But this doctrine was not allowed to spread unopposed. The more enlightened loaders of the Israelites, porceiving the fatal dangers in-separablo from such a view, began to combat it with every weapon of argument and eloquence. The Pentateuch relates that when Moses, after the sin of the golden calf, offered himself as a substitute for appeasing the Divine indignation, God replied, "Whoever has sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book";" and that when God, after the revolt of Korah and his associates, determined to visit the Israelites with general annihilation, Moses and Aaron "fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt Thou be wroth with all the congregation?" When a plague smote myriads of Israelites on account of David's supposed trespass in ordering a census of the people, the king exclaimed, "It is myself that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? Let Thy hand, I pray Thoc, o Lord my God, be upon me, and on my father's house, but not on Thy people that they should be visited by the plague." The Law enjoins the general rule "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children bo put to death for the fathers: overy man shall be put to death for his own sin"; 1o and this rule is confirmed by prophetic teachers, "The soul that sins, it shall die." The proceeding of David in delivering up Saul's descendants to the Gibeonites must be viewed as an act of injustifiable despotism probably suggested by political expediency;12 and the picture of the servant of God "who was stricken for the transgression of the people, and found his grave with the wicked, although he had done no violence and no deceit was in his mouth", this picture implies no approval, but the strongest denouncement of the impious treatment inflicted upon God's holy minister, most probably representing a class of zealous and publicspirited men, like Jeremiah, preaching and warning, oppressed, scorned, and even massacred: 13 these pious men did not take upon themselves the sufferings spontaneously; they remonstrated incessantly and most vehemontly against the criminal persecutions; and no thoughtful Israelite could expect happiness and blessing from godless cruelty porpotrated against the best and noblest of their generation, but foared tho direst retaliation from an incensed Doity.

11

10

Other ancient nations ontortained similar views with regard to

Petr. II. 21, 24; III. 18; 1 John I. 7; II. 2; IV. 10; Revel. I. 5; V. 9.

7 Exod. XXXII. 33; comp. Lev. XXVI. 39, 40. 8 Num. XVI. 22. 91 Chr. XXI. 17; 2 Sam. XXIV. 17. 10 Deut. XXIV. 16; comp. 2 Ki. XIV. 6.

11 Ezek. XVIII. 4; comp. vers. 1 sqq.; XXXIII. 12-20. 12 Sec ch. XXI. 13 We adhere to this acceptation of the "servant of God", for which the arguments will be given in the proper place.

substitution, though again significantly modified. It is true that not all their sacrifices bore the character of vicariousness; many were offered to express their gratitude for benefits enjoyed, or to implore a continuance of Divine favours, or to appease the anger of the gods in times of trial and danger. Yet we find indisputable instances of true substitution. In Egypt, at the great bull-offering in honour of Apis, the head of the animal was cut off, and then it was laden with imprecations by praying that "if any evil was impending either over those who sacrificed, or over universal Egypt, it might be made to fall upon that head"; in fact "these practices the imprecations on the head and the libations of wine prevailed all over Egypt, and extended to victims of all sorts, and hence the Egyptians would never eat the head of any animal." The seal with which the victims were marked by the Egyptian priests as duly qualified represented a kneeling man, with his hands tied to his back, and a sword put to his throat, which can hardly be interpreted otherwise than that tho animal sufforod death instead of the offeror who had deserved that ponalty. At Athens, a ram was sacrificed instead of the oldest mombor of the Athamantid family, who had forfeited his life on account of an ancient stain of blood resting on his house, but who was allowed to escape into another country. In fact, ancient writers supposed, that primitively mon were sacrificed, but were gradually replaced by animals, "the bodies of which they presented as offerings substituted for their own bodies." The curious custom which obtained in Syria, that the offerer kneeled on the hide of the lamb ho had sacrificed, and put the victim's head and foot upon his own head, evidently expressed that the man's death was averted by the victim which had died in his stead. And lastly, both private and public calamities were extensively believed to be averted by the sacrifice of a human being, whether the latter died by self-immolation or by the hand of a priest, as has been explained in another place. The Gauls especially held the belief that "unless the life of a man be surrendered for the life of another, the divine majesty of the immortal gods could not be propitiated." Whenever the town of Massilia was visited by an epidemic, a poor man who offered himself was for a complete year fed at the public expense in the best possible manner; aftor which he was decked with wreaths and holy garments, conducted round the town, and at last struck down with imprecations that the misfortunes of the community might fall upon him alone.

It is scarcely necessary to express an opinion on the philosophical or religious value of the principle of substitution -a principle which is derived from most imperfect conceptions both of sin and of the divine

1

attributes, and which is little different in dignity and truth, whether it refers to the vicarious death of an animal for a man, or of a man for a nation, or of a God for the human raco. It has indeed been assailed and rejected at all times. Cato observes with simplicity and common sense, "When thou art guilty thyself, why does the victim die for thee? It is folly to expect safety by the death of another." The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews declarod, "it is not possiblo that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins", without, however, perceiving how fatal the consistent application of this view is to his whole argument. Socinus declared that a beast cannot tako upon itself the punishment of man, because there exists between the one and the other no manner of community. Arnobius puts into the mouth of a sacrificial animal the following pathetic words, "Say, o Jupiter, or any other deity, is it right, and honest, and just withal, that if some one elso has sinned, I am killed, and that thou art satisfied by my blood, although I have never, whether consciously or unconsciously, offended thy majesty; for I am, as thou knowest, a dumb brute, following the simplicity of my nature, and unable to doceive by changoful and versatile artifices; otc."; and ho concludes an improssive appeal thus, "Is it then not savage, fierco, and ferocious, does it not appear to thee, o Jupiter, iniquitous and barbarous, that I should ho killed and slanghtorod to pacify thee, and to secure tho impunity of the wicked?" "Common senso will not allow us", observed John Taylor, “to imagine that sin, which can be truly imputed to the offender alone, whose alone it is, was over really transferred to another; much less to a brute altogether incapable of sin"; and he insisted with rising earnestness that "vicarious punishment seems to be a contradiction in terms; for as there cannot be a vicarious guilt, or as no one can be guilty instead of another, so there cannot be a vicarious punishment; ... punishment in its very nature connotes guilt in the subject which bears it"; and he had therefore recourse to the opinion that the victim presented the person of the offerer "in the symbolical, interpretative sense, to show him the demerit of sin in general, how he ought to slay the brute in himself, and devote his life and soul to God": many believe they have proved the non-existence of a doctrine in the Biblo when they have proved its unreasonableness or its fallacy; but impartial interpretation must study the conceptions of ancient times from their own sphere of thought, though it may judge them by the standard of absolute reason. Kurtz confessos that the idea of vicariou8 sufforing is "a conception contradictory to all human viows of justico",

1 Hebr. X. 4.

but approves of it in the sacrificial ritual, bocanso it is there "Divinely appointed" a distinction between human and Divino right suggested by despair, and tonding to a blind confusion of the notions of virtue and crime, of sense and folly.

Now the progress in the idea of atonement among the Hebrews may thus be sketched. At first that idea was confined to intentional offences, and especially to murder, the most heinous of all, which could be expiated only by the death of the murderer, sinco, "blood dofiles the land." For this reason an expiation was also required for a murder the perpetrator of which was unknown, and it was effected, with peculiar ceremonies, by the blood of an animal. In course of time, misfortune or misery commensurate with the sin was regarded as an atonement, 2 and a voluntary gift devoted to God or His service was looked upon as an instrument for averting dangers or for securing future success. 3 Then the Hebrews, advancing another step, adopted the belief that God could be induced to pardon offenders through the devotion and prayor of pious intorcessors, especially prophets: thus oxpiation was socured by the holy zeal of Phinchas which stayed a foarful postilonce and reconciled the people to God, and by the supplication of Job · who, though unjustly treated by his friends, had manfully upheld his innocence and vindicated the ways of God; it was expected through the mediation of Abraham and Moses, of Samuel and Elishah, of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others. On one occasion, monoy was received as an atonement; namely, when the consus was taken, every Israelito abovo twenty years of age gavo half a shekel the rich not more, the poor not less as "a ransom for his soul to the Lord, that thoro be no plague among them", whence the money itself was called "atonomont-money". At last religious education advanced sufficiently to require atonement even for inadvertent sins. For this purpose a fit symbol was sufficient; for no real guilt, impossible without intention, was to be expiated; it was only necessary to restore the holiness of the theocracy disturbed by the undesigned offence - a notion which, in the mean time, had been more fully worked out and practically acted upon such a symbol was partially the flesh of expiatory offorings consumed by the priests in the holy place, and more universally the blood

1 Deut. XXI. 1---8.

G

2 Isai. XXVII. 9; comp. XLIII. 3, 4. 3 Num. XXXI. 50; Job. XXXVI. 18; Prov. XIII. 8; Ps. XLIX. 8; comp. also Ex. XXI. 29, 30.

4 Num. XXV. 11-13; comp. Ps. CVI. 30, 31. 5 Job XIII. 8, 10.

8

5

of a victim put upon the altar or some other part of the Sanctuary; though in carlier times the burning of incense seems also to have been -employed as an emblom of atonement. 10

It is obvious that some of the means of propitiation just sketched, involve the idea of vicarious substitution but very remotely, others not at all; and the conclusion offers itself that indeed every expiatory sacrifice embodied the notion of vicarious suffering, but that expiation,. especially in remoter periods, was possible through other means besides sin-offerings.

In the course of these explanations, we have boon repeatedly led to touch upon the great Christian sacrifice, to which we shall now specially devote a few remarks suggested by an impartial and historical review of the subject.

XIX. THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE.

Ir is vain to assert that the Christian doctrine is in harmony with the teaching of the Pentateuch. The principle of vicarious atonement is indeed common to both. But the Law permits solely the substitution of animals, the New Testament asserts the vicarious suffering of one whom it conceives at once as a "perfect man" and "perfect God" itself a notion utterly unhebrew. The former rejects the idea of hereditary sin and punishment, as has above boon proved; whilo the latter considors tho transgrossion of tho first man to oxorciso a fatal effect upon all postority for ever, and to roquire atonoment by the blood of the son of God; "by ono man", doclaros the apostle Paul, "sin entered into the world, and death by sin; . . . death roigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression; ... through the offence of one many are dead." 12 The Messiah of the Old Testament, a man 13 and not created supernaturally, was not expected at all to work expiation of sins. The hopes of a deliverer were roused in times of public or political calamity; and as according to the commonly received law of rotaliation, the misfortuno was looked upon as the consequence of moral and religious depravity, so the rescue was deemed impossible without previous atonement through inward regeneration. 14 But this regeneration is nover, in the Old Tostament, represented as the work of the Messiah, but of the Hebrews

Comp. Lev. XVII. 11.

10 Comp. Num. XVII. 11, 12.

11 Deut.XXIV. 16 ("The fathers shall not be put to death for the children”, rtc.); see p. 195.

...

12 Rom. V. 12-15; comp. IX. 3. 13 Comp. Isai. VII. 14; XI. 1; Jer. XXIII. 5; XXXIII. 15.

14 Comp. Lev. XXVI.3—45; Isai. XL. 2; L. 1; P's. I; XXXIV. 12-23; XCI;