, a more timely and serviceable work has not appeared.' — Chwchman.
' A treatise of rare worth, where there are many precious thoughts finely expressed.'
— Bibliotheca Sacra. In crown 8vo, price 5s.,
VOICES OF THE PROPHETS.
Twelve Lectures Preached in the Chapel of Lincoln's Inn, in the Years
1870-74, on the Foundation of Bishop Warburton.
By EDWARD HAMILTON GIFFORD, D.D.,
Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Head Master of King Edward's
School, Birmingham ; Rector of Walgrave ; Honorary Canon of Worcester;
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
' A valuable addition to the literature of prophecy. It is fresh, clear, learned, and
interesting.' — Church Bells. 
In one volume 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
ST. AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY.
Translated by Rev. ARTHUR HADDAN, B.D.,
Hon. Canon of Worcester, and Eector of Barton-on-the-Heath.
' In giving this work to the English reader. Canon Haddan has left us another of
those rich legacies which endear his memory as a scholar and real divine.' — John BuU.
In one volume 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
ST. AUGUSTINE ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE ; THE ENCHffilDION (being
a Treatise on Faith, Hope, and Love) ; ON THE CATECHIZING
OF THE UNINSTRUCTED ; ON FAITH AND THE CREED.
TRANSLATED BT
Professor J. F. SHAW and Rev. S. D. SALMOND.
' A valuable book for the theologian. In the four treatises which it contains, he wiU
find, ready to hand, in a very excellent translation, the teaching of the great Augustine
on questions which are fermenting in the world of reUgious thought at the present
dav and challenge discussion at every turn. He will also meet with practical sug-
eestions so fresh in tone, and so directly to the point, that^they might have been the
Weas of a contemporary speaking in view of existing creeds.' — Church Bells.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In demy Swo, price 6*.,
THE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH.
A COMMENTARY, GRAMMATICAL AND CRITICAL,
UPON ISAIAH LM. 13-LIII. 12.
WITH DISSERTATIONS UPON THE AUTHORSHIP OP ISAIAH SL.-LXVL,
AND UPON THB MEANING OP EBED JEHOVAH.
Bt WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.,
Of Trinity College, Dublin ; Tutor in Hebrew, New College, London.
' This is a very able and seasonable contribution to biblical literature.' — Watchman.
' The commentary evinces the great ability, accurate and extensive scholarship, and
admirable judgment ot the author.' — Weelely Review.
,' We can sincerely congratulate the author on the learning and fidelity with which he
has executed his task.' — Record.
Recently published, in demy ivo, price 9«.,
A CHRONOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO
THE LIFE OF CHRIST.
By C. E. CASPARI.
TRANSLATED PROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, BY
M. J. -EVANS, B.A
EcbiseU bs tJjc ^utljor,
'The work is handy and well suited for the use of the student. It gives him, in very
reasonable compass and in well-digested forms, a great deal of information respecting
the dates and outward circumstances of our Lord's life, and materials for forming a
judgment upon the various disputed points arising out of them.' — Guardian.
' In this work the Author affords us the results of many-sided study on one of the most
important objects of theological inquiry, and on a knot of problems which have been so
often treated and which are of so complex a nature. The Author is unquestionably right
in supposing that the so-called outworks of the life of Jesus have their value, by no
means to be lightly esteemed. Their examination must be returned to ever afresh, until
the historic or unhistoric character of the substance of the gospel narrative has been
brought out as the result of scientific examination. ... In conclusion, wo believe we
can with full conviction characterize the whole work as a real gain to the scientific
literature of the question,. and a great advance on previous investigations ; not doubting
that the most important positions maintained by the Author will in all essential points
win the approbation of the student.' — Jahrhiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie.
' An excellent and devout work. We can strongly recommend it.' — Church Quarterly
Review. In crown 8t'o, Second Edition, price 4s. 6d,
AIDS TO THE STUDY
OF
GERMAN THEOLOGY.
By Rev. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., B.D.
' The Author has done his work well, and has given us a real help to the understanding
of German theology.' — Princeton Review.
'A work ot much labour and learning, giving in a small compass an intelligent review
of a very large subject.' — Spectator.
' An excellent and modest book, which may be heartily recommended.' — Academy.
' A helpful little volume : helpful to the student of German theology, and not less so
to the careful observer ot the tendencies of English religious thought'— Freeman.
' The writer or compiler deserves high praise for the clear manner iu which he has in
a brief compass stated these opinions.' — Christian Observer.

T. and X. Clark's Publications.

Second Edition, in crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
DAVID, THE KING OF ISRAEL:
A PORTRAIT DRAWN FROM BIBLE HISTORY AND THE BOOK
OF PSALMS.
By F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D.,
Author of ' Elijah the Tishbite.'
' This volume has all the characteristics of the Author's earlier productions : strict
orthodoxy, and earnest piety and a lively, figurative style.' — Roch.
At the close of two articles reviewing this work, the Christian Observer says : ' Our
space will not permit us to consider more at large this very interesting work, but we
cannot do less than cordially commend it to the attention of our readers. It affords
such an insight into King David's character as is nowhere else to be met with ; it is
therefore most instructive.
'This will be a pleasant household reading-book for many people.' — Literary Chwrch-

BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
in crown 8vo, Eighth Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR;
OR. MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE
SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
' A book which has reached its eighth edition needs no introduction to the reading
public. And yet the very circumstance ot its repeated publication entitles it to
popularity. There is a richness in these meditations which wins and warms the heart'
— Nonconformist. 'A book of inestimable value.' — John Bull.
' The reflections are of a pointed and practical character, and are eminently calculated
to inform the mind and improve tbe heart. To the devout and earnest Christian the
volume will be a treasure indeed.'— Wesleyan Times.

In crown 8110, price 7s. 6d.,
THE FOOTSTEPS OF CHRIST.
Translated from the German of A. GASPERS,
'A very interesting and instructive book. Its style is quaint and antithetic; it
abounds in bright thoughts, presents striking views of Scripture facts and doctrines,
and is altogether eminently fitted to refresh and edify believers.'— Fan»7y Treasury.
' There is much deeply experimental truth and precious spiritual love in Caspers' book.
I do not always agree with his theology, but I own myself much profited by his devout
utterances.'— Eev. C. H. Spuegeon. 
In crown 8vo, Third Edition, price bs.,
LIGHT FROM THE CROSS:
SERMONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD.
Translated from the German of A. THOLUCK, D.D.
' These sermons have already attained a third edition, and abound in passages calcu
lated to stir up the deepest feelings of devotion, and to awaken the most careless of siu-
sli souls.'— iSoc*-

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published. Second Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR;
Mtt5 JProgrtgfitbt ffij-frriStS in laeaKins anB OTriting.
Bt a. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, etc., in the New College, Edinburgh.
'WeU adapted for the instruction of College classes. The author has a firm grasp of
the principles of Hebrew Grammar, and his mode of treatment is, on the whole, clear
and correct.' — Guardian.
' This excellent little book supplies a want of which all who are interested in the
cultivation ot Hebrew studies by our students and ministers have long been painfully
conscious. ... As a system of Hebrew accidence, within the proper limits of the subject,
the book is characterized by great completeness as well as simplicity.' — British and
Foreign Evangelical Review. In crown 8vo, price 4s.,
PRINCIPLES OF NEW TESTAMENT
QUOTATION
Established and Applied to Biblical Science.
BY REV. JAMES SCOTT, M.A., B.D.
' This admirable treatise does not traverse in detail the forms and formulae of ITew
Testament quotation from the Old, nor enter with minuteness into the philological and
theological discussion arising around many groups of these quotations — the author con
fines his attention to the principles involved in them. . . . An interesting discussion
vindicating the method thus analyzed is followed by a very valuable snmmatiojL of the
argument in its bearing on the Canon, the originality of the Gospels, the internal unity
of Scripture, and the permanence of Eevelation.' — British Quarterly Review.
' In terse and well-ordered style the Author deals with a subject too little studied and
less understood. He shows himself to be, in the best sense of the word, rational in his
method and conclusions. . . . Strength, acuteness, sound judgment, andreason, chastened
by reverence, pervade this book, which, with pleasure, we commend to all students ot
Holy Scripture.' — Record. In two volumes 8vo, Subscription Price 14s.,
CALVINI INSTITUTIO CHRISTIAN/E RELIGIONIS.
CURAVIT A. THOLUCK.
Tholuck's edition of Calvin has been long very scarce, and the Publishers
have, with the Editor's consent, reprinted it carefully and elegantly. It con
tains Dr. Tholuck's chapter headings and very complete indices, and the text
has been carefully printed from the' very accurate edition contained in the
Corpus Reformatorum ; so that, in point of completeness and accuracy, it excels
any previous edition, and it is also exceedingly cheap.
' Printed from the most accurate edition of Calvin's great work, we are thankful to
welcome it in a shape so accessible to students, and so handy for use.' — British and
Foreign Evangelical Review.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02189 7922

^^^jp r

>- .^ iij .^ r .^ "^.^ .^ 1