The sacrifices of old derived all their value from the sacrifice of Christ, to which they pointed.  God had determined, when and how they would be offered.  Additions to the number, or cost, added nothing to their value, but had a contrary effect, spoiled and rendered them unavailing.  Human victims, the most costly, and therefore supposed by the heathen, to be the most efficacious, were so far from having power with God to draw down his blessing, that they most certainly drew his curse on all who offered them.  This was one of the sins of the Canaanites, which above all others, availed to bring the divine judgments upon them.  And when Israel fell into the same sin, it kindled the wrath of God against them to their destruction.  This was the sin of Manasseh, “which God would not pardon.”

Balak first proposed other sacrifices—­a profusion of them; but if they were not sufficient to atone for his sins and procure the friendship of Jehovah, seems to have thought that the sacrifice of his first born must avail!

Such were his blunders respecting the nature of that religion which would render him acceptable to the true God.  He seems not once to have thought of repentance; or if he did, he made no offer of it—­did not once propose “crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts.”  He chose rather to sacrifice all the treasures of his kingdom, and all the members of his family, than part with his sins and become holy in heart and life.

Such is the temper of depravity.  The servants of sin are sooner persuaded to make any other sacrifice than that of their lusts and corruptions.  And many foolishly flatter themselves that other sacrifices will avail to procure the divine favor—­that holiness of heart and life are not indispensibly requisite, but that something beside may be substituted in its stead.  Countless examples of this folly meet us in history, and even in the history only catholic church of Christ!

Thus did Balak mistake the nature of true religion, and consider it as consisting in that which was foreign, yea, repugnant to its nature.  Such were his proposals which he spread before Balaam, and of which he required his opinion.  Let us hear then the answer of the Sage.

Balaam was better instructed:  He appears to have understood the nature of true religion, and clearly points it out to Balak, though he neglected himself to conform to it. He hath shewed 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?

There is scarcely a better definition of true religion to be found in the bible.

He hath shewed thee, 0 man, what is good.—­From Balak’s inquiry we should be ready to conclude that he was ignorant of God and religion —­that he supposed that God preferred sacrifice to justice and mercy —­that sacrifice would supply their place and render them of no account.  Balaam tells him that he had been better instructed; though we know not where, or how. He hath shewed thee, what is good; and he appeals to Balak whether this was not the case—­What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, &c.