DISCOURSE II.

Heb. ix. 22.

And without shedding of blood is no remission.

ON the last commemoration of the awful subject of this day's observance, it was attempted in this place to clear the important doctrine of redemption from those difficulties in which it had been artfully entangled by the subtle speculations of the disputatious deist, and of the philosophizing Christian. The impotence of reason to erect the degraded sinner to an assured hope of the sufficiency of repentance, pointed out to us the necessity of an express revelation on this head that revelation, in announcing the expedient of a Mediator, was seen to fall in with the analogies of the Providential economy: the Mediatorial scheme was shown to have been accomplished, through the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God; and this sacrifice to have been effective to the expiation of the sins of the whole human race. What the peculiar nature, and true import of this sacrifice are; and in what sense the expiation effected by it is strictly to be understood, it is my purpose on this day to inquire. And as, on the one hand, there is no article of Christian knowledge of deeper concern; and, on the other, none that has been more studiously involved in obscurity; I trust that you, my young brethren, will not refuse your patient attention, whilst I endeavour to unfold to your apprehension, the genuine, because the scripture interpretation of that great sacrifice, whereby we are redeemed from the power of sin, and have received the promise of an eternal inheritance.

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 (y) 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 (s) 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, (a) 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, (b) 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. (c)

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 ef fects (d) 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 (e) 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 (ƒ) instruction, cannot (z) See No. XLVII. (a) See No. XLVIII. (c) See No. L. (d) See No. LI. (e) See No. LII. (ƒ) See No. LIII.

(y) See No. XLVI. (b) See No. XLIX.

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.(g)

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 (h) of the practice; the sameness (i) 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,(k) 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

(8) See No. LIV. (h) See No. LV. (i) See No. LVI.
(k) See Nos. XXXI, and XLIII,

E

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 unncessary 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 (1) 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 (m) 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 (n) 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 sacrifice 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 al

*Heb. x. 1, 12.

(7) See No. LVII.

Heb. ix. 9-14.
(m) See No. LVIII. (n) See No. LIX.

ready 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 circumstances 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, (o) 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 (p) 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, (q) which phrase, though uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original. 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 (r) 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.

(0) See No. LX. (p) See No. LXI.

(r) See No. LXIII.

(q) See No. LXII. * Heb. xi. 4.

The