« הקודםהמשך »
gin of this rite, or any reason for which it was founded; nor show, unless loosely and unsatisfactorily, any purpose, which it could rationally be expected to answer : that all nations still hoped by means of their sacrifices to become acceptable, though they could not tell how, or why, to their Gods; and accordingly made the offering of sacrifices the principal rite of their respective religions : that, to a great extent, they offered the same sacrifices; and those chiefly such, as are styled clean, in the Scriptures. These sacrifices were, also, esteemed in some sense or other, though none of the heathen could explain that sense, expiations for sin. At the same time, it ought to be observed, that there is, to the eye of reason, no perceptible connexion between sacrifices and religion ; and that there is nothing in this rite, particularly, which can lead the understanding to suppose it in any sense ex. piatory. The true dictate of reason on this subject is, that the causeless destruction of the life of an animal must be in itself an evil; an act of inhumanity; a provocation to God; only increasing the list of crimes in the suppliant: while, on the contrary, the supposition that God can be appeased, or reconciled, by the death of an animal, burnt upon an altar, is an obvious and monstrous absurdity. Well might Balak doubt, when he asked so anxiously, under the strong influence of traditionary custom, Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with len thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression ; the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? The only sacrifices of God; that is, the only sacrifices, which God will acsept, if he will accept any from man; are in the eye of common sense, as well as in that of David, a broken spirit and a contrite heart: a disposition, as specified by Balaam in his answer to Balak, lo do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God. From these observations, taken in their connexion, it is, I think, fairly evident, that sacrifices were not, and cannot have been, devised by mankind.
In the Scriptures the same doctrine is, I apprehend, rendered unquestionably certain. Abel offered a sacrifice to God, and was accepted. By St. Paul we are informed, that he offered this sacrifice in faith. While it is incredible, that he should have derised this rite as an act of religion, it is anti-scriptural, and therefore incredible, that he should have been accepted in any act, beside an act of obedience to God. But such an act, his sacrifice could not have been, unless it had been commanded of God. Nor is it possible to conceive in what manner his faith could have been exerted, or to what object it could have been directed, unless it was directed to some divine promise. But no divine proinise is, in the Scriptures, exhibited as made to mankind, except through the Redeemer. Abel, therefore, must have believed in the future existence, and efficacious interference, of that Seed of the Woman, which was one day to bruise the head of the Serpent. With the eye of faith he saw, that through this glorious person there was forgiveness with God, and therefore fear. ed, or reverenced him. He hoped in the divine promise that through him there was plenteous redemption for the children of men; and in the exercise of this hope he performed such acts of worship, as God had enjoined. Had he, on the contrary, like Nudab and Abihu, brought an offering which the Lord had not commanded, we are warranted from analogy to conclude, that he would have been rejected, as they were. .
After the deluge, Noah, as we are told, builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. On this occasion, also, the offering was accepted. To this fact the same reasoning is applicable with the same force. But it is further evident from this story, that both fowls and beasts, were, at that time, known, and designated, as clean, and unclean. That this designation existed in the time of Noah, and was customary language, known to him and others at that time, is certain, from the fact, that he selected only such as were clean; and is still further illustrated by the fact, that God directed him to take of every clean beast, and every clean fowl, by sevens, into the ark; and that Noah exactly obeyed this command, and therefore perfectly knew what it imported. Bcasts and fowls were, of course, distinguished as clean and unclean; or, in other words, as those which might, and those which might not, be offered to God. But beasts, in themselves, are all equally clean, and equally unclean: nor can common sense discern a reason, why one should be offered rather than another, any more, than why any of them should be offered
at all. The distinction of clean and unclean, or acceptable and unacceptable, cannot have been founded in any thing, but the divine appointment. But this distinction we find thus early made : and, as Abel offered clean beasts, also, and the firstlings of his flock; the very sacrifice commanded afterwards to the Israelites; there is ample reason to conclude, that the same distinction was made from the beginning.
The sacrifices of the Scriptures involve a plain, and at the same time a most important, meaning. All of them were typical merely; and declared in the most striking manner the faith of the worshipper in the great propitiatory sacrifice of the Redeemer, and in the blessings promised by God through his mediation. Considered in this light, sacrifices are highly significant acts of worship; worthy of being divinely instituted ; deeply affecting the heart of the suppliant; naturally and strongly edifying him in faith, hope, and obedience; and well deserving a place among the most important religious rites of all, who lived before the oblation of the great Sacrifice, made for mankind.
From this view of the subject, it is, I think, clearly evident, tbat sacrifices were divinely instituted; and that this institution was founded in the future propitiatory sacrifice for sin, made by the Redeemer. It is, of course, evident also, that this part of the priest's office is derived from the apostasy of mankind; and can have a place, only among beings, who need an expiation.
3dly. Another part of the Priest's office was to deliver the oracles, or answers of God, to the people.
This was done, partly by the now inexplicable mode of Urim and Thummim, and partly by declarations, made in the common manner.
The heathen priesthood, in imitation of that, which was insti. tuted by God, gave the pretended answers of their oracular Divinities to such, as came to consult them.
4thly. Another part of the Priest's office was deciding the legal controversies of individuals, or judging between man and man.
For the institution of this duty of the Priests, see Deuteronomy xvii. 9, 10. Accordingly, several of the priests are mentioned in succeeding ages, as judges of the people. Vol. II.
5thly. Another part of the Priest's office was to instruct the people in the knowledge of the divine Law.
The priest's lips, says Malachi, should keep knowledge ; and they should seek the Law at his mouth : for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
Of all the parts of this Office the offering of Sacrifices and other Oblations is undoubtedly the most prominent and important. It was originally enjoined in the authoritative separation of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood. It is every where more insisted on as the great business of the priests, throughout the Law of Moses, and throughout the whole history of the Jewish Economy. It is accordingly mentioned, alone, by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter v. verse 1, as the sum of the duty of the High Priest. Every high priest—is ordained—that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. This, then, is the peculiar Office, or duty, of the Priesthood; while the others are only appendages.
In the performance of this duty, the priest was every where considered in the Law of Moses, as making an atonement for the sins of the person, or persons, by whom the offerings were presented: sometimes for individuals; sometimes for the whole nation. This great object, the only rational means of explaining the institution of sacrifices, is abundantly inculcated in the formal institution itself, and in all the precepts, by which the duties of it are regulated; so abundantly, that I know not how it can be misconstrued. Accordingly, the Scriptures have been understood in this manner only by the great body of Christians, from the beginning.
But nothing is more evident, than that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins. These sacrifices, therefore, were never designed to purify those, by whom they were offered. They were plainly, and certainly, mere types, holding forth to the suppliant the great and real sacrifice, by which the Author of it hath perfected for erir them that are sanctified. In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin, God said by David, Psalm xl. he had no pleasure. They were not, therefore, ordained for their own sake; but to point the eyes of worshippers o the Son of God, who came to do his will; for whom a body was
prepared ; and who, having offered in that body, one sacrifice for sins, sate down for ever at the right hand of God.
The scheme of Atonement, then, appears evidently to have been a part, and a chief part, of the divine Economy in the present world, in all ages, or from the beginning.
Accordingly, when Christ had performed this great duty of his own priesthood, the priesthood of men ceased. The Jewish priesthood was terminated within a few years after his Ascension. The Office, except as holden by Christ, has no place in the Chris. tian Church; and, unless in a figurative sense, cannot be applied to Christian Ministers without a solecism.
III. The Character of a Priest, as disclosed in the Scriptures, consisted principally of the following things.
1st. A Priest must be called of God.
No man, says St. Paul, taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Nothing is more plain, than that he, who ministers to God in divine things, ought to be approved of God; and it is clearly evident, that he, who is not called, cannot expect to be approved. To thrust one's self into an office of this nature must be the result of mere impudence and impiety: a spirit, which cannot meet the divine acceptance.
2dly. A Priest must be holy.
Aaron and his sons were originally sanctified, externally, by a series of most solemn offerings and ceremonies. The Garments of the High Priest were also pronounced holy, and styled holy garments. The oil, with which he was anointed, was styled holy; and was forbidden to all other persons, on a severe and dreadful penalty. HolineSS TO THE LORD was engraved on a plate, which he was directed to wear upon his mitre.
Such an high priest, says St. Paul, became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.
No absurdity can.be more obvious, or more gross, than an unholy, polluted character in a man, whose professional business it is to minister to God. The very Heathen were so sensible of this, that their priests claimed generally, and laboured to preserve, that character, which they esteemed sanctity.