Chapter XXI: Part 21

But still it is demanded, ‘in what way can the death of Christ,
considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the
remission of sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who otherwise
would not have forgiven us?’—To this the answer of the Christian is,
‘I know not, nor does it concern me to know _in what manner_ the
sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins; it is
enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium through which my
salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the counsels of the
Almighty. I submit to his wisdom: and I will not reject his grace,
because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehension.’
But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same
objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being be
conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another. Let
us likewise inquire, how the meritorious obedience of one Being, can
be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the
transgressions of another: or whether the prayers of a righteous Being
in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in
obtaining forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same
supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure
that forgiveness? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has
nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice nor the intercession
has, as far as we can comprehend, any _efficacy_ whatever. All that we
know, or can know of the one or of the other is, that it has been
appointed as the means, by which God has determined to act with
respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of
operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very
notion of a Mediator; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure
deism, and perhaps may not stop even there.

Thus we have seen, to what the general objections against the doctrine
of atonement amount. The charges of _divine implacability_, and of
_inefficacious means_, we have found to bear with as little force
against this, as against the doctrine which is attempted to be
substituted in its room.

We come now to the objections which are drawn from the immediate
language of scripture, in those passages in which the nature of our
redemption is described. And first, it is asserted, that it is no
where said in scripture, that God is reconciled _to us_ by Christ’s
death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled _to God_. Now
in this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress upon _our
obedience_, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which
is set up in opposition to the scheme of atonement: we see that
reluctance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the
principle of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ is openly at war:
and consequently we see the essential difference there is between the
two doctrines at present under consideration; and the necessity there
exists for separating them by the clearest marks of distinction. But
to return to the objection that has been made, it very fortunately
happens, that we have the meaning of the words in their scripture use,
defined by no less an authority than that of our Saviour himself—_If
thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the
altar, and go thy way—first be reconciled to thy brother, and then
come and offer thy gift_. Now, from this plain instance, in which the
person _offending_ is expressly described, as the party to _be
reconciled to_ him who had been _offended_, by agreeing to his terms
of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him; it manifestly
appears, in what sense this expression is to be understood in the
language of the New Testament. The very words then produced for the
purpose of showing that there was no displeasure on the part of God,
which it was necessary by some means to avert, prove the direct
contrary: and our _being reconciled to God_, evidently does not mean,
our giving up our sins, and thereby laying aside _our_ enmity to God,
(in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning
away _his_ displeasure, whereby we are enabled to regain his favour.
And indeed it were strange, had it not meant this. What! are we to
suppose the God of the Christian, like the deity of the Epicurean, to
look on with indifference upon the actions of this life, and not to be
offended at the sinner? The displeasure of God, it is to be
remembered, is not like man’s displeasure, a resentment or passion,
but a judicial disapprobation: which if we abstract from our notion of
God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And
it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary;
and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him
what might appear to be the weakness of passion; that they, who trust
to reason more than to scripture, have been withheld from admitting
any principle that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they
attended but a little to the plain language of scripture, they might
have rectified their mistake. They would there have found the wrath of
God against the disobedient, spoken of in almost every page. They
would have found also a case which is exactly in point to the main
argument before us; in which there is described, not only the wrath of
God, but the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice.
The case is that of the three friends of Job,—in which God expressly
says, that his _wrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because
they had not spoken of him the thing that was right_; and at the same
time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his
anger.

But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of as a being of
infinite love. True; and the whole difficulty arises from building on
partial texts. When men perpetually talk of God’s justice, as being
necessarily modified by his goodness, they seem to forget that it is
no less the language of scripture, and of reason, that his goodness
should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds
from our own narrow views, which compel us to consider the attributes
of the Supreme Being, as so many distinct qualities, when we should
conceive of them as inseparably blended together; and his _whole
nature_ as _one great impulse_ to what _is best_.

As to God’s displeasure against sinners, there can be then upon the
whole no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of
atonement, no difficulty can arise from the scripture phrase of men
being _reconciled to God_: since, as we have seen, that directly
implies the turning away the displeasure of God, so as to be again
restored to his favour and protection.

But, though all this must be admitted by those who will not shut their
eyes against reason and scripture; yet still it is contended, that the
death of Christ cannot be considered as a _propitiatory sacrifice_.
Now, when we find him described as _the Lamb of God which taketh away
the sins of the world_; when we are told, that _Christ hath given
himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God_; and that he
_needed not, like the high-priests under the law, to offer up
sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s;
for that this he did once, when he offered up himself_; when he is
expressly asserted to be the _propitiation for our sins_; and God is
said to have _loved us_, and to have _sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins_; when Isaiah describes _his soul as made an
offering for sin_; when it is said that _God spared not his own Son,
but delivered him up for us all_; and that _by him we have received
the atonement_; when these, and many other such passages are to be
found; when every expression referring to the death of Christ,
evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and
propitiation; when this sacrifice is particularly represented, as of
the nature of a _sin-offering_; which was a species of sacrifice
‘prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after
which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned;’
it may well appear surprising on what ground it can be questioned,
that the death of Christ is pronounced in scripture to have been a
sacrifice of atonement and expiation for the sins of men.

It is asserted, that the several passages which seem to speak this
language, contain nothing more than _figurative allusions_: that all
that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life _for_, that is,
_on account of_ mankind: and that there being circumstances of
resemblance between this event and the sacrifices of the law, terms
were borrowed from the latter, to express the former in a manner more
lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these
terms is but figurative, it is contended, 1st. That the death of
Christ did not correspond _literally_ and exactly, to the ceremonies
of the Mosaic sacrifice: 2dly. That being in different places compared
to different kinds of sacrifices, to _all_ of which it could not
possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature
of _any_: and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice of
_propitiation_ or _expiation of sin_ under the Mosaic dispensation at
all; this notion having been entirely of Heathen origin.

As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little consideration.
The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic
sacrifice, is but a slender objection. It might as well be said, that
because Christ was not of the species of animal, which had usually
been offered up; or because he was not slain in the same manner; or
because he was not offered by the high-priest, there could have been
no sacrifice. But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a
sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in expiation be adhered
to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except
by those who mean to cavil, not to discover truth.

Again, as to the second argument, which from the comparison of
Christ’s death, to the _different_ kinds of sacrifices, would infer
that it was not of the nature of _any_, it may be replied, that it
will more reasonably follow, that it was of the nature of _all_.
Resembling that of the _Passover_, inasmuch as by it we were delivered
from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage; partaking the
nature of the _sin offering_, as being accepted in expiation of
transgression; and similar to the institution of the _scape-goat_, as
bearing the accumulated sins of all: may we not reasonably suppose
that this one great sacrifice contained the full import and completion
of the whole sacrificial system? And that so far from being spoken of
in figure, as bearing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the law,
_they_ were on the contrary, as the apostle expressly tells us, but
figures, or faint and partial representations of this stupendous
sacrifice which had been ordained from the beginning? And besides, it
is to be remarked in general, with respect to the figurative
application of the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ; that the
striking resemblance between that and the sacrifices of the law, which
is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced
just the contrary effect upon the sacred writers; since they must have
been aware that the constant use of such expressions, aided by the
strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error, in
that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being
addressed to a people whose religion was entirely sacrificial, in what
but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial
representation of the death of Christ have been understood?

We come now to the third and principal objection, which is built upon
the assertion, that no sacrifices of _atonement_ (in the sense in
which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under
the Mosaic law: such as were called by that name having had an
entirely different import. Now that certain offerings under this
denomination, related to _things_, and were employed for the purpose
of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the
ceremonial worship, must undoubtedly be admitted. That others were
again appointed to relieve _persons_ from _ceremonial_ incapacities,
so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of
the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature
strictly propitiatory, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God
from the transgressor, not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases,
even of the _moral_ law, will appear manifest upon a very slight
examination. Thus we find it decreed, that _if a soul sin and commit a
trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which
was delivered to him to keep—or have found that which was lost, and
lieth concerning it, and_ SWEARETH FALSELY, _then, because he hath
sinned in this, he shall not only make restitution to his
neighbour—but he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a
ram without blemish out of the flock; and the priest shall make an_
ATONEMENT _for him before the Lord, and it shall be_ FORGIVEN HIM. And
again in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was
betrothed, the offender is ordered to _bring his trespass-offering,
and the priest is to make_ ATONEMENT _for him with the
trespass-offering, for the sin which he hath done; and the sin which
he hath done shall be_ FORGIVEN _him_. And in the case of all offences
which fell not under the description of _presumptuous_, it is manifest
from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the
atonement prescribed, was appointed as the means whereby God might be
_propitiated_, or _reconciled to the offender_.

Again, as to the _vicarious_ import of the Mosaic sacrifice; or, in
other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had
deserved; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the
first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who
brought a free-will offering, _he shall lay his hand upon the head of
the burnt-offering, and it shall be_ ACCEPTED FOR _him to make
atonement for him_: but the ceremony of the scape-goat on the day of
expiation, appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head,
however, as not being _necessary_ to my argument, I shall not at
present enlarge.

That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word)
was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no
sufficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the
Arabians, in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its
universal prevalence in the Heathen world, though corrupted and
disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original
divine appointment, every candid inquirer will find little reason to
doubt. But be this as it may, it must be admitted, that _propitiatory
sacrifices_ not only existed through the whole Gentile world, but had
place under the law of Moses. The argument then, which from the
non-existence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term
when applied to the death of Christ, to indicate such sacrifice,
necessarily falls to the ground.

But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and
proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that _any
such_ sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appointment. For on what
principle do they deny the former, but this?—that the sufferings and
death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change
in God: cannot render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent than
he is in his own nature; and consequently can have no power to avert
from the offender the punishment of his transgression. Now, on the
same principle, _every_ sacrifice for the expiation of sin, must be
impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will
not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it
is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin: and why they feel
it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description
of that species of sacrifice in the old. Setting out with a
preconceived erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a
manifest contradiction; they hold themselves justified in rejecting
every acceptation of scripture which supports it. But, had they more
accurately examined the true import of the term in scripture use, they
would have perceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found
themselves compelled to refine away by strained and unnatural
interpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text.
They would have seen, that a sacrifice for sin, in scripture language,
implies solely this, ‘a sacrifice wisely and graciously _appointed_ by
God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the _guilt_ of sin in
such a manner as to avert the _punishment_ of it from the offender.’
To ask _why_ God should have appointed this particular mode, or in
_what way_ it can avert the punishment of sin, is to take us back to
the general point at issue with the deist, which has been already
discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under _any_
modification, such matters cannot be subjects of inquiry.

But even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural
connexion and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered
as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the
sinner was conscious he deserved from God’s justice: and then, on the
part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his _holy displeasure_
against sin, and of his _merciful compassion_ for the sinner; and on
the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a
sincere _confession of guilt_, and a hearty desire of obtaining
_pardon_: and upon the _due_ performance of this service, the sinner
is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression.

This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a _sacrifice for sin_,
as laid down in the Old Testament. Now is there any thing in this
degrading to the honour of God; or in the smallest degree inconsistent
with the dictates of natural reason? And in this view, what is there
in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that
may not in a certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions? For
according to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to
the whole world, of the greatness of their sins; and of the
proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this
method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his
fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making
themselves parties in this great sacrifice: that is, on their
complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of
sacrifice, would render them parties in this; namely, an adequate
conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God’s love, and a firm
determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this
sacrifice, to endeavour after a life of amendment and obedience? Thus
much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious
subject. Whether in the expanded range of God’s moral government, some
other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten
Son, it is not for us to enquire; nor does it in any degree concern
us: what God _has_ been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to
believe.

One remarkable circumstance indeed there is, in which the sacrifice of
Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the
law. Our blessed Lord was not only the _Subject_ of the offering, but
the _Priest_ who offered it. Therefore he has become not only a
sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon
this voluntary act of benevolence, by which _he offered himself
without spot to God_. We are not only then in virtue of the
_sacrifice_, forgiven; but in virtue of the _intercession_ admitted to
favour and grace. And thus the scripture notion of the sacrifice of
Christ, includes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure
intercession, seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also
contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that
notion. It contains the great advantage of impressing mankind with a
_due_ sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the
immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It
contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all
Christian virtue—HUMILITY. And the fact is plainly this, that in every
attempt to get rid of the scripture doctrine of atonement, we find
feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic quality, more or
less to prevail: we find a fondness for the opinion of man’s own
sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit with devout and implicit
reverence, to the sacred word of revelation.

In the mode of inquiry which has been usually adopted on this subject,
one prevailing error deserves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice,
as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of
Christ, has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of
explanation, the notion of Christ’s sacrifice has been derived:
whereas, in fact by _this_, all former sacrifices are to be
interpreted; and in reference to _it_ only, can they be understood.
From an error so fundamental, it is not wonderful that the greatest
perplexities should have arisen concerning the nature of sacrifice in
general; and that they should ultimately fall with cumulative
confusion on the nature of that particular sacrifice, to the
investigation of which fanciful and mistaken theories had been assumed
as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed the early
and universal practice of sacrifice, to an irrational and
superstitious fear of an imagined sanguinary divinity; and have been
led in defiance of the express language of revelation, to reject and
ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originating only in the grossness
of superstition: others, not equally destitute of reverence for the
sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn rite with equal
disrespect, have yet ascribed its origin to human invention; and have
thereby been compelled to account for the divine institution of the
Jewish sacrifices as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice; and
consequently to admit, even the sacrifice of Christ itself to have
grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of human
excogitation.

Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various.
In one, sacrifices are represented in the light of _gifts_, intended
to sooth and appease the Supreme Being, in like manner as they are
found to conciliate the favour of men: in another, they are considered
as _federal rites_, a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were
at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of
friendship with him, by repentance and confession of sins: in a third,
they are described as but _symbolical actions_, or a more expressive
language, denoting the gratitude of the offerer, in such as are
eucharistical; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of,
and contrition for sin strongly expressed by the death of the animal,
representing _that_ death which the offerer confessed to be his own
desert.

To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their
enumeration, claim respectively the names of _Spencer_, _Sykes_, and
_Warburton_, it may _generally_ be replied, that the _fact_ of Abel’s
sacrifice seems inconsistent with them all: with the first, inasmuch
as it must have been antecedent to those distinctions of property, on
which alone experience of the effects of gifts upon men could have
been founded: with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages
prior to that period, at which both the words of scripture, and the
opinions of the wisest commentators have fixed the permission of
animal food to man: with the third, inasmuch as the language, which
scripture expressly states to have been derived to our first parents
from divine instruction, cannot be supposed so defective in those
terms that related to the worship of God, as to have rendered it
necessary for Abel to call in the aid of actions, to express the
sentiment of gratitude or sorrow; and still less likely is it that he
would have resorted to that _species_ of action, which in the eye of
reason, must have appeared displeasing to God, the slaughter of an
unoffending animal.

To urge these topics of objection in their full force, against the
several theories I have mentioned, would lead to a discussion far
exceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore
dismiss them for the present. Nor shall I, in refutation of the
_general_ idea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon the
_universality_ of the practice; the _sameness_ of the notion of its
efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote; and the
_unreasonableness_ of supposing any natural connexion between the
slaying of an animal, and the receiving pardon for the violation of
God’s laws,—all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as
both the general idea and the particular theories which have
endeavoured to reconcile to it the nature and origin of sacrifice,
have been caused by a departure from the true and only source of
knowledge; let us return to that sacred fountain, and whilst we
endeavour to establish the genuine scripture notion of sacrifice, at
the same time provide the best refutation of every other.

It requires but little acquaintance with scripture to know that the
lesson which it every where inculcates, is, that man by disobedience
had fallen under the displeasure of his Maker; that to be reconciled
to his favour, and restored to the means of acceptable obedience, a
Redeemer was appointed, and that this Redeemer laid down his life to
procure for repentant sinners forgiveness and acceptance. This
surrender of life has been called by the sacred writers a sacrifice;
and the end attained by it, expiation or atonement. With such as have
been desirous to reduce Christianity to a mere moral system, it has
been a favourite object to represent this sacrifice as entirely
figurative founded only in allusion and similitude to the sacrifices
of the law; whereas, that this is spoken of by the sacred writers, as
a real and proper sacrifice, to which those under the law bore respect
but as types or shadows, is evident from various passages of holy
writ, but more particularly from the epistle to the Hebrews; in which
it is expressly said, that _the law having a shadow of good things to
come, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year
continually, make the comers thereunto perfect;—but this man, after he
had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right
hand of God_. And again, when the writer of this epistle speaks of the
high-priest entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the
sacrifice, he asserts, that _this was a figure for the time then
present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could
not make him that did the service perfect; but Christ being come, an
high priest of good things to come; not by the blood of goats and
calves, but by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption for us; for_, he adds, _if the
blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh,
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience
from dead works to serve the living God?_ It must be unnecessary to
detail more of the numerous passages which go to prove that the
sacrifice of Christ was a true and effective sacrifice, whilst those
of the law were but faint representations, and inadequate copies,
intended for _its_ introduction.

Now, if the sacrifices of the _Law_ appear to have been but
preparations for this one great sacrifice, we are naturally led to
consider whether the same may not be asserted of sacrifice from the
beginning: and whether we are not warranted by scripture, in
pronouncing the entire rite to have been ordained by God, as a type of
that ONE SACRIFICE, in which all others were to have their
consummation.

That the institution was of divine ordinance, may, in the first
instance, be reasonably inferred from the strong and sensible
attestation of the divine acceptance of sacrifice in the case of Abel,
again in that of Noah, afterwards in that of Abraham, and also from
the systematic establishment of it by the same divine authority, in
the dispensation of Moses. And whether we consider the book of Job as
the production of Moses; or of that pious worshipper of the true God,
among the descendants of Abraham, whose name it bears; or of some
other person who lived a short time after, and composed it from the
materials left by Job himself: the representation there made of God,
as _prescribing_ sacrifices to the friends of Job, in every
supposition exhibits a strong authority, and of high antiquity, upon
this question.

These few facts, which I have stated, unaided by any comment, and
abstracting altogether from the arguments which embarrass the contrary
hypothesis, and to which I have already alluded, might perhaps be
sufficient to satisfy an inquiring and candid mind, that sacrifice
must have had its origin in DIVINE INSTITUTION. But if in addition,
this rite, as practised in the earliest ages, shall be found connected
with the sacrifice of Christ, confessedly of divine appointment:
little doubt can reasonably remain on this head. Let us then examine
more particularly the circumstance of the first sacrifice offered up
by Abel.

It is clear from the words of scripture, that both Cain and Abel made
oblations to the Lord. It is clear also, notwithstanding the well
known fanciful interpretation of an eminent commentator, that Abel’s
was an animal sacrifice. It is no less clear, that Abel’s was
accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Now what could have
occasioned the distinction? The acknowledgment of the Supreme Being
and of his universal dominion, was no less strong in the offering of
the fruits of the earth by Cain, than in that of the firstlings of the
flock by Abel: the intrinsic efficacy of the gift must have been the
same in each, each giving of the best that he possessed; the
expression of gratitude, equally significant and forcible in both. How
then is the difference to be explained? If we look to the writer to
the Hebrews, he informs us, that the ground on which Abel’s oblation
was preferred to that of Cain, was, that Abel offered his in _faith_;
and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the
opinion of this writer, the _animal_ sacrifice. The words are
remarkable—_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God
testifying of his gifts_. The words here translated, _a more excellent
sacrifice_, are in an early version rendered _a much more sacrifice_,
which phrase, though uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original.
The meaning then is, that by faith Abel offered that which was much
more of the true nature of sacrifice than what had been offered by
Cain. Abel consequently was directed by faith, and this faith was
manifested in the nature of his offering. What then are we to
infer?—Without some revelation granted, some assurance held out as the
object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue: and
without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he could not have
exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made,
we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consider whether
this could have a connexion with any divine assurance communicated at
that early day.

It is obvious that the promise made to our first parents, conveyed an
intimation of some future deliverer, who should overcome the tempter
that had drawn man from his innocence, and remove those evils which
had been occasioned by the fall. This assurance, without which, or
some other ground of hope, it seems difficult to conceive how the
principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our
first parents the grand object of faith. To perpetuate this
fundamental article of religious belief among the descendants of Adam,
some striking memorial of the fall of man, and of the promised
deliverance, would naturally be appointed. And if we admit that the
scheme of redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was
determined from the beginning; that is, if we admit that when God had
ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means: if we
admit that Christ was _the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world_; what memorial could be devised more apposite than that of
animal sacrifice?—exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the
death which had been denounced against man’s disobedience:—thus
exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin,
and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be
undergone by the Redeemer of mankind:—and hereby connecting in one
view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL,
and the RECOVERY: the death denounced against sin, and the death
appointed for that Holy One who was to lay down his life to deliver
man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice
seems then to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the
elements of religious knowledge: and the adoption of this rite, with
sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble
sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death
which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which
had arisen from man’s transgression; and a full reliance upon the
promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means
appointed for its accomplishment.

If this view of the matter be just, there is nothing improbable even
in the supposition that that part of the signification of the rite
which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some
degree made known from the beginning. But not to contend for this,
(scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assumption,)
room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea that
animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of
faith in the promise of redemption, without any intimation of the way
in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these principles, we shall
find but little difficulty in determining on what ground it was that
Abel’s offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel,
in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his
command, offered that sacrifice which had been enjoined as the
religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain, disregarding the
gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining
to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as
not appearing to _his reason_ to possess any efficacy or natural
fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty in
acknowledging the general superintendance of God, and expressing his
gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good
things which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his
bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first
fruits of his parents’ disobedience, in the arrogance and
self-sufficiency of reason, rejecting the aids of revelation, because
they fell not within _its_ apprehension of right. He takes the first
place in the annals of deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of
the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit, which, in later days, has
actuated his _enlightened_ followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of
Christ.

This view of the subject receives strength, from the terms of
expostulation in which God addresses Cain, on his expressing
resentment at the rejection of _his_ offering, and the acceptance of
Abel’s. The words in the present version are, _if thou doest well,
shalt thou not be accepted?—and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at
the door_—which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply
no very satisfactory meaning, and have long served to exercise the
ingenuity of commentators to but little purpose. But if the word,
which is here translated SIN, be rendered, as we find it in a great
variety of passages in the Old Testament, a SIN OFFERING, the reading
of the passage then becomes, _if thou doest well, shalt thou not be
accepted? and if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the
door_. The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain for
not conforming to that species of sacrifice which had been offered by
Abel. He refers to it as a matter of known injunction; and hereby
points out the ground of distinction in his treatment of him, and his
brother: and thus, in direct terms, enforces the observance of animal
sacrifice.

As that part of my general position, which pronounces sacrifice to
have been of _divine institution_, receives support from the passage
just recited; so to that part of it which maintains that this rite
bore an aspect to the _sacrifice of Christ_, additional evidence may
be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inasmuch as
he places the blood of Abel’s sacrifice in direct comparison with the
blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently _the blood of
sprinkling_: and represents both as _speaking good things_, in
different degrees. What then is the result of the foregoing
reflections?—The sacrifice of Abel was an animal sacrifice. This
sacrifice was accepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith in
which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith
but the promise of a Redeemer: and of this faith, the offering of an
animal in sacrifice, appears to have been the legitimate, and
consequently the instituted, expression. The institution of animal
sacrifice then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the
sacrifice of our redemption. But as it had also an immediate and most
apposite application to that important event in the condition of man,
which, as being the occasion of, was essentially connected with the
work of redemption, _that_ likewise we have reason to think was
included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE
appears to have been ordained _as a standing memorial of the death
introduced by sin, and of that death which was to be suffered by the
Redeemer_.

We accordingly find this institution of animal sacrifice continue
until the giving of the law. No other offering than that of an animal
being recorded in scripture down to this period, except in the case of
Cain, and that we have seen was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and
of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-offerings. Of the same kind
also were the sin-offerings presented by Job, he being said to have
offered burnt-offerings according to the number of his sons, lest some
of them _might have sinned in their hearts_. But when we come to the
promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal
sacrifice and atonement, or reconciliation with God, clearly and
distinctly announced. It is here declared that sacrifices for sin
should, on conforming to certain prescribed modes of oblation, be
accepted as the means of deliverance from the penal consequences of
transgression. And with respect to the _peculiar_ efficacy of animal
sacrifice, we find this remarkable declaration,—_the life of the flesh
is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make
atonement for the soul_: in reference to which words, the sacred
writer formally pronounces, that _without shedding of blood there is
no remission_. Now in what conceivable light can we view this
institution, but in relation to that great sacrifice which _was_ to
make atonement for sins: to that _blood of sprinkling_, which was to
_speak better things than that of Abel_, or that of the law. The _law_
itself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can
the principal institution of the law refer?—an institution too, which
unless _so_ referred appears utterly unmeaning. The offering up an
animal cannot be imagined to have had any intrinsic efficacy in
procuring pardon for the transgression of the offerer. The blood of
bulls and of goats could have possessed no virtue, whereby to cleanse
him from his offences. Still less intelligible is the application of
the blood of the victim to the purifying of the parts of the
tabernacle, and the apparatus of the ceremonial worship. All this can
clearly have had no other than an _instituted_ meaning; and can be
understood only as in reference to some blood-shedding, which in an
eminent degree possessed the power of purifying from pollution. In
short, admit the sacrifice of Christ to be held in view in the
institutions of the law, and every part is plain and intelligible;
reject that notion, and every theory devised by the ingenuity of man,
to explain the nature of the ceremonial worship, becomes trifling and
inconsistent.

Granting then the case of the Mosaic sacrifice and that of Abel’s to
be the same; neither of them in itself efficacious; both instituted by
God; and both instituted in reference to that true and efficient
sacrifice, which was one day to be offered: the rite, as practised
before the time of Christ, may justly be considered as a SACRAMENTAL
MEMORIAL, _showing forth the Lord’s death until he came_; and when
accompanied with a due faith in the promises made to the early
believers, may reasonable be judged to have been equally acceptable
with that sacramental memorial, which has been enjoined by our Lord
himself to his followers, for the _showing forth his death until his
coming again_. And it deserves to be noticed that this very analogy
seems to be intimated by our Lord, in the language used by him at the
institution of that solemn Christian rite. For in speaking of his own
blood, he calls it, in direct reference to the blood wherewith Moses
established and sanctified the first covenant, _the blood of the_ NEW
_covenant, which was shed for the remission of sins_: thus plainly
marking out the similitude in the nature and objects of the two
covenants, at the moment that he was prescribing the great sacramental
commemoration of his own sacrifice.

From this view of the subject, the history of scripture sacrifice
becomes consistent throughout. The sacrifice of Abel, and the
patriarchal sacrifices down to the giving of the law, record and
exemplify those momentous events in the history of man,—the death
incurred by sin, and that inflicted on our Redeemer. When length of
time, and mistaken notions of religion leading to idolatry and every
perversion of the religious principle, had so far clouded and obscured
this expressive act, of primeval worship, that it had ceased to be
considered by the nations of the world in that _reference_ in which
its true value consisted: when the mere rite remained, without any
remembrance of the promises, and consequently unaccompanied by that
faith in their fulfilment, which was to render it an acceptable
service: when the nations, deifying every passion of the human heart,
and erecting altars to every vice, poured forth the blood of the
victim, but to deprecate the wrath, or satiate the vengeance of each
offended deity: when with the recollection of the true God, all
knowledge of the true worship was effaced from the minds of men: and
when joined to the _absurdity_ of the sacrificial rites, their
_cruelty_, devoting to the malignity of innumerable sanguinary gods
endless multitudes of human victims, demanded the divine interference;
then we see a people peculiarly selected, to whom, by express
revelation, the knowledge of the one God is restored, and the species
of worship ordained by him from the beginning, particularly enjoined.
The principal part of the Jewish service, we accordingly find to
consist of sacrifice; to which the virtue of expiation and atonement
is expressly annexed: and in the manner of it, the particulars appear
so minutely set forth, that when the _object_ of the whole law should
be brought to light, no doubt could remain as to its intended
application. The Jewish sacrifices therefore seem to have been
designed, as those from the beginning had been, to prefigure that
_one_, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And as _in_ this
all were to receive their consummation, so _with_ this they all
conclude: and the institution closes with the completion of its
object. But, as the gross perversions, which had pervaded the Gentile
world, had reached likewise to the chosen people; and as the
temptations to idolatry, which surrounded them on all sides, were so
powerful as perpetually to endanger their adherence to the God of
their fathers, we find the ceremonial service adapted to their carnal
habits. And since the law itself, with its accompanying sanctions,
seems to have been principally temporal; so the worship it enjoins is
found to have been for the most part, rather a public and solemn
declaration of allegiance to the true God in opposition to the Gentile
idolatries, than a pure and spiritual obedience in moral and religious
matters, which was reserved for that more perfect system, appointed to
succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit.

That the sacrifices of the law should therefore have chiefly operated
to the cleansing from external impurities, and to the rendering
persons or things fit to approach God in the exercises of the
ceremonial worship; whilst at the same time they were designed to
prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual, and
possessed the transcendant virtue of atoning for all moral pollution,
involves in it no inconsistency whatever, since in this the true
proportion of the entire dispensations is preserved. And to this
point, it is particularly necessary that our attention should be
directed, in the examination of the present subject; as upon the
_apparent disproportion_ in the objects and effects of sacrifice in
the Mosaic and Christian schemes, the principal objections against
their intended correspondence have been founded.

The sacrifices of the law then being preparatory to that of Christ;
_the law itself being but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ_; the
sacred writers in the _New Testament_, naturally adopt the sacrificial
terms of the ceremonial service, and by their reference to the use of
them as employed under the law, clearly point out the sense in which
they are to be understood in their application under the gospel. In
examining, then, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the
_New_ Testament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is
circumstantially given of them in the _Old_. Thus, when we find the
virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like
manner as it had been to those under the law; by attending to the
representation so minutely given of it in the latter, we are enabled
to comprehend its true import in the former.

Of the several sacrifices under the law, that one which seems most
exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly
compared with it by the writer to the Hebrews, is that which was
offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expiation.
The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made
for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly
significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day
appointed for this general expiation, the priest is commanded to offer
a bullock and a goat as sin-offerings, the one for himself, and the
other for the people: and having sprinkled the blood of these in due
form before the mercy-seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated
the scape-goat; and after laying both his hands upon the head of the
scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people,
to _put them upon the head_ of the goat, and to send the animal, thus
bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness: in this
manner expressing by an action, which cannot be misunderstood, that
the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the
sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in removing from the people
their iniquities by this symbolical translation to the animal. For it
is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a
_distinct_ one: it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently
the concluding part and symbolical consummation of the sin-offering.
So that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of
the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness,
manifestly imply that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the
sin-offering, consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of
those iniquities. What then are we taught to infer from this
ceremony?—That as the atonement under the law, or expiation of the
legal transgressions, was represented as a translation of those
transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain,
and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and
released from the penalties which had been incurred; so the great
atonement for the sins of mankind was to be effected by the sacrifice
of Christ, undergoing for the restoration of men to the favour of God,
that death which had been denounced against sin; and which he suffered
in like manner as if the sins of men had been _actually_ transferred
to him, as those of the congregation had been _symbolically_
transferred to the sin-offering of the people.

That this is the true meaning of the atonement effected by Christ’s
sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both
the Old and the New Testament: and that thus far the death of Christ
is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total desregard of the sacred
writings.

It has indeed been asserted, by those who oppose the doctrine of
atonement as thus explained, that nothing _vicarious_ appears in the
Mosaic sacrifices. With what justice this assertion has been made, may
be judged from the instance of the sin-offering that has been adduced.
The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the people, (which
must necessarily mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the
subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities)—this
accompanied with the death of the victim; and the consequence of the
whole being the removal of the punishment of those iniquities from the
offerers, and the ablution of all legal offensiveness in the sight of
God:—thus much of the nature of vicarious, the language of the Old
Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less
than this we are clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the
law thus sets forth as its express meaning, directly determines that
which we must attribute to the great atonement of which the Mosaic
ceremony was but a type: always remembering carefully to distinguish
between the figure and the substance; duly adjusting their relative
value and extent; estimating the efficacy of the one as real,
intrinsic, and universal; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as
limited, derived, and emblematic.

It must be confessed, that to the principles on which the doctrine of
the Christian atonement has been explained in this, representation of
it, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have
been advanced. These, however, cannot now be examined in this place.
The most important have been discussed; and as for such as remain, I
trust that to a candid mind, the general view of the subject which has
been given, will prove sufficient for their refutation.”

DR. MAGEE.

Footnote 169:

England.

Footnote 170:

_See Whitby’s discourse_, &c. _page 110-112_.

Footnote 171:

_See Quest. LV._

Footnote 172:

_See Page 178, 179, ante._

Footnote 173:

_See Page 169, 170, ante._

Footnote 174:

_See Page 190, ante._

Footnote 175:

_See Vol. I. Page 477, 480._

Footnote 176:

_Tabula post naufragium._

Footnote 177:

_See this insisted on, and farther explained, in answer to an
objection to the same purpose, against the doctrine of particular
election, in Vol. I. page 508, 509._

Footnote 178:

_Passiones tribuuntur Deo quoad effectum._

Footnote 179:

_See Whitby’s Discourse, page 145, 146._

Footnote 180:

_See Page 195, 197, ante._

Footnote 181:

_See Whitby’s Discourse, &c. page 113._

Footnote 182:

_Vid. Eras. in loc._

Footnote 183: