Part 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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