Imágenes de páginas

Christ was furnished by the divine appointment that there should be a more striking representation of that kind of punishment in the more eminent types of him, than in any others : for which no reason can be conceived, except that they were designed to typify him in this very circumstance.

VI. But though in these victims, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary, and whose carcasses were burned without the camp, the exhibition of vicarious punishment was rather more evident than in the rest; yet the thing itself was the same with all the other piacular victims, whether sin offerings or trespass offerings, as with these. It is a sufficient proof of this, that while the greater offences were to be punished by the death of the sinner himself, the smaller ones were to be expiated by the blood of an animal. Suppose, for example, any one to have arrived at such degree of presumption as to compound the sacred perfume, or knowingly and wilfully to eat fat or blood, he was to be punished with death ; whereas the same sins committed in ignorance were expiated by the blood of a victim. And as it was plainly directed by the divine law that the greater sins should be punished by the death of the sinner himself, and the smaller offences expiated by the blood of a victim, what can be more evident than that the punishment, which in the greater offences was inflicted on the offender himself, was transferred in the smaller ones to his victim, and that the punishment of an animal was substituted for that of a man?

What does Crellius say to these things? In so striking an example of substitution does he not acknowledge any commutation? Yes, he represents a sacrifice as having been accepted by divine mercy instead of the life of a man :* but he elsewhere says: • Sacrificial expiation is attributed, not to the slaughter of the animal, which would truly have been pu

nishment, but to those things which succeeded 'the slaughter, and principally to the sprinkling of 'the blood, which was performed by the priest in the ' holy of holies, or upon or about the altar.'t But Crellius has greatly deceived himself by too close a comparison of sacred things with civil. For these ceremonies were so contrived, that to inflict the penalty on the animal was one thing, and to discharge it before God by a scrificial rite was another. The former was done when the animal was deprived of life: the latter when the life of the animal was solemnly presented to God; which in this ritual service was not done till the blood, the vehicle of the life, was brought to his altar, or sprinkled towards his sanctuary or mercy seat.

And this kind of punishment, which was designed to propitiate the Divine Being, was so much the more conspicuous in the sacrifices, because the blood of the animal was not only to be shed, but was also to be presented to God by a particular rite. Thus, in piacular sacrifices it was signified that the life of the victim was surrendered to God as the price of expiation, and in order to obtain for the sinner the favour of him to whom it was solemnly presented and on whose altar it was laid. Whatever, then, may be the opinion of those who think nothing impossible to be eluded by their subtleties, we nevertheless give to every such slaughter, which procures remission of sins and the favour of God, the name of vicarious punishment. Nor are we so subtle as to think it of

Ad Heb.ix. 14.

Contra. Grot. p, 10. p. 37,

much importance whether this purpose was effected by the slaughter itself, or by its representation on the altar in the sprinkling of the blood; or whether the representation of it was made in any other rite, manner, or place. And hence we hesitate not to acknowledge, that vicarious punishment was sustained by Christ, who gave bis life as a ransom to expiate our sins and to procure their pardon. *

VII, Nor is our opinion at all shaken by the objection of Socinus, that a beast could not be punished instead of a man, because they are not of one common species. For the sins of men might certainly be transferred to irrational animals by a symbolical representation. This the scripture expressly declares to have been done to the goat that was led into the wilderness on the day of atonement. The sins of men might likewise be expiated by the blood of animal victims. This also is expressly affirmed in the scriptures, as we have already observed. These two things having taken place in the principal piacular sacrifices, what more evident instance of vicarious punishment could be found than they exhibited ? Nor is there

Nor is there any reason to doubt that all the other piacular sacrifices proceeded on the same principle. This also, which is necessary to our forming clear apprehensions of the nature and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, we have proved by other arguments.

But, it will be objected, that the translation of sins from the offenders to any victims could only be figurative or symbolical, but could never be real and actual. This is true, But the symbolical representation of that transfer had some meaning, which we apprehend could only be, that those victims, in whom this representation was made, were substituted in the place of the offenders, and expiated by a vicarious punishment those trespasses and sins for which they were sacrificed. Although we grant, however, that even in the principal piacular sacrifices there was rather a representation of vicarious punishment, than the thing itself, yet the thing itself must necessarily have taken place in the Sacrifice of our Lord which those sacrifices prefigured. For every type was so adjusted to its antitype, as we have before shown, that whatever was even symbolically represented in the one, is really found in the other.

* Matt, xx. 28. Mark x. 45.

VIII. Nor does it at all invalidate our argument, that in cases of extreme poverty in the offenders expiation might be made and pardon obtained by a kind of meat offering, in which, so far from the reality of vicarious punishment, there could not be even the appearance of it. For if a meat offering could not be the subject of vicarious punishment, it ought not thence to be immediately concluded that no such punishment was sustained by the piacular victims. As well might it be argued, that the death of Christ was not typified by the death of any piacular victims, because it was not typified by any oblation of four that was accepted as a sin offering : an argument the futility of which must be obvious to

every reader.

IX. But it is further objected, that the piacular victims ought not be considered as having sustained vicarious punishment, unless they suffered a vicarious death ; but that their death could not be vicarious, because death was no where denounced in the law, even against the offerers themselves, on account of those kinds of sins which were to be expiated by sacrifices. As if, indeed, there could be no vicarious punishment, except it was of the same kind as that which would have fallen upon the sinner himself; or, as if the piacular victims could not stand in the place of the offerers, unless the law had in express terms denounced against the offerers themselves the punishment of death for those kinds of sins which were to be expiated by the death of victims. But neither of these suppositions is true, and one of them is contradictory to itself. In the first place, it makes no difference in vicarious punishment, whether the substitute suffers the same kind of punishment which awaited the sinner himself, or some other instead of of it. Either, at the pleasure of him to whom the right of punishing belonys, may avail to avert punishment from the offender. Hence it appears that to sustain vicarious punishment, and to suffer vicarious death, are not precisely the same, and that one may be inflicted without the other. In the next place, it is not true, that the piacular victims could not stand in the place of the offerers, unless the law in express terms denounced against the offerers themselves the punishment of death for those kinds of sins which were to be expiated by those victims. Such a denunciation would have left no room at all for expiatory sacrifices. For every punishment expressly denounced by the law against offenders, the law would have required to be inflicted upon them; no sacrifice or expiation could have averted it. It is evident from this consideration, that the punishment, whatever it was, which was averted by sacrifices, could not be denounced in the law, against the offerers or offenders themselves, without contradicting the commands for

« AnteriorContinuar »