Again, as to the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacrifice; or, in other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had deserved; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who brought a free-will offering, he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be ACCEPTED FOR him to make atonement for him: but the ceremony of the scape-goat on the day of expiation, appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head, however, as not being necessary to my argument, I shall not at present enlarge.
That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word) was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no sufficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the Arabians, in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its universal prevalence in the Heathen world, though corrupted and disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original divine appointment, every candid inquirer will find little reason to doubt. But be this as it may, it must be admitted, that propitiatory sacrifices not only existed through the whole Gentile world, but had place under the law of Moses. The argument then, which from the non-existence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term when applied to the death of Christ, to indicate such sacrifice, necessarily falls to the ground.
But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that any such sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appointment. For on what principle do they deny the former, but this?—that the sufferings and death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change in God: cannot render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent than he is in his own nature; and consequently can have no power to avert from the offender the punishment of his transgression. Now, on the same principle, every sacrifice for the expiation of sin, must be impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin: and why they feel it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description of that species of sacrifice in the old. Setting out with a preconceived erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a manifest contradiction; they hold themselves justified in rejecting every acceptation of scripture which supports it. But, had they more accurately examined the true import of the term in scripture use, they would have perceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found themselves compelled to refine away by strained and unnatural interpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text. They would have seen, that a sacrifice for sin, in scripture language, implies solely this, ‘a sacrifice wisely and graciously appointed by God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the guilt of sin in such a manner as to avert the punishment of it from the offender.’ To ask why God should have appointed this particular mode, or in what way it can avert the punishment of sin, is to take us back to the general point at issue with the deist, which has been already discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under any modification, such matters cannot be subjects of inquiry.
But even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural connexion and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the sinner was conscious he deserved from God’s justice: and then, on the part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his holy displeasure against sin, and of his merciful compassion for the sinner; and on the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a sincere confession of guilt, and a hearty desire of obtaining pardon: and upon the due performance of this service, the sinner is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression.
This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a sacrifice for sin, as laid down in the Old Testament. Now is there any thing in this degrading to the honour of God; or in the smallest degree inconsistent with the dictates of natural reason? And in this view, what is there in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that may not in a certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions? For according to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to the whole world, of the greatness of their sins; and of the proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making themselves parties in this great sacrifice: that is, on their complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of sacrifice, would render them parties in this; namely, an adequate conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God’s love, and a firm determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this sacrifice, to endeavour after a life of amendment and obedience? Thus much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious subject. Whether in the expanded range of God’s moral government, some other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten Son, it is not for us to enquire; nor does it in any degree concern us: what God has been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to believe.
One remarkable circumstance indeed there is, in which the sacrifice of Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the law. Our blessed Lord was not only the Subject of the offering, but the Priest who offered it. Therefore he has become not only a sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon this voluntary act of benevolence, by which he offered himself without spot to God. We are not only then in virtue of the sacrifice, forgiven; but in virtue of the intercession admitted to favour and grace. And thus the scripture notion of the sacrifice of Christ, includes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure intercession, seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that notion. It contains the great advantage of impressing mankind with a due sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all Christian virtue—Humility. And the fact is plainly this, that in every attempt to get rid of the scripture doctrine of atonement, we find feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic quality, more or less to prevail: we find a fondness for the opinion of man’s own sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit with devout and implicit reverence, to the sacred word of revelation.
In the mode of inquiry which has been usually adopted on this subject, one prevailing error deserves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice, as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of Christ, has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of explanation, the notion of Christ’s sacrifice has been derived: whereas, in fact by this, all former sacrifices are to be interpreted; and in reference to it only, can they be understood. From an error so fundamental, it is not wonderful that the greatest perplexities should have arisen concerning the nature of sacrifice in general; and that they should ultimately fall with cumulative confusion on the nature of that particular sacrifice, to the investigation of which fanciful and mistaken theories had been assumed as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed the early and universal practice of sacrifice, to an irrational and superstitious fear of an imagined sanguinary divinity; and have been led in defiance of the express language of revelation, to reject and ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originating only in the grossness of superstition: others, not equally destitute of reverence for the sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn rite with equal disrespect, have yet ascribed its origin to human invention; and have thereby been compelled to account for the divine institution of the Jewish sacrifices as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice; and consequently to admit, even the sacrifice of Christ itself to have grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of human excogitation.
Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various. In one, sacrifices are represented in the light of gifts, intended to sooth and appease the Supreme Being, in like manner as they are found to conciliate the favour of men: in another, they are considered as federal rites, a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of friendship with him, by repentance and confession of sins: in a third, they are described as but symbolical actions, or a more expressive language, denoting the gratitude of the offerer, in such as are eucharistical; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of, and contrition for sin strongly expressed by the death of the animal, representing that death which the offerer confessed to be his own desert.
To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their enumeration, claim respectively the names of Spencer, Sykes, and Warburton, it may generally be replied, that the fact of Abel’s sacrifice seems inconsistent with them all: with the first, inasmuch as it must have been antecedent to those distinctions of property, on which alone experience of the effects of gifts upon men could have been founded: with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages prior to that period, at which both the words of scripture, and the opinions of the wisest commentators have fixed the permission of animal food to man: with the third, inasmuch as the language, which scripture expressly states to have been derived to our first parents from divine instruction, cannot be supposed so defective in those terms that related to the worship of God, as to have rendered it necessary for Abel to call in the aid of actions, to express the sentiment of gratitude or sorrow; and still less likely is it that he would have resorted to that species of action, which in the eye of reason, must have appeared displeasing to God, the slaughter of an unoffending animal.
To urge these topics of objection in their full force, against the several theories I have mentioned, would lead to a discussion far exceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore dismiss them for the present. Nor shall I, in refutation of the general idea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon the universality of the practice; the sameness of the notion of its efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote; and the unreasonableness of supposing any natural connexion between the slaying of an animal, and the receiving pardon for the violation of God’s laws,—all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as both the general idea and the particular theories which have endeavoured to reconcile to it the nature and origin of sacrifice, have been caused by a departure from the true and only source of knowledge; let us return to that sacred fountain, and whilst we endeavour to establish the genuine scripture notion of sacrifice, at the same time provide the best refutation of every other.