THE ATONEMENT
IN ITS
RELATIONS TO GOD AND MAN
By
The Rev. NATHAN S. S. BEMAN, D. D
THE FACT OF
ATONEMENT HITHERTO a single inquiry has occupied our
attention, namely, The necessity of atonement as indicated by the great
principles of moral government and the general yet definite disclosures of
divine revelation. The conclusion to which the candid and reflecting mind
would naturally be conducted, by the course of reasoning already pursued,
is that the atonement for sin is an essential part of the gospel plan, and
that we may expect to find this doctrine everywhere interwoven with the
other great truths which belong to the plan of salvation. But it may be
said, in reply, that this is a mere human theory, or, at least, that this
is only an inference from a gratuitous and doubtful hypothesis, and must
not be relied on when an important and vital doctrine of revelation is
concerned. Be it so. It will be proper then to look at this matter, in
another light, and to institute an inquiry respecting the FACT of
atonement. This is a purely biblical question. No other umpire can sit in
judgment in the case. Is it then a revealed FACT, that God in saving men,
required an atonement for sin? Was the sacrifice of his own Son a
prerequisite to the accomplishment of ibis sublime and magnificent work?
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them. But in order to overthrow the conclusions to which we
were conducted in the previous chapter, a question of great practical
importance has often been asked, which may as well be disposed of in this
place, before the direct scriptural evidence of the atonement, is
presented to the reader. The question is this: May not God consistently
and safely forgive sin, on the condition of repentance, without an
atonement? There is certainly some degree of plausibility in those views
of moral government which go to support the affirmative of this question,
and hence it deserves a fair and full reply. Can then the repentance of
man supply the place of the atonement? It is a clear case, that the
penitent cannot be considered as an innocent being. However deep his
contrition, his past conduct, in the eye of the law must continue just as
it was. Its character is the same as before. It was sinful when it
occurred, and it remains sinful forever. This the conscience of the
penitent teaches, and this is confirmed by every principle of law and
justice. Repentance, as far as it has any moral character, affects only
the present and the future; but it can, in this respect, have no bearing
upon past offenses. It cannot annihilate them--it cannot palliate their
enormity--it cannot modify their circumstances. There they stand, as they were in the judgment of the
law, in the mind of God, in the conscience of the sinner, and in the
records of the universe. Repentance can, in no sense repair the injury
inflicted on the law. It has no more power, in this respect, in moral than
in pecuniary transactions. A man robs you of your property. In this act,
he commits a moral wrong, and inflicts a pecuniary evil. He repents: but
does this honor the law and cure the difficulty? Must he necessarily be
restored because he is sorry? Such a state of mind, on his part, neither
cancels his guilt, nor pays you back your money. The law is still a
violated and dishonored law, in both the moral and pecuniary aspects of
his offence; and its claim is uncancelled. It is not pretended that this
example reaches the case fully, but it is analogous and may serve to
illustrate it. And if it be true, as every fair and impartial mind will
readily concede, because self-evident, that the contrition or sorrow of
the highwayman does not cancel his crime, or destroy his example, or
repair the mischief he has done, or raise the dead and restore the
murdered to his weeping family, or make any amends for the transgression,
or render the murderer innocent, or in any sense, alter or modify your
pecuniary claim on him, it is equally true, that the same state of mind
cannot alter his relations to law in regard to the moral aspect of his
deed. Repentance can have, in moral government, no retro-action, and
cannot fulfil the high purposes which form the very body and essence of an
atonement. This act or state of mind may affect the sinner's moral
character, may make him a better man, but it cannot release him from the
stern demands of law. The murderer may repent, and he may so deeply feel
and deplore his crime, that it may be morally certain, that he will never
commit a like offence again. But all this does not relieve him from the
penalty of the law. He is still a murderer. But it may be said, that murderers are often
pardoned, in the above circumstances, by human government. Never by the
discrete and wise, merely because they are penitent. A dispensation from
death should never be granted till every thing in the case which can have
an influence on the public welfare is carefully and coolly surveyed. The
law and its honor must be sustained. This principle lies at the foundation
of the government of God, and of every good government among men; and
repentance alone is never deemed a sufficient reason for staying the
infliction of penalty. But in the case of a murderer, it should be
remembered, that the infliction of death is not considered the measure of
the moral turpitude of his act. When he is executed, we are not to suppose
that his crime is expiated or cancelled, and that he is no longer a
murderer. The objects to be secured by human law, in such a case, are
principally two; to prevent the criminal from repeating his acts of
violence on the community, and to operate as a salutary check upon others.
So far as the first is concerned, repentance may be a reason why he should
be pardoned; but the great interests of the community as it regards the
salutary, cheeks of law on others, may require the infliction of all that
is threatened. So in the case of a penitent sinner. He might be
comparatively secure against future acts of rebellion, or, so far as his
moral feelings are concerned, it might be consistent for God to forgive
and restore him. But where is the honor of the law? Where is the good of
the universe? Where is that terror which God, in benevolence to his
creatures, has hung, with his own mighty hand, around the penalty? What
would there be in such a case to deter others from trampling on the divine
authority? Repentance, even where it exists, does not reach this point at
all; here it is intrinsically weak and inefficient. But there is another difficulty in the case under
consideration. Such is the nature of sin, that it never works its own
cure. Its spirit is never effectually subdued by the simple operation of
law. There is no provision for this purpose, as the law knows but two
classes, the obedient and the disobedient; and for the former it has its
rewards, and for the latter its punishments. It has nothing to do with
penitence, neither in producing, nor in rewarding it. Some new principle
must be introduced into the moral system and superadded to the provisions
of the law, before the transgressor can be reclaimed, before he can ever
become the subject of true repentance. The proclamation must first come
from the throne. If God does not first call after man, man will never seek
after God. If the injured Lawgiver does not interpose and offer terms, the
incipient act of transgression will become the first link in an endless
chain! And without an atonement, what basis is there, to sustain an offer?
All the difficulties stated in the former discussion, again plant
themselves in the way of man's recovery. God cannot begin the work of
salvation--cannot offer life on any terms,--cannot make repentance, or any
thing else, a condition of acceptance, till the law is properly sustained
and honored by an atonement. There are other objections to that presumptuous
scheme which would substitute repentance in the place of atonement. It is
not only true, that man as a sinner will never repent and return to his
allegiance, without an offer from God, and that this offer can never be
consistently made without some basis besides law to sustain it; but the
mere operation of law can never produce repentance. It is deficient in
motives for this purpose. There are but three possible ways in which the
law could influence man to repent, by the loveliness of its precept, by
the terror of its threatened curse, or by the actual infliction of that
curse. With regard to the precept, it has no charms as viewed by an
impenitent heart. It may allure the penitent to acts of future obedience,
but it has no power to originate godly sorrow for sin. The threatened
penalty may alarm the sinner, by showing him what he deserves from the
hand of the Lawgiver, but if the only motive to the renunciation of sin,
is the fear of punishment, the effect will be the sorrow of the world that
worketh death. With regard to the infliction of the penalty, no time need
be consumed, as no one will contend, that it has a converting power. The
world of future punishment is neither a penitentiary, nor a purgatory,
and. it is any thing but a world of evangelical, or genuine repentance.
The ingenuous, godly sorrow for sin, the change of mind, the thorough
moral reformation which the Bible calls repentance is never found in the
world of endless death, and is always produced by other motives than those
prescribed by the law. There is not a solitary fact on record for our
contemplation, in the whole history of man's redemption, to induce the
belief, that repentance is ever produced by mere legal influences. The
gospel alone is clothed with this power,--and the gospel. too that
includes the atonement. Here are motives divinely commissioned to the
heart: motives well adapted, stronger than sin, high as heaven, broad and
deep, and endless as eternity. These motives, drawn from the love of God
and the blood of Christ, have subdued millions of hearts, and will
continue to effect this wonderful and magnificent work, till the purposes
of God respecting our world are all fulfilled. The question then whether God may consistently
forgive man, on his repentance, without an atonement for sin, stands thus:
no one ever will repent without a prior movement on the part of God;
should the moral Governor offer terms of reconciliation without atonement
to authorize such overtures, the principles of the law would be
sacrificed; and, these difficulties apart, no person ever did repent, or
ever will repent, while under the influence of mere legal motive, or, in
other words without the effectual and heart-subduing appeals of the
gospel. Evangelical repentance, or a thorough moral renovation of heart
and life, is so far from being a suitable substitute for an atonement, in
the moral government of God, that its very existence or exercise,
pre-supposes the law already vindicated, the character of God fully and
publicly sustained in the offers of acceptance and life, the atonement
finished and approved, as the broad and solid basis of the sinner's hope,
and the new and peculiar motives of this scheme of mercy rendered
effectual by the subduing power of the Spirit speaking to us in the
glorious gospel of the blessed God. We have again arrived at the same point to which we
were conducted by our reasonings on the necessity of an atonement; and we
now enter upon the direct proof of the FACT that such an atonement has
been provided, with a strong presumption in its favor. The interpretation
of the whole book of God, must be essentially affected by the manner in
which the question now under examination shall be settled. The advocate
and the opposer of this doctrine, while they differ toto caelo in other
respects, agree in certain facts belonging to the system of the gospel.
They both believe, that Jesus Christ lived and died, that he revealed the
will of God more perfectly than had ever before been done and that he is
the author of salvation to man. They must consequently both believe, that
man was, in some sense, lost, and that a Redeemer was needful for him. The
point in controversy between them is this, was man, as a sinner, in a
condition beyond the reach of forgiveness without atonement; and did Jesus
Christ die not merely as a pattern of suffering innocence or passive
heroism, or as a martyr to seal, by his blood, the truth of his doctrine,
but, by that blood, to redeem sinners from the curse of the law? In the
present attempt to settle this question, it may be proper to take a wider
range than barely to appeal to the ordinary proof-texts, which are
considered as belonging to this discussion; or, to aver, as we could with
a clear and good conscience, that to us it seems a fact portentous and
terrible, in their case, that men of learning and ordinary pretensions to
candor, can read the whole Book of God, especially such compared portions
as the book of Leviticus and the Epistle to, the Hebrews, believing
sincerely that they are divine oracles and in common given by inspiration
of God, and yet doubt, or above all deny, the fact of atonement, as made
by our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of men! The doctrines of Substitution and Sacrifice are
interwoven with the whole fabric of revelation; nor can these, by any mode
of fair exegesis, or any new and ingenious readings, or alleged
interpolations be disengaged from the entire and universal structure
without destroying its essential points. In this inquiry we must expect,
as in all others which pertain purely to religion, to be conducted at
first by the mere twilight of the early dawn, and we may anticipate that
the day will wax brighter and brighter till in a finished revelation, the
sun in full-orbed radiance will shine upon us. The New Testament must in
many things, be consulted as the only infallible expositor of the
Old. ANIMAL SACRIFICES, it will readily be conceded, form
a part of that system of worship taught in the Bible, and are likewise
incorporated with many systems of Paganism. If we look at the origin of
these rites, trace the changes which mark their history, as they become
more and more definite and expressive, in their symbols, and, especially,
if we employ the KEY of exposition, furnished by the writers of the New
Testament, to unlock their deep and hidden mysteries, we can hardly fail
in the exercise of diligence and candor, of arriving at the conclusion,
that the doctrine of atonement for sin enters in one form and another,
into the very texture of revelation, warp and woof, it is incorporated
with the frame-work, and lives and beats, as the vital principle, in the
very heart of the gospel. THE ADAMIC SACRIFICES deserve, at the commencement of
this discussion, a moment's notice. They must have been of divine origin.
All the circumstances of the case go to establish this point. These rites
appeared soon after the fall; they existed in the family of our first
parents; and they were practiced, at least in the case of Abel with the
approbation of God. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, and, and
Abel, the firstlings of his flock, an offering unto the Lord. The apostle
Paul tells us, that, 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. The
difference between Cain and Abel, in these offerings, was, that the latter
had faith, the former had not. Faith may here be taken in a general sense,
as most commentators are inclined to consider it, as implying a belief in
God, his moral government, and in future rewards and punishments; or it
may be taken in a more specific sense, for trust or confidence in the
declaration of God respecting the sinner's approach to him, in acts of
worship, and his pardon and acceptance. In the latter sense, it is far
more expressive than in the former. Now if we suppose, what we shall by
and by learn to be the fact, as we trace the thread of divine history
touching this matter, that animal sacrifices were employed, by God
himself, as a constant and perpetual memento, under the early
dispensations of mercy, of man's sinfulness and God's method of dispensing
pardon and life through the sacrifice of another, all will be clear and
expressive. Abel exercised faith in God's mode of restoring the sinner,
and he brought the required sacrifice; Cain was a cool, philosophical
Unitarian, and brought a rational sacrifice, and poured contempt on that
appointed of God to remind man of sin, and to be the standing symbol, for
ages, of the Mediator and his sacrifice. He needed no expiring animal to
teach him what he deserved; no blood to atone for him; no mediator through
whom he might approach God and be blessed! Abel, on the other hand worshipped God, by adopting
gospel-symbols; and, by exercising faith in the appointment and promise of
God, obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.
We are utterly forbidden by such expressions as these, to believe, that
sacrifices are of human invention. These rites were appointed by God. They
probably had their birth in the garden of Eden. The flesh of those of
whose skins God himself made the first garments which covered our sinning
parents, was, by the order of the same being, offered in sacrifice. To
suppose that the very family of Adam should have invented such a mode of
worship, and that God should have put his own seal to such a decree, if it
has no signification--no deep spiritual meaning, and no divine authority
in the plan of God, is too absurd for credulity itself to
believe. If it should be objected that this is making too much
of a few facts stated in man's early history, and a few occasional
comments on the same, recorded in the New Testament, the answer is, that
if we had nothing more in the Bible, on this subject, the exception would
be correctly taken. But we have here the first facts of a long series
connecting man with God in acts of religious worship, and these facts are
all of the same character, and sustain the same relations to man and to
God, and they must have had a common origin and they are to be explained
on common principles. We stand here by a fountain from which issues a
stream that increases as it flows for more than forty centuries, through
the successive pages of revelation, till the hook of God is finished; and
we might as well say that the little spring is not water, because it is
not the broad and deep and majestic river that empties into the ocean, as
to affirm, that the hand of God, and the religion of the gospel, and the
hope of sinful man, and the typical blood of the Lamb of God, are not in
these early sacrifices, merely because they are not all spread out and
expounded in the broad light of day, as they are in the maturer writings
of a more finished revelation. Indeed in the interpretation of these
primitive facts and symbols, we must borrow our lamp from a brighter and
more perfect age of the church. THE PATRIARCHAL SACRIFICES will aid us in the
investigation of the doctrine of atonement for sin. At the period of the
church to which reference is here made, we may expect additional light
respecting the appointed rites of religious worship; and from the
Patriarchs, those good men of whom the world was not worthy, we may look
for clearer views of the way of salvation than were enjoyed at an earlier
age. When Noah, with his family, went out of the ark and took possession
of the new world, and became the second father of the human race, he
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. In this passage, taken in all
its bearings, recording, as it does, the act of a distinguished saint and
the second progenitor of mankind, and written as it was, at the very dawn
of a new creation, and destined to send out an influence through all
future time among his descendants, we see that it contains much more than;
at a single glance, meets the eye. It has a retrospective import too. The
reader, without any presumption, may readily infer that Noah was now
performing an accustomed act. He had learned the doctrine of sacrifice
before the flood. The distinction between clean and unclean animals was
already established, and with his eye on this distinction he had taken an
additional number of the former class into the ark. He "offered
burnt-offerings on the altar." These were offerings for sin, as we shall
see in a subsequent part of this inquiry. His sacrifices were accepted, as
is indicated in the expressions, "The Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the
Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground anymore for
man's sake." It is impossible, in reading this simple narrative, to resist
the conviction, that the historian is here recording common events--things
well known and familiar in that age of the church. No novelties are here
presented to the eye. Altars and sacrifices belonged to the worship of
God; and Noah, having been acquainted with them in the old world, used
them as he and other pious men had been accustomed to do in former times.
Nor is the impression less distinct, that these rites were not human
inventions founded on false conceptions of the Deity, but were of divine
origin and divine appointment. They were practiced by the best men in the
world, and received, as a part of revelation, the seal and signature of
God. We find Abraham, soon after he entered the land of
Canaan, and when the Lord had appeared to him and promised him that land
as his future inheritance, employing the same rites of worship. He builded
an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. With this
altar, and this invocation, we naturally and necessarily, as in other
cases, associate the accustomed sacrifice. On another occasion, amidst
special divine revelations he was directed, by God himself, what kind of
sacrifices to offer. Take me an 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 in that affecting page of his history when he was called
to offer up his own son Isaac, we cannot fail of discovering the hand and
purpose of God in these ancient sacrifices. Indeed we learn, from a few
facts incidentally recorded, what must have been universally known and
fully understood, by the people of God in that age of the world. As we
follow the footsteps of this venerable patriarch and his beloved son, on
their singular and painful mission to Mount Moriah, we see Isaac carrying
the wood of the burnt-offering, while Abraham has the fire in one hand and
the knife in the other. These preparations excited no alarm in the bosom
of Isaac, for they all belonged to the acts of divine worship which were
both customary and required, in the patriarchal age; and but one thing was
wanting to render them complete. And Isaac said, Behold the fire and the
wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering? This inquiry shows us
what was customary on such occasions; and when the altar was built on the
destined spot, and the wood laid in order upon it; and when we see Isaac
bound and laid on the altar on the wood; and afterwards when the fatal
blow had been averted which would have taken the life of this beloved son,
and the ram caught in a thicket by his horns was substituted in his place,
we are no longer in the dark, unless by voluntary blindness, in relation
to the existing usages of divine worship. We see Jacob on a certain occasion, building an altar
by the express command of God. And God said unto Jacob, arise go up to
Bethel, and dwell there; and make thee an altar unto God, that appeared
unto thee when thou fleest from the face of Esau thy brother. And when he
removed to Beersheba, with his family and effects, on his way to Egypt, he
offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac. Job, the patriarch of Uz, who lived at a very early
period, probably after the death of Joseph and before the departure of the
children of Israel from the land of Egypt, offered sacrifices in the same
manner and with the same external rites, which we have already noticed.
When his children were holding feasts alternately in their respective
houses, this good man 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. The nature of these sacrifices we cannot mistake. They were
burnt-offerings. They were sacrifices for sin. The language of revelation
is by no means equivocal on this point. It may be my sons have SINNED. But
a still stronger confirmation of the position which has been taken if a
stronger is needed or can be had, may be found in a subsequent incident of
this patriarch's life. When he was about to emerge from his deep gloom,
and again enjoy the approving sun-light of heaven, God gave this direction
to his erring friends: Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and
seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for Yourselves a
burnt-offering, and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I
accept. And all this was done, and the Lord also accepted Job. Here we
have sacrifice and prayer united; these acts of service were required by
God; and, when they were offered according to his direction, they were
owned and accepted. Indeed, during the entire patriarchal ages of the
church, the altar and the lamb, acceptable homage and answers of mercy,
are so intimately associated, that we need entertain no doubt of the
origin or the import of these excellent rites. God required the sacrifice
of animals among the externals of his own worship, he prescribed the mode
of these offerings, pious men obeyed his commands, and in the answers of
peace which were given, there is shed, over the whole transaction, the
approving smile of heaven. THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES will farther instruct us on
this subject, in as much as they teach by express authority what the
former facts and examples have done, incidentally and, by legitimate
influence, But the whole economy of Moses cannot be even glanced at, not
to say examined, in this brief survey. A few particulars only will be
selected. That animal sacrifices formed a part, and an important and
essential part of the Old Testament dispensation, no one will deny who
admits that God gave a revelation to the Israelites, and, through them to
the world, by Moses. The admission of this fact, and its explanation given
by the rejecters of the doctrine of atonement, that sacrifices existed, at
that day, among all the nations, and that God, for wise and good purposes
incorporated these rites into the Mosaic system, although they were of
human origin, is by no means satisfactory or at all probable. But this
point will be more fully considered in another connection. The PASSOVER deserves a distinct and special notice.
It was first enjoyed in Egypt, and afterwards incorporated with the other
institutes of God given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Its retrospective or
commemorative character will not be denied. It was, through successive
generations, to remain a standing memento of God's mercy in sparing the
Israelites when he passed through the land, and slew the first born in all
the houses of the Egyptians. The lamb was selected and slain, and his
blood which, by divine command, was sprinkled upon the posts of the door
and the lintel, was the symbol of grace. Whenever the blood was found, the
destroyer passed by, and the inmates of that habitation were spared. They
were protected by blood. But something more was implied in this
institution than the commemoration of a temporal deliverance. The
circumstances of the case all seem to indicate this fact. The nature of
the victim, his selection from the flock, the formalities of his
sacrifice, and the final disposal of all things pertaining to it,
naturally lead the mind to another and a higher application of the symbols
and ceremonies than to the preservation experienced by the Israelites in
Egypt. But should doubts still remain after a careful and critical
examination of the ordinance itself, these doubts must vanish when we open
a clearer and a better revelation. The institution of the Lord's supper at
the time of the Passover, and for the manifest purpose of taking the place
of that ordinance, and of superseding its future use, is by no means a
doubtful intimation of the true typical meaning of the ordinance. And Paul
in writing to the Corinthians has expressly given this interpretation: For
even CHRIST, our PASSOVER, is sacrificed for us. The candid reader of the
scriptures, and the honest inquirer after truth, can hardly fail to see,
in these appointed symbols, The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of
the world. THE BURNT-OFFERINGS required by the law of Moses, are
not less obvious in their reference to the death and sacrifice of Christ.
This sacrifice, whether it was of the herd or the flock, must be a male
without blemish, and be presented voluntarily. A full account may be found
in the first chapter of Leviticus. The animal was brought to the door of
the Tabernacle, the hands of the offerer were laid on the head of the
victim, which act was a symbol of the confession of sin, and always
attended with such confession, the animal was then slain, and the blood
was sprinkled, by the Priest, upon the altar. It is expressly said that
this offering should be accepted of the person who presented it to make
ATONEMENT for him. THE SIN-OFFERING was presented, in specific cases,
for the Priest, the whole congregation, the ruler, and a private person,
or an individual of the people. In all these cases the hands were laid
upon the head of the animal, and of course with confession of sin, he was
then slain and his blood was disposed of with various significant
ceremonies, and an atonement was thus made. The reader is referred to the
fourth chapter of Leviticus for a full account of these
ceremonies. The sacrifices of the great day of EXPIATION have an
intimate connection with the point in hand. These rites were performed
once a year. The details may be found in the sixteenth chapter of
Leviticus. The High Priest might enter the holy place within the veil only
on the day of annual atonement. He carried with him the blood of a
sin-offering for himself, and likewise for the people. By the former he
made AN ATONEMENT for himself, and for his house. The offering for the
people consisted of two goats. The two formed one sacrifice. Lots were
cast upon these animals--one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the
scape-goat. The one on which the Lord's lot fell was offered as a
sin-offering, and the other was presented alive to the Lord, to MAKE AN
ATONEMENT with him. When the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled
according to the directions given, the live goat must be disposed of in
the following manner, "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of
the live 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 shall send him away by the hand of a fit man
into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon him all the iniquities
unto a land not inhabited."--In these singular transactions we have
sacrifice, substitution, and atonement. To suppose that these rites
actually made, an atonement for sin, and procured forgiveness and the
divine favor, is asking more than can well be believed; but if they are
looked on as types or emblems, they may all find their archetype or
substance in the great work of reconciliation effected by Jesus
Christ. But on this point, nothing is left to human
conjecture. What might have been dark, or, at least, comparatively
obscure, at an earlier period of revelation, is made clear as broad
noon-day to us. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews contains a divine exposition
of the true import of the Levitical sacrifices, and virtually, and, on the
principle of fair reasoning, of the other sacrifices which are mentioned,
in the Bible, as having been offered by good men, and accepted by God. No
person was ever better qualified for such a discussion than the author of
this Epistle. He was thoroughly educated in the Mosaic ritual, and
divinely inspired for this work. The first point we should settle is the true nature
of the ceremonial law. The apostle assures us, that it was typical. It was
not the substance but the shadow. Its influence in procuring pardon and
the favor of God, depended on an efficacy, not inherent, but symbolical.
"For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very
image [substance] of the things, can never, with those sacrifices which
they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect."
This passage speaks for itself. It speaks clearly without a commentator.
The law of Moses presents the types, the gospel the antitypes. And the
principle of interpreting the law here laid down by the apostle, not only
applies to the sacrifices themselves, but to every thing pertaining to
them, to the victim, its death, the priest, the holy place, the altar, the
blood. They were all types or symbols; and they are all divinely expounded
by the apostle, so that no doubt need remain that Christ was in these
ancient rites. He tells US that the "priests that offer gifts according to
the law, serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." But this
is not all, for he informs us who is indicated by this "EXAMPLE and
SHADOW." It is none other than Jesus Christ who embodies all that was
shadowed forth by the Aaronic priesthood. "We have such an High Priest,
who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and
sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also
to offer." It would be difficult indeed for the cool and dispassionate
inquirer after truth to resist the following conclusions from the above
cited passages. That the high priest under the law was a typical
personage; that Jesus Christ is his antitype; that the sacrifices which
were prescribed by the law were of a typical character; and that their
true evangelical import was fulfilled when the Son of God became both
priest and victim, and offered himself a sacrifice for sin on the cross!
Why else was Christ a High Priest? And why "of necessity" must he, in this
character, "have somewhat also to offer?" These questions have never been
answered. By the rejecters of the atonement they never can be
satisfactorily, or properly, or safely, or innocently answered. But it is not an accidental or occasional glance that
the apostle takes at this subject. He has made assurance doubly sure. He
presents, again and again, the union of Priest and sacrifice, in the work
of Jesus Christ. Take the following. "For such an high priest became us,
who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher
than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer
up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
he did once, when he offered up himself." There are many other passages of
the same import. With a few quotations more, the reader must be referred
to the Epistle. "But now once in the eyes of the world, hath he appeared
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many." "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God." "For by one offering
he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." We must here bear in
mind, that Christ is spoken of in the two-fold character of priest and
sacrifice, and that too in special reference to the institution of Moses.
And it is in these relations, that he "put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself," that he "was once offered to bear the sins of many" that he
"offered one sacrifice for sins," that he was himself at once the offering
and the offerer of the great atonement. Follow the apostle as he traces,
step by step, the analogies between the old dispensation and the new, in
Chapter ninth of this Epistle. Look into "the Holiest of all," beyond the
veil, whither "went the high priest alone once every year, not without
blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people."
Mark his declaration, that this was "a figure for the time then present,"
or as Professor Stuart, for good reasons, translates the passage, "which
hath been a type down to the present time"--and you are prepared to
contemplate that other and still greater High Priest of good things to
come" who "entered in once into the holy place," not "by the blood of
goats and calves, but by his own blood," "having obtained eternal
redemption for us." Pursuing the same subject, and tracing the same
analogies between the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Christ,
and between the sacrifices offered by the one and those offered by the
other, and adverting to the ceremonial purification effected by the blood
of the devoted animal, he finishes the parallel in the following
expressive language. "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!" And every where
in this discussion of the priesthood and offering of Christ, as in the
Levitical sacrifices, great stress is laid on "blood." "Having therefore,
brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." "The
blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified." The same remark holds
good respecting the use of the word blood, in the New Testament wherever
it has any reference to the redemption of man through Jesus Christ. Some
instances of this will be given where another aspect of the subject is
presented. What has been said of sacrifices as having a relation
to the doctrine of atonement for sin, may now be closed by a brief summing
up of the whole matter. These rites existed among the true worshippers of
God from the apostasy to the coming of Christ; they were honored by the
approbation of heaven long before we have any distinct account of their
origin; they were at a late age, incorporated with the Mosaic ritual, and
formed no inconsiderable part of that system; and the New Testament
writers every where expound these typical and shadowy ceremonies, dark and
vain and even unmeaning in themselves, as referring to Jesus Christ, the
true sacrifice. No conclusion can be more confidently relied on, than that
they had their origin in the appointment of God. Here we may plant our
feet on a solid rock; and we may stand, on this elevation, with the last
book of the inspired Oracles open before us and the eye fixed on the hand
writing of God, "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." And
conducted by rays of living light, we may look back through the intricate
Jewish ritual-scanning its priest, its altar, its victim, and its blood,
and we may clearly understand what we behold. Thus enlightened and aided,
we may travel back, in thought, through the patriarchal and other early
sacrifices, till we arrive, in our retrospective search, at the very first
page of man's religious history and we cannot fail to receive evangelical
instruction as we gaze on the expiring lamb of righteous Abel, which he
offered up in faith, at the very gates of Eden. In this connection, a word or two may be said of
HEATHEN SACRIFICES. Every reader of general history, as well as every
classical scholar, knows that all Pagan nations, ancient and modern, have
offered animals in sacrifice to their deities; and some of these, we know,
were considered propitiatory. Every ancient poet and historian, and every
modern christian missionary, confirms this remark. Read Homer, Virgil,
Horace, Cicero, Pliny, and Caesar: they all record facts and opinions
enough for our purpose, on this point. The same may be said of the records
of existing missions among the Heathen. The simplest, if not the only, way
to account for the existence of these sacrifices, and especially those
which have any connection with the confession of sin, and its supposed
expiation, or the obtaining of pardon and future blessing, is to refer
them to a divine origin. To suppose that the Heathen, in their gross
ignorance or their unsanctified ingenuity, invented sacrifices, and that
the Hebrews afterwards borrowed them and adopted their use, and that too
by divine direction, which has been asserted by some learned men who have
denied the atonement made by Jesus Christ, is certainly a rare instance of
the absurdity of their resort who are hard pushed by argument. It hardly
deserves, as it has often received, a grave answer. To say nothing of the
profaneness of the supposition that Jehovah was obliged to accommodate his
institutions to the corrupt taste and inveterate habits of idolaters, in
order to conciliate his people and instruct them in the way to heaven,
this motive involves the assumption that Paganism is older than
revelation. Bible history is against these men; indeed universal history
is against them. What human beings could have offered sacrifices earlier
than did Cain and Abel? If Adam and Eve did, they must have derived the
ordinance from heaven, for had it been a wicked or stupid device of their
own, their presumption would no doubt have been rebuked. All the
Antediluvian sacrifices, with which we are not particularly concerned
here,--may be referred to the family of Adam. And in the renewed world,
after the deluge, what corrupt heathen was there to teach Noah to offer
that sacrifice which arose as "a sweet savor" to heaven, and was accepted
of God, according to our opponents, because nothing better could be done?
And where is there a shred of proof that Moses borrowed the sacrifices he
instituted either from the Egyptians or any other Pagan nation, when the
Scriptures contain the strongest and the clearest internal evidence to the
contrary? These sacrifices bear a resemblance not to the offering; of any
then existing and unenlightened people, but to those which may be traced
along the entire lives of the Pious and venerable worshippers of the true
God from Abel to Moses. This view of the subject leads us to the following
important conclusions. Sacrifices, and special reference is here made to
those of an expiatory or propitiatory nature, are of divine origin those
offered by the heathen, both in earlier and in later ages, were taught,
and have been perpetuated, by mutilated and distorted traditions; and
these offerings of the universal world, as they were originally designed
by God, have tended to keep up with more or less distinctness, in all ages
and in all countries, a sense of sin and of ill-desert, the hope or
probability of forgiveness, and the notion that this needed blessing must
come to guilty man, in some way, through an expiation or
atonement. But the Scriptures contain other and more direct
proofs, that Jesus Christ has made an atonement for the sins of man. To
present them all would require a little volume of quotations from the
Bible. Before giving some of these, it may here be remarked once for all,
that not a few of the references which will be made, have either direct or
remote relations to the instituted sacrifices already discussed, thus
incidentally, and without apparent design, confirming the typical nature
of these rites, and proving beyond controversy, that Jesus Christ
fulfilled these ancient types. It has been said, it is true, by some who
discard the doctrine of atonement, that all such passages, and indeed many
already mentioned, in the previous discussion, must be taken as
figurative. Sacrifices, say they, existed, but for what reason or purpose,
they do not very clearly tell us. These rites were well known by the Jews,
and indeed by others; and in allusion to them, Christ is spoken of as
having been sacrificed, and special mention is made of his blood. This
theory has, at least, the merit of originality. Its author, whatever else
he might lack, certainly possessed invention. Every thing is here
invented. Christ is the figure, sacrifices the reality; he is the shadow,
they the substance; he the type, they the antitype! As if a man should
stand and gaze on the finely chiseled statue, or on a beautiful tree upon
the margin of the clear still lake, and should inquire why these charming
objects were made thus, and the philosophical expounder of cause and
effect, at his side, should reply, look at that shadow on the marble
floor, or in the deep water, and the mystery is solved. The substance was
thus made to suit the shadow. We may speak of the former as beautiful
because the latter is really so. In the hands of such interpreters, the
Bible is a labyrinth, or a riddle and a snare, but not a
revelation! The voice of PROPHECY speaks to us, in still clearer
accents, of the atoning work of Christ. This we might naturally expect, as
the light of revelation was rising upon a dark world with increasing
radiance, and as the coming Messiah, his birth, character, teaching,
sufferings, death and future glory, furnished the constant and most
glowing themes of these inspired bards. "To him give all the prophets
witness," says the apostle Peter. And Jesus Christ, while yet on earth,
said to his disciples, "All things must be fulfilled which were written in
the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."
The typical sacrifices already considered, included among the things
written in the law of Moses, and with these the prophets leave a
concurrent testimony. A few specimens of their testimony bearing directly
upon the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will here be given. The
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, as Jewish and Christian interpreters,
inspired and uninspired, agree, refers to the promised Redeemer. No fair
and faithful exposition of these remarkable predictions can set aside the
doctrine of vicarious sufferings which enters into the very essence and
vital structure of the whole passage. What can be more explicit than such
language as this? "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows." "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed. His sufferings were for our sins, they were
strictly vicarious, and by these "stripes," or wounds, others--even all
that believe--are "healed," or saved. Here we have not only substitution,
but we have as the effect of this, salvation. And in all this we are to
remember, that he was "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." His
sufferings and death were not merely the work of man; the hand of God was
in them, and a special purpose was to be accomplished by them. This
sublime event was not a martyrdom which should secure good by its moral
power, but it was a sacrifice to divine justice. "The Lord hath laid on
him the iniquity of us all." "For the transgressions of my people was he
stricken." Men were to be saved by this sacrifice required and accepted of
God. "When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his
seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall
prosper in his hands. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall
be satisfied; by his knowledge," or by "the knowledge of him" shall my
righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." If
one being should die in the place, and for the sins of another, and the
person for whom this death was sustained, should be forgiven, justified
and for ever blessed, by the merits of that death, surely such a
transaction would be recorded, if recorded at all, in the above, or at
least, in similar language. The whole passage, beginning with the
thirteenth verse of the preceding chapter, and extending through the
fifty-third chapter, is worthy of the prayerful and profound attention of
the humble inquirer after truth, nay, of every human being who is capable
of such attention. Nor is the prophet Daniel less explicit. The
prediction recorded in the close of the ninth chapter of the book bearing
his name, which has been fulfilled as to time, contains no doubtful
description of the kind of death "Messiah the Prince" should die. He
should "be cut off," or come to a violent end. "But not for himself;" or
his death should not be on his own account, or in consequence of his own
sins. It should be a death suffered for other persons. And the purposes to
be accomplished by this death were no less than these: "to finish the
transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for
iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness." Every part of this
description bears strong and decisive marks of substitution and sacrifice
as blended in the death of "the Messiah." And the declaration, "he shall
cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," finds its accomplishment
in the fact, that the type was removed when the antitype was presented,
the shadow passed away when the enduring substance came and took its
place. Jesus Christ gave his disciples, while with them and
instructing them in the designs of his mission, the same views of the
nature of that death which awaited him. In the office of the good
shepherd, he says, "I lay down my life for the sheep." "I have power to
lay it down, and I have power to take it again." On another occasion he
remarked, "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister
and to give his life a ransom for many." Nothing could be more explicit
than this. Commentary would only weaken its force. If Jesus Christ gave
his life a ransom for many, and who, in the face of this passage, will
deny it--then he died to make atonement for them, that they might be
saved; the debate is ended, the controversy settled. While instituting the
supper, he said, with the cup in his hand, "This is my blood of the Now
Testament, [covenant or constitution,] which is shed for many for the
remission of sins." Blood shed for the remission of sins! Surely such a
transaction could not describe martyrdom! It can mean nothing other than
sacrifice, and a sacrifice too that is clothed with saving power. We have
here the "blood" offered, and a "remission of sins" secured. That this was
the general tenor of his teaching appears from what he said to certain
disciples, after his resurrection, who had given him up as the Messiah
because he had been crucified. "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all
that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these
things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the
prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things
concerning himself." And these were the things which related to the nature
and the objects of his death, and which he had taught them before his
crucifixion, for he added in a similar connection and in reference to the
same point, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and
to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached in his name among all nations." THE APOSTLES who were the first teachers and the
inspired interpreters of the gospel, dwell upon no point with more
clearness or frequency, than this, that salvation can be obtained only
through the death of Jesus Christ for sinners. This sentiment pervades
their sermons, breathes in their prayers, and is the living spirit that
animates their epistles. It would far exceed the limits of this discussion
to undertake to notice all the relations in which this grand act is
mentioned, as evidently implying vicarious sufferings, and by these
sufferings, atonement made for sin. Great stress is laid upon the DEATH of Christ, such
as would appear altogether improper and extravagant, and void of reason,
if this event were to be considered as a martyrdom, or, indeed, to be
viewed in any other light, than that of the atoning sacrifice for sin, and
the price of man's redemption. Paul in writing to the Romans, assures us,
that "Christ died for the ungodly." He encourages christians in the
following language: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved
by his life." In writing to the Corinthians, the same apostle informs us,
that he had made the death of Christ a prominent point in preaching the
gospel. "For I delivered unto you," says he, "first of all that which I
also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the
Scriptures." And to the same church, he says, "We thus judge, that if ONE
DIED FOR ALL, then were all dead, [then all died,] and that HE DIED FOR
ALL, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but
unto him who DIED FOR THEM, and rose again." He encourages the
Thessalonians in this language: "For God hath not appointed us to wrath,
but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who DIED for us, that
whether we wake or sleep, [live or die,] we should live together with
him." To the Hebrews he writes: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little
lower than the angels, for the sufferings of DEATH, Crowned with glory and
honor, that he, by the grace of God, should TASTE DEATH for every,
man." THE BLOOD of Christ is mentioned in various relations
which imply, in the strongest possible degree the fact of atonement for
sin. Paul in his farewell address to the Elders of Ephesus, charges them
"to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his OWN BLOOD." To
the Romans he holds this decisive language: "Being justified freely by his
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in His BLOOD, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God." In another place he has this phrase, "being now
justified by his BLOOD." To the Ephesians he says, "In whom we have
redemption, through HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins." Again, "In Christ
Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by THE BLOOD OF
CHRIST." In his Epistle to the Colossians he teaches the same doctrine.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins." And Jesus Christ, in reconciling all things unto himself, he
describes, as "having made peace through the blood of his cross." To the
Hebrews, besides those numerous passages which have been referred to in
the exposition of the Jewish sacrifices, he says, "Wherefore Jesus also,
that he might sanctify the people with His OWN BLOOD, suffered without the
gate." Peter writes to christians, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain
conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with THE
PRECIOUS BLOOD of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot." And
the beloved John testifies, that "THE BLOOD OF CHRIST his Son cleanseth us
from all sin." The term "BLOOD," in these and similar passages, stands in
such relations to other terms, as to render its meaning perfectly clear.
It is associated with "purchased," "justified," "redeemed," "sanctified,"
"cleanseth," "redemption," "propitiation," "remission," "forgiveness of
sins!" A child is a competent expositor of these scriptures. This subject is presented in many other aspects, in
the Bible, which assert or imply, that men are saved only through the
atonement. Christians are redeemed by Jesus Christ. "Being justified
freely by his grace through the REDEMPTION that is in Christ Jesus,"
"Having obtained eternal REDEMPTION for us," "Christ has REDEEMED US from
the curse of the law." Sinners are justified only through Christ. "By him
all that believe are JUSTIFIED from all things from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses." "THE JUSTIFIER of him which believeth in
Jesus." He is expressly called a propitiation. "And he is THE PROPITIATION
for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole
world." "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be THE PROPITIATION for our sing." Christ is a ransom;
"Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. "His great
blessing for sinners, is called an atonement." "We also joy in God,
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received THE
ATONEMENT." "Believers are PURCHASED With blood, "BOUGHT with a price,"
and the whole collective company of the ransomed are called the PURCHASED
POSSESSION." The doctrine of the atonement is held by the church
triumphant, as it ever has been by the church militant. It is taught, and
joyfully responded to, and never denied, in heaven. "The four living ones
and the four and twenty elders" sing "a new song, saying, thou art worthy
to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wert slain, and
hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue,
and people, and nation." When the inquiry is made respecting the "great
multitude" "clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands"--the
answer is, "These are they who came out of great tribulation, and have
washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb." If any thing more were necessary in order to
establish the doctrine of vicarious suffering, in the work of man's
salvation, the reader might be invited to turn his eyes upon the
death-scene of the Son of God. There are some things connected with this
eventful crisis of his earthly career, which can be explained only on the
principles, that he stood in the place of guilty man, and sustained the
incumbent tokens and volumes of the wrath of God, that we might be saved.
The deep agony of the garden, and the piercing nails of the cross, would
be inexplicable on the supposition that he died merely as an example, as a
passive hero, or as a martyr. These are not the feelings and expressions
of a good man who has fully settled the question of duty, who can
cheerfully die rather than deny the truth, and who in all these severe
conflicts of nature, corporeal and mental, is sustained by conscious
virtue and the approving smile of heaven! He confessed to his disciples,
"My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: tarry ye here and watch
with me." And when he had gone a little further, and fallen on his face,
he prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me."
While hanging on the cross, he exclaimed, in the midst of friends and
foes, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" We have here something
more than a pious Man arrived, in his progress through a bad world, at the
sublimest moral elevation of earthly destinies--the crisis of martyrdom!
These are not the lineaments, nor the colorings of such a picture. Here is
a conflict of a far different character, and the actor is more than man.
One would think, that those who deny the atoning work of Christ, could
hardly read the story of Stephen or of Socrates, without learning their
mistake. But if we consider, that Jesus Christ stood in the sinner's
place, that "the Lord of hosts" had said, "Awake, O sword, against my
shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow," then all is clear. The
deep mystery is solved. These conflicts and agonies were his, not because
he anticipated, or actually suffered, the pangs of death, but because his
soul was made an offering for sin. And if we have in the death of Christ,
nothing more than the event of martyrdom, which has been by no means
infrequent in our world, what mean the sublime and impressive concomitants
of this closing scene. Look upon that darkened sun, that temple veil rent
in twain, that trembling earth, those rending rocks, those opening graves,
those waking sleepers from their dark abodes, those brave Roman guards,
now pale as death! In the midst of these sublime and impressive
exhibitions, we may exclaim with the centurion, "Truly, this was the Son
of God;" and in this connection, we may add, he was now tasting death for
every man. Hence those oppressive burdens that crushed his
spirit. A few of the direct proofs that Jesus Christ has made
an atonement for the sins of men, in the true and legitimate sense of the
term, have been given, while multitudes more will readily occur to the
critical and devout student of the Bible. If there is any one doctrine
peculiar to the gospel-plan which rests securely, more than almost any
other, on the broad and firm basis of a thousand plain and positive
declarations of the God of truth, it is this. Human language could not
make the matter clearer. No vehicle of thought, or medium of communication
between man and man, or between heaven and earth, if we except the
personal inspiration of the individual to be taught, could add one whit to
that testimony which has already been given. No light from above could
impart one additional ray of brightness to that divine illumination which
God has already poured from the inspired page, upon this subject, The
system which embraces this doctrine, in all its relations, is the gospel;
and there is no other. It is the only remedy for sin, the only hope of
dying man. The Bible is full of it. The pride of an unsubdued heart may
oppose it, and the loftiness, and presumption of unsanctified intellect
may attempt to fritter away its proof and dispense with its mercies and
its glories from the pages of the gospel; but the sinner deeply stricken
with a sense of ill-desert, can easily understand it, for he feels its
necessity. The humble soul can easily love it, he cannot but love it, for
he sees life, and hope, and heaven in it. This is God's plan for man's
salvation, the very one of which the blessed Paul affirms, "Though we, or
an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed," let him be ANATHEMA, as it is
literally in the original--the final and most terrible curse of
GOD!