039. CHAPTER 17 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS NATURE - PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SACRIFICES.

CHAPTER 17 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS NATURE - PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SACRIFICES.

HAVING seen, in the preceding chapter, the necessity for the atonement, we now enter upon the investigation of its nature. No subject connected with our holy religion has been attacked by unbelievers with more virulence than this. They have summoned to the onset the utmost power of invective and raillery which their ingenuity could devise and their venom employ. But in no part of their wanton assault upon the principles of religion have they more glaringly exhibited their disingenuousness and their ignorance. That they may oppose with success, they first misrepresent. Their version of the Christian doctrine of atonement has been generally presented in something like the following miserable caricature: “That the Almighty created man holy and happy; but, because he simply tasted an apple, he instantly became enraged against him and all his posterity, until he had wreaked his vengeance by killing his own innocent son, when he immediately got over his passion, and was willing to make friends with man.” Such is the horrible and blasphemous figment of the doctrine of atonement exhibited by infidels, for the fiendish purpose of scorn and ridicule. But how vastly different is this from the truth! Let unbelievers first inform themselves correctly, and they will find less reason to scoff and deride. But “to the law and to the testimony.” With the most implicit reliance upon its truth, we appeal to the word of God for information upon the important subject before us.

We will endeavor to establish the grand and leading proposition, that the death of Christ is, according to the Scriptures, the meritorious and procuring cause of man’s salvation. The whole doctrine of atonement is evidently based upon the proposition now before us, and consequently we shall endeavor carefully to define the terms of the proposition before we bring the subject to the test of Scripture.

First, by the “meritorious and procuring cause of salvation,” we mean more than is admitted upon the Socinian hypothesis. Even by this scheme, which, perhaps, the most of all schemes depreciates the merits of Christ, his death is not entirely discarded as useless, and in every sense of the word disconnected with human salvation. But if we require in what sense the death of Christ is connected with salvation, according to this system, it will be seen to allow no merit, in the proper sense of the word, but only to admit an indirect influence to his death, as it sealed the truth of his doctrine, honored him as a martyr, and thus became instrumental in leading men to repentance, by which they would necessarily be saved, whatever may be the circumstances or instrumentality by which that repentance is produced. By this scheme it will readily be seen that repentance, and not the death of Christ, is the meritorious cause of salvation; and the death of Christ cannot, in the proper sense, be considered as strictly necessary, since the death of any other being, as well as many other circumstances, might be instrumental in inducing men to repent.

Secondly, by the “meritorious and procuring cause of salvation,” we mean more than is admitted by the modern Arian hypothesis. By this scheme, the death of Christ is only necessary to salvation as it gives an exhibition of his disinterested benevolence, in voluntarily submitting to sufferings so great in the behalf of others; and thus enables him, as Mediator, to claim the salvation of sinners as his reward. This scheme, it may be observed destroys the absolute necessity for the death of Christ, inasmuch as it makes salvation depend solely on the personal virtue and dignity of the character of the Mediator. Now, it is clear that the actual sufferings of Christ could not add any thing to the intrinsic virtue and personal dignity of his character. He was a being of the same exalted character before his incarnation, and possessed quite as much benevolence before his sufferings; and it cannot be supposed that his actual humiliation and matchless sufferings were necessary to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Father, the excellency of the character of his immaculate Son. Had this been the only necessity for the death of Christ, well might it have been dispensed with; and we may rest assured that the benevolence of the Father could never have required it. But by the phrase, “meritorious and procuring cause of salvation,” as applied to the death of Christ, we mean,

1. That there were obstructions in the way of man’s salvation, which could not possibly be removed without the death of Christ.

2. That his sufferings were vicarious and expiatory; that he died in our room and stead, to satisfy the claims of law against us, and thereby to render it possible for God to extend to us the mercy of salvation, on such terms as his wisdom and goodness might devise and propose. This we present as the full and absolute sense in which the death of Christ was necessary to man’s salvation, and as the proper scriptural view in which the atonement of Christ is the “meritorious cause of salvation.” The doctrine here briefly stated occupies so important a position, and stands so conspicuously to view throughout the entire volume of revelation, that a mere quotation of all the passages in which it is contained, would be a transcript of a large portion of the Holy Scriptures. So deeply interwoven is the doctrine of atonement with the whole system of revelation, that it is not only expressly presented in numerous passages of the New Testament, but adumbrated, with a greater or less degree of clearness and force, in the types and predictions of the Old Testament. Many of these, it is true, considered in an isolated state, are not sufficiently definite and explicit to amount to satisfactory proof; but, taken in connection with the general tenor of Scripture upon this subject, and with the direct and unequivocal declarations with which the whole system of revelation abounds, their evidence is too weighty to be entirely overlooked.

I. SCRIPTURE PROOF ADDUCED. An intimation, too clear to be misunderstood, concerning the incarnation and sacrificial sufferings of Christ, is contained in the first promise or announcement of a Redeemer after the Fall.

God said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15. Here, we may observe, there is an intimation of a character styled the “seed of the woman,” and consequently human in one sense, who must be superhuman, or at least superior to Adam, in another sense; for he is to “bruise the head.” of the serpent, or gain a signal victory over him, who had just gained so great a triumph over Adam.

Observe, in the second place, that this triumph is not to be a bloodless conquest: it is not to be gained without a struggle, and, at least, some degree of suffering, for the serpent was to “bruise the heel” of “the seed of the woman.” This evidently refers to the sufferings of Christ, by which redemption from the miseries of the Fall was to be extended to man. Now, as Christ, who is universally admitted to be the “seed of the woman” here spoken of, “did no sin,” but was perfectly innocent, we can see no consistency in his “heel being bruised,” or in his being permitted to suffer in the least, unless it was by way of expiation, in the room and stead of others; therefore we see in this ancient promise at least a dawn of light upon the doctrine of atonement through the sufferings of Christ.

II. Our next argument on this point is based upon the sacrificial worship of the ancient patriarchs.

There can be but little doubt with regard to the origin of animal sacrifices. Were there no historic record upon this subject, it would appear, a priori, impossible for this system of worship to have originated with man. There is nothing in nature which could have led unassisted human reason to infer that God Could be propitiated by the blood of slain victims. So far as reason alone is concerned, a conclusion quite opposite to this would have been the most natural.

Sacrificial worship must have originated by the appointment of God. This may be clearly inferred from the Mosaic history. Immediately after the Fall, it is said, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Commentators are generally agreed that the skins here spoken of were taken from animals slain in sacrifice as a sin-offering to God. As yet, the ravages of death had not entered the world, nor had the use of animal food been allowed to man; therefore the most rational inference is, that God, immediately after the Fall and the first promise of a Redeemer, by his own express appointment, instituted sacrificial worship, connected with the duty of faith in Him who, by the offering of himself in the fullness of time, was to “bruise the head of the serpent,” and atone for the sins of the world. That this is the true origin of sacrifices, may be strongly inferred from the fact that Abel and others of the patriarchs were soon engaged in similar worship. It could not have been an invention of their own, for they are said to have performed it “by faith,” which clearly implies, not only the divine authority for the institution, but also its typical reference to the promised Messiah, the great object of true faith in all ages. The following remarks upon the passage before us are from the Commentary of Matthew Henry: “Those coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain - slain before their eyes - to show them what death is, and (as it is Ecclessiastes 3:18) that they may see that they themselves are mortal and dying. It is supposed they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great Sacrifice which, in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all: thus the first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is therefore said to be ‘the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.’” The following comment upon the same words is from Dr. A. Clarke: “It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin-offering to God; for, as we find Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God. we may fairly presume that God had given them instructions upon this head; nor is it likely that the notion of a sacrifice could have ever occurred to the mind of man, without an express revelation from God. Hence we may safely infer,

1. That as Adam and Eve needed this clothing as soon as they fell, and death had not as yet made any ravages in the animal world, it is most likely that the skins were taken off victims offered under the direction of God himself, and in faith of Him who, in the fullness of time, was to make an atonement by his death.

2. It seems reasonable, also, that this matter should be brought about in such a way that Satan and death should have no triumph, when the very first death that took place in the world was an emblem and type of that death which should conquer Satan, destroy his empire, reconcile God to man, convert man to God, sanctify human nature, and prepare it for heaven.”

Again, in Genesis 7:2, we find the distinction of clean and unclean beasts specially mentioned. As this was previous to the flood, and consequently at a time when the grant of animal food had not as yet been made to man, it presents a strong evidence of the divine appointment of animal sacrifices at this early period. Unless we admit that God had given commandment for certain kinds of beasts to be offered in sacrifice, this distinction of clean and unclean beasts cannot be rationally accounted for. That this distinction was founded upon the divine institution of sacrificial worship, is farther evidenced by the fact that Noah was commanded to take with him into the ark a greater number of clean than of unclean animals; and as soon as he came forth from the ark, he engaged in the work of sacrifice. Now, if the clean beasts were such as had been appointed as proper for sacrifice, and especially as Noah offered sacrifices immediately upon leaving the ark, the propriety of a greater number of that description of animals being preserved is at once manifest.

Since, then, we find satisfactory evidence that animal sacrifices were thus early established by divine appointment, we cannot consistently deny that they were expiatory in their character. Death was declared to be the penalty of the original law; and it is one of the settled principles of the divine government that “the wages of sin is death.” From this it would appear that, whatever may be the circumstances under which death takes place, it must have a direct connection with sin. This connection, so far as we can infer from the Scriptures, must either be of the nature of a penalty or of an atonement. If life be taken by the direct authority of God, and the being thus slain is not a substitute or an offering in the behalf of others, the death which thus takes place must be the infliction of the penalty of the violated law; but wherever the idea of substitution is recognized, and the sufferings of death by the appointment of God are vicarious, there is no rational way of accounting for them but upon the admission that they are also expiatory. Now, as God commanded animal sacrifices to be offered by the patriarchs, as an act of religious worship, the institution must have had reference to the condition, and been designed for the benefit, not of the animals sacrificed, but of him who presented the offering. And what could there have been connected with the character of man but sin, to require this bloody sacrifice in his behalf? And in what way could man have derived any benefit therefrom, unless it was intended, in some sense, to expiate or atone for his sins?

Thus we discover that, from the very nature of animal sacrifices, their expiatory character may be rationally inferred. And in order to make the argument from the patriarchal sacrifices conclusive, in the establishment of the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ, it is only necessary for us to admit that those sacrifices were typical of the great and only availing Sacrifice for sin. That this important point stands prominently recognized in the whole tenor of Scripture, will be abundantly seen in the sequel of this investigation.

1. The first act of sacrifice to God, of which we have any express record, is that of Cain and Abel.

“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? And if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Genesis 4:3-7. With this account of the transaction we must connect St. Paul’s comment upon the same. “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; and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Hebrews 11:4. In reference to the transaction here recorded, there has been much written both for and against the divine appointment and expiatory character of the patriarchal sacrifices. But it is not necessary to our purpose to enter specially upon the many questions, in connection with this subject, which have engaged the attention of commentators and critics. We shall, however, endeavor to point out several circumstances connected with this sacrifice, which plainly indicate its expiatory character and typical reference to Christ, and which cannot be satisfactorily explained upon any other hypothesis.

(1) Let it be noted that, according to the comment of the apostle, the sacrifice of Abel was offered “by faith.” When we examine what is said in reference to the ancient worthies in the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, we discover that their faith rested on certain promises; and the clear inference is, that such must also have been the case with the faith of Abel. But let us inquire what that promise was. Here, if we deny that Abel, in this transaction, was acting under divine instructions, in the performance of a religious service, we see no possible way in which his sacrifice could have been “offered by faith.” Hence we have the plainest evidence that this sacrificial worship was by the express appointment of God.

Again: unless we admit that the victims he presented were a sin-offering, expiatory in their character, and adumbrative of the offering of Christ as an atonement for the sins of the world, we can see no suitable object for the faith of Abel to have embraced in connection with the offering presented; nor can we see the least significancy in the character of the sacrifice. But if we admit that the offering of animal sacrifice by Abel was according to the appointment of God - a typical representation designed to direct the faith to the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” - the whole subject is at once plain and impressive.

(2) Notice the peculiar character of the offering of Abel as contradistinguished from that of Cain. The latter “brought of the fruit of the ground;” but the former “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” Now, if we admit that animal sacrifices, by the express appointment of God, were at once an acknowledgment by the sacrificer of his own sin, and of his faith in the great atoning Sacrifice, the reason why the offering of Abel was “better” and more successful than that of Cain is at once obvious; but if we deny this, we can see no reason for the superiority of the one offering to the other.

(3) The apostle styles the offering of Abel “a more excellent sacrifice” than that of Cain. The word pleiona, here rendered more excellent, has been the subject of criticism with the learned. Some have contended that it means a greater quantity, and others, a better quality, or kind, of offering. The translation of Wickliffe, it cannot be denied, is as literal a rendering as can be made. As Archbishop Magee has observed, though “it is uncouth, it contains the full force of the original. It renders the passage ‘a much more sacrifice,’ etc.” Whatever may be the conclusion in reference to the sense in which this “much more” is to be taken - whether it relates to nature, quantity, or quality - it must be admitted that it points out the peculiarity in the offering of Abel, which gave it superiority with God over that of Cain, and became the testimony to Abel “that he was righteous.” Now if God had ordained by express command that “righteousness,” or justification, was to be obtained by faith in the atoning Saviour, and had instituted animal sacrifice as the typical representation of that atonement, the reasonableness and propriety of the whole procedure - the offering of Abel, the respect that God had to his offering, the righteousness he thereby obtained, and the divine testimony it gave him that his gifts were accepted - are all clearly exhibited. But if this be denied, we see no way of accounting for and explaining these circumstances. Hence we conclude that in the “offering” of Abel we have a clear typical representation of the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ. The following is presented by Archbishop Magee, as a brief summary of the conclusion of many of the ancient divines upon this subject: “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; while 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 superintendence of God, and expressing his gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good things which he thereby professed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the Fall, exhibits the first fruits of his parent’s 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 latter days, has actuated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of Christ.”

2. The next instance of patriarchal sacrifices which we shall mention is the case of Noah, immediately on his leaving the ark.

“And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.” Genesis 8:20-21. Here, in order that we may see that Noah performed this act of worship in compliance with a previous appointment of God, it is only necessary for us -

(1) To reflect on the dispatch with which he engages in the work when he comes forth from the ark. There is no time for the exercise of his inventive genius, which we may suppose would have been requisite, had he not previously been familiar with this mode of worship.

(2) He “took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl;” which is an evidence that the distinction of clean and unclean animals was an appointment of God in reference to sacrifice, and consequently that the system of sacrifice connected with this distinction was also an appointment of God.

(3) The Lord approved this sacrifice: he “smelled a sweet savor;” which he could not have done had not this mode of worship been in accordance with his own institution.

(4) The sacrifice of clean animals here presented was typical of the atonement of Christ. This may be seen by the allusion to this passage in the language of Paul, in Ephesians 5:2 : “Christ hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savor.” Here, the words osmhn euwdiav, used by the apostle, are the same found in the Septuagint in reference to the sacrifice of Noah.

3. Again, we see the patriarch Abraham, on a memorable occasion in which he received a renewal of the gracious promise of God, engaging in the performance of animal sacrifice with the divine approbation.

“And he said unto him, Take me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another; but the birds divided he not.” Genesis 15:9-10. In reference to this passage, Dr. Clarke says:

“It is worthy of remark, that every animal allowed or commanded to be sacrificed under the Mosaic law, is to be found in this list. And is it not a proof that God was now giving to Abram an epitome of that law and its sacrifices which he intended more fully to reveal to Moses; the essence of which consisteth in its sacrifices, which typified ‘the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world’?”

We will only add that we have, in this coincidence of the animals sacrificed by Abraham, and under the Mosaic law, a clear demonstration that the patriarchal sacrifices were of divine appointment; otherwise this coincidence is unaccountable. In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, we have a record of the remarkable faith of Abraham, in presenting his son Isaac as a burnt-offering on Mount Moriah, in obedience to the divine command. In Hebrews 11:17-19, we have the comment of St. Paul upon this subject: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”

(1) We have in this transaction a clear proof that animal sacrifices were originally instituted by divine appointment. This is evidenced by the considerations that God expressly commanded Abraham to go to Mount Moriah, and there offer a burnt-offering; that Abraham spoke of his intended sacrifice as of a service to which he had been accustomed; that Isaac, by asking the question, “Where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?” discovered a familiarity with that mode of worship; and that God actually provided the lamb to be sacrificed instead of Isaac. All these circumstances testify that sacrificial worship was an institution of God.

(2) We here have a lively type of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Abraham is said to have received Isaac “from the dead in a figure.” The word here rendered figure is parabolh, parable, or type. Macknight paraphrases it thus: “From whence on this occasion he received him, by being hindered from slaying him, even in order to his being a type of Christ.” As we have here the testimony of the apostle to the fact that Abraham’s sacrifice was adumbrative of the offering of Christ on Calvary for the sins of the world, we deem it unnecessary to dwell upon the many striking points of analogy between the type and antitype.

4. On the subject of the sacrifices of the patriarchs, the case of Job is worthy of particular attention. With regard to the period in which this patriarch lived, there has been considerable controversy. Some have supposed that he lived subsequent to the giving of the law: but the more probable opinion is that he was contemporary with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. At any rate, he does not appear to have been acquainted with the Mosaic ritual, or we might reasonably expect to find connected with his history some allusion to the giving of the law.

It is true, some have contended, and Dr. A. Clarke among the number, that the circumstance of Job offering “burnt-offerings” to God is a proof that he was acquainted with the Mosaic institution, and consequently that he lived subsequently to the exodus from Egypt. But, in reply to this, it may be said that Abraham and Noah also presented “burnt-offerings” to God, and the same argument would prove that they also were acquainted with the Mosaic institution, which we know to be contrary to the fact of the history. The most consistent opinion is, that Job was contemporary with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, and that we have in his history a comment upon the patriarchal religion, previous to the general spread of idolatry among the descendants of Noah. An account of the sacrifice of Job is recorded in Job 1:5 : “And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, [his sons and daughters,] and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.

Thus did Job continually.” That this mode of sacrifice was the regular practice of Job, and that the decided testimony is that he was pious and exemplary, are sufficient evidence that he was acting in obedience to a divine command, received through tradition or otherwise. But the fact that the supposition that his sons might have sinned was given as the reason for the sacrifice, is clear proof that it was expiatory in its character, and a typical representation of the great sacrifice of Christ. To all that has been said in reference to the divine appointment and typical and expiatory character of the sacrifices of the patriarchal dispensation, it has been objected that the Mosaic history contains no direct account of the divine origin, and no express declaration of the expiatory character of these sacrifices. It is a sufficient reply to the above, to know that Moses does not profess to give a complete history of the patriarchal religion. What he says upon the subject is incidental and exceedingly brief. There is no express account of any moral code being delivered to the patriarchs between the time of the Fall and the law of Moses; yet the fact that “Abel’s works were righteous,” and Cain’s works “were evil,” is sufficient testimony that God had in some way prescribed to them their duty. Even so, the fact that God sanctioned the patriarchal sacrifices with his express approval, is clear evidence that they originated not in the invention of men, but in the appointment of God.

Again, we have the direct proof from the New Testament that Moses did not think it necessary to give a complete and full account of every thing connected with the patriarchal religion. Enoch prophesied concerning the day of judgment, and Abraham looked for a “heavenly inheritance, a better country;” and yet Moses makes no record of the prophesying of the one, or of the promise on which the faith of the other was based. Therefore we conclude that the above objection to the view we have taken of the divine origin, and typical and expiatory character of the animal sacrifices of the ancient patriarchs, is perfectly groundless; and the argument derived from those sacrifices, for the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ, is seen to be conclusive.

III. In the next place, we notice the sacrifices prescribed under the Mosaic law. The argument for the expiatory character of the death of Christ, derived from this source, will not require an extensive and minute examination of the entire system of sacrificial worship as it is presented in the Mosaic dispensation. If it can be shown that animal sacrifices therein enjoined were expiatory in their character, and divinely constituted types of the sufferings and death of Christ, the true character of the atonement of Christ will be thereby established. That we may the better understand the nature and design of the sacrifices under the law, we will first notice that the Mosaic law itself consisted of three distinct, though connected, parts - the moral, the ceremonial, and the political.

1. The moral law is summarily embraced in the decalogue, but comprehends also all those precepts throughout the books of Moses and the prophets, which, being founded on the nature of God and of man, are necessarily and immutably obligatory upon all rational and accountable creatures, without regard to time, place, or circumstance. In this acceptation of the term, the law of God is essentially the same in all ages; and the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations are only different developments or exhibitions of the same grand principles of righteousness.

2. The ceremonial law comprehends that system of forms and religious ceremonies which God prescribed for the regulation of the worship of the Israelitish nation, and which constituted the peculiar characteristic of the Mosaic dispensation. This law had respect to times and seasons - to days, months, and years; but it especially embraced the regulations of the priesthood, the stated assemblages and regular festivals of the people, and the entire system of sacrificial worship.

3. The political law comprehended the civil jurisprudence of the Jewish people. This law was of divine appointment, but related peculiarly to the government of the Israelitish nation. It defined the rights, prescribed the mode of settling the controversies, and had jurisdiction over the lives of individuals. This threefold character of law, under which the Jews, during the Mosaic dispensation, were placed, must render their entire legal code somewhat complex; and admonish us that when sin is spoken of with them, it must be the transgression of one or more of these laws; and care should be taken to ascertain to what law it has reference. This important point being borne in mind, it will not be presumed that the taking away of sin through the piacular sacrifices of the ceremonial law was properly a moral ablution. As these sacrifices belonged to the ceremonial law, it is only contended that they were expiatory in a ceremonial sense. The atonement which they made was not a real acquittal from the guilt of moral transgression: it was a ceremonial cleansing. The distinction here specified is clearly recognized by St. Paul, in Hebrews 10:4 : “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Here the apostle is evidently speaking of the removal of moral guilt, or sin, in view of the moral law. This, ceremonial sacrifices could only remove in a ceremonial, not a moral, sense. In Hebrews 9:13, the apostle speaks of the ceremonial cleansing and expiation of the sacrifices of the law in these words: “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh,” etc. Here we perceive that the same sacrifices which we had just seen could not remove moral pollution, or cleanse the conscience, were efficacious in the removal of ceremonial pollution, or in the cleansing of the body. Now, if it can be shown that the sacrifices under the law were expiatory in a ceremonial point of view, and that this ceremonial expiation was typical of the only proper expiation for sin under the gospel, the argument from this subject for the expiatory character of the death of Christ will then be sufficiently manifest.

It should farther be remembered, that it is not necessary to this argument that all the sacrifices of the law should be shown to be expiatory in their character. Some of them were eucharistic, and others were mere incidental purifications of persons or things. All that is requisite to our argument is to show that there were some sacrifices which were expiatory and typical. Nor is it necessary to show that their expiatory character related to the law in every sense of the word; to show that it related to it in either the political, ceremonial, or moral sense, will be all that is required. To accomplish this, we think, will not be difficult. To bring forward all the passages properly bearing upon this subject, would be unnecessarily tedious; we shall therefore only select a few.

(1) First, we refer to the yearly feast of expiation,Leviticus 16:30; Leviticus 16:34 : “For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.”

Now, let it be remembered that death, according to the law, is the penalty of sin, and that an atonement is here made by the offering of slain victims for all the sins of the people, and the inference is plain that, through the death of the animals, the people were saved from death, which was the penalty incurred by their sins; consequently the death of the victims was vicarious - in the stead of the death of the people; and also expiatory - it removed, ceremonially, their sins from them. That this atonement was a substitution of the life of the victim for that of the sinner, may farther be seen from Leviticus 15:31 : “Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, that they die not in their uncleanness.”

(2) Again, the ceremony in reference to the scape-goat on the solemn anniversary of expiation, is peculiarly expressive of the transfer or removal of the sins of the people. The priest was to “put his hands on the head of the goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat;” and then he was to “send the goat away by a fit man into the wilderness.” If this ceremony was not indicative of an expiation or removal of sin, it will be difficult to perceive in it any meaning whatever.

(3) The celebrated feast of the Passover, instituted in commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites, when the angel smote the first-born of Egypt, clearly shows that the life of the sinner was preserved by the death of the victim. The lamb was slain, and its blood sprinkled upon the posts of the doors; and wherever the blood was sprinkled, the destroying angel passed over and spared the lives of all within the house. Thus, by the blood of the slain lamb, was the life of the Israelite preserved.

IV. In the last place, upon this subject, we come to notice the language of the New Testament, in reference to the connection between the sacrifices of the law and the offering of himself by Christ as the great sacrifice for sin. So full and pointed is the comment of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that it is difficult to conceive how any one can read that Epistle, and not be convinced that the Mosaic sacrifices were typical of the vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ.

Hebrews 7:27 : “Who needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”Hebrews 9:14 : “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.” Hebrews 9:22-28 : “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that be should offer himself often, as the high-priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”Hebrews 10:10 : “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 : “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” Hebrews 10:14 : “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” In the passages above quoted, the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ, as typified by the sacrifices under the Mosaic law, is so clearly shown that, if we deny this doctrine, we may despair of ever finding a consistent meaning to these scriptures. As corroborative testimony upon the subject before us, it may not be amiss to refer to the sacrifices of heathen, nations. From what has already been said in reference to the origin of animal sacrifices, it will follow that, however much the institution has been perverted, the heathen nations have all derived their first notions upon this subject from revelation, transmitted through tradition. History testifies that scarce a nation has been known, either in ancient or modern times, that was not in the practice of offering sacrifices for the purpose of propitiating the Deity. Many of them went so far as, on occasions of great emergency, to offer up human victims. This was the case with the Phenicians, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, and also the learned Greeks and the civilized Romans; hence Cesar, in his Commentaries, states it as the doctrine of the Druids, that “unless the life of man were given for the life of men, the immortal gods would not be appeased.”

Dr. Priestley has denied that heathen nations pretended to expiate sin by animal sacrifice; but he has met with a pointed rebuke from Dr. Magee, who directly charges him either with culpable ignorance or unfairness. Nor is he more leniently treated in the hands of Dr. Dick, in his “Lectures,” who says: “Either Dr. Priestley, who has made the strange assertion which I am now considering, had never read the history of the various nations of the human race, and in this case was guilty of presumption and dishonesty in pronouncing positively concerning their tenets; or, he has published to the world, with a view to support his own system, what he must have known to be utterly false. It would disgrace a school-boy to say that the heathens knew nothing of expiatory sacrifices.” The argument for the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ, based upon the system of sacrifice, though not the main dependence of the advocates for the true doctrine of the atonement, must be seen, we think, from what has been said, to possess considerable force. Let it be remembered that the patriarchal and Mosaic sacrifices were of divine appointment; let the circumstances connected with the offerings of Abel, of Noah, of Abraham, and of Job, be well considered; let the institution of the Passover, and all the sacrifices under the law, be contemplated, together with the duties of the divinely constituted priesthood of the Jews; let the piacular offerings of the heathens be taken into consideration; and then let the declarations of the New Testament, especially of the Epistle to the Hebrews, be consulted, and the manner in which sacrificial terms are applied to the death of Christ, and we think that the conviction must force itself upon the mind of the unprejudiced, that, unless the whole system of patriarchal and Mosaic sacrifices was unmeaning mummery, and the writers of the New Testament designed to mislead their readers, the death of Christ upon the cross was a properly vicarious offering, in the room and stead of sinners, as an expiation for their sins. The denial of this proposition would at once mar the beautiful symmetry which pervades the entire system of revelation, and render perfectly unmeaning, or force a far-fetched and unnatural construction upon the institutions and a great portion of the word of God. Its admission beautifully and harmoniously connects the law and the gospel, the old and the new-dispensations, and stamps the entire code of revelation with the sacred impress of consistency and truth.