God. But such an attitude of mind is, to say the least, illogical, for it not only sets aside

the Mosaic law of Sacrifice, but also the bulk of the teaching of the N.T., completely

emptying Paul's epistles of any meaning.

No one acquainted with the teaching of the Lord in the Gospels, or of Paul, Peter and

John in their Epistles, could hesitate to admit that the Sacrifice of Christ was held to be

fundamental to salvation, and that this One Offering did most truly endorse and fulfil all

that had been foreshadowed in the ritual sacrifices of the Old Covenant. In view of the

reiterated statement that Christ came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, it is not possible

to believe that those self-same prophets did indeed set aside the supreme purpose for

which "a body" had been "prepared" for Him.

This being so, it is highly probable that those who see any divergence between the

Law and the Prophets in this matter of sacrifice for sin, have not only misunderstood the

meaning of the prophet, but have equally misunderstood the law of sacrifice itself. If it

be conceived that a sinner under the law could, as it were, obtain an indulgence for any

sin and get off scot free by hiding behind a mere ceremonial, then Luther's burning

indignation against the notorious licences of Tetzel should have been directed to the more

fatal licence inculcated by Moses! Such a conclusion carries with it its own refutation,

but though writer and reader be at one over the matter, the subject is of such importance

that an examination of the passages found in the Psalms and in the Prophets that appear to

militate against the law of sacrifice seems desirable, and to this we now apply ourselves.

When David was convicted of sin and realized that no sacrifice provided by the law

could give him peace, he exclaimed:

Nevertheless, so far removed from David's thoughts was it that the Mosaic sacrifices

were rendered null and void, that he goes on to say that when Israel are restored; when

the walls of Jerusalem are rebuilt; "Then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifices of

righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering;  then shall they offer

bullocks upon Thine altar" (Psa. 51: 18, 19).

Again, a superficial reading of Psa. 40: 6, "Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not

desire", might lead to the supposition that the law of sacrifice was set aside, but a reading

of the context, and particularly the remote context of Heb. 10:, reveals that, instead of

setting aside the law of sacrifice, this passage but demands its fuller and higher

recognition. Commenting on this passage, Perowne says:

"We may perhaps paraphrase verses 5-8 as follows: My heart is full to overflowing

with the thought of Thy goodness. How can I express, how can I acknowledge it? Once

I should have thought sacrifices and offerings a proper and sufficient acknowledgment.

Now, I feel how inadequate these are; for Thou hast taught me the truth; my deaf

unwilling ears didst Thou open, that I might understand that a willing heart was the best