168.“In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem most highly deserving the closet examination, our attention should be directed to two different classes of objectors: those who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever; and those who question the particular nature of that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst the deist on the one hand ridicules the very notion of a Mediator: and the philosophizing Christian on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more dangerous misrepresentations of its false or mistaken friends.The objections which are peculiar to the former, are upon this subject, of the same description with those which they advance against every other part of revelation; bearing with equal force against the system of natural religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of revealed religion, which they oppose. And indeed, this single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection; that is, if the deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be; might suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy between the works of nature, and the word of the gospel, being found to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one, rebounds with undiminished force against the other: the conviction of their common origin must be the inference of unbiassed understanding.Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the deist tells us, that as obedience must be the object of God’s approbation, and disobedience the ground of his displeasure, it must follow by natural consequence, that when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had never offended:—he does not recollect, that actual experience of the course of nature directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the common occurrences of life, the man who by intemperance and voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference indegree, cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not, whether the punishment be of long or short duration; whether in this world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, require that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken place; it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail to say, that the evils ofthis lifeattendant upon vice, are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself, the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as much the appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate direction? But besides, what reason have we to suppose that God’s treatment of us in a future state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence? Many circumstances might be urged on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is sufficient, that the deist cannotprovethat it willnot. Our experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance here: can he adduce a counter-experience to show, that it will hereafter? The justice and goodness of God are not thennecessarilyconcerned, in virtue of the sinner’s repentance, to remove all evil consequences upon sin in the next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the deist admits the latter, what becomes of his natural religion?Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is past? Or can we do more by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit, which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of supererogation? ‘We may as well affirm,’ says a learned Divine, ‘that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions.’ And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those, who deny thepossibleefficacy of Christ’s mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former: thenecessary connexionbetween the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at another.Since then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of former sins: it follows, that however the contemplation of God’s infinite goodness and love, might excite some faint hope, that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animatingcertaintyof this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone.But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason; that, admitting the necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention; and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors and dominion of sin; when this might have been effected in a way infinitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and amendment.To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply, by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary events: and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious process of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed, and conducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man, the necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend that bread has not been ordained for the support of man; because that, instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness? On grounds such as these, the philosopher (as he wishes to be called) may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a Mediator.With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for all, to make this general observation. We find, from the whole course of nature, that God governs the world, not by independent acts, but by connected system. The instruments which he employs in the ordinary works of his Providence, are not physically necessary to his operations. He might have acted without them, if he pleased. ‘He might, for instance, have created all men, without the intervention of parents: but where then had been the beneficial connexion between parents and children; and the numerous advantages resulting to human society from such connexion?’ The difficulty lies here: theusesarising from theconnexionsof God’s acts may be various; and such are thepregnanciesof his works, that asingle actmay answer a prodigious variety of purposes. Of the several purposes we are, for the most part, ignorant: and from this ignorance are derived most of our weak objections against the ways of his Providence; whilst we foolishly presume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in view.This observation we shall find of material use in our examination of the remaining arguments adduced by the deist on the present subject. And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that by which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be inconsistent with thedivine immutability. It is either, he affirms, agreeable to the will of God to grant salvation on repentance, and then hewillgrant it without a Mediator: or it is not agreeable to his will, and then a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we admit the mutability of the divine decrees.But the objector is not, perhaps, aware how far this reasoning will extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things as are agreeable to the will of God must be accomplished, whether we pray or not; and therefore our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to have a power of altering his will. And indeed, with equal conclusiveness it might be proved that repentance itself must be unnecessary. For if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God will forgive us without repentance: and if it be unfit, repentance can be of no avail.The error in all these conclusions is the same, it consists in mistaking a conditional for an absolute decree; and in supposing God to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the intermediate steps, whereby that end is to be accomplished. Whereas themanneris sometimes as necessary as theactproposed: so that if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at all. Of this observation, abundant illustration may be derived, as well from natural as from revealed religion. ‘Thus we know from natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the distresses of mankind should be relieved: and yet we see the destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the precarious benevolence of their fellow-men; and if not relieved bythem, they are not relievedat all. In like manner, in Revelation, in the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find that God was willing he should be healed of his leprosy; but yet he was not willing that it should be done, except inone particular manner. Abana and Pharpar were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in them, and be clean? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor the most important. Themannerof the cure was of more consequence in the moral design of God, than thecureitself: the effect being produced, for the sake of manifesting to the whole kingdom of Syria, the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was performed.’ And in like manner, though God willed that the penitent sinner should receive forgiveness; we may see good reason why, agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in one particular manner only, through the intervention of a Mediator.Although in the present stage of the subject, in which we are concerned with the objections of theDEIST, the argument should be confined to the deductions of natural reason; yet I have added this instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written word of Revelation, adept the very principle which we have just examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of Christians, in the sister kingdom,[169]who glory in having brought down the high things of God to the level of man’s understanding? That Christ was a person sent into the world to promulgate the will of God: to communicate new lights on the subject of religious duties: by his life to set an example of perfect obedience: by his death to manifest his sincerity: and by his resurrection to convince us of the great truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to future life. This, say they, is the sum and substance of Christianity. It furnishes a purer morality, and a more operative enforcement: its morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature: and its enforcement more operative, as founded on acertaintyof a state of retribution. And is then Christianity nothing but a new and more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of Christ but an attestation of his truth? And are we, after all, left to our own merit for acceptance: and obliged to trust for our salvation to the perfection of our obedience? Then indeed, has the great Author of our religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross; if after having given to mankind a law, which leaves them less excusable in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts.It is said, indeed, that as by this new dispensation, the certainty of pardon on repentance has been made known, mankind has been informed of all that is essential in the doctrine of mediation. But granting that no more was intended to be conveyed, than the sufficiency of repentance; yet it remains to be consideredin what waythat repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration that God would forgive the repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his amendment? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm, to rouse the sinner from the apathy of habitual transgression? What was there to make that impression which the nature of God’s moral government demands? Shall we say that the grateful sense of divine mercy would be sufficient; and that the generous feelings of our nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our obedience? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue and of right would have maintained man in his allegiance? And have we not then had abundant experience of what man can do, when left to his own exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies? What is the history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a continued trial of his natural strength? And what has been themoralof that history, but that man is strong, only as he feels himself weak? strong, only as he feels that his nature is corrupt, and from a consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance upon God? What is the description which the apostle of the Gentiles has left us, of the state of the world, at the coming of our Saviour?—being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful—who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart, which is the favorite theme and fundamental principle with that class of Christians, with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not then had full experiment of our natural powers? And shall we yet have the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits, and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us through the mediation of Christ? No: lost as men were, at the time Christ appeared, to all sense of true religion: lost as they must be to it, at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own sufficiency: nothing short of a strong and salutary terror could awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression of God’s abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination and the heart, what could prove a sufficient counteraction to the violent impulse of natural passions? what, to the entailed depravation, which the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces to have infected the whole human race? Besides, without a full and adequate sense of guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of forgiveness, unless conscious of something to be forgiven. Ignorant of our forgiveness, we remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, without some proof of God’s hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the greatness of his love.The simple promulgation then, of forgiveness on repentance, could not answer the purpose. Merely toknowthe condition, could avail nothing. Aninducementof sufficient force to ensure itsfulfilmentwas essential. The system of sufficiency had been fully tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a new system, the system ofhumility. And for this purpose, what expedient could have been devised more suitable than that which has been adopted?—the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of men: proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the immensity of the guilt: and thence, at the same time evincing, in the most fearful manner, God’s utter abhorrence of sin, in requiring such expiation; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it.To this expedient for man’s salvation, though it be the clear and express language of Scripture, I have as yet sought no support from the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend with the deist, who denies all Revelation; and the pretended Christian, who rationalizing away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer: to urge the declarations of Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no purpose. Its authority disclaimed by the one, and evaded by the other, each becomes unassailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen for himself, the ground of general reason.But, we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and meaning of Scripture, will enable us to try the subject of our discussion by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And indeed, it were most sincerely to be wished, that the doctrines of Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scripture itself: and that preconceived notions and arbitrary theories were not first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of each fanciful, dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandings to its perfect wisdom? Shall weak, shortsighted man presume to say, ‘If I find the discoveries of Revelation correspond to my notions of what is right and fit, I will admit them: but if they do not, I am sure they cannot be the genuine sense of Scripture: and I am sure of it, on this principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself?’ That is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God cannot but agree with what this judge of the actions of the Almighty deems it wise for him to do. The language of Scripture must then, by every possible refinement, be made to surrender its fair and natural meaning, to this predetermination of its necessary import. But the word of revelation being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how differs the Christian from the deist? The only difference is this: that whilst the one denies that God hath given us a Revelation; the other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of no effect. But in both there is the same self-sufficiency, the same pride of understanding that would erect itself on the ground of human reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour on any conditions but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of a Christian spirit is wanting—Humility. For in what consists the entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole-selves, our hearts, and our understandings, to the divine disposal; and relying on God’s gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it, through the Mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him alone, for safety? Nay, what is the verynotionof religion, but this humble reliance upon God? Take this away, and we become a race of independent beings, claiming as a debt the reward of our good works; a sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is necessarily at war with virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced? Does not every page of revelation, peremptorily pronounce this; and yet shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself? Assuredly if we do; if, on the contrary, our pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of revelation; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess that thewisdom of manis butfoolishness with God; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity.These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational; yet are, in a certain degree applicable to the description of Christians, whose notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that in the death of Christ there wasno expiation for sin; that the wordsacrificehas been used by the writers of the New Testament merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the redemption amounts but to this, ‘that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world; and thathe, having taught the pure doctrines of the gospel; having passed a life of exemplary virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state; has not only, by his example proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon and final happiness, upon all who will accept them on the terms of sincere repentance.’ That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator: the mediation conducted through intercession: and that intercession successful in recompense of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer.Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine ofpure intercession, in opposition to that ofatonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of redemption at large; and the deist, against that of revelation itself.For the present, let us confine our attention to theobjectionswhich the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church to which we more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see how little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of interpretation, in which, it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of God a nullity.The first, and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on thedivine implacability—inasmuch as it supposes, that to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted; and that consequently the sinnercouldnot by any means have been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead. Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And hashenot then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? ‘That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ that we are forgiven; yet these were not theprocuring cause, but themeans, by which God originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon.’ Let then the wordintercessionbe changed forsacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to havemadeGod placable, but merely viewed as themeansappointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?—God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life—andherein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins—and again we are told, thatwe are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot—-who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world—and again, that Christ isthe Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure intercession—merely as themeanswhereby God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures: and since by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to the one scheme as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both: we may estimate with what candour this has been made by those who hold the one doctrine the fundamental ground of their objections against the other. For, on the ground of the expression of God’s unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave themfreely, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ cannot be the genuine doctrine of the New Testament.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 knowin what mannerthe 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, anyefficacywhatever. 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 ofdivine implacability, and ofinefficacious 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 reconciledto usby Christ’s death, but that we are every where said to be reconciledto God. Now in this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress uponour 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 personoffendingis expressly described, as the party tobe reconciled tohim who had beenoffended, 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 ourbeing reconciled to God, evidently does not mean, our giving up our sins, and thereby laying asideourenmity to God, (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning awayhisdispleasure, 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 hiswrath 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 hiswhole natureasone great impulseto whatis 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 beingreconciled 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 apropitiatory sacrifice. Now, when we find him described asthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; when we are told, thatChrist hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God; and that heneeded 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 thepropitiation for our sins; and God is said to haveloved us, and to havesent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins; when Isaiah describeshis soul as made an offering for sin; when it is said thatGod spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all; and thatby 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 asin-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 thanfigurative allusions: that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his lifefor, that is,on account ofmankind: 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 correspondliterallyand exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic sacrifice: 2dly. That being in different places compared to different kinds of sacrifices, toallof which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature ofany: and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice ofpropitiationorexpiation of sinunder 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 thedifferentkinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature ofany, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow, that it was of the nature ofall. Resembling that of thePassover, inasmuch as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage; partaking the nature of thesin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression; and similar to the institution of thescape-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,theywere 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 ofatonement(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 tothings, 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 relievepersonsfromceremonialincapacities, 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 themorallaw, will appear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus we find it decreed, thatif 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, andSWEARETH 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 anATONEMENTfor him before the Lord, and it shall beFORGIVEN HIM. And again in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was betrothed, the offender is ordered tobring his trespass-offering, and the priest is to makeATONEMENTfor him with the trespass-offering, for the sin which he hath done; and the sin which he hath done shall beFORGIVENhim. And in the case of all offences which fell not under the description ofpresumptuous, it is manifest from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed, was appointed as the means whereby God might bepropitiated, orreconciled to the offender.Again, as to thevicariousimport 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 beACCEPTED FORhim 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 beingnecessaryto 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, thatpropitiatory sacrificesnot 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 thatany suchsacrifice 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,everysacrifice 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 graciouslyappointedby God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate theguiltof sin in such a manner as to avert thepunishmentof it from the offender.’ To askwhyGod should have appointed this particular mode, or inwhat wayit 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 underanymodification, 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 hisholy displeasureagainst sin, and of hismerciful compassionfor the sinner; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincereconfession of guilt, and a hearty desire of obtainingpardon: and upon thedueperformance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression.This we shall find agreeable to the nature of asacrifice 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 Godhasbeen 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 theSubjectof the offering, but thePriestwho offered it. Therefore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by whichhe offered himself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of thesacrifice, forgiven; but in virtue of theintercessionadmitted 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 aduesense 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 bythis, all former sacrifices are to be interpreted; and in reference toitonly, 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 ofgifts, 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 asfederal 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 butsymbolical 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, representingthatdeath which the offerer confessed to be his own desert.To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names ofSpencer,Sykes, andWarburton, it maygenerallybe replied, that thefactof 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 thatspeciesof 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 thegeneralidea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon theuniversalityof the practice; thesamenessof the notion of its efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote; and theunreasonablenessof 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, thatthe 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, thatthis 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 foritsintroduction.Now, if the sacrifices of theLawappear 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 thatONE 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, asprescribingsacrifices 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 inDIVINE 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 infaith; and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the opinion of this writer, theanimalsacrifice. 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 rendereda 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 wasthe 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, theFALL, and theRECOVERY: 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 tohis reasonto 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 withinitsapprehension 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 hisenlightenedfollowers, 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 ofhisoffering, 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 translatedSIN, be rendered, as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, aSIN 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 ofdivine institution, receives support from the passage just recited; so to that part of it which maintains that this rite bore an aspect to thesacrifice 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-eminentlythe blood of sprinkling: and represents both asspeaking 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,thatlikewise we have reason to think was included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole,SACRIFICEappears to have been ordainedas 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 themmight 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 thepeculiarefficacy 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, thatwithout shedding of blood there is no remission. Now in what conceivable light can we view this institution, but in relation to that great sacrifice whichwasto make atonement for sins: to thatblood of sprinkling, which was tospeak better things than that of Abel, or that of the law. Thelawitself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can the principal institution of the law refer?—an institution too, which unlesssoreferred 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 aninstitutedmeaning; 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 aSACRAMENTAL 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 theshowing 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 theNEWcovenant, 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 thatreferencein 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 theabsurdityof the sacrificial rites, theircruelty, 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 theobjectof 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 thatone, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And asinthis all were to receive their consummation, sowiththis 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 theapparent disproportionin 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 theNew 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 theNewTestament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is circumstantially given of them in theOld. 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, toput them upon the headof 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 adistinctone: 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 beenactuallytransferred to him, as those of the congregation had beensymbolicallytransferred 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 nothingvicariousappears 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.â€Dr. Magee.
168.“In the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem most highly deserving the closet examination, our attention should be directed to two different classes of objectors: those who deny the necessity of any mediation whatever; and those who question the particular nature of that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst the deist on the one hand ridicules the very notion of a Mediator: and the philosophizing Christian on the other, fashions it to his own hypothesis; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more dangerous misrepresentations of its false or mistaken friends.
The objections which are peculiar to the former, are upon this subject, of the same description with those which they advance against every other part of revelation; bearing with equal force against the system of natural religion, which they support, as against the doctrines of revealed religion, which they oppose. And indeed, this single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection; that is, if the deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be; might suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy between the works of nature, and the word of the gospel, being found to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one, rebounds with undiminished force against the other: the conviction of their common origin must be the inference of unbiassed understanding.
Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the deist tells us, that as obedience must be the object of God’s approbation, and disobedience the ground of his displeasure, it must follow by natural consequence, that when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had never offended:—he does not recollect, that actual experience of the course of nature directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the common occurrences of life, the man who by intemperance and voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference indegree, cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not, whether the punishment be of long or short duration; whether in this world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, require that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken place; it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will it avail to say, that the evils ofthis lifeattendant upon vice, are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself, the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as much the appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had individually flowed from his immediate direction? But besides, what reason have we to suppose that God’s treatment of us in a future state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence? Many circumstances might be urged on the contrary, to evince the likelihood that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is sufficient, that the deist cannotprovethat it willnot. Our experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is not the consequence of repentance here: can he adduce a counter-experience to show, that it will hereafter? The justice and goodness of God are not thennecessarilyconcerned, in virtue of the sinner’s repentance, to remove all evil consequences upon sin in the next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the deist admits the latter, what becomes of his natural religion?
Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is past? Or can we do more by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit, which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of supererogation? ‘We may as well affirm,’ says a learned Divine, ‘that our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions.’ And it is surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance is urged by those, who deny thepossibleefficacy of Christ’s mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally serves for the rejection of the former: thenecessary connexionbetween the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at another.
Since then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of former sins: it follows, that however the contemplation of God’s infinite goodness and love, might excite some faint hope, that mercy would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animatingcertaintyof this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity alone.
But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason; that, admitting the necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention; and that the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors and dominion of sin; when this might have been effected in a way infinitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and amendment.
To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply, by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary events: and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious process of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed, and conducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man, the necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend that bread has not been ordained for the support of man; because that, instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness? On grounds such as these, the philosopher (as he wishes to be called) may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a Mediator.
With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for all, to make this general observation. We find, from the whole course of nature, that God governs the world, not by independent acts, but by connected system. The instruments which he employs in the ordinary works of his Providence, are not physically necessary to his operations. He might have acted without them, if he pleased. ‘He might, for instance, have created all men, without the intervention of parents: but where then had been the beneficial connexion between parents and children; and the numerous advantages resulting to human society from such connexion?’ The difficulty lies here: theusesarising from theconnexionsof God’s acts may be various; and such are thepregnanciesof his works, that asingle actmay answer a prodigious variety of purposes. Of the several purposes we are, for the most part, ignorant: and from this ignorance are derived most of our weak objections against the ways of his Providence; whilst we foolishly presume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in view.
This observation we shall find of material use in our examination of the remaining arguments adduced by the deist on the present subject. And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that by which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be inconsistent with thedivine immutability. It is either, he affirms, agreeable to the will of God to grant salvation on repentance, and then hewillgrant it without a Mediator: or it is not agreeable to his will, and then a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we admit the mutability of the divine decrees.
But the objector is not, perhaps, aware how far this reasoning will extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things as are agreeable to the will of God must be accomplished, whether we pray or not; and therefore our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to have a power of altering his will. And indeed, with equal conclusiveness it might be proved that repentance itself must be unnecessary. For if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God will forgive us without repentance: and if it be unfit, repentance can be of no avail.
The error in all these conclusions is the same, it consists in mistaking a conditional for an absolute decree; and in supposing God to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the intermediate steps, whereby that end is to be accomplished. Whereas themanneris sometimes as necessary as theactproposed: so that if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at all. Of this observation, abundant illustration may be derived, as well from natural as from revealed religion. ‘Thus we know from natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the distresses of mankind should be relieved: and yet we see the destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the precarious benevolence of their fellow-men; and if not relieved bythem, they are not relievedat all. In like manner, in Revelation, in the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find that God was willing he should be healed of his leprosy; but yet he was not willing that it should be done, except inone particular manner. Abana and Pharpar were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in them, and be clean? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor the most important. Themannerof the cure was of more consequence in the moral design of God, than thecureitself: the effect being produced, for the sake of manifesting to the whole kingdom of Syria, the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was performed.’ And in like manner, though God willed that the penitent sinner should receive forgiveness; we may see good reason why, agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in one particular manner only, through the intervention of a Mediator.
Although in the present stage of the subject, in which we are concerned with the objections of theDEIST, the argument should be confined to the deductions of natural reason; yet I have added this instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written word of Revelation, adept the very principle which we have just examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of Christians, in the sister kingdom,[169]who glory in having brought down the high things of God to the level of man’s understanding? That Christ was a person sent into the world to promulgate the will of God: to communicate new lights on the subject of religious duties: by his life to set an example of perfect obedience: by his death to manifest his sincerity: and by his resurrection to convince us of the great truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to future life. This, say they, is the sum and substance of Christianity. It furnishes a purer morality, and a more operative enforcement: its morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature: and its enforcement more operative, as founded on acertaintyof a state of retribution. And is then Christianity nothing but a new and more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of Christ but an attestation of his truth? And are we, after all, left to our own merit for acceptance: and obliged to trust for our salvation to the perfection of our obedience? Then indeed, has the great Author of our religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross; if after having given to mankind a law, which leaves them less excusable in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts.
It is said, indeed, that as by this new dispensation, the certainty of pardon on repentance has been made known, mankind has been informed of all that is essential in the doctrine of mediation. But granting that no more was intended to be conveyed, than the sufficiency of repentance; yet it remains to be consideredin what waythat repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration that God would forgive the repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his amendment? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm, to rouse the sinner from the apathy of habitual transgression? What was there to make that impression which the nature of God’s moral government demands? Shall we say that the grateful sense of divine mercy would be sufficient; and that the generous feelings of our nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our obedience? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue and of right would have maintained man in his allegiance? And have we not then had abundant experience of what man can do, when left to his own exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies? What is the history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a continued trial of his natural strength? And what has been themoralof that history, but that man is strong, only as he feels himself weak? strong, only as he feels that his nature is corrupt, and from a consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance upon God? What is the description which the apostle of the Gentiles has left us, of the state of the world, at the coming of our Saviour?—being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful—who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart, which is the favorite theme and fundamental principle with that class of Christians, with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not then had full experiment of our natural powers? And shall we yet have the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits, and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us through the mediation of Christ? No: lost as men were, at the time Christ appeared, to all sense of true religion: lost as they must be to it, at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own sufficiency: nothing short of a strong and salutary terror could awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression of God’s abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination and the heart, what could prove a sufficient counteraction to the violent impulse of natural passions? what, to the entailed depravation, which the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces to have infected the whole human race? Besides, without a full and adequate sense of guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of forgiveness, unless conscious of something to be forgiven. Ignorant of our forgiveness, we remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, without some proof of God’s hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the greatness of his love.
The simple promulgation then, of forgiveness on repentance, could not answer the purpose. Merely toknowthe condition, could avail nothing. Aninducementof sufficient force to ensure itsfulfilmentwas essential. The system of sufficiency had been fully tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a new system, the system ofhumility. And for this purpose, what expedient could have been devised more suitable than that which has been adopted?—the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of men: proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the immensity of the guilt: and thence, at the same time evincing, in the most fearful manner, God’s utter abhorrence of sin, in requiring such expiation; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it.
To this expedient for man’s salvation, though it be the clear and express language of Scripture, I have as yet sought no support from the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend with the deist, who denies all Revelation; and the pretended Christian, who rationalizing away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer: to urge the declarations of Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no purpose. Its authority disclaimed by the one, and evaded by the other, each becomes unassailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen for himself, the ground of general reason.
But, we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and meaning of Scripture, will enable us to try the subject of our discussion by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And indeed, it were most sincerely to be wished, that the doctrines of Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scripture itself: and that preconceived notions and arbitrary theories were not first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of each fanciful, dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandings to its perfect wisdom? Shall weak, shortsighted man presume to say, ‘If I find the discoveries of Revelation correspond to my notions of what is right and fit, I will admit them: but if they do not, I am sure they cannot be the genuine sense of Scripture: and I am sure of it, on this principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself?’ That is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God cannot but agree with what this judge of the actions of the Almighty deems it wise for him to do. The language of Scripture must then, by every possible refinement, be made to surrender its fair and natural meaning, to this predetermination of its necessary import. But the word of revelation being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how differs the Christian from the deist? The only difference is this: that whilst the one denies that God hath given us a Revelation; the other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of no effect. But in both there is the same self-sufficiency, the same pride of understanding that would erect itself on the ground of human reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour on any conditions but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of a Christian spirit is wanting—Humility. For in what consists the entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole-selves, our hearts, and our understandings, to the divine disposal; and relying on God’s gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it, through the Mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him alone, for safety? Nay, what is the verynotionof religion, but this humble reliance upon God? Take this away, and we become a race of independent beings, claiming as a debt the reward of our good works; a sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is necessarily at war with virtue and with God, that Christianity has been introduced? Does not every page of revelation, peremptorily pronounce this; and yet shall we exercise this spirit, even upon Christianity itself? Assuredly if we do; if, on the contrary, our pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of revelation; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our nature, to confess that thewisdom of manis butfoolishness with God; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of Christianity.
These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational; yet are, in a certain degree applicable to the description of Christians, whose notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the opinion, that in the death of Christ there wasno expiation for sin; that the wordsacrificehas been used by the writers of the New Testament merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of the redemption amounts but to this, ‘that God, willing to pardon repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that Jesus Christ should come into the world; and thathe, having taught the pure doctrines of the gospel; having passed a life of exemplary virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to manifest the certainty of a future state; has not only, by his example proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon and final happiness, upon all who will accept them on the terms of sincere repentance.’ That is, in other words, we receive salvation through a Mediator: the mediation conducted through intercession: and that intercession successful in recompense of the meritorious obedience of our Redeemer.
Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine ofpure intercession, in opposition to that ofatonement, we shall perhaps discover, when properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning, which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against the idea of redemption at large; and the deist, against that of revelation itself.
For the present, let us confine our attention to theobjectionswhich the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church to which we more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be urged with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see how little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural meaning of scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of interpretation, in which, it is but too much the fashion to indulge at the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of God a nullity.
The first, and most important of the objections we have now to consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as founded on thedivine implacability—inasmuch as it supposes, that to appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment should be inflicted; and that consequently the sinnercouldnot by any means have been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead. Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered and interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And hashenot then, as it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies. Now what is the answer? ‘That although it is through the merits and intercession of Christ that we are forgiven; yet these were not theprocuring cause, but themeans, by which God originally disposed to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon.’ Let then the wordintercessionbe changed forsacrifice, and see whether the answer be not equally conclusive.
The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to havemadeGod placable, but merely viewed as themeansappointed by divine wisdom, by which to bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?—God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life—andherein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins—and again we are told, thatwe are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot—-who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world—and again, that Christ isthe Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since then, the notion of the efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure intercession—merely as themeanswhereby God has thought fit to grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards his fallen creatures: and since by the same sort of representation, the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to the one scheme as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most foully cast upon both: we may estimate with what candour this has been made by those who hold the one doctrine the fundamental ground of their objections against the other. For, on the ground of the expression of God’s unbounded love to his creatures every where through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave themfreely, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ cannot be the genuine doctrine of the New Testament.
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 knowin what mannerthe 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, anyefficacywhatever. 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 ofdivine implacability, and ofinefficacious 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 reconciledto usby Christ’s death, but that we are every where said to be reconciledto God. Now in this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress uponour 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 personoffendingis expressly described, as the party tobe reconciled tohim who had beenoffended, 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 ourbeing reconciled to God, evidently does not mean, our giving up our sins, and thereby laying asideourenmity to God, (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning awayhisdispleasure, 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 hiswrath 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 hiswhole natureasone great impulseto whatis 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 beingreconciled 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 apropitiatory sacrifice. Now, when we find him described asthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; when we are told, thatChrist hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God; and that heneeded 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 thepropitiation for our sins; and God is said to haveloved us, and to havesent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins; when Isaiah describeshis soul as made an offering for sin; when it is said thatGod spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all; and thatby 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 asin-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 thanfigurative allusions: that all that is intended is, that Christ laid down his lifefor, that is,on account ofmankind: 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 correspondliterallyand exactly, to the ceremonies of the Mosaic sacrifice: 2dly. That being in different places compared to different kinds of sacrifices, toallof which it could not possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature ofany: and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice ofpropitiationorexpiation of sinunder 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 thedifferentkinds of sacrifices, would infer that it was not of the nature ofany, it may be replied, that it will more reasonably follow, that it was of the nature ofall. Resembling that of thePassover, inasmuch as by it we were delivered from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage; partaking the nature of thesin offering, as being accepted in expiation of transgression; and similar to the institution of thescape-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,theywere 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 ofatonement(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 tothings, 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 relievepersonsfromceremonialincapacities, 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 themorallaw, will appear manifest upon a very slight examination. Thus we find it decreed, thatif 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, andSWEARETH 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 anATONEMENTfor him before the Lord, and it shall beFORGIVEN HIM. And again in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was betrothed, the offender is ordered tobring his trespass-offering, and the priest is to makeATONEMENTfor him with the trespass-offering, for the sin which he hath done; and the sin which he hath done shall beFORGIVENhim. And in the case of all offences which fell not under the description ofpresumptuous, it is manifest from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the atonement prescribed, was appointed as the means whereby God might bepropitiated, orreconciled to the offender.
Again, as to thevicariousimport 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 beACCEPTED FORhim 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 beingnecessaryto 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, thatpropitiatory sacrificesnot 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 thatany suchsacrifice 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,everysacrifice 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 graciouslyappointedby God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate theguiltof sin in such a manner as to avert thepunishmentof it from the offender.’ To askwhyGod should have appointed this particular mode, or inwhat wayit 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 underanymodification, 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 hisholy displeasureagainst sin, and of hismerciful compassionfor the sinner; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincereconfession of guilt, and a hearty desire of obtainingpardon: and upon thedueperformance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression.
This we shall find agreeable to the nature of asacrifice 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 Godhasbeen 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 theSubjectof the offering, but thePriestwho offered it. Therefore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by whichhe offered himself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of thesacrifice, forgiven; but in virtue of theintercessionadmitted 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 aduesense 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 bythis, all former sacrifices are to be interpreted; and in reference toitonly, 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 ofgifts, 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 asfederal 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 butsymbolical 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, representingthatdeath which the offerer confessed to be his own desert.
To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names ofSpencer,Sykes, andWarburton, it maygenerallybe replied, that thefactof 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 thatspeciesof 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 thegeneralidea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon theuniversalityof the practice; thesamenessof the notion of its efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote; and theunreasonablenessof 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, thatthe 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, thatthis 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 foritsintroduction.
Now, if the sacrifices of theLawappear 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 thatONE 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, asprescribingsacrifices 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 inDIVINE 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 infaith; and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the opinion of this writer, theanimalsacrifice. 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 rendereda 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 wasthe 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, theFALL, and theRECOVERY: 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 tohis reasonto 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 withinitsapprehension 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 hisenlightenedfollowers, 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 ofhisoffering, 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 translatedSIN, be rendered, as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, aSIN 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 ofdivine institution, receives support from the passage just recited; so to that part of it which maintains that this rite bore an aspect to thesacrifice 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-eminentlythe blood of sprinkling: and represents both asspeaking 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,thatlikewise we have reason to think was included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole,SACRIFICEappears to have been ordainedas 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 themmight 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 thepeculiarefficacy 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, thatwithout shedding of blood there is no remission. Now in what conceivable light can we view this institution, but in relation to that great sacrifice whichwasto make atonement for sins: to thatblood of sprinkling, which was tospeak better things than that of Abel, or that of the law. Thelawitself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can the principal institution of the law refer?—an institution too, which unlesssoreferred 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 aninstitutedmeaning; 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 aSACRAMENTAL 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 theshowing 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 theNEWcovenant, 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 thatreferencein 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 theabsurdityof the sacrificial rites, theircruelty, 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 theobjectof 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 thatone, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And asinthis all were to receive their consummation, sowiththis 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 theapparent disproportionin 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 theNew 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 theNewTestament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is circumstantially given of them in theOld. 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, toput them upon the headof 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 adistinctone: 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 beenactuallytransferred to him, as those of the congregation had beensymbolicallytransferred 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 nothingvicariousappears 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.â€
Dr. Magee.