p^^ 
 
 tN^^^ 
 
 ^{ \\u tthfologwtl ^^^ 
 
 ^% 
 
 % 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Wm../V /;/^,J. ^.(J^ad^;^.J^m 
 
 '7 
 
 (^^.ai^^-^^^j^, ^^^, 
 
 T) J Q 
 
 Division. .. ft4^ . ■' /... 
 
 N'utr.':,-r 
 
A TREATISE 
 
 ON jrHE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES JERRAM, M.A. 
 
 VICAR OF CHOBHAM, SURREY. 
 
 " There is no article of the Christian faith, which, considered in itself, is 
 more deserving our closest attention, than that of our redemption by Jesus 
 Christ: this is the very corner-stone of the fabric: — against this, accordingly, 
 every framer of a new hypothesis directs his entire force ; this once shaken, the 
 whole structure falls to ruin." — Magee. 
 
 " The life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you upon the altar 
 to make an atonement for your souls ; for it is the blood that makcth an atonement 
 for the soul." — Levit. x vii. II . 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 GEORGE WILSON, ESSEX STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXXVIII. 
 
LOiN DON : 
 
 JCOTbON AKD PALMEF., PlllNTLRS; SAVOY STREET, STRAND. 
 
TO 
 
 THE RIGHT REVEllKND 
 
 CHARLES RICHARD, 
 LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 I feel it to be equally due to the 
 relation in which I stand to your Lordship, as 
 my Diocesan, and to the respect I have for your 
 high character, to present this Treatise, on a 
 fundamental Doctrine, for your kind acceptance : 
 nor could I forego the wish of introducing it to 
 the public under the sanction of your Lordship's 
 name. This you have kindly permitted; and 
 I need not add, that, if the work itself be found 
 at all worthy of its patronage, my utmost wishes 
 will be gratified. It will make its way in the 
 Christian world ; and will not be useless in the 
 cause for w^hich it was undertaken. 
 
 I am, my Lord, 
 
 Your Lordship's 
 
 most dutiful 
 
 and. obliged humble Servant, 
 
 CHARLES JERRAM. 
 
 C hob haul Hoiaie, 
 April '2^, 1828. 
 
PEIL 
 i£C. NOV 
 THEOLC 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Christianity, like every other system, consists 
 of certain leading principles, which are inter- 
 woven with its very texture, and have as close 
 and intimate a connexion with each other, as the 
 links of a chain;— if one be broken, the whole is 
 dissolved. 
 
 That the doctrine of the Atonement forms one 
 of these principles has never been denied, except 
 by those who have refined upon Christianity, till 
 it can scarcely be distinguished from a system of 
 ethics. Of its importance we may easily judge, 
 from the repeated attempts which have been 
 made to overthrow it, and the totally different 
 aspect which a renunciation of it has invariably 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 given to the whole of the Christian religion. 
 Infidels, who never attack particular doctrines 
 but for the sake of destroying the system, have 
 directed no small portion of their efforts to the 
 subversion of this great article of the faith, well 
 knowing that, if this falls, '^ it falls like a strong 
 man," carrying along with it the pillars of Chris- 
 tianity. Nor have some professed advocates for 
 the Christian religion been less industrious than 
 infidels to exclude it from its place among Chris- 
 tian doctrines. These, affecting a more than 
 ordinary portion of the powers of reason and of 
 Christian candour, have conceived the design of 
 converting unbelievers to the faith of the gospel, 
 by removing what seems to be principally of- 
 fensive : as if, by taking away the reproach of 
 the cross, Christianity could be promoted, and 
 its enemies induced to become its friends. Nor 
 has artifice been wanting, when argument has 
 failed, to subvert this pillar of Christianity. 
 Some, under the pretext of being advocates for 
 the Atonement, have endeavoured to undermine 
 it, by renouncing the doctriney and retaining the 
 na7ne. These have chosen to call this doctrine, 
 as it has been for ages understood by all deno- 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 minations of Christians^ any thing but the Atone- 
 ment : and have appropriated this term to a set 
 of opinions^ which bear no more resemblance to 
 the ideas which it has hitherto been accustomed 
 to designate^ than the writings of Socinus to the 
 epistles of St. Paul. This artifice has so far suc- 
 ceeded^ as sometimes to prevent the alarm which 
 a naked statement of their real sentiments would 
 have excited. Those^ who have been accustomed 
 to associate the Atonement of Christ with tlie 
 foundation of a sinner^s hope^ might have been 
 startled at an avowed opposition to it; but the 
 name being still retained^ though the doctrine be 
 given up, the charge they are persuaded to make 
 appears less formidable. 
 
 It was against objections to the Atonement, 
 appearing under this deceptive garb, that, four 
 and twenty years ago, I published some Letters 
 on this Doctrine. These have long been out of 
 print ; and I have often intended to revise and re- 
 publish them, and have even announced that inten- 
 tion to the public : but circumstances, which I could 
 not control, have, from time to time, prevented 
 me. When, however, more leisure enabled me 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 to set about this revision^, I could not persuade 
 myself to send them forth in their original form. 
 They were written under circumstances some- 
 what local and personal ; and had more the ap- 
 pearance than I could wish of controversy with 
 an individual of a party ; and^ being chiefly in- 
 tended for the neighbourhood in which they were 
 composed, they did not go so fully into the sub- 
 ject as seemed necessary for a more general cir- 
 culation. I therefore thought it expedient to 
 adopt a different plan, and to write " A Treatise 
 on the Doctrine of the Atonement/' which might 
 take in the whole of the subject, and be divested 
 of all allusion to any individual, except so far as 
 he might be considered as the representative of 
 a party, and his objections be viewed as those of 
 his class. What was, therefore, at first only a 
 pamphlet, has now grown into a volume ; and, 
 with the exception of the order and arrangement 
 of the original Letters, it may be considered 
 almost as a new work. 
 
 The great object I have had in view was to set 
 tiie scriptural doctrine of the Atonement in a 
 clear and full point of view ; to separate it froui 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ail extraneous matter, and minute refinements ; 
 to give a plain answer to the objections brought 
 against it ; to establish it on the clearest scrip- 
 tural evidence ; and to rescue it from the charge 
 of being founded on principles contrary to the 
 constituted order and fitness of things. The 
 principal merit of the work (if it have any) con- 
 sists in its laying before the reader a connected 
 view of the whole subject. Other works of great 
 value have been published on the subject; but 
 none^ so far as I am aware, after the same plan, 
 and with the same copiousness as this. The 
 .standard work of Archbishop Magee consists of 
 two most valuable Discourses, with nearly two 
 volumes of Dissertations, on various subjects 
 connected with this doctrine. But though most 
 of these topics grow out of the Atonement, yet 
 they are detached, and are not so discussed as 
 to form a regular and consecutive argument in 
 support of the doctrine. The matter contained 
 in them is most abundant ; the Dissertations, for 
 the most part, are very elaborate ; the talent and 
 learning they display are of the highest order ; 
 and the conclusion to which they always lead, is 
 the truth of this fundamental doctrine : nor would 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 any one, who writes upon the Atonement, stand 
 excused before the public, who did not avail 
 himself of these copious and most valuable ma- 
 terials. But still, for the reasons just assigned, 
 they do not constitute a regular Treatise on the 
 subject, and something further was wanted to 
 give a clear and connected view of the whole. 
 
 There is one part of my Treatise on which 
 I think it right to make an observation or two. 
 It is well known that the Divine Institution of 
 Primitive Sacrifice has again been recently dis- 
 puted by Mr. Davison. This author — (to whom 
 we are indebted for the most comprehensive view 
 that, as far as I know and believe, has ever yet 
 been given to the public of " the Structure and 
 Use of Prophecy,"^a work which I shall run no 
 risk in predicting will be read and admired, as 
 long as the internal texture of the holy scriptures 
 shall give evidence of its divine Inspiration, and 
 the argument from prophecy shall be pre-eminent 
 among the proofs of our holy religion) — under the 
 idea that, to have conveyed, in the incipient state 
 of religion, a development of its ultimate plan, — 
 as he conceives would have been the case, if 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 primitive sacrifice had been appointed by God, — 
 would be contrary to that gradual progression in 
 its discoveries, which he finds in every other part 
 of the holy scriptures, — thought it right to inves- 
 tigate, more at large than had hitherto been done, 
 the subject of the Divine Origin of Sacrifice; 
 and, in so doing, has arrived at a negative con- 
 clusion upon it. This argument has been most 
 minutely examined by Mr. Faber, in his "Treatise 
 on the Origin of Primitive Sacrifice;" and, I can- 
 not but think, most satisfactorily refuted. The 
 point in controversy, however, was of too much 
 importance, as connected with the doctrine of the 
 Atonement, to be passed over without minute 
 attention; because, if Mr. Davison's view be 
 correct, it deprives this doctrine, if not of one of 
 its essential supports^ yet certainly, in my opi- 
 nion, of one of its most convincing arguments ; 
 and would give an advantage — though Mr. Davi- 
 son thinks not — to Socinians, of which they would 
 make a powerful, if not a fatal, use. I have, 
 therefore, gone very fally into this subject in my 
 Treatise ; and I wish here to acknowledge my 
 obligations to Mr. Faber for his very seasonable 
 and able publication, of which I have not failed 
 
Xii PREFACE. 
 
 to take advantage^ when it could be brought to 
 bear upon my argument. 
 
 I have only to add that^ in the use I have oc- 
 casionally made of the^ appellations Socinian and 
 Orthodox, I mean neither the former as a re- 
 proach, nor the latter as an assmnption; but 
 have adopted them simply as terms of a well- 
 understood distinction, and as avoiding, in the 
 former case, a concession which seems to be im- 
 plied in the use of the term Unitarian. In stating 
 objections, I have not given any names as au- 
 thority, in order to avoid the appearance of per- 
 sonality ; but the reader may be assured of the 
 fidelity of the quotations, and also that they 
 comprise the substance of the objections usually 
 alleged against the doctrine of the Atonement. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 The Importance of the Doctrine stated 
 
 Page 
 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A General Statement of the Doctrine 
 
 Plan of the Treatise. 
 
 I. To remove the principal Objections brought 
 
 against the doctrine ; 
 ji. to establish it on the authority of the 
 
 Holy Scriptures ; and 
 
 III. To SHOW that it IS NOT' INCONSISTENT WITH 
 THE CONSTITUTED ORDER AND FITNESS OF THING S. 
 
 SECTION IL 
 
 Answers to Objections, under four heads 
 
 IS 
 
VIU CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 I. Answers to Objections against the Doctrine 
 OF the Atonement, on the alleged ground 
 
 THAT IT is N.OT MENTIONED IN CERTAIN PARTS 01' 
 
 THE New Testament, WHERE, if it were a Doc- 
 RiNE or Scripture, we might expect to eind 
 IT ... . . .14 
 
 Objected 1. That our Lord so omitted it . . .14 
 Answer. 1. It is no valid argument against 
 a doctrine, if it be taught in 
 some passages of Scripture, 
 that it is omitted in others . 15 
 2. The supposed omission is not 
 grounded on fact . .17 
 
 2. That it is not mentioned in the Sermons 
 recorded in the Acts of the Apostles . . 19 
 Answer. 1. If this objection were correct, 
 it might be accounted for, with- 
 out invalidating the doctrine . 21 
 2. There is, however, no such 
 omission . . .23 
 
 CHAPTER If. 
 
 n. Answers to Objections, on the alleged 
 
 'ground that the doctrine is opposed to the 
 attributes and perfections of the divine 
 
 Nature . . . .24 
 
 Oljjected 1. That Satisfaction, or an Atonement for sin, 
 implies injury received by him who requires 
 it, and a capability of receiving compensa- 
 tion : but God is no more capable of re- 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 Page 
 ceiving injury than he is of doing injury, 
 or than he is of receiving benefit . . 25 
 
 Answer. 1. This objection confounds the 
 important distinction between 
 person and office . . .25 
 
 2. It destroys also the distinction, 
 as it respects God, between 
 good and evil . . . 26 
 
 3. It leads to dangerous conse- 
 quences ' . .27 
 
 2. That the doctrine stands opposed to the in- 
 finite goodness and mercy of God, who 
 does not stand in need of an Atonement to 
 Induce him to be merciful ... .27 
 Answer. 1. The doctrine does not suppose 
 
 that any thing was wanted to 
 induce God to be merciful, but 
 is, on the contrary, the greatest 
 proof of his mercy . . 29 
 
 2. The doctrine does indeed sup- 
 pose that the justice of God 
 cannot be compromised;, but 
 this supposition implies no- 
 thing contrary to the love of 
 God to man . . .31 
 
 The objection proceeds upon a two-fold error. 
 [1. It confounds the sentiment of love, with 
 
 the expression of it . . .31 
 
 [2. It proceeds upon an inadmissible as- 
 sumption that man can comprehend all 
 that is compatible with the love of God 34 
 
 3. It is founded on a mistaken 
 notion of the Divine Govern- 
 ment . . .37 
 
 3. That the doctrine stands opposed to the free 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 ))ardon of sin, inasmuch as there can be no 
 Ibrgivenesss of a debt, when a surety lias 
 paid it . ... 42 
 
 Answer. The objection confounds the na- 
 ture of a crime, with that of a debt 43 
 
 4. That the doctrine requires, as a matter of 
 right, that all men should be exempted from 
 punishment, justice having received its full 
 demands . . . .44 
 Answer. The objection confounds a suffi- 
 cient with an efficient cause, and 
 
 the case of rfe^Mvith that of crme 45 
 
 5. That the doctrine supposes the imputation 
 of guilt to an innocent person, which is con- 
 trary to justice . , . .47 
 Answer, This imputation does not con- 
 found the characters of the guilty 
 and innocent, but relates only to 
 treatment . . .47 
 
 6. That the doctrine strikes at the foundation 
 of the love of God in offering free Salva- 
 tion to a guilty world . . 53 
 Answer. 1. For the same reason, repent- 
 ance might be objected against 54 
 
 2. St. Paul saw no such inconsist- 
 ency between redemption and 
 free salvation . ..54. 
 
 7. That as Christ did and suffered no more 
 than it was his duty to do and suffer, he 
 could merit nothing at the hand of God for 
 others . . . . bd 
 Answer. This objection would only be va- 
 lid on the ground of the mere 
 humanity of Christ . . 56 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 Page 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 III. Answers to Objections on the alleged 
 
 GROUND THATTHE DOCTRINE MILITATES AG AINST 
 MANYPLAIN PASSAGES OF THE HoLY SCRIPTURES 59 
 
 Objected 1. That it is nowhere said in Scripture 
 that God pardons sin because he has 
 received satisfaction, but that he does 
 so only " because he delighteth in 
 mercy" . . . .60 
 
 Answer. 1. This objection is at variance with 
 
 the Objector's own system . . 61 
 
 2. It is in opposition to numerous 
 and plain statements of Scrip- 
 ture . . .62 
 
 3. The very text, on which the ob- 
 jection is founded, involves the 
 doctrine . . .63 
 
 4. It is not necessary that the doc- 
 trine should be alluded to every 
 time pardon is promised . . 65 
 
 2. That this doctrine grounds the hope of 
 pardon on something out of, and dis- 
 tinct from God, contrary to the state- 
 ment of Peter, who asserts that 
 
 Christ was manifested, that our faith 
 7night be in God . . .75 
 
 Answer. The whole passage proves the doc- 
 trine it is intended to overturn . 75 
 
 3. That when Christ illustrated the doc- 
 trine of forgiveness by the case of the 
 insolvent debtor, he added nothing to 
 show that a surety must pay the debt, 
 
 but frankly forgave him . . .76 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 Answer. Nor did he add any thing to show 
 
 that the debtor must repent . • 76 
 
 4. That when Christ declared his power to 
 forgive sin, he never said that he pur- 
 chased it . . . . ,78 
 
 Answer. This assertion is incorrect . . 78 
 
 5. That if the death of Christ for sinners 
 be vicarious, then, as Christians are re- 
 quired to suffer for Christ, and to lay 
 down their lives for the brethren, their 
 death is also vicarious . . 79 
 
 Answer. They do not lay down their lives 
 
 in the same sense . . 79 
 
 6. That God is never said in Scripture, 
 to be reconciled to sinners, but sinners 
 
 to God . . . .84 
 
 Answer. This assertion is singularly at va- 
 riance with fact . . 84 
 
 7. That this doctrine places the law of 
 God in a false light, as being a mere 
 covenant of works, and knowing no- 
 thing of mercy . . .86 
 
 Answer. This objection also is founded on 
 
 mistake . . .86 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 IV. Answers to Objections on the alleged 
 
 GROUND that THIS DOCTRINE IS FOUNDED ON 
 AN UNAUTHORIZED ASSUMPTION OF THE PIACU- 
 LAR AND VICARIOUS NATURE OF SACRIFICE . . 90 
 
 On Sacrifice in general . . . . 90 
 
 The Institution of Sacrifice has been denied to be of 
 Divine origin . . . ■ .98 
 
CONTENTS. Xiii 
 
 Page 
 The subject of Sacrifice discussed. 
 It is attempted to show — 
 
 I. That the Sacrifice of Animals was of 
 Divine Institution. 
 II. That they were originally offered, 
 
 AND accepted, AS PIACULAR AND VICA- 
 RIOUS. 
 
 III. That THEY had a direct reference to 
 
 the death of Jesus Christ . . . 102 
 
 I. Animal Sacrifice appears to be of 
 Divine Institution ; because, 
 
 1. It was the first;, and only thing men- 
 tioned in the religion of the primi- 
 tive family, and which received the 
 divine approbation . . .103 
 
 2. It is highly improbable that no in- 
 struction should, at first, be given or 
 asked on the nature of divine worship 1 08 
 
 3. The supposition of its being of Di- 
 vine origin alone answers the circum- 
 stances which accompanied the first 
 instances of it . . .111 
 
 4. This account of it alone accords with 
 the direction given to Cain on the re- 
 jection of his offering . . .115 
 
 5. The account given of these offerings 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews neces- 
 sarily leads to this conclusion . . 119 
 
 6. The universal practice of Animal Sa- 
 crifice in all ages and throughout 
 
 the world proves it . . .120 
 
 II. Animal Sacrifice, from its first 
 appointment, was expiatory and 
 vicarious. 
 
 It is denied, not only that animal 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 SACRIFICE was of Divine Institution, 
 but also, by some, that it was origi- 
 nally, and by others, that it was ever, 
 piacular and vicarious . ,123 
 
 In opposition to both these opinions, it is maintained, 
 
 1 . That Animal Sacrifices were univer- 
 sally considered as expiatory by the 
 gentile world . . . 127 
 
 2. That they were, considered as expia- 
 tory from the first sacrifice down to the 
 
 last, before the Levitical Priesthood 130 
 
 3. That they were, moreover, both in the 
 Patriarchal and Levitical Dispensa- 
 tions, expiatory of Moral Transgres- 
 sions . . . .146 
 
 4. Thatthey were, finally, not only expia- 
 tory but strictly fzcanows . .172 
 
 III. Animal Sacrifices had a direct 
 
 REFERENCE TO THE SACRIFICE OF OUR 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ UPON THE CROSS. 
 This appears 
 
 1. From the fact that Animal Sacrifices 
 ceased to be oflPered when the Chris- 
 tian dispensation was established . 181 
 
 2. From the want of any intrinsic value 
 
 in Animal Sacrifices . .183 
 
 3. From the name of the Victim, most 
 common in sacrifice, being given to 
 Christ . . . .185 
 
 4. From the New Testament writers 
 representing sacrifices as shadows of 
 
 the sacrifice of Christ . .187 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 Page 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Scriptural Evidence in Support of the 
 Doctrine. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 A Collection of Passages of Scripture, which are sup- 
 posed to contain or illustrate the Doctrine of the 
 Atonement . . . . 191 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Remarks on the above passages of Scripture . . 200 
 
 1 . The body of Evidence, which they afford to the 
 Doctrine . . . . .201 
 
 2. The various ways, in which they give their testi- 
 mony to its truth .... 202 
 
 Under which are noticed those passages 
 
 (1.) Which le^xe'&e.ui 'pardon and reconciliation ?i% 
 
 flowing from Jesus Christ . . . 202 
 
 (2.) In which Salvation is ascribed to Christ alone 205 
 (3.) Which represent the death of Christ as the 
 
 Price of our Ransom and Redemption . . 206 
 (4.) Which speak of him as suffering for our sins 208 
 (5.) Which relate to the Patriarchal and Leviti- 
 
 cat Sacrifices . . . . 223 
 
 [1. He is expressly called a sacrifice . . 224 
 [2. He is called an offering for sin . . 226 
 [3. He is called the Lamb or God . . . 230 
 [4. He is said to bear our sins, and take 
 
 THEM AWAY . . . 232 
 
XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 [5. He is represented as shedding his 
 
 BLOOD for sin . , . 236 
 
 [6. He is called a Propitiation . . . 240 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 Argument from the Epistle to the Hebrews . . 246 
 
 The Author of it runs a parallel between the Levitical 
 Priesthood and that of Christ . . . 246 
 
 1 . St. Paul contrasts the Levitical Sacrifices and that 
 
 of Christ as between shadow and substance . 248 
 
 2. He forms a comparison between the Priests of 
 
 the two dispensations .... 250 
 
 3. Do. between the sacrifices 
 
 offered under each .... 252 
 
 4. Do. between the respective 
 
 EFFICACY of each .... 253 
 
 5. He points out a correspondence between the 
 PLACES where each was offered . . . 255 
 
 Q, Do. THE 
 
 EVENTS which followed the sacrifice of each . 257 
 
 7. He represents the Sacrifice of Christ as the last 
 which should be ever offered , . . 258 
 
 8. He contrasts the danger which would follow the 
 neglect of each .... 259 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Argument from our Lord's explanation of his sufferings 
 
 after his resurrection .... 265 
 
 L He asserts the necessity of his sufferings . . 269 
 
CONTENTS. XVll 
 
 Page 
 2. He shows that these sufferings were set forth in 
 
 the Law cf Moses .... 272 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Argument from the death of Christ being the constant 
 subject of the Apostles' preaching, and the great 
 instrument of their extraordinary success . 277 
 
 Conclusion and summing up of the Argument from 
 Scripture ..... 287 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 The Doctrine of the Atonement is not incon- 
 sistent WITH the constituted ORDER AND FIT- 
 NESS OF THINGS .... 293 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Preliminary Observations . . . .293 
 
 1 . The argument from analogy is against the notion 
 
 that sin will be forgiven on repentance . . 299 
 
 2. Do. is, that sin will be 
 
 punished, unless averted by some foreign interpo- 
 sition . . . . .302 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Analogy is not against the doctrine of a substitute 
 bearing the penalty of sin . ' . . 305 
 
XVIU CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 Distinction between Distributive and Public Justice . 307 
 Laws regard the good of the system rather than that of 
 
 individuals ..... 308 
 Penalties intended to repair the evil of sin . .312 
 
 Inferences from these statements. 
 
 1. Punishment not primarily intended for indivi- 
 dual, but the public, good . . . 313 
 
 2. A just penalty cannot be remitted by a just and 
 good governor . . . .314 
 
 3. If sin be forgiven on repentance, then repentance 
 
 is equivalent t^ the penalty of sin . . .316 
 
 4. Public justice may be satisfied by a transfer of 
 penalty . . . . .317 
 
 5. No absurdity in supposing that Christ has paid 
 
 the equivalent penalty of sin . . . 322 
 
 6. To expect salvation, without regard to Christ, in 
 
 the highest degree dangerous . . . 325 
 
 Conclusion . . • . 328 
 
I REG. NOV 188 
 
 \thsologic 
 a treatise 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Importance of the Doctrine. 
 
 The doctrine of the Atonement is of vital im- 
 portance. It involves all the peculiarities of the 
 Christian system^ and is interwoven with all its 
 principal doctrines^ precepts^ and privileges. It 
 has its origin in the fall and ruin of man. It 
 derives its efficacy from the Divinity of the Sa- 
 viour, and his Assumption of human nature. 
 His Death, Resurrection, and Session at the 
 right hand of God, are either essential parts of 
 it, or inseparably connected with it. The duties 
 of repentance and faith have a direct reference 
 to it, and have nothing in them of an evan- 
 
 B 
 
^ IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE. [SECT. T. 
 
 gelical nature, except as arising out of it. Our 
 hopes of pardon and future happiness are built 
 upon it ; our strongest motives to love and obe- 
 dience are drawn from it, and all our joy and 
 peace in believing spring out of it. In short, it 
 involves the charter by which we hold our title 
 to eternal life ; and is identified with all that is 
 substantial in present enjoyment, or vast in fu- 
 ture expectation. It is obvious, therefore, that 
 whatever relates to this doctrine is of the great- 
 est importance ; that whatever affects its stabi- 
 lity, strikes at the foundation of all that is inte- 
 resting to man ; and, that if this be overturned, all 
 the blessings of redemption are annihilated at 
 once. 
 
 I make these remarks at the commencement, 
 because many, who oppose the doctrine of the 
 Atonement, represent it as a matter of compa- 
 rative unimportance, and as chiefly deserving of 
 attention from the relation it bears to the attri- 
 butes of the Deity, and the views we should en- 
 tertain of his benignity to man. If this were 
 really the case, the subject might be discussed 
 with as little interest or emotion as any rival 
 systems of Philosophy. We should feel that, 
 as an abstract truth, or as one which might ma- 
 terially affect our views of the Supreme Being, 
 
CHAP. I.] IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRTNR. 3 
 
 it may deserve a very close investigation^ and 
 pleasure may result from ariving at some degree 
 of certainty respecting it : but, after all, it does 
 not materially affect our interest, and we may be 
 equally safe, though not equally enlightened, on 
 whichever side we form our opinion. But this 
 is far from being the fact. The doctrine has an 
 inseparable connection with the entire system of 
 religion, and enters essentially into the whole ex- 
 perience and hopes of the Christian. If he find, 
 on enquiry, that he is wrong in this article of 
 his faitii, he is wrong in every other ; and he will 
 have every thing to begin afresh. He must 
 find a new mode of obtaining pardon of sin and 
 peace of conscience ; a new way of approaching 
 God in prayer; new resources in the day of 
 affliction ; new supports and consolations in the 
 hour of death. It will essentially change his 
 views of sin and its penalty ; of man and his 
 ruin; of Christ and his salvation; of the Holy 
 Spirit and his agency ; of angels and their em- 
 ployment in the government of the world, and 
 the object to which it is directed ; of the state of 
 the dead, and their joys or sorrows ; of heaven 
 and hell, and, in short, of the whole system of 
 revealed religion. Let it then be distinctly un- 
 derstood, that it is not for a single and insulated 
 doctrine that we are now contending; — for an 
 
 b2 
 
4 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE. [SECT. T. 
 
 opinion which may he detached from the articles 
 of faith^ and no injury ensue to the rest; it is 
 for the first link in the chain, — the key-stone of 
 the arch — the foundation on which the temple of 
 truth is built. It is the Great Atoning Sacri- 
 fice, which calls for our attention ; that atone- 
 ment which was prefigured by AbePs sacrifice, 
 and was foreshadowed by every succeeding vic- 
 tim, till '' now once, in the end of the world hath 
 Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice 
 of himself,^^ and hath '^^ by his own blood entered 
 in once into thp holy place, having obtained eter- 
 nal redemption for us.'^ ^^ It is worthy of re- 
 mark," says an able writer and biblical critic, in 
 his comment on Noah building an altar, ^^ that 
 as the old world began with sacrifice, so did the 
 new. Religion y or the proper mode of wor- 
 shij)ping the Divine Being, is the invention or 
 institution of God himself; and sacrifice^ in the 
 acP?i\id design, is the essence of religion. With- 
 out sacrifice actually ojfe?^ed or i?nplied, there 
 never ivas, there never can be, any religion. 
 Even in the heavens, a Lamb is represented be- 
 fore the throne of God, as newly slain." ^ 
 
 1 Dr. Adam ('larke on Gen. ix. 20. 
 
CHAP. II.] GENERAL STATEMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 A General Statement of the Doctrine, 
 
 With regard to the doctrine itself, it has a spe- 
 cial relation to the reconciliation of man with 
 God; for it is the Atonement of Christ which 
 opens the way for this reconciliation. The 
 Scriptures, as we well know, represent the hu- 
 man race as having, by transgression, incurred 
 the displeasure of God, and brought themselves 
 under the sentence of condemnation. Now the 
 Truth and Justice of the divine Being seem to 
 raise an insuperable barrier against the reversing 
 of this dreadful penalty by human means. In this 
 difficulty, God himself provides a remedy. He 
 sends his own Son into the world, who makes 
 an atoning sacrifice ; and, as St. Peter asserts, 
 '^ suffers for sins, the just for the unjust, that he 
 might bring us unto God."- With this offering 
 God is well pleased. He can now *^^ be just, 
 and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus;" 
 and out of regard to this sacrifice, he offers par- 
 don and salvation to every penitent sinner. 
 
 2 1 Pet. lii. 18. 
 
6 
 
 GENERAL STATEMENT [sECT. I. 
 
 This is a brief statement of the doctrine of 
 the Atonement^ and comprehends all that is es- 
 sential respecting it. It may be summed up in 
 the following particulars. First^ The Death of 
 Christ upon the cross ivas an atoning and ex- 
 piatory sacrifice. Secondly^ God^ out of re- 
 gard to it, can consiste7itly pardon sin. Third- 
 ly, In conferring this blessing, he has regard 
 to it as the condition and consideration on ac- 
 count of which he bestows it. These points will, 
 I trust, be fully made out in the course of this 
 discussion. At present I would merely observe, 
 that when we speak of the death or sacrifice of 
 Christ as being the only foundation of a sinner's 
 pardon, we mean no more than that it is the only 
 condition and consideration, on account of which 
 God does actually forgive sin. It is not neces- 
 sary that we should prove that this death is an 
 exact equivalent for the demerit of transgres- 
 sion, or that it forms such ci complete satisfac- 
 tion for the sins of the world, as rigid justice 
 might demand ; or that it lays God under such 
 an obligation to cancel the debt of sin, as a cre- 
 ditor would be laid, who has received the full 
 extent of his demands. These are points which 
 have no essential connexion with the doctrine of 
 the Atonement. They may be thought to grow 
 out of it, and may be the subject of fair discus- 
 
CHAP. II.] OF THE DOCTRINE. 7 
 
 sion among Christians ; but they do not neces- 
 sarily belong to it : and it would be highly inex- 
 pedient to clog the doctrine itself with any thing 
 that is irrelevant or extraneous. It is sufficient 
 for our purpose^ if we can establish the position 
 that the death of Christ has such a connexion 
 with the pardon of sin, as that God never does 
 confer that blessing without having regard to 
 it ; and further, that it is the indispensable con- 
 dition or consideration on account of which he 
 does forgive the penitent, and that he does 
 so in reference to its being an atoning and ex- 
 piatory sacrifice. 
 
 I lay the more stress upon this point, because 
 the enemies of this doctrine direct their princi- 
 pal efforts against the particular notions which 
 some Christians attach to the specific quantum 
 of merit in the atoning sacrifice : and when they 
 have, as they think, invalidated these, they ima- 
 gine they have demolished the doctrine of the 
 Atonement, as held in common by orthodox^ 
 Christians. They contrive, in this way^ to shift 
 the doctrine from its scriptural foundation, and 
 place it on the peculiar notions of some classes 
 of Christians. The true state of the contro- 
 
 3 I use this word merely as a term of distinction^, and not 
 as assnmiiig the correctness of tiieir doctrines. 
 
8 GENERAL STATEMENT [SECT. 1. 
 
 versy is this. The adversaries of the doctrine 
 assert, that 7iothing is wanted to make ivay for 
 the pardon of sin, on the repentance of the of- 
 fender, hid the mere mercy of God: that the 
 death of Jesus Christ is not an atoning and 
 expiatory sacrifice, and has nothing to do with 
 that pardon : and that God confers this bless- 
 ing through Christ, as he does other ordi- 
 fiary favours. It is on this point that we are 
 at issue; for we maintain, on the contrary, that 
 God has thought fit to require, as a condition 
 or consideration, in order to his pardoning sin, 
 something distinct from the repentance of the 
 offender ; and that this is, the death of our 
 Lo7'd Jesus Christ, which is an atoning and ex- 
 piatory sacrifice. I may believe more than this 
 respecting the merit of Christ's death. I may 
 maintain^ as I do^ with our churchy that it is '' a 
 full^ perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and 
 satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.'' 
 I may go further, which I do not,* and express 
 
 * '* While it appears a most important scriptural truths, that 
 something equivalent^, in the eye of Divine Justice, to the pu- 
 nishment of the sinner, was absolutely necessary in order to 
 his escape, I do not think there is any thing in the word of 
 God, which warrants the interpretation that has been given 
 by some of the friends of this doctrine, as if the sufiering of 
 Christ formed what they call an exact equivalent — neither less 
 nor more —for the sins of all who shall be saved by his atone- 
 
CHAP.. 11.] OF THE DOCTRINE. 9 
 
 my belief that this death is an exact equivalent, 
 in point of suffering, for the penalty of man's 
 transgression : I may refine even upon this, and 
 contend that there was, to the most minute nu- 
 merical calculation, an equality between the suf- 
 ferings of Christ and the punishment due to every 
 sin, of every individual who shall be ultimately 
 saved by Jesus Christ : and that if more or fewer 
 than this number had been intended to be saved, 
 a proportionably greater or less degree of suffer- 
 ing must have been endured : but no part of this 
 
 ment. — This sentiment seems derogatory to the infinite dig- 
 nity of the sufferer^ and the consequent infinite value of his 
 sacrifice. The sufferings of the Son of God ought not to be 
 brought into comparison, as a display of the divine righte- 
 ousness, with even the eternal sufferings of millions of his 
 creatures. — The idea of exact equivalent proceeds on the sup- 
 position, that the sufferings of Christ possessed just as much 
 virtue as is sufficient for the salvation of all who shall be 
 saved, whose precise proportion of punishment he is con- 
 ceived to have borne, according to the guilt of each particu- 
 lar sin. — I know not how you may feel, my brethren; but vny 
 mind, I own, revolts from this sort of minutely calculating 
 process on such a subject,— weighing out the precise quantum 
 of suffering due to each sin of each individual who obtains 
 forgiveness ; and then, of course, limiting the sufficiency of 
 the surety's mediation. — Such views have always appeared to 
 me utterly inconsistent with the grandeur and majesty of this 
 wonderful part of the divine administration." — Wardlaw*s 
 Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, p. 212. 
 
10 GENERAL STATEMENT [SECT. I. 
 
 is common ground^ on which the orthodox Chris- 
 tian contends with the opponents of the doctrine 
 of the atonement : it is peculiar to Christians 
 among themselves, and the whole may be affirmed 
 or denied, without in the least affecting the grand 
 question, as resting on scriptural authority. 
 
 I cannot dismiss this subject, without lament- 
 ing the evil which has resulted from carrying 
 points of doctrine beyond the clear and plain 
 statements of the Holy Scriptures. There is a 
 constant tendency in our nature to be ^^ wise above 
 what is written ;" and to push arguments, and to 
 draw inferences, which are altogether unauthor- 
 ized by any fair construction of the word of God. 
 The result has been pernicious, not only in the 
 strife and debate which have so often afflicted the 
 church of Christ, but in giving the greatest ad- 
 vantage to its common enemies. They have 
 associated these extravagant notions with Chris- 
 tianity itself; and gloried in their victory over 
 their feeble opponents, as though they had gained 
 a triumph over truth itself. This has in no case, 
 perhaps, been more remarkable, and more to be 
 regretted, than in the attacks which have been 
 made on the doctrine of the atonement. Many 
 of its advocates have exceeded all the limits 
 which the Scriptures and sober criticism pre- 
 
CHAP. II,] OF THE DOCTRINE. 11 
 
 scribe ; and have spoken so incautiously of the 
 Supreme Being in his character of Judge and 
 Moral Governor, with tlie view of establishing 
 the necessity of an exact equivalent, even to the 
 minutest calculation, being given to his violated 
 laws, as apparently to divest him of love and 
 mercy ; and to transform him into a being not 
 only of inflexible justice, but of inexorable wrath, 
 without feeling the least relentings of compassion 
 towards the returning prodigal. These repre- 
 sentations have been insidiously identified with 
 the doctrine of the atonement, and exhibited as 
 belonging to its very essence : and when its ad- 
 versaries have established the doctrine of the 
 divine goodness and compassion, (a doctrine 
 which no one calls in question,) they seem to 
 think that they have given a fatal blow to the 
 doctrine of the atonement, and that little else 
 remains than to enjoy the honours of a triumph. 
 But when this doctrine is placed on its plain 
 scriptural ground, and stripped of the ill-judged 
 appendages with which some of its injudicious 
 friends had incumbered it, it remains untouched 
 by such argumentSj and will retain its place till 
 truth itself meets with a victorious adversary. 
 
 Having thus briefly stated what appears to me 
 to be the scriptural doctrine of tlie Atonement, 
 
12 GENERAL STATEMENT. [SECT. I. 
 
 and made these few preliminary remarks^ I intend 
 to proceed in the following order; I shall en- 
 deavour 
 
 I. To REMOVE THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS 
 BROUGHT AGAINST THE DOCTRINE ; 
 
 II. To ESTABLISH IT ON THE AUTHORITY OF 
 
 THE Holy Scriptures; and 
 
 III. To SHOW its consistency with reason 
 
 AND the fitness OF THINGS. 
 
SECTION II. 
 
 Answer to Objections. 
 I shall now proceed to remove the principal 
 
 OBJECTIONS WHICH ARE BROUGHT AGAINST THE 
 DOCTRINE OF THE AtONEMENT AS THUS STATED ; 
 
 and tliese^ I think^ may be arranged under the 
 following heads. It is alleged^ 1 . That both the 
 truth and hnportance of this doctrine 7nay be 
 denied, from certain supposed omissions to men- 
 tion it in the New Testament. 2. That there is 
 no necessity in the case, to require it; and that 
 it is directly opposed to the attributes and 
 perfections of the divine nature. 3. That it is 
 in direct contradiction to inany plain passages 
 of the Holy Scriptures. And lastly^ That it is 
 founded on an unauthorized assumption of the 
 expiatory and vicarious nature of sacrifices. 
 Let us attend to each of these objections in 
 THEIR order. 
 
14 OBJECTION FROM SUPPOSED OMISSIONS [sECT. II 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Answer to Objections against the Doctrine of the 
 Atonement^ on the alleged ground that it is 
 not mentioned in certain parts of the Neiv 
 Testament^ where^ if it were a doctrine of 
 Scripture y we inight expect to find it. 
 
 It is alleged that the importance of this doc- 
 trine, AND EVEN ITS TRUTH, MAY BE DENIED, FROM 
 CERTAIN supposed OMISSIONS TO MENTION IT IN 
 
 THE New Testament. 
 
 1. It is said that -^ our Lord was silent re- 
 specting this doctrine on those occasions when 
 it was most natural for him to have taught it, if 
 it had been a doctrine of truth ; as for instance, 
 when he took such pains to convince his disciples 
 of the necessity of his dying, if the making 
 of satisfaction or an atonement for the sins of 
 the world liad rendered that death necessary, 
 he would have stated this; and yet he passed 
 it over in total silence.'^ ^ 
 
 1 The supposed silence of some parts of" tlie New Testament 
 on particular doctrines has often been alleged by Socinians as 
 
CHAP. I.] OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 (1.) In answer to this^ we reply, first , That 
 
 though it should be admitted that Christ did 
 
 an argument against either the truth, or, if true, the importance 
 of such doctrines. Bishop Horsley, in his ^' Letters in reply to 
 Dr. Priestley," meets this objection in the following manner. 
 " I allow, that ' there is nothing that can be called an account 
 of the divine nature of Christ, in the gospels of St. Matthew, 
 St. Mark, or St. Luke.' But every one of the gospels abounds 
 with passages, in which it is so evidently implied, that no room 
 is left to doubt, that the four evangelists had but one opinion 
 upon the subject. 1 cannot admit your position, that ' each 
 of the gospels was intended to be a sufficient instruction in 
 the fundamental principles of the doctrines of Christianity.' 
 Nothing seems to have been less the intention of any of the 
 evangelists, than to compose a system of fundamental prin- 
 ciples. Instruction in fundamentals, in that age, was crallv 
 delivered. The general design of the evangelists seems to 
 have been nothing more, than to deliver in writing a simple, 
 unembellished narrative of our Lord's principal miracles ; to 
 record the occurrences and actions of his life, which went 
 immediately to the accomplishment of the ancient prophecies, 
 or to the execution of the scheme of man's redemption ; and to 
 register the most interesting maxims of religion and morality 
 which were contained in his discourses. The principles of the 
 Christian religion are to be collected neither from a single 
 gospel, nor all the four gospels ; nor from the four g-ospels, 
 with the acts and the epistles ; but from the whole code of 
 revelation, consisting of the canonical books of the Old and 
 New Testament : and for any article of faith, the authority of a 
 single writer, where it is express and unequivocal, is sufficient. 
 Had St, Paul related to you what he saw in the third heaven, 
 I hope. Sir, you would have given him implicit credit, although 
 
16 OBJECTION FROM SUPPOSED OMISSIONS [sECT. IT. 
 
 always pass over the subject in silence, and espe- 
 cially on the occasion here alluded to, yet no 
 conclusion against this doctrine can thence be 
 inferred, unless it can be shown that our Lord 
 had himself undertaken to teach his disciples all 
 the great truths of religion, and that their minds 
 were sufficiently prepared to receive them. But 
 the direct contrary of this is stated by Christ 
 himself. Just before his separation from them, he 
 said : '^ I have yet many things to say unto you, 
 but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he 
 the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into 
 all truth.^'^ 
 
 Should it be difficult for us to account for the 
 silence of Scripture on particular truths, there 
 may still be sufficient reasons for it, which we 
 cannot discover ; nor ought it to be thought ex- 
 traordinary that man, with his short line of intel- 
 lect, cannot fathom the abyss of God's counsels. 
 What perplexity has it not caused among wise 
 and learned men to account for the slow and 
 gradual developement of the purposes of divine 
 mercy to mankind, in various dark and tedious 
 dispensations of religion, rather than in the sud- 
 
 the truth of the narrative must liave rested on liis sing-k? 
 testimony." pp. 284, 285. 
 
 ' .Tohn xvi. 12, 13. 
 
CHAP. I.] OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 den rising of ^^ the Sun of Righteousness" on 
 our miserable world, and at once bringing '' life 
 and iininortality to light.'' All that we can say 
 to this — what must be said on ten thousand other 
 occasions — is, ^^ Even so. Father ! for so it seem- 
 eth good in thy sight.'' 
 
 (2.) But we have a second reply to the objec- 
 tion before us. The alleged silence of our Lord 
 is only imaginary : he did not pass over the sub- 
 ject of the Atonement in silence ; nor did he neg- 
 lect to speak of it, when conversing with his 
 disciples on his approaching death. What was 
 the topic to which he directed their chief attention 
 at the last supper, just before his " agony and 
 bloody sweat ?" In presenting them with the 
 wine as the memorial of his '^ precious blood- 
 shedding," he says, "^ This is my blood of the 
 New Testament, which is shed for you, and for 
 many, for the remission of sins." ^ Here the 
 allusion is direct to the well-understood blood of 
 the atonement, under the Mosaic dispensation, 
 and to the consequent remission of sin in virtue 
 of that atonement. Its meaning must have been 
 as obvious to a reflecting Jew, as that of John 
 the Baptist, when he exclaimed, on the first public 
 
 3 Matt. xxvi. 28. Mark xiv. 24. 
 
18 OBJECTION FROM SUPPOSED OMISSIONS [sECT. II. 
 
 appearance of Christ, (and it is not undeserving 
 of remark, that the publication of the doctrine of 
 the Atonement of Christ was cotemporaneous 
 with the commencement of his mission,) '' Behold 
 the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of 
 the world/^* With these passages in the gospel 
 before us, as furnishing the right canon of inter- 
 pretation where the allusion is somewhat less 
 marked, we can have no difficulty in putting the 
 right construction on other expressions, which 
 our Lord frequently let drop in reference to the 
 object of his approaching death; as wken he said, 
 '' The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom 
 for many :''^ *^ As Moses lifted up the serpent in 
 the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted 
 up, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
 perish, but have eternal life :''^ ^^ I am the good 
 Shepherd — the good shepherd giveth his life for 
 his sheep :'^^ ^' Greater love hath no man than 
 than this, that a man lay down his life for his 
 friends :'^ ^ and finally, '' The bread that I will 
 give is my flesh, which I will give for the life 
 of the world/"^ Nay, so constantly had our 
 Lord set before his disciples the necessity of his 
 death, as an atoning sacrifice, and as the antitype 
 
 4 John i. 29. ^ Matt. xx. 26. Mark x. 45. 
 
 6 John lii. 14, 15. i John x. 11. « John xv. 13. 
 9 John vi. 51. 
 
CHAP. I.] OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 19 
 
 of the various sacrifices of the Jews, that, on his 
 resurrection from the dead, lie upbraided them 
 for their ignorance on iso plain a point, and said, 
 ^^ 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 in order that this doctrine might 
 be clearly understood, he wrought one of his last 
 miracles, for '' he opened their tender standing 
 that they might understand the Scriptures ; and 
 said unto them, thus it is written, and thus it be- 
 hoved Christ to suffer y and to rise from the dead 
 the third day; and that repentance and remission 
 of sins shoidd he preached in his name" ^ 
 
 2. A similar objection, and equally unfounded, 
 is made against this doctrine, from the supposed 
 silence of the disciples of our Lord, in their ser- 
 mons, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 We are told that the advocates of this doctrine 
 think it necessary when preaching to unconverted 
 sinners, to say a great deal about the vindictive 
 justice of God ; and the utter impossibility of his 
 saving them on any ground, but the complete 
 satisfaction made by Christ to divine justice for 
 all their sins. '' Had the apostles maintained the 
 
 1 Luke xxiv. 25, 26. « Luke xxiv. 45 — 47. 
 
 c2 
 
20 OBJECTION FROM SUPPOSED OMISSIONS [SECT. II. 
 
 same views (we are told) it is reasonable to sup- 
 pose that they would have insisted upon the same 
 points when preaching to unconverted sinners; 
 yet in all their discourses which we have an ac- 
 count of in the book of the Acts, we do not find 
 that they have said one word upon the subject/^ 
 
 Now, if we were to grant that this doctrine is 
 no where to be found in the discourses of the 
 apostles, yet if it can be proved from any part 
 of God's w ord, the doctrine must be true. The 
 silence of one part of Scripture on any subject, 
 cannot be reasonably objected against a doctrine 
 if it be maintained in another ; and we do find in 
 point of fact, that very important truths are some- 
 times made to rest on one or two passages of the 
 Holy Scriptures. Take as an instance the union 
 of the office of priest and king in Jesus Christ, on 
 which the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews 
 lays great stress, as the foundation of the high- 
 est privileges and hopes of a Christian ; and 
 yet the apostle rests the whole weight of his 
 argument on a single historical fact, and a soli- 
 tary statement in the book of Psalms. Melchize- 
 dek was a type of the royal and priestly office 
 of Christ. He was intended to prefigure all that 
 was great in Him that was to be " the Author 
 of eternal salvation unto them that believe,'^ com- 
 
CHAP. I.] OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21 
 
 bined with all that was compassionate in the 
 "^ high-priest;, who is touched with the feeling of 
 our infirmities \'' and yet this union of office, 
 where so much is involved, is founded upon a 
 singular character, who is mentioned but twice in 
 ail the Old Testament. This fact is sufficient io 
 show that we are not always to be guided in our 
 belief of either the truth or importance of a doc- 
 trine, by the small number of times, or the fewness 
 of the books, in which it is mentioned. There 
 may be abundant reasons for the fact which we 
 cannot understand; and it ought not to shake 
 our confidence as to the truth of any thing plainly 
 revealed, because it is not mentioned in every 
 book of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 In the case, however, before us, if the objection 
 were founded upon fact, it would be easy to assign 
 many satisfactory reasons for the omission. In 
 the sermons referred to in the Acts, it is possible 
 that the apostles might be treating on subjects, 
 which did not naturally lead to this doctrine ; 
 and as they do not profess in any of their ser- 
 mons to give a complete system of divinity, nor 
 was there any concert made among them that 
 their sermons taken together, should form such a 
 system, we might account for this sileiice, if it 
 existed, without having recourse to the supposi- 
 
22 OBJECTION FROM SUPPOSED OMISSIONS [sECT. II. 
 
 tioii that the apostles did not maintain the doc- 
 trine in question. It is well known that the first 
 step of the apostles was to establish the ti^uth 
 of the Christian religion: and this they did by 
 continually adverting to the wonderful and incon- 
 trovertibly established fact of our Lord^s resur- 
 rection; and it will be seen^ by a reference to 
 the accounts given of their discourses, that this 
 was the main point on which they insisted. It 
 must be remarked, also, that almost all the dis- 
 courses which are mentioned were preached by 
 St. Paul and St. Peter, and that it is from their 
 epistles that we collect most abundant proofs of 
 their holding the doctrine in question ; and we 
 cannot, with the least shov/ of reason, suppose 
 that these holy apostles preached one doctrine 
 and iDrofe another. If they believed it, when 
 they sent their epistles, they did so, when they 
 delivered their sermons. But there is an as- 
 sumption in the argument which is not correct. 
 It seems to be supposed that the book, called the 
 Acts of the Apostles, consists chiefly of sermons^ 
 or at least, that there are a great many in it. 
 We are indeed told of many sermons that were 
 preached; but we have no account of more than 
 four or five discourses, if we except apologies 
 and defences, and those very short, in the whole 
 of the Acts ; and therefore it need not be greatly 
 
CHAP. I.] OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 wondered if tills doctrine had been passed over 
 in silence. 
 
 But after all^ the fact is, there is no such omis- 
 sion: we conceive the doctrine to be clearly 
 implied, if not systematically laid down in this 
 book, and we adduce many passages from it, in 
 proof of this. The whole discourse of Philip 
 with the Ethiopian Eunuch, as recorded in the 
 eighth chapter, appears to have been on the 
 Atonement. St. Peter, in his defence before 
 the rulers of the Jews, had this doctrine in view 
 when he said, '^ Neither is there salvation in any 
 other; for there is none other name under heaven 
 given among men, whereby we must be saved.'' ^ 
 The same may be asserted of his discourse before 
 Cornelius and his friends, in which he says, " To 
 him give all the prophets witness that through his 
 name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive 
 remission of sins. ''^ On another occasion, when 
 at Antioch, he said, *^^ Be it known unto you, men 
 and brethren, that through this man is preached 
 unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and by him all 
 that believe are justified from all things, from which 
 ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.'' 5 
 And if there were no other passage in this book 
 but the address of St. Paul to the elders of the 
 
 3 Acts iv. 12. 4 X. 43. ^ xiii. 38, 39. 
 
24 OBJECTION THAT THE [sECT. II. 
 
 church of Ephesus, it would be sufficient to esta- 
 blish both the truth and the importance of this 
 doctrine. " Feed^"" says this apostle, ^'^ the church 
 of God^ which he hath purchased with his own 
 blood." ^ Hence I conclude, that the objection 
 against this doctrine, founded on the supposed 
 silence of our Lord upon it, in the Gospels, and 
 the apostles in the Acts, has no show of truth in 
 it : for whatever construction our opponents may 
 put upon these numerous passages, they are 
 claimed by the advocates of this doctrine, and 
 will be as confidently brought into the field of 
 argument in support of it, as any contained in 
 the Holy Scriptui'es. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Answer to Objections against the Doctrine of 
 the Atonement, on the alleged ground that it 
 is unnecessary y and is opposed to the Attri- 
 butes and Perfections of the Divine Nature, 
 
 Having endeavoured to invalidate this doctrine 
 by the supposed silence of Christ and his dis- 
 ciples respecting it, its adversaries next endea- 
 vour to set it aside by alleging. That there is no 
 
 f"' Acts XX. 28. 
 
CHAP. IL] doctrine IS UNNECESSARY. 25 
 
 necessity in the case to require it ; and that it 
 is in direct opposition to the acknowledged at- 
 tributes and perfections of the Divine Being, 
 
 1. ^'' Satisfaction^ or an atonement for sin^ it is 
 said^ implies an injury received by him who re- 
 quires it^ and a capability of receiving compen- 
 sation; but God is no more capable of receiving 
 injury, than he is of doing injury, or than he is 
 of receiving benefit.'^ 
 
 (1.) To this we reply, that the premises from 
 which this conclusion is drawn are inadmissible. 
 They confound the important distinction between 
 person and office. An injury may be done to a 
 legislator or governor, in his official capacity, 
 which does not affect him in his private character; 
 and therefore, though it should be granted that 
 personal satisfaction implies personal injury, and 
 that as no injury is done by sin to the Supreme 
 Being, in his own nature, he may not demand 
 an Atonement to repair a breach of this kind, 
 yet as the Supreme Governor and Legislator 
 of the world, whose office it is to provide for 
 the well-being of all his subjects, and as their 
 head and representative , in whom all their in- 
 terests in time and eternity are concentrated, he 
 may receive the greatest injury by the rebellion 
 
26 OBJECTION THAT THE [SECT. II. 
 
 of any part of liis subjects ; and it is not con- 
 trary to reason to suppose^ that he may demand 
 sucli satisfaction for the evil as may repair the 
 breach committed on his moral government. 
 
 (2.) The argument moreover goes to confound 
 all distinction, as far as respects the dealings of 
 divine Providence with different characters^ be- 
 tween good and evil ; for it is as true that '^ our 
 goodness extendeth not unto him,'^ as that our 
 sins cannot affect him : and therefore^ as it re- 
 spects himself, virtue and vice are matters of 
 equal indifference. It was long asked by Elihu, 
 ^' If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him ? 
 or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest 
 thou unto him ? If thou be righteous, what givest 
 thou him ? or what receive th he of thine hand ? 
 Thy wickedness may hurt a man, as thou art, 
 and thy righteousness may profit the son of 
 man;"^ and so have infidels often asked and an- 
 swered ; and though the question is exceedingly 
 proper when applied to the presumptuous indi- 
 vidual, who imagines that he can lay the Al- 
 mighty under an obligation by his virtues, or 
 affect his happiness by his vices, yet nothing can 
 be more irrelevant, when referred to the notice 
 which it becomes the Sovereign Ruler of the 
 
 1 Job XXXV. 6 — 8. 
 
CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 27 
 
 world to take of the conduct of his subjects. It 
 has long been the opinion of unbelievers, that 
 " God will neither do good^ neither will he do 
 evil/' and the argument before us favours that 
 notion ; but let Christians beware of admitting 
 a maxim which virtually supersedes natural as 
 well as revealed religion. 
 
 (3.) If this argument against the Atonement 
 were followed up to all its consequences, we 
 should be shocked at the result. God is not 
 only the ruler of this lower world, but he has 
 under his dominion unnumbered beings in hea- 
 ven, and probably in countless other regions. 
 He has placed these myriads of his subjects in 
 various degrees of subordination ; from the che- 
 rubim which surround his throne, down through 
 all the principalities and powers of heaven, to 
 the humble inhabitants of inferior worlds, and of 
 our earth. The happiness and well being of all 
 these depend on their obedience to the consti- 
 tuted order of things , and God is the great Con- 
 servator of all their present and future interests. 
 If a single act of rebellion were to take place in 
 any part of these dominions, and remain un- 
 punished, it might, for ought we know, extend 
 to other parts, and finally disorganize his whole 
 dominion, and produce universal confusion and 
 
28 OBJECTION THAT THE [SECT. II. 
 
 unhappiness; and yet^ because the Supreme 
 Governor himself, in this general subversion 
 of his authority and rebellion of his subjects, 
 would receive, according to the argument before 
 us, no personal injury, — because his perfections 
 would be untouched, his glory untarnished, and 
 his felicity unimpaired, he could not, with rea- 
 son, demand any satisfaction at the hands of 
 the first author of this universal confusion and 
 misery ! To such an absurdity would the reason- 
 ing which we are considering necessarily lead us ! 
 
 2. It is fiirther objected against this doctrine , 
 that it stands opposed to the infinite goodness 
 and mercy of the Supreme Being. " If God 
 be not of a wrathful, vindictive, revengeful 
 nature, but the Father of mercies, good unto 
 all, and his tender mercies are over all his 
 works, ever ready to forgive ; — in a word, if he 
 be love, satisfaction, or an atonement for sins 
 could never be necessary to induce him to be 
 merciful to his creatures, or disposed to forgive 
 his offending offspring. On the other hand, 
 supposing an Atonement for sin necessary to ren- 
 der him merciful and gracious to sinners, implies 
 a denial, that mercy and grace are essential to 
 his nature, and greatly detracts from the freeness 
 of divine mercy and favour.'' 
 
CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 29 
 
 (1.) To this we reply, that all this may be 
 granted, without in the least impeaching the 
 doctrine of the Atonement. It does not imply that 
 there are any qualities in the divine nature con- 
 trary to the fullest display of his grace and 
 mercy ; or that any thing was wanting to induce 
 God to be favourable to sinners. On the con- 
 trary, we maintain that it involves the strongest 
 possible proof of the existence of these qualities 
 in the Divine Nature, and furnishes the most 
 satisfactory evidence that every blessing of time 
 and eternity may be reasonably expected by his 
 people from " the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ -:' ^' for/' as the apostle reasons, '' if 
 God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up 
 for us all, how shall he not, with him, freely give 
 us all things V ^ It is not a little singular that 
 the fact which is here assigned as the strongest 
 possible evidence of the love of God to man, 
 should be selected as that which, in the opinion 
 of the adversaries of the Atonement, involves 
 the direct contrary : and it certainly is most un- 
 fortunate for their argument, that the most af- 
 fecting descriptions which are given of the com- 
 passion of God towards our miserable world, 
 stand in connexion with passages of the New 
 Testament, which have a direct or implied re- 
 
 2 Rom. viii. 32, 
 
30 OBJECTION THAT THE [sECT. II. 
 
 ference to the atoning sacrifice. " Scarcely/' ar- 
 gues the apostle, '' for a righteous man will one 
 die, yet peradventure for a good man, some will 
 even dare to die ; but God commendeth his love 
 toivards us^ in that, while we were yet sinners , 
 Christ died for ?is,"^ " In this was jnanifested 
 the love of God toward us, because that God 
 sent his only begotten Son into the world, that 
 we might live through him. Herein is love, not 
 that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
 sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins''^ 
 In reference to this proof of the divine love to 
 man, the apostles abound in such expressions as 
 the following : ^^ Blessed be God, even the Fa- 
 ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of 
 mercies, and the God of all comfort. Now our 
 Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our 
 Father, which hath loved us, and given us ever- 
 lasting consolation, and a good hope through 
 grace. Now the God of peace, that brought 
 again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great 
 Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of 
 the everlasting covenant."^ These and simi- 
 lar passages make it evident, that the redemp- 
 tion of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, is 
 the brightest display that ever has or can be 
 
 3 Rom. V. 7—9. ^ 1 Joh. iv. 9, 10. 
 
 5 2 Cor. i. 3. 2 Thess. ii. 16. Heb. xiii. 20. 
 
CHAP, n.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 31 
 
 made of the love and compassion of our heavenly 
 Father to mankind ; and it is most extraordinary 
 that this fact should be adduced as an evidence 
 that he is ^^ wrathful and vindictive^" and has no 
 delight in the exercise of mercy. 
 
 (2.) It is indeed true in fact^ and a leading 
 principle in the doctrine of the Atonement, that 
 God has thought fit to " require for sin_," and to 
 refuse the pardon of it, except on the ground of 
 his holy law and righteous government being ho- 
 noured by exacting the penalty of transgression 
 from the person of the sinner's surety. But it 
 is not a correct conclusion from this fact, that 
 this doctrine involves any thing contrary to the 
 love of God to man. The argument of our op- 
 ponents proceeds upon a twofold error : first, in 
 confounding two things which are altogether 
 distinct ; and secondly, in assuming a fact which 
 can never be conceded. 
 
 [1. It confounds, in the first place, the senti- 
 ment of love, with the expression of it. The 
 former may, and often does exist, where there is 
 no suitable medium of manifesting it: no in- 
 ducement is wanted, but a conveyance. When 
 Absalom had violated the law of God and man 
 in murdering his brother Amnon, he did not, by 
 
32 OBJ^CTJON THAT THE [SECT. 11. 
 
 that act^ annihilate the love of his father, but 
 he rendered it most difficult for his father to 
 manifest his affection : for he was a judge 
 as well as a parent. Hence the sacred historian 
 informs us, that '' the soul of King David longed 
 to go forth unto Absalom;'' but he was con- 
 strained to suppress this emotion by a sense of 
 what was due to the violated laws of his king- 
 dom ; and therefore he could not permit his son 
 to approach his presence. A somewhat similar 
 instance of this conflict between paternal feeling 
 and judicial propriety is recorded respecting 
 Zaleucas, the lawgiver of the Locrians, who, 
 according to a law of his own enacting, had 
 subjected the adulterer to the penalty of losing 
 his eyes. His own son was the first who was 
 convicted of the offence : and the compromise 
 betv/een fatherly affection and official duty was 
 effected by sharing the penalty with his son, and 
 each submitting to the privation of an eye. 
 
 It is a mistake then to suppose, that our doc- 
 trine imputes to God a ivant of motive, to in- 
 duce him to pardon sin. This is by no means 
 the case. On the contrary, it rests on the fact 
 of his infinite compassion. It assumes, as its 
 first principle, that God, from the purest love, 
 desired reconciliation with man; and adduces. 
 
CHAP, n.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 33 
 
 as the strongest evidence of this, his providing 
 an atoning sacrifice, that he might, at the same 
 time, save both the sinners and the honour of 
 his own law ; for " God so loved the world, that 
 he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
 believeth in him might not perish, but have 
 everlasting life." He wanted, therefore, no in- 
 ducement to save sinners, but a medium, through 
 which those intentions of mercy might be con- 
 sistently manifested; and w^e contend that the 
 atoning sacrifice was such a medium. 
 
 It is indeed alleged by our opponents, that 
 the doctrine of conveying mercy to mankind, 
 through the medium of Jesus Christ, is precisely 
 that for which they contend ; and that, had the 
 advocates of the Atonement satisfied themselves 
 with such a representation of their doctrine, they 
 would have had none to dispute the point with 
 them. But this is an agreement of words, not 
 of facts. Socinians speak of Christ^s mission 
 generally, as the medium through which God 
 has made known to man the placability of his 
 nature, and his readiness to forgive. He might 
 have done so, consistently with their notions, 
 through the medium of an angel, or in a thou- 
 sand other different ways. But this is not our 
 doctrine. We contend that the medium was 
 
34 OBJECTION THAT THE [sECT. II. 
 
 special y and necessarily limited to the atoning 
 sacrifice which Christ made upon the cross; and 
 that according to our interpretation of Scripture ., 
 and the constitution of things under which di- 
 vine wisdom has placed man^ the mercy of God 
 could have been manifested in no other way \ it 
 was the only channel through which it could 
 flow — the only medium by which it could be 
 conveyed. But this does not suppose that the 
 atoning sacrifice was necessary to excite the di- 
 vine benevolence^ but only to render the exercise 
 of it practicable ; it was not \\\e first cause of his 
 love, but the means of displaying it, and, ac- 
 cording to the scriptural account, the only means 
 by which, consistently with what we may call a 
 moral necessity, he could display it. 
 
 (2.) But the objection, in the next place, pro- 
 ceeds on an assumption which can by no means 
 be admitted. It supposes that the objector un- 
 derstands all that is involved in the love and 
 mercy of God to man, or at least that he can 
 distinctly point out all that is incompatible with 
 it. Now, we deny that he is competent to such 
 a task, and that there are ten thousand things 
 which the history of the world records, and 
 which are still continually taking place, which 
 far exceed his powers to reconcile with his no- 
 
CHAP. 11.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 35 
 
 tions of the divine goodness. What will he 
 say, on his assumption, to the introduction of sin 
 and suffering into the world ? to the desolations 
 which have risen from war, pestilence, and fa- 
 mine ? to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomor- 
 rah ? to the destruction of the v/orld by the de- 
 luge ? to the havoc and ruin of volcanoes, tor- 
 nadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes? to the general 
 predominance of vice over virtue ? to the pros- 
 perity of the wicked, and the afflictions of the righ- 
 teous? to the introduction of a revelation from 
 God, bringing life and immortality to light, at so 
 late a period of the world ? to its present partial 
 extension amongst mankind, and its compara- 
 tive inefficiency, where it has been made known ? 
 to the general prevalence of idolatry, and its con- 
 sequent depravity, misery, and cruelty ? to the 
 subjugation of a vast mass of the world to the 
 oppression of tyrants? and to the long continued 
 and widely extended degradation and wretched- 
 ness of slavery? In what way are these, and a 
 thousand other things to be reconciled with our 
 ideas of a being of infinite compassion, who 
 possesses inexhaustible resources of wisdom and 
 power to accomplish all the purposes of his 
 grace and mercy to man ? Doubtless all of them 
 are parts of one grand plan to promote the 
 greatest general good of his creatures ; but who 
 
 d2 
 
36 OBJECTION THAT THE [sECT. II. 
 
 will undertake to make the matter plain to sense 
 and reason? who can give any other answer, 
 than '' Even so father, for so it hath seemed 
 good in thy sight \" Every thing, both in the 
 natural and moral government of God leads us 
 to exclaim, '^ O the depths of the wisdom and 
 knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his 
 judgments, and his ways past finding out!" 
 
 These observations are thrown out to show that, 
 though there should be something in the doctrine 
 of the Atonement not easily reconcileable with 
 our accustomed ideas of the divine benevolence, 
 yet this furnishes no reasonable ground of objec- 
 tion against it, if it be a matter of plain revelation, 
 as these difficulties are only analogous to others 
 which are perpetually occurring in the investigation 
 of the infinitely wise and benevolent purposes of 
 God in reference to man. All abstract reason- 
 ings of what it is right and proper for God to 
 do, must have in them considerable uncertainty, 
 fi'om the fact of their being founded on premises 
 which surpass the comprehension of man; and 
 when we adduce such reasonings against such 
 plain and numerous passages of scripture, as 
 will hereafter be brought in support of this 
 doctrine, we act in as little consistency with 
 sound judgment as with Christian humility. 
 
CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 37 
 
 (3.) But I add, finally, that the whole of this 
 objection proceeds on a mistaken notion of the 
 nature of the Divine Government, It supposes 
 that mercy to an offender may be exercised in- 
 dependently of the principles and regulations 
 upon which that government professes to be 
 founded : and that, after establishing an order of 
 things subject to rules and motives, (that is, to 
 laws which are sanctioned by rewards and punish- 
 ments,) the legislator is at liberty at any time to 
 depart from that system, and overturn, at once, 
 all that he had previously ordained as essential 
 to the very existence of his government. If the 
 system had been founded on arbitrary power, 
 then it might have been upheld by the attribute 
 of Omnipotence, and no defection of man from 
 his allegiance could frustrate the original inten- 
 tion of God to sustain his authority by the exer- 
 cise of irresistible might. Or, if it had been a 
 government of mercy, then judgment and jus- 
 tice could have had no place in it, and vice and 
 virtue, in the subjects of it, would have been 
 equally unimportant. But it is a government 
 neither of absolute power, nor of indiscriminate 
 mercy : but it is a moral government, founded 
 upon equitable laws, and enforced by motives 
 addressed both to our hopes and our fears; and 
 having, for its sanctions, eternal happiness or 
 
38 OBJECTION THAT THE [SECT. II. 
 
 misery. No exercise^ tlierefore, either of power 
 or mercy, which is incompatible with this order 
 of things, can possibly be admitted into this 
 system. Mercy and power are, indeed, both 
 displayed, but in such a way as exactly to ac- 
 cord with the original principle of the system, 
 and to promote its fundamental design of ope- 
 rating by rewards and punishments. Though it 
 may not, therefore, be necessary that an atone- 
 ment should be made for the purpose of inducing 
 the Supreme Governor to exercise mercy to- 
 wards offenders, it may, notwithstanding, be in- 
 dispensably requisite in order for his displaying 
 that mercy, consistently with the moral govern- 
 ment, which he has established among men. 
 Mercy must be exercised, therefore, in such a 
 way as to leave all the motives for obedience un- 
 impared and untouched. The individual must 
 never have it to say, '' I have been pardoned at 
 the expense of the whole system of government 
 which God had previously ordained in the world, 
 and so as entirely to supersede the sanctions of, 
 and therefore to annihilate, future happiness and 
 misery, as offering motives either to hope or 
 fear.^^ 
 
 I cannot dismiss this subject without animad- 
 verting on the gross impropriety with which So- 
 
CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 39 
 
 cinians have often treated the opinions of those 
 who maintain the doctrine of the Atonement. 
 They represent them as chargeable with trans- 
 forming the Supreme Being into a cruel and 
 merciless tyrant. They speak of the doctrine as 
 ^' supposing the divine justice to be a vindictiv^^ 
 revengeful principle, ever thirsting for blood, 
 and after plunging its vengeful sword in the soul 
 of the innocent, it still pursues multitudes of the 
 guilty, whose punishments he bore, and exacts 
 a second payment of the debts which the inno- 
 cent victim paid witl) his own blood ; and relent- 
 lessly consigning them to everlasting perdition, 
 because they cannot satisfy its demands, which 
 were all satisfied by his suffering in their stead;" 
 and much more to the same purpose. Now, to 
 say nothing of the bad taste of such charges, 
 and the inconsistency of such declamation with 
 superior pretensions to cool and dispassionate 
 argumentations, one might appeal to the candour 
 of such writers, and ask whether they do not 
 know that such accusations are unfounded ? Many 
 of them did themselves once hold the doctrine, 
 which they now load with such monstrous 
 charges: did they then entertain such ideas of 
 the character of the Supreme Being? If they 
 did, they must have acted with great insince- 
 rity, when they often proclaimed, both in public 
 
40 OBJECTION THAT THE [SECT. II. 
 
 and in private, that " God is love," and styled 
 him " the God of all consolation/' '^ the Fatlier of 
 mercies," '^ rich in mercy to all that call upon him." 
 If they did not, then they cannot stand acquitted 
 of having disingenuously and knowingly misre- 
 presented a doctrine, which rejects with horror 
 such imputations, and which claims for its very 
 foundation the love and mercy of God to man. 
 
 it is true, indeed, that many advocates for this 
 doctrine have said much on the justice and truth 
 and holiness of the divine Being, as precluding 
 any hope of reconciliation with him, without an 
 atoning sacrifice; and have sometimes repre- 
 sented the wrath of God against sin as burning 
 with fury, and as only to be averted by fleeing 
 for refuge to Jesus Christ, as the hope set before 
 them ; and some have probably used unguarded 
 language on this awful subject : but still they 
 are not to be utterly condemned for speaking 
 even in strong terms upon it, till it can be shown 
 that there is nothing in the scriptures themselves 
 which gives countenance to such descriptions. 
 If those, who so strongly animadvert on this lan- 
 guage, would take the trouble of consulting such 
 passages of scripture as are referred to in a con- 
 cordance under the words " anger, wrath, indig- 
 nation, fury, vengeance,'' &c. they would find that 
 
CHAP. II.] DOCTRINE IS UNNECESSARY. 41 
 
 God is not always represented in the character 
 in which they affect exclusively to consider him ; 
 but that even the God who is love^ is sometimes 
 exhibited as ^^ a consuming fire.'^ They will con- 
 tend indeed, and that justly, that these repre- 
 sentations of the Deity are reconcileable with 
 those of an opposite character, and are to be 
 refei:red rather to the results and final issue of 
 things, than to the attributes of a Being who is 
 totally divested of all human passions, and is as 
 incapable of love as he is of hatred, in the strict 
 application of these terms. But still these repre- 
 sentations of God are found in the scriptures, 
 and do not constitute any valid objection against 
 them, because they admit of a rational explanation. 
 For the same reason, the use of similar terms, by 
 any of the advocates of the Atonement, ought 
 not to be adduced in prejudice of their doctrine, 
 unless it can be shown that they admit of no 
 satisfactory explanation, and are altogether irre- 
 concileable with just ideas of the divine perfec- 
 tions. Now certainly the persons in question do 
 attempt such a reconciliation. They maintain, 
 with as much zeal as their opponents do, that 
 " God is love," and they reject, with as much 
 abhorrence, every imputation on their doctrine, 
 which would detract from that essential quality 
 of the best of Beings. A Satisfactionist, as he 
 
42 OBJECTION THAT IT STANDS [sECT. II. 
 
 has been sometimes called, would contend against 
 a Socinian that his exhibition of the divine cha- 
 racter and government are as compatible with 
 the infinite love and mercy, the immutability and 
 sovereignty of God, notwithstanding the use he 
 makes of certain scriptural terms, which seem to 
 be of a contrary nature, as the latter would con- 
 tend vv^ith an infidel that the same terms are 
 reconcileable with his notions of the placability 
 of the Divine Being, and his boundless bene- 
 volence. 
 
 No apology, I trust, need be offered for the 
 length to which these remarks on the character 
 of the Divine Being have been extended, if they 
 have set that important subject in its true light, 
 and exonerated the doctrine of the Atonement 
 from those unjust charges which have been alleged 
 against it, as being opposed to the boundless 
 grace and mercy of God to man. I will now 
 proceed to other objections. 
 
 3. " It may be questioned," it is said, '' whether 
 there could be any such thing as God's pardoning 
 sin, if no sinner be exempted from punishment, 
 but on the ground of a substitute having first 
 suffered all the punishment due to him in his 
 stead, any more than an insolvent man could be 
 
CHAP. II.] OPPOSED TO FREE PARDON OF SIN. 43 
 
 said to have all his debts forgiven by his creditors, 
 who would not have set him at liberty at all, 
 had they not first received the full amount of 
 what he owed them at the hands of his surety/' 
 
 The argument in this objection is at variance 
 with the case on which it is founded. In the 
 former, sin is supposed to be a criine^ which 
 involves moral character, and deserves punish- 
 ment \ in the latter, it is considered merely as a 
 dehty which neither implies personal demerit, nor 
 necessarily incurs a penalty. For though, in one 
 sense, sin may be called a debt, because we owe 
 obedience to God as our Creator and Governor, 
 and therefore every failure, under this view of it, 
 is a debt ; yet the proper representation of man's 
 state is that of a guilty criminal before his judge, 
 who cannot dispense with the execution of the 
 threatened penalty, without a manifest injury to 
 his own character and government; which is a 
 widely different case from that of a debtor and 
 creditor. Allowing it to be true that, in pecu- 
 niary transactions^ whenever a debtor satisfies 
 his creditors, (no matter by what means,) he may 
 claim liberation as a matter of right, and not of 
 favour; yet this reasoning will not apply against 
 a lawgiver and judge. Here personal character 
 is involved ; and if the criminal should be ex- 
 
44 OBJECTION THAT AN ATONEMENT [sECT. II. 
 
 empted from punishment^ (no matter for what 
 reason^) inasmuch as he has been dealt with in- 
 finitely more favourably than he deserved, it will 
 not surely be denied that he has been pardoned, 
 and that his pardon ought to be viewed as an act 
 of grace or favour. The Atonement is considered 
 as a necessary expedient to support the dignity 
 and authority of the divine government, so that 
 '^ God may be just, while he is the justifier of 
 him that believeth in Jesus. ^^ Now supposing a 
 king, out of compassion to a detachment of his 
 army, who had turned their arms against him, 
 should devise such an expedient as might main- 
 tain unimpaired his authority, and satisfy the 
 claims of justice, (say by accepting the voluntary 
 offer of his only son to submit to a certain punish- 
 ment, in the place of the rebels,) and yet permit 
 him to receive into favour again those who were 
 willing to return to their allegiance — would any 
 object against this expedient as detracting from 
 the freeness of the pardon, or adduce it as an 
 argument that no pardon had been granted? 
 Surely not. The fact would rather be considered 
 as the strongest possible proof of his love ; and 
 so far from diminishing the obligation of the 
 pardon, would enhance it tenfold. 
 
 4. Nearly allied to the former objection is the 
 
CHAP. II.] SUPERSEDES PUNISHMENT FOR SIN. 45 
 
 following. "^ If Christ made full satisfaction (or 
 an Atonement) for the sins of the whole world, 
 by bearing the wrath of God which was due to 
 all mankind, how can it be right for any sinner 
 to be punished in his own person, justice having 
 received its full demands ? But as we have the 
 fullest proof that all impenitents will be subjected 
 to personal punishment according to their ranks, 
 (guilt,) it follows that another has not borne all 
 their punishment for them.'^ 
 
 The error of this objection arises from con- 
 founding a sufficient with an efficient cause ; and 
 satisfaction in a case of debt, with one in a case 
 of crime. The latter of these mistakes has just 
 been noticed. With regard to the former we 
 may observe that, allowing the Atonement of 
 Christ to have made a satisfaction sufficient for 
 the sins of the wliole world, if they were to repent 
 and believe in him ; yet it does not follow that 
 the whole world must needs be brought to re- 
 pentance, faith, and salvation ; and still less that 
 they shall partake of the latter without the former. 
 Whatever connexion there may be, in right, be- 
 tween the satisfaction of a creditor , and the im- 
 mediate release of a debtor, this connexion does 
 not extend to what relates to crimes. All the 
 connexion there is in this case arises from the 
 
46 OBJECTION THAT AN ATONEMENT [sECT. II. 
 
 covenant of promise^ under which the Saviour 
 laid down his life; which covenant, though it 
 makes provision for repentance and forgiveness, 
 makes none for forgiveness without repentance. 
 
 The sacrifices under the Mosaic law were of 
 no account, but to ^^ the comers thereunto."^ 
 If, on the great day of Atonement, the regulations 
 as laid down by the lawgiver ^ had been neglected, 
 the benefit of it could not have been received. 
 If any of the tribes of Israel, instead of " afflicting 
 their souls," and appearing before their God, had 
 absented themselves, and been employed in offer- 
 ing sacrifices to idols, the benefits of the Atone- 
 ment, whatever might have been its sitfficiency, 
 would not have been extended to them. This 
 was actually the case with the ten tribes when 
 they separated themselves fi'om the worship of 
 God. And when, after they were carried into 
 captivity, Hezekiah had respect to the remnant 
 that was left, ^*^ commanding that the burnt-offering 
 and sin-offering should be made for all Israel ^^'^ 
 it was not designed that they should partake of 
 its benefits, except as coming up to Jerusalem 
 to ivorship. Hence, letters and messengers were 
 sent into all their coasts, to invite them to do so.^ 
 
 <5 Heb. X. 1. 7 Levit. xvi. 29—34. 
 
 8 2 Chron. xxix. xxx. 
 
CHAP. II.] SUPERSEDES PUNISHMENT FOR SIN. 47 
 
 Now, if the scoffers of Asher, Manasseh, and Ze- 
 bulun, who ^^ laughed these messengers to scorn, 
 and mocked them," had afterwards pleaded the 
 injustice of being punished for their sins, inas- 
 much as the Atonement was made for all Israel^ 
 what would have been thought of the justice of 
 their plea? Yet their claim would have been 
 equally as well grounded as that of impenitent 
 unbelievers, who refuse submission to the terms 
 on which the benefits of the atoning sacrifice are 
 ofiered, to be exempted from the punishment of 
 their sins, on the principle of justice, fi'om the 
 vicarious sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 5. It is again alleged, that " Justice consists 
 in doing that which is right; and both reason 
 and scripture proclaim that it cannot be right to 
 impute guilt to an innocent person. ^^ 
 
 No one disputes that ^^ justice consists in doing 
 what is right ;'^ and yet the conclusion which 
 Socinians draw from this truism, cannot be ad- 
 mitted without some limitation and explanation. 
 If it be meant that the evil actions of a wicked 
 man cannot become the evil actions of a good 
 man, and that the demerit inherent in these actions 
 can never be transferred from the guilty so as to 
 become the inherent demerit of the innocent, this 
 
48 OBJECTION THAT IT IMPUTES [SECT. II. 
 
 is SO obvious that no rational being for a moment 
 disputes it. The criminality of sin can never 
 pass over from the vicious to the virtuous ; nor 
 do characters ever appear in the eyes of God dif- 
 ferent from what they really are. But if it be 
 meant^ as it must be, that ^^ both reason and 
 scripture proclaim" the injustice of *o imputing 
 the guilt of the wicked to the innocent, as that the 
 latter should ever hear any of the penal effects 
 of the former, this we deny, and think we can 
 disprove. Right reason can never be in opposi- 
 tion to the actual dealings of divine Providence 
 with man ; for " the Judge of all the earth must 
 do right." Now, in innumerable cases, both na- 
 tural and providential, the punishment of the 
 guilty, either in part or in whole, is transferred 
 to the innocent, and they are dealt with as though 
 they were the actual transgressors. Man is so 
 constituted as to be unable to live out of society ; 
 and such is the condition of this law of our na- 
 ture, that the unoffending must often necessarily 
 suffer for the crimes of the wicked. A child 
 inherits the enfeebled and diseased constitution 
 of a profligate parent. Infants, " who have not 
 sinned after the similitude of Adam^s transgres- 
 sion,'' are subject to his penalty, and *^*^ death has 
 passed upon'' them as well as upon him. The 
 three sore judgments of God upon wicked nations, 
 
€HAP. II.] GUILT TO THE INNOCENT. 49 
 
 ^^ the sword^ and pestilence^ and famine/' sweep 
 away innocent children as well as their criminal 
 parents. The plagues and deaths, which Pha- 
 raoh^s hardness of heart and opposition to God 
 provoked, fell upon the whole nation of the 
 Egyptians as well as on the king. The earth, 
 that punished the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and 
 Abiram, ^^ swallowed up'^ also their wives and 
 their children. The fire and brimstone that de- 
 stroyed the men of Sodom and Gomorrah con- 
 sumed those also who could not have had any 
 share in their abominations : and the deluge, 
 which swept away the infidel inhabitants of the 
 old world, buried in the same watery grave their 
 new-born infants. Now, these are facts which 
 meet the senses, and admit of no evasion. Every 
 day presents us with undeniable instances of a 
 just and righteous Governor, so imputing guilt 
 to innocent persons as to inflict on the latter an 
 equal portion of suffering with the former. And 
 what we daily witness in the administration of 
 divine Providence, we see established as a rule 
 of conduct in divine Revelation : ^^ I will visit," 
 says the lawgiver in the Decalogue, " the sins of 
 the fathers upon their children to the third and 
 fourth generation;" and the prophet Jeremiah 
 ^puts the true construction on this law, when he 
 records the historical fact, and says, "^ our fathers 
 
 E 
 
50 OBJECTION THAT IT IMPUTES [SECT. IL 
 
 bave sinned^ and are not^ and we have borne their 
 iniquities."'^ Our blessed Lord also grounded 
 his dreadful doom of Jerusalem on the same prin- 
 ciple, when he said ^'^ upon you shall come all the 
 righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the 
 blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, 
 son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the 
 temple and the altar." ' And to what else can we 
 ascribe the present dispersion of the Jews, and 
 their long-protracted miseries, but to the impious 
 prayer of their forefathers, *^' His blood be upon 
 us and on our children ?" Hence it is most mani- 
 fest, both from the common course of divine Pro- 
 vidence, and the rule of conduct laid down in the 
 holy scriptures, that upon the innocent the guilt 
 of the wicked is often so imputed and entailed as 
 that the effects of it are felt in the fullest extent. 
 Now, however difficult it may be to account for 
 the equity and justice of such a mode of proce- 
 dure, we cannot deny its existence ; and the very 
 fact of its existence is a proof that it is both just 
 and right , for otherwise, '' how should God judge 
 the world? The Judge of all the earth must do 
 right." So that, so far are ^^ reason and scripture 
 from proclaiming the injustice of imputing, in 
 a certain way, guilt upon the innocent," we 
 find both of them concur in the fact, that the 
 9 Lamentations v. 7 ^ Matt, xxiii. 35. 
 
CHAP. II.] GUILT TO THE INNOCENT. 51 
 
 unoffending often are visited for the transgres- 
 sions of tbe wicked. 
 
 Now to apply this to the case before us. 
 There can be no doubt of the complete innocence 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is acknowledged 
 by all to be ^^ holy and harmless^ and separate 
 from sinners.^^ '^ He did no sin^ neither was 
 guile found in his mouth :" and jei it was pre- 
 dicted of him that " he should bear our iniquities ; 
 that God should lay upon him the iniquity of us 
 all ; that the chastisement of our peace should be 
 upon him, and that by his stripes we should be 
 healed:"^ and the sacred history records that he 
 did " suffer /or our sinSy the just for the unjust y 
 that he might bring us unto God.''" This is the 
 scriptural account of the matter^ and it has its 
 analogy in the course of divine Providence. 
 Now^ if there be any thing in it difficult to be 
 understood^ or apparently contrary to reason^ 
 Socinians^ who appeal on this subject both to 
 " reason and scripture^^ are as much required as 
 we are, to reconcile the fact with justice and 
 equity. 
 
 We will, however, admit that the analogy be- 
 tween the innocent bearing the guilt of others, in 
 
 2 Isaiah liii. 5 i Pet. iii. 18. 
 
 e2 
 
52 OBJECTION THAT IT IMPUTES [sECT. H, 
 
 the course of divine Providence, does not hold 
 in every point with Jesus Christ ^^ suffering the 
 just for the unjust." Christ was innocent to an 
 extent that can be asserted of no merely human 
 being; nor was he connected with us by the cus- 
 tomary ties which unite man with man. But 
 these differences strengthen our case, and make 
 it still more evident that the sins of others were 
 imputed to him; and that it is consonant with 
 justice that they should be so. Taking the fact 
 that the most innocent and holy of beings was 
 also the greatest of sufferers — that the immaculate 
 Saviour was emphatically " the man of sorrows 
 and acquainted with grief," — and that these suf- 
 ferings were inflicted by the hand of God, and 
 that it " pleased the Father to bruise him," we 
 ask, in what way are these facts to be accounted 
 for ? Here we have innocence suffering, and that 
 by God^s appointment : shall we say that this was 
 unjust? Those who assert this, charge injustice 
 upon God : those who deny it, acknowledge that 
 innocence may justly suffer. But all suffering is 
 penal — it is the wages of sin — and the conclusion 
 is unavoidable, that, in the case of Christ's suffer- 
 ings, the sins of others must have been imputed. 
 
 • It may be thought, however, after all, to be a 
 hard case — though doubtless reconcileable with 
 
CHAP. II.] GUILT TO THE INNOCENT. 53 
 
 strict justice, or the case could not have existed — 
 that any should bear the penalty of a crime, which 
 he had no share in committing; and some may 
 think that it is an unhappy condition of our nature 
 to be thus responsible for others' transgressions. 
 In the case however before us this hardship does 
 not exist. Christ is not connected with man by 
 the law of necessity, but of covenant and agree- 
 ment. He voluntarily undertook a cause, whicli 
 he might have declined without any impeachment 
 of his goodness, or diminution of his happiness. 
 And this fact gives an entirely new aspect to the 
 case. He gratuitously became man's surety. 
 He undertook, of his own free will, to ^' redeem 
 us from the curse of the law;" and as this could 
 not be done without ^'^ becoming a curse for us," 
 the sufferings were self-induced; and though 
 the penalty was inflicted on a perfectly innocent 
 being, there was no injustice in the case, nor the 
 least ground of complaint in imputing guilt to the 
 innocent. 
 
 6. It is further objected, that " a vicarious 
 sacrifice strikes at the foundation of the great 
 love and rich mercy of the Deity, in exhibiting 
 free salvation to a guilty world." 
 
 From this objection we are doubtless to infer. 
 
54 OBJECTION THAT IT STRIKES [sECT. II. 
 
 that if any tiling be made an indispensable con- 
 dition in the pardoning of sin, it destroys the 
 freeness of it, and is incompatible with the love 
 and mercy of God to man : for the objection does 
 not apply only to the necessity of a vicarious sa- 
 crifice, but of every thing which would stop the 
 free curi'ent of it to '^ a guilty world.'' This love 
 and mercy, it seems, must be free, unfettered, 
 and unconditional, or they lose their character, 
 and are annihilated. Now, if this objection apply 
 against our system, it subverts also that of Soci- 
 nians. They suppose that this salvation is not 
 so free, as that repentance should not be a neces- 
 sary condition of it. But if this be the case, does 
 not " repentance,'' as well as " a vicai^ious sacri- 
 fice,^'' strike at the foundation of the great love 
 and rich mercy of the Deity, in exhibiting free 
 salvation to a guilty world? To be consistent, 
 our objectors ought to maintain that it will be 
 freely granted to all, penitent or impenitent; 
 since, according to their ideas, any necessary 
 condition of this salvation strikes at the founda- 
 tion of its freeness. The apostle, however, rea- 
 soned differently when he said : " Being justified 
 freely by his grace, through the redemption that 
 is in ChristP St. Paul, it should seem, did not 
 think redemption by Jesus Christ subversive of 
 \\\^ freeness of the grace of God, but the strongest 
 
ch:\p. it.] at the root of divine love. 55 
 
 proof o{ it: and be immediately assigns the rea- 
 son of liis having recourse to this method o^ 
 reconciling sinners to himself; it was not that 
 " his vengeance might be satiated/' as has been 
 stated against our doctrine ; but " that he might 
 he just, and the justifier of him which believeth 
 in Jesus. '^'"'^ Let the apostle again answer our 
 objectors. Redemption by the blood of Jesus, or, 
 " a vicarious sacrifice," it should seem, " strikes 
 at the foundation of the great love and rich mercy 
 of the Deity, in exhibiting free salvation to a 
 guilty world;" but the apostle thought the very 
 reverse of this : and he wishes it to be recorded 
 "^ to the praise of the glory of his grace y^"^ that in 
 Christ " we have rede?nption, through his bloody 
 the forgiveness of sins, according to the riche^ 
 of his grace. ^^^ Here it is perfectly obvious that 
 we ^YQ forgiven according to the riches o/* divine 
 grace; and that this is in perfect consistence with 
 an important condition ; nay, the very condition 
 objected to by Socinians, rede^nption through the 
 blood of Christ.^ 
 
 4 Rom. iii. 24—28. ^ Eph. i. 6, 7. 
 
 6 " As to the force of the word freely,'' says Archbishop 
 Magee, " on which Dr. Priestley relies very much, it is obvious 
 that nothing more is meant by passiiges ihat employ this ex- 
 pression in describing God's forgiveness of sinners, than that 
 this forgiveness was free with respect to any merits an the paH 
 
56 OBJECTION THAT CHRIST COULD [sECT. If. 
 
 7. It is again said, that " as Christ did and suf- 
 fered no more than it was his duty to do and 
 suffer, lie could merit nothing at the hand of God 
 for others " 
 
 Taking him to be merely humane this argument 
 respecting merit might be unanswerable: but 
 with our views of the Divinity of Christ, and of 
 his voluntary assumption of human nature^ it 
 has no weight. He assumed a character which 
 he was not compelled by duty to do ; and there- 
 fore whatever he did, in this character, was 
 
 of mcui, or any claim which, from repentance, or any other 
 cause, he might be supposed to possess : since, admitting such 
 claim, it would be not free, but earned. And in this very sense 
 it is, that Dr. J. Taylor himself, in his Keij, &c. (No. 6.7.) 
 contends that the word free is to be understood : ' the blessing 
 of redemption being,' as he says, * with regard to 2is, of free 
 grace ; that is, not owing to any obedience of ours.' Any other 
 application of the term, must make the word free synonimous 
 with unconditional ; in which case, forgiveness could not be a 
 free gift, if repentance were required to obtain it ; that is, 
 unless it were extended indiscriminately to the impenitent as 
 well as the penitent. So that, in fact, the very use of the word 
 /ree, as applied to God's forgiveness of man, is so far from 
 supporting the opinion of the sufficiency of repentance in itself, 
 that it goes to establish the direct contrary : clearly evincing 
 that repentance can give no claim to forgiveness." — Magee's 
 Disc, on the Atonement, vol. i, pp. 108, 199, 3rd edit. 
 
CHAP. 11.] MERIT NOTHING FOR OTHERS. 57 
 
 gTatuitous and meritorious. But let it be kept 
 in raind^ tliat it is not on a transfer of merits but 
 of penalUj, that the doctrine of the Atonement 
 rests ; and what is denied by our opponents is^ 
 that the sufferings of Christ could be transferred 
 to the account of others^ inasmuch as that he suf- 
 fered no more than it was his duty to suffer. 
 But whence arose this duty ? From his character 
 as the So'n of God? or from the nature of the 
 office which he undertook ? If from the former, 
 what becomes of the justice and goodness of the 
 Father, for which our opponents are such stre- 
 nuous advocates^ in inflicting such severe suffer- 
 ings on a son, who had never offended him, who 
 was holy, without spot, and separate from sinners? 
 Is it consistent then with our ideas of infinite love 
 to inflict natural, where there is no connexion 
 with inoral evil, either federally, or by any pos- 
 sible implication? But if it be said, that his duty 
 to suffer arose out of the nature of the office which 
 he undertook, then we admit the fact, but con- 
 sider it as an incontrovertible proof of the doctrine 
 which our objectors endeavour to overturn. For 
 what was this office ? To hear our sins in his 
 0W72 body — to redeem us to God by his own 
 blood — to become a curse for us — to die the just 
 for the unjust : that is, it was his duty to pay 
 the penalty which he undertook to pay ; or, in 
 
58 
 
 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. It. 
 
 other words^ it was his duty to fulfil his engage- 
 ments, and to finish the work for Avhich he came 
 into the world. And can this excite any surprise? 
 Is it really an argument that his death could not 
 atone for the transgressions of sinners, because 
 that death had become an indispensable duty, 
 from the stipulated agreement of sustaining it for 
 the purpose of Atonement? It would strike a 
 common man as a direct proof of the contrary. 
 The case stands thus: — Our Lord, who under- 
 took nothing in vain, uudertook to bear the penalty 
 of sin ; when he had undertaken this office, it was 
 his duty to fulfil it : he did fulfil it, and therefore 
 he has borne the penalty of sin. There is no 
 weight therefore in the objection that " as Christ 
 did and suffered no more than it was his duty to 
 do and suffer, he could merit nothing at the hand 
 of God for others." 
 
 But in addition to these arguments against the 
 doctrine of the Atonement, which chiefly rest on 
 the attributes and perfections of the divine nature, 
 there are others w hich are grounded on certain 
 passages of the holy scriptures : and 1 will now 
 make some remarks on them. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 59 
 
 , CHAPTER III. 
 
 Afiswer to Objections against the Doctrijie of the 
 Atonement, on the alleged ground that it 7m- 
 litates against 7nany plain passages of the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 If this assertion could be fully supported^, it 
 would be fatal to our doctrine^ because nothing 
 can be true which is in direct opposition to the 
 plain and obvious meaning of the general tenor 
 of scriptural language. Before we enter however 
 on this objection, it will be proper to mak^ one 
 or two preliminary remarks on the proper method 
 of interpreting scripture, when different parts of 
 it are placed in apparent contradiction to each 
 other. Plain and positive declarations must be 
 received in preference to figurative and allusive 
 passages. Subjects which are treated systemati- 
 cally and argumentatively must have a prepon- 
 derance over others which seem opposed to them, 
 but which are detached and merely incidental. 
 Certain doctrines are so constantly interwoven in 
 the very texture of scripture, that, without any 
 
GO OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON fsECT. 11. 
 
 direct mention of them, they cannot be separated 
 without breaking in npon and doing violence to 
 the evident train of thought which is uppermost 
 in the writer's mind ; and the argument derived 
 from these passages in support of a doctrine, far 
 outweighs a few insulated texts, which seem to 
 militate against it, but which will admit of a fair 
 construction on other principles. These remarks 
 are too obvious to need proof; and they will 
 receive illustration as we proceed with the sub- 
 ject before us. 
 
 1. It is alleged, that '^ it is no where said in 
 the sacred writings that God pardoneth iniquity 
 and passeth by transgression, because he has 
 received satisfaction (or atonement) on behalf of 
 the sinner ; but it is said that he pardoneth ini- 
 quity, BECAUSE he delighteth in mercy ; which 
 implies that satisfaction (or atonement) as the 
 ground of forgiveness is totally out of the ques- 
 tion." 
 
 This assertion assumes, that no consideration 
 is required by God to the pardoning of sin, but 
 the mere movements of his own mercy and com- 
 passion to the sinner. It does not admit that 
 divine mercy operates to the benefit of a sinner, 
 through the medium of the Saviour, and that 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 61 
 
 God has shown^ in this way, how greatly he de- 
 lights in mercy^ and what sacrifices^ so to speak^ 
 he has made for the consistent exercise of it^ — 
 for this is the doctrine which is opposed ; but 
 that niercy^ absolutely and irrespectively of every 
 extraneous consideration, is the sole inducement 
 and motive for the pardoning of sin ; and since 
 it is said that God pardoneth iniquity and trans- 
 gression because he delighteth in mercy, there- 
 fore it is assumed, that this is the sole and inde- 
 pendent ground upon which it is ever conferred 
 upon man. Now, this assumption is singularly 
 at variance both with the objector's own system, 
 with all the facts of the case, and with the very 
 passage on which the whole argument is made 
 to rest. 
 
 (1.) If there be any truth in the objection, it 
 subverts, as we have already seen, the doctrine 
 of Repentance^ as well as that of the Atone- 
 ment, — which still is maintained by our oppo- 
 nents. Mercy, according to their system, is not 
 so free as to be exercised without regard being 
 had to the penitence of the transgressor; and 
 yet, if this initerpretation of the passage be in- 
 sisted upon, God pardoneth iniquity without re- 
 pentafice, '' because he delighteth in mercy." 
 This declaration of Scripture, therefore, might 
 
62 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. II. 
 
 be safely left to the solution of our opponents, 
 in consistency with their own system ; and when 
 they open the door, as they must do, for the intro- 
 duction of repentance as their condition of par- 
 don, we may fairly avail ourselves of this en- 
 trance, to introduce our condition of an atoning 
 sacrifice. 
 
 (2.) But the objection is in direct opposition 
 to numerous and plain statements of Scripture, 
 and to the whole system of pardon, as connected 
 both with the Mosaic and Christian dispensation. 
 We are told, that it is no where said in the sa- 
 cred writings, that God pardons sin out of re- 
 gard to any other consideration than his own 
 mercy. What then are we to understand by 
 such passages as the following ? " Being justified 
 freely by his grace, through the redemption that 
 is in Jesus Christ — whom God hath set forth 
 to be a propitiation y — -for the remission! of sins, ''^ 
 '' In whom we have redemption through his 
 blood, the forgivness of sins,''^ A truth, which 
 the same apostle repeats in his epistle to the Co- 
 lossians."^ And, not to multiply passages on so' 
 clear a point, we have the declaration of St. John, 
 that sin is remitted for the sake of Jesus Christ, 
 as our priest and advocate with the father : ^^ If 
 
 1 Rom. iii. 24, 25. * Eph. i. 7. » Colos. i. 14. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 63 
 
 any man sin^ we have an advocate with the father, 
 even Jesus Christ the righteous : and he is the 
 propitiation for our sins/'* 
 
 (3.) But what places this doctrine beyond all 
 contradiction is, the plain and positive declara- 
 tion of the apostle, that ^^ without shedding 
 of blood, there is no remission.''^ Let us en- 
 large our views of the mercy of God as far as 
 the mind can reach, it still must be restricted in 
 its channel: for it flows no where, but through 
 the Atonement ; and remains fixed as the throne 
 of mercy itself, that " without shedding of blood, 
 there is no remission." 
 
 (4.) But it is not a little remarkable, that the 
 very passage which the impugners of the Atone- 
 ment lay so much stress upon, as deciding the 
 question against us, does in fact involve this 
 doctrine. It is in the prophecy of Micah,^ and 
 reads thus : " Who is a God like unto thee, 
 that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the 
 transgression of the remnant of his heritage'? 
 He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he 
 delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, he will 
 have compassion upon us, he will subdue our 
 iniquities, and thou wilt cast all their sins into 
 
 * 1 Joh. ii. 1,2. 5 Heb. ix 22. 6 Micah vH. 18—20. 
 
G4 OBJECTIONS GUOUNDEl) ON [sECT. II. 
 
 the depths of the sea." These are, it will be 
 acknowledged, great blessings : there is a free- 
 ness and fulness in them which call for the most 
 grateful acknowledgments. But large and am- 
 ple as they confessedly are, is there no reference 
 made, in the bestowment of them, to the source 
 from which this mercy flows to Israel? — no re- 
 cognition of the grand promise of a Saviour 
 through whom all the nations of the earth should 
 be blessed ? Let the prophet, in continuation, an- 
 swer the question. '^ Thou wilt perform the 
 truth unto Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, 
 which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from 
 the days of old, ^' So that it seems, though God 
 confers pardon, because he delighteth in mercy, 
 yet he does not so delight in mercy as to be re- 
 gardless of the medium through which alone he 
 can consistently manifest it. He had early re- 
 vealed the way in which he would bestow this 
 blessing. He had entered into covenant with 
 Abraham and the Patriarchs, engaging that 
 he w^ould, in due time, raise up a Saviour from 
 their seed. In reference to this covenant, he 
 established a system of typical ordinances to 
 foreshadow the sacrifice hereafter to be made, 
 and in pardoning sin, he had always a direct re- 
 gard to it; and in the passage before us, the 
 prophet rests the whole hope of Israel, the en- 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 65 
 
 tire expectation of mercy^ on God's faithfulness 
 to his oath^ which he had '^ sworn to Abraham 
 and their fathers^, fi'om the days of old.'^ So 
 that in the very passage, selected from the whole 
 of the scriptures as the most clear to found an 
 opposition to the doctrine of the Atonement 
 upon, it is most manifest that this doctrine is 
 clearly implied. 
 
 (5.) It may however be safely admitted, that 
 promises of pardon are made, where no direct 
 allusion is found to the doctrine in question. 
 When there is a well-understood principle of 
 action, which has been clearly established, which 
 lies at the foundation of an entire system, and 
 which has again and again been referred to, there 
 is no need to make mention of that principle on 
 every occasion when it is acted upon : it would 
 be taken for granted, as a previously established 
 proposition in mathematics, in future reasonings 
 and deductions : and this is precisely the case 
 in the subject before us. Christ is represented 
 as " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
 world.'' The sacrifices of the Patriarchal Dis- 
 pensation — of Abel, of Noah, of Abraham, and 
 of Job, all had regard to the expiatory sacrifice 
 of Christ. The doctrine of the Atonement is 
 the basis of the Mosaic dispensation; all the 
 
 F 
 
66 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. II. 
 
 ceremonial defilements of the Jews which were 
 typical of moral transgressions, were cleansed 
 by sacrifices of Atonement; and the blood of 
 bulls and of goats, as will hereafter be shown, was 
 typical of the blood of Christ ; and the penalty 
 of moral transgressions was remitted out of re- 
 gard to this sacrifice, in the same way as the 
 legal penalties were commuted by the offering of 
 victims : and it was perfectly unnecessary always 
 to allude to the system, when the benefit of it 
 was conferred by pardoning offences. 
 
 We have a remarkable instance of this well- 
 understood principle being really implied, when 
 no mention is made of it, in a passage quoted by 
 St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans, from 
 the Psalms. The apostle is establishing the 
 doctrine of justification hy faith, ivithout the 
 deeds of the taw ; and shows that the blessing- 
 is conferred, in all cases, out of regard to him, 
 on whom the faith of the believer is made to 
 rest: and he supports this doctrine by a passage 
 from the Psalms, in which no allusion whatever 
 is made to the doctrine; but which speaks simply 
 and irrespectively of all extraneous considerations, 
 of the blessing of forgiveness being granted by the 
 mercy of God. " Even as David,'^ says the 
 apostle, " described! the blessedness of the man. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 67 
 
 unto ivhom God ifnptdeth righteousness without 
 ivories y (though not a syllable is said by David 
 on this pointy) saying, ^^ Blessed are they whose 
 iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are co- 
 vered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord 
 will not impute sin.'^' 
 
 The importance of the doctrine which connects 
 remission of sins with the death of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, may well excuse me, if I dwell a 
 little longer upon it ; particularly as this consti- 
 tutes the very essence of the Atonement, and is 
 that which Socinians most strenuously deny. I 
 I conceive, then, that this doctrine is most clearly 
 laid down, as a fundamental principle, in the 
 gospel dispensation ; and though it may not be 
 so distinctly stated in that of Moses, yet the 
 principle of it was established by the Jewish 
 legislator, and that it was in reference to it that 
 God always pardoned transgression. Both these 
 positions I conceive are fully established by our 
 Lord in one of his last discourses with his dis- 
 ciples after his resurrection. Alluding to what 
 he had already taught them, he said : " These 
 are the words which I spake unto you while I 
 was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled 
 which were written in the law of Moses, and in 
 
 7 Rom. iv. 6 — 8. 
 
 f2 
 
68 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. II. 
 
 the prophets^ and in the Psalms concerning me. 
 Then opened he their understanding, that they 
 might understand the scriptures, and said unto 
 them, 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.''" 
 
 In this passage several things are obvious. 
 1st. Tha^t repentance and remission of sins were 
 to be preached iii his name. 2nd. That they were 
 inseparably connected with Jiis death and resur- 
 rection ; for thus it '^ behoved Christ to suffer 
 and to rise from the dead, and that repentance 
 and remission of sins shoidd he "preached in his 
 nameP 3dly. That this doctrine was contained in 
 the writings of Moses, of the Prophets, and of 
 David ; for in his death and resurrection all 
 things were fulfilled that were written by these 
 authors. 4thly. That though it was taught in 
 the Old Testament, it was less clearly laid down 
 there than in the New Testament; for he opened 
 their understanding, that they might understand 
 these scriptures. It was wrapped up in the 
 Old Testament in types, and ceremonies, and 
 prophetic symbols — all of which had a full and 
 8 Lui^e xxiv 44 — 47. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 69 
 
 distinct meaning ; — but the antitype and the ac- 
 complishment of the prophecy were wanted to 
 make the whole plain and intelligible -, and, last- 
 ly, that there had ever been, even from the be- 
 ginning, a regard to the atoning sacrifice in the 
 pardoning of sin. It is on this last point that I 
 would make one or two observations; all the 
 rest are too clear to need elucidation. 
 
 It is a fundamental doctrine of the Bible, that 
 faith is the medium through which the forgive- 
 ness of sins, by the merits of Christ^s righteous- 
 ness and death, is communicated to the penitent 
 sinner ; and it has been asked, how this benefit 
 could be received, through faith, under the Old 
 Testament dispensation,^ if this doctrine were 
 not clearly laid down, and fully understood ? To 
 which I answer, that the fact of atoning sacri- 
 
 9 " The hypothesis of our opponent/' say Socinians, " is that 
 the death of Christ was vicarious;, that sinners never could, 
 consistently vv^ith divine justice, be accepted with God, but on 
 the ground of his having died, or engaged to die, in their 
 place and stead ; and that his death, as a vicarious sacrifice, is 
 the only possible ground of hope. If this hypothesis be true, 
 we may expect to find that, from the foundation of the world, 
 by Moses and all the Prophets, the vicarious sacrifice of Christ 
 has been pointed out, and placed before sinners as the only 
 ground of hope ; for how otherwise could they have any hope, 
 or enjoy acceptance with God?" 
 
70 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. II. 
 
 fices was well understood by the Patviarchs 
 and the Jews : they were constantly made for 
 moral offences, ^ as well as ceremonial defilements, 
 and remission of the penalty and restoration to 
 their accustomed privileges were conferred in 
 consequence of them. Now, though these were 
 only types and shadows, and had no inherent 
 virtue to obtain these blessings — yet they must 
 necessarily convey the idea of a substance at 
 some time to be realized, and excite an expecta- 
 tion that, in due time, God would fully effect all 
 that these types prefigured. " The fact then of 
 an Atonement hereafter to be made, must be dis- 
 tinguished from the doctrine of that Atonement, 
 as afterwards more clearly laid down and ex- 
 plained. Now, corresponding with this distinc- 
 tion, we must also make a distinction between 
 the faith of the Jews, and that of Christians : it 
 was the same in principle, though not in all re- 
 spects, in object : it reposed on a remedy which 
 God was to provide for the forgiveness of sin, 
 and which was typified in their daily sacrifices, 
 and especially in the great annual Atonement; 
 
 1 This will be shown hereafter. 
 
 2 The principle on Vv'hich reconciliation with God was to be 
 effected:, was fully devoloped in the primitive sacrifices,, but 
 the exact way in which that principle should be applied, so as 
 ultimately to effect that reconciliation, was not fully disclosed 
 till after the crucifixion of our Lord. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 71 
 
 and it had regard to the Messiah, the promised 
 seed, and the Saviour of the world ; but it had 
 no distinct reference to the peculiar way in 
 which that Atonement was to be made, and that 
 salvation was to be accomplished. After the 
 death and resurrection of our Lord, the pecu- 
 liar and precise nature of the Atonement was 
 understood, and, what had previously existed in 
 principle only, now assumed an exact form and 
 features, and stood forth in its full maturity. And 
 then faith had a definite and precise object to 
 rest upon ; and the believer would always con- 
 nect — as we have historical evidence to prove 
 that he did connect — the remission of sin, with 
 the sacrifice which was offered on the cross for 
 his redemption. Hence it is evident, that the 
 faith of both pious Patriarchs, Jews, and Chris- 
 tians, was the same in substance, though not in 
 distinctness ; the same in principle , though not 
 in the peculiar application of that principle ; 
 that the faith of the former rested in expectation, 
 and had something in it of the vagueness and 
 obscurity necessarily connected with the view of 
 a distant object; — whilst that of the latter 
 was founded on fact, having the object fully 
 before it, and clearly developed and defined in 
 all its parts. All that our Lord did and suffered 
 was previously contained in tlie scripture, and 
 
72 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. II. 
 
 he only ^^ fulfilled what was written in the law of 
 Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms 
 concerning him ;" but the full scope and meaning 
 and application of these things were not compre- 
 hended by his disciples, till '^ he opened their 
 understanding that they might understand the 
 scripture — that thus it was written^ and thus it 
 behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 
 dead the third day, and that repentance and re- 
 mission of sins should be preached in his name/' 
 
 This distinction between the faith of ancient 
 Jews and Christians was illustrated by our Lord, 
 when he said, on one occasion, " Abraham re- 
 joiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was 
 glad ;''^ and on another, " Blessed are your eyes, 
 for they see ; and your ears, for they hear. For 
 verily I say unto you, that many prophets and 
 righteous men have desired to see those things 
 which ye see, and have not seen them ; and to 
 hear those things which ye hear, and have not 
 heard thein."^ 
 
 From these remarks taken together, it appears 
 evident, that God has never pardoned sin 'from 
 the mere impulse (if such an ex})ression may be 
 allowed) of mercy. He has always had regard 
 
 2 John viii. 56. ^ Matt. xiii. 16, 17. 
 
CHAP. UK J PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 73 
 
 to the atoning sacrifice ; and he has ^'^ declared 
 his righteousness for the remission of sins that 
 are past/' in such a way as "^ that he might be 
 just^ and yet the justifier of him that believeth in 
 Jesus." He does indeed delight in mercy; but 
 he never forgets the claims of justice^ truth^ and 
 holiness; and he has therefore provided a way in 
 which ^^ justice and mercy might meet together^ 
 righteousness and peace might kiss each other :'^ 
 and this is the doctrine of the Atonement. Then^ 
 as it regards the means by which we receive the 
 benefit of it — it is clear that it is by faith ; and 
 this faith is uniform in principle among all 
 the servants of God^ and at all times ; and con- 
 sists in a disposition cordially to acquiesce in 
 whatever method God may appoint to recon- 
 cile sinners to himself; but it varies in its exer- 
 cise according to the distinction of the object on 
 which it rests ; and therefore has some shades of 
 difference under the Patriarchal^ the Mosaic, and 
 the Christian dispensations. 
 
 The observations which have been made on 
 the objection against the Atonement as founded 
 on the scriptural representation of the divine 
 mercy to mankind, irrespective, as it is alleged, 
 of any reference to an atoning sacrifice, may 
 serve as a general answer to objections of this 
 
74 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. 11. 
 
 nature. ^ And I will now take a brief notice of 
 others of a different kind. 
 
 4 Sociuians make a great display of texts ot* this kind ; but it 
 would be more to their purpose to show that tliey are, in any 
 point of view, inconsistent with the doctrine of Atonement ; and 
 then in what way, according to their scheme, they are to be re- 
 conciled with all those passages which speak o£ pardon being 
 granted on the consideration and condition of what (^irist has 
 done and suffered as the Saviour of sinners. For it should be 
 remembered, that if a system of conferring divine mercy on 
 man has any where been laid down in the Holy Scripture, as 
 we allege there has, — and, if it can be proved, as we are con- 
 fident it may, that the forgiveness of sin is positively stated as 
 resting on that particular system, then we have all the evi- 
 dence which an established order of things can require, tliat 
 the righteous Governor of the world has regard to that system, 
 even where no reference is made to it ; and ten thousand omis- 
 sions of this kind can have no weight against this positive en- 
 actment. Before they can be adduced with the least effect, it 
 must be shown that the code has been abrogated with as much 
 publicity, as it was at first established. Now, even Dr. 
 Priestley admits, (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 252. — I quote from 
 Dr. Magee,) " that some texts do seem to represent the pardon 
 of sin as dispensed in consideration of something else than 
 our repentance or personal virtue — and according to their 
 literal sense, the pardon of sin is in some way or other pro- 
 cured by Christ." — But he adds, that '' since the pardon of sin 
 is sometimes represented as dispensed in consideration of the 
 sufferings, sometimes of the merit, sometimes of the resurrec- 
 tion, and even of the life and obedience of Christ ; when it 
 is sometimes Christ and sometimes the Spirit that intercedes 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 75 
 
 2. It is said that '' the scheme of satisfaction 
 (or the Atonement) lays^ as the foundation of 
 hope for sinners^ something out of and distinct 
 from God ; an equivalent^ which he is supposed 
 to have received at the hands of their substi- 
 tute ; but the apostle Peter asserts, that Christ 
 was manifested, that our faith might be in God,'' 
 
 The best answer, perhaps, to this objection is 
 to quote the whole passage upon which it pro- 
 fesses to ground itself. ^'^ Ye were not re- 
 deemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
 gold ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as 
 
 for us ; wlien tlie dispensing of pardon is sometimes said to 
 be the proper act of God the Father ; and again, when it is 
 Christ that forgives us ; we can hardly hesitate in concluding, 
 that these must be severally, partial representations y in the 
 nature of figures and allusions, which at proper distances are 
 allowed to he inconsistent ; — and from so vague a representation 
 of a matter of fact, founded on texts which carry with them 
 so much the air of figure, allusion, and accommodation, reason 
 and common sense, he says, ' compel us to appeal to the plain 
 general texture of Scripture :' — and thus," adds Dr. Magee, 
 '' a great part of Scripture is swept away at one stroke, under 
 the name of figure, allusion, &c. and because Christ is pointed 
 out to us as the means of our salvation, in every light in which 
 he is viewed, — reason and common sense (according to Dr. P.) 
 compel us to pronounce him, as not connected with our sal- 
 vation in fwj/." — Magee' s Discourses, &c. on Atonement, vol. 1. 
 pp. 196, 197. Third edition. 
 
7G OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. IT. 
 
 of a Lamb without blemish^ and without spot. 
 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him 
 up fi'Oin the dead, and gave him glory; that your 
 feith and hope might be in God."^ Now, "^ if the 
 price of redemption imply an equivalent, the 
 foundation of a sinner's hope lies upon ^^ an 
 equivalent which God has received at the hands 
 of their substitute;'' and if there be any con- 
 tradiction in supposing that, notwithstanding 
 this, the sinner's hope is placed in God, the 
 apostle is chargeable with it, and not those who 
 take their creed from his writings. 
 
 3. It is further alleged, that " when Christ illus- 
 trated the doctrine of forgiveness of sins, by the 
 case of debtors who had nothing to pay, he added 
 nothing to show that a substitute must pay their 
 debts for them, before they could be discharged ; 
 but says, their creditor frankly forgave them. 
 Strange that he should be silent on the most im- 
 portant article in the affair of forgiveness, if the 
 doctrine of satisfaction (or atonement) be true." 
 
 To this it may be replied, that neither did our 
 Lord " add any thing to show " t\mt repe?itmice was 
 necessary, before they could be forgiven ; which, 
 
 5 1 Pet. i. IS— 21. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 77 
 
 nevertheless, Socinians contend is an indispensa- 
 ble condition of pardon; but says " their creditor 
 frankly forgave tliemP Now, is it not equally 
 ^^ strange/' on their hypothesis, as on ours, '^ that 
 he should be silent on the most important article 
 in the affair of forgiveness, if the doctrine of 
 repentance be true ?" But, in an illustration like 
 this, would it not have been absurd to speak 
 either of repentance or an atojiement^ where the 
 reference is made to a debtor and creditor ? The 
 transaction has regard merely to 'property^ and 
 has no direct relation whatever to personal cha- 
 racter ^ which is the proper subject of reward and 
 punishment, and which alone admits of repentance 
 or atonement. This parable, therefore, though it 
 admirably illustrates the readiness of God to 
 forgive sinners, which was the purpose for which 
 it was adduced, could not, without a glaring- 
 solecism, have contained any allusion to the con- 
 ditions on vfhich that forgiveness is conferred. 
 Both an atonement and repentance may be neces- 
 sary, as a ground for bestowing pardon, and yet 
 no mention could be made of either, in an illus- 
 tration borrowed from a pecuniary transaction* 
 Hence, all inferences against the doctrine of the 
 Atonement, drawn from its supposed exact cor- 
 respondence with the discharge of a pecuniary 
 obligation, are irrelevant. The pardon of sin 
 
78 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. II. 
 
 may be illustrated by the forgiveness of a debt, 
 because tliey have certain points of resemblance : 
 but neither are sin and a debt, nor tlie pardon of 
 the one and the forgiveness of the other, intrin- 
 sically the same : and to attempt to invalidate an 
 essential doctrine, by conclusions deduced from 
 an assumed parallelism, can scarcely be deemed 
 either candid or honourable. These remarks are 
 a sufficient answer to all the absurdities and blas- 
 phemies which, under the form of consequences 
 from the payment of a pecuniary debt, have been 
 thrown upon the doctrine of the Atonement. The 
 reasoning may be correct, if the premises were 
 good ; but these being false, the conclusions have 
 no foundation to rest upon. 
 
 4. It is again alleged, that " Christ declared 
 that he had power on earth to forgive sins ; but 
 he never said that he had bought, and must pay 
 for that power ; which would be the fact, on the 
 supposition of satisfaction (or atonement.)" 
 
 This is an unguarded assertion ; for Christ did 
 more than once assert that he purchased sinners 
 with his own blood ; and plainly states he did so 
 for the forgiveness of their sins. What other 
 construction can be placed on passages like these ? 
 " This is my blood of the new testament, which 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 79 
 
 is shed for many^ for the remission of sins. "^"^^ 
 '^ The Son of man came — to give his life a ransom 
 for many."^ '' The bread which I shall give you 
 is my fleshy which I shall give for the life of the 
 world f^ and if so, for the remission of their sins. 
 Surely these passages speak both of a purchased 
 property in those who are saved, and the power 
 to exempt them from the penalty of trangression, 
 in consequence of that right. 
 
 5. '' It has been contended," say Socinians, 
 " that Christ's dying for us must imply that his 
 death was vicarious, and that he died to make 
 satisfaction for our sins : but if so, will it not 
 follow," tliey ask, " that when Christians are called 
 to suffer for Christ, and to lay down their lives 
 for the brethren, they are called to endure vica- 
 rious sufferings, to die in the place and stead of 
 the brethren, and to make satisfaction for them ; 
 seeing the forms of expression are the same in 
 both places." 
 
 To this we reply, that Christians are never said 
 " to suffer for Christ, nor lay down their lives for 
 the brethren," in the same sense as Christ is said 
 to suffer for the sins of the world. Is it any where 
 
 6 Matt. xxvi. 28. 7 Matt. xx. 28. 
 
 ^ John vi. 51. - 
 
80 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. IT. 
 
 said, that Cliristiaiis gave their lives a ransom for 
 many, for the remission of sins? '^ — that Gocl hath 
 set them forth to be ^ loropitiation, through faith 
 in their blood, for the remission of sins ? ^ — that 
 they died for the ungodly ?^— that our brethren, 
 the passovery were sacrificed for us?^ — that they 
 gave themselves for our sins ?* — that in them, we 
 have redemption through their blood, even the 
 forgiveness of our sins ? -^ — that they cjave them- 
 selves for uSy that they might redeem us from all 
 iniquity?^' — that by their own hlood they entered 
 once into the holy place, having obtained eternal 
 redemption for us?'^ — that they appeared to put 
 away sin, by the sacrifice o^ theinselves?^ — that 
 they were once offered to bear the sins of many ?^ 
 • — that we were not redeemed with corruptible 
 things, but with the precious blood of the bre- 
 thren ? ^ — that St. Paidy Peter , or Siephen have 
 sufiered for sins, the just for the unjust, that they 
 might bring us to God?^ — that the blood oi the 
 saints, his sons, cleanseth us from all sin?^ — 
 that they were slain, and have redeemed us to 
 God by their own blood? "^ The very quotation 
 of these passages is, it is presumed, more than 
 
 9 Matt. xxvi. 28. ^ Rom. iii. 25. 2 Rom. v. 6. 
 
 MCor. V. 7. ^Gal. i. 4. ^ Col. i. 14. 6 Tit. ii. 14. 
 
 7 Heb. ix. 12. ^ ix. 26. ^ ix. 28. ' 1 Pet. i. 18. 
 
 ' 1 Pet. iii. 18. ' 1 John i. 7. < Rev. v. 9. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 81 
 
 sufficient to answer the argument here adduced. 
 They, at once^, show the difference of the manner 
 in which Christ and the martyrs died for the 
 brethren ; and how little can be safely concluded 
 from similarity of expression in parts of sentences, 
 and in reference to different subjects. But the 
 plain and obvious meaning of passages of scrip- 
 ture is often attempted to be set aside by verbal 
 criticism ; and the mind of the common Christian 
 is bewildered by arbitrary canons of interpreta- 
 tion, and minute observations on particular words. 
 Thus it has been contended, that " what must be 
 the meaning of words in some passages, and 7nay 
 be the meaning in all, is always the true one ;" 
 and in the application of this rule to the particle 
 /or, it is asserted that, since it must, in some 
 places, be translated on account of, and may be 
 so in all — that is its proper construction wherever 
 it occurs. It is in this way that the various words 
 in the originaP which are generally translated /or, 
 are at once disposed of, and the doctrine of the 
 Atonement, or the substitution of Christ's death 
 for that of the sinner, is entirely set aside. But 
 can any thing be more gratuitous than the as- 
 sumption of the canon of interpretation on which 
 this conclusion rests ? Is it not obvious to com- 
 
 ^ VTrep, Trepl, dvrl, oia. 
 
 G 
 
82 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. II. 
 
 moil sense^ that what may be translated in one 
 way, will admit of another construction? yea^, 
 and that the probability is, that it ought to have 
 another ? For w hat does this conditional word jnay 
 intimate, but that we are not absolutely driven to 
 the necessity of a particular construction, inas- 
 much as the word has now and then been found 
 to have a different meaning, and may possibly 
 admit it in this. This is indeed a fair mode of 
 reasoning, when we find an insulated passage of 
 scripture apparently opposed to numerous others 
 of a plainly different meaning ; but it can never 
 be had recourse to with safety, when the general 
 tenor of concurrent scriptures, such as those 
 above referred to, have a directly contrary cha- 
 racter; for this would be to substitute the rare 
 exception for the general rule. The only legi- 
 timate mode of interpretation is to give every 
 word its natural and obvious sense, unless the 
 context manifestly require a different construc- 
 tion ; and this, for the plain reason that every 
 writer, who wishes to be understood, uses words 
 in their customary sense ; and if he be driven to 
 the necessity of using them in any other, he trusts 
 to the context to make his meaning clear. It is 
 in vain therefore to tell us that the word /or, may 
 signify in all, cases 07i account of, because the 
 question still recurs, wiiat is its natural and in- 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OP SCRIPTURE. 83 
 
 trinsic meaaing ? for it is in this only that it ought 
 to be taken^ unless the context render it abso- 
 lutely necessary to interpret it otherwise.^ 
 
 6 That vTrep and dvrl naturally convey the idea of substitu- 
 iion, no competent critic will deny. To adduce examples of 
 so well established a fact would be superfluous ; but those who 
 would see a few most pertinent ones^ may consult Raphelius 
 (as quoted by Br. Magee) on Rom. v. 8. I will however add 
 a note from the Scholas of Valckenarius on 1 Cor. xv. 3. which 
 will be respected by every scholar and candid Christian. 
 ' Aired avev virep rdHv dfxapTiciy ijjitbiv] Blortims est pro peccatis 
 nostris. Phrasis est in N. F. usitatissima, qua Christus dicitur 
 fuisse mortuus^ seu, mortem subiisse vVep Tuiv djuiapTieJy y/uioy. 
 vel simpliciter vrrep y^jUMv. Sciendum autem, et rite tenendum 
 est, dTrodareiy vTrep tlvoq non tantum in N. F. sed etiam apud 
 Scriptores profanos, significare mori loco alteriuSj ut certe 
 Christus non tantum in commodi(m nostrum mortuus est, sed 
 iiostrum loco mortem subire non recusavit, quam nos fueramus 
 commeriti. Eandem phrasin veteres adhibuere in historia 
 Alcestidis denarranda. Quum enim pro Admeto neque pater, 
 neque mater, mori voluissent, uxor se Alcestis obtulit, et pro 
 eo vicaria morte interiit, ut scribit Hyginus CLI. Habuit is 
 ante oculos Argumentum Dramatis Euripidei:"A\Kr)(jTiQ i] ywrj 
 cTredioKeu eavTtjVy fifjoerepov Tcoy yovetav ideXTjaavroq virep tov 
 vaicdg aTrodaveiy. dvdpeia ye tj "AXKrjarrtQ etcovaa VTrepatreQavev 
 'A^fji^Tov. sponte sua efvolens pro marito, mortem subiit. Sicuti 
 a Latinis isto sensu frequentatur pro, ita et a Graecis, pro di'Ti, 
 vice, loco, alterius mori, OaveXv ttjoo tivoq. In Eiirip. Alcest. 
 v. 18. and sic alibi saepe. Vide also Eiirip. Androm. v. 411. 
 Phoin. V. 1011. Consult Matt. xx. 28; xx\^. 28. John vi. 51. 
 Rom. V. 6. I Cor. v. 7. Tit. ii. 14. 
 
 g2 
 
84 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. II. 
 
 6. " God is never said to be reconciled to the 
 world/' say Socinians_, " because he was never at 
 enmity with it: it was the world that was at 
 enmity with God_, and was to be reconciled by 
 coming to the knowledge of his goodness to them. 
 The New Testament knows no such language, as 
 that God was reconciled to the world." 
 
 This would strike the ear of any one, conversant 
 with the Holy Scriptures, as very extraordinary 
 language, and induce him to enquire whether, 
 seeing that the " whole world lieth in wicked- 
 ness," God has at length become reconciled to 
 sin, and withdrawn that ^^ wrath" which he had 
 read as being " revealed from heaven against all 
 ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." But, 
 waiving this, let us enquire whether it be true 
 that the New Testament says nothing of God 
 being reconciled to the world, but speaks only of 
 man being reconciled to God. The first passage 
 that occurs respecting reconciliation is Matt. v. 
 23, 24. " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and 
 there rememberest that thy brother hath ought 
 AGAINST THEE, leave there thy gift before the 
 altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy 
 brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Who 
 is the person here offended, and of course, needs 
 reconciliation ? Is it not the individual who had 
 
CHAP. 111.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 85 
 
 something to allege against the person who had 
 brought his gift to the altar, and whose just dis- 
 pleasure it was necessary to avert, before he could 
 piously offer his gift? It was not the enmity 
 surely of the offender, but of the offended, that 
 was to be removed ; and the reconciliation to be 
 effected must be with him who had been injured. 
 So that it appears that the very passage on which 
 this novel doctrine is founded, (for it is on this 
 text that the argument is chiefly built,) proves 
 directly the reverse of that for which it is cited, 
 and shows, beyond all doubt, that it is not the 
 sinner who is to be reconciled to God, by laying 
 aside his enmity, but God, who is to be reconciled 
 to the sinner, by the latter implicitly submitting 
 himself to such terms as his offended judge shall 
 prescribe. Now, this passage explains the sense 
 in which other texts, where the same expression 
 of being "reconciled" occurs, are to be understood. 
 If, for instance, it could have been at all doubted, 
 that, when the apostle says, " we pray you in 
 Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto God," he 
 meant, " submit yourselves to God, and accept 
 his terms of peace," the passage, on which we 
 have just commented, would place that meaning 
 beyond all controversy. It is God, and not man, 
 who is to be reconciled ; and let the reader now 
 judge how true the assertion is, that " the New 
 
86 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [sECT. II. 
 
 Testament knows no such language as that God 
 was reconciled to the world." 
 
 7. It is again alleged, that '' the law of God has 
 been placed in a false lights b}^ the belief of the 
 doctrine of satisfaction (or the atonement) : hence 
 the divine law has been represented as a mere 
 covenant of works. It has been said, that it 
 knows nothing of mercy ; and that it would be 
 dishonoured, if a sinner were pardoned without 
 an innocent victim first suffering its penalties. 
 All this appears," to Socinians, " to be contrary 
 to truth. So far from the law being a mere co- 
 venant of works, it was introduced on the ground 
 of God's previous promise of grace to Abram, to 
 which it was not in opposition."^ 
 
 When it is said, that " the law is a covenant 
 of works," no more is meant than what the apos- 
 tle asserts in the very chapter to which reference 
 is here made, ^' The man that doeth them, shall • 
 live in them ; and cursed is every one that con- 
 tin ueth not in all things that are written in the 
 book of the law to do them." There were two 
 Ways of seeking to obtain eternal life ; one " by 
 the deeds of the law," and the other " by faith in 
 Christ Jesus." Whoever sought life in the former 
 T Gfil. iii. 17. 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 87 
 
 way, were under " a covenant of works ;" those 
 who sought it in the latter, were under " a cove- 
 nant of grace." By the former, the apostle says, 
 ^ it is evident that no man is justified; and he 
 assures us, that the just shall live by faith. 
 
 We do indeed acknowledge that the law of 
 Moses, taken collectively, as consisting of moral 
 and ceremonial duties, was a covenant of grace ; 
 and by no means set aside the promise made to 
 Abraham, because the sacrifices it prescribed 
 provided a typical remedy for transgression ; but 
 we also maintain that those of the Jews, who 
 partook of the grace of it, did so, not by their 
 obedience to the moral law, but in virtue of their 
 atoning sacrifices, which prefigured that which 
 was offered upon the cross by Jesus Christ, and 
 their faith in the promised Messiah, who, as " the 
 Lamb of God,'' was " slain from the foundation 
 of the world," and was to '^ take away the sin of 
 . the world." Hence it follows, that justification 
 was always obtained by faith in Christ, and not 
 " by the deeds of the law." 
 
 But it is said, that '^ instead of the law knowing 
 nothing of mercy, we are told in the decalogue of 
 God's showing mercy unto thousands of genera- 
 tions." 
 
88 OBJECTIONS GROUNDED ON [SECT. II. 
 
 This, even in the sense of the objector, only 
 shows that grace and mercy were published along 
 with the law, and that, with the curse, God had 
 provided a way for conferring a blessing, which 
 no one denies. But the inference intended to be 
 drawn from it, that mercy is to be obtained under 
 the 7?ioral law, for transgressors, is not supported 
 by the case adduced. The whole passage runs 
 thus : / am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity 
 of the fathers upon the children, unto the third 
 and fourth generation of them that hate me ; 
 and showing mercy unto thousands o/'them that 
 
 LOVE ME AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. It will 
 
 be observed that the grace here promised is not 
 to them that break the law, but to the posterity 
 of them that love God, and keep his command- 
 ments. But it will be obvious to the most cursory 
 reader of this clause in the commandment, that 
 no reference is here made to the 'penal conse- 
 quences of personal transgression, which is the 
 case requiring an atonement \ but simply to the 
 fact established by universal experience as well 
 as thus announced by the law, that children, even 
 to remote generations, often partake of the tem- 
 poral good or evil arising from the virtuous or 
 vicious course of conduct of their progenitors. 
 
 The notion, then, that the doctrine of the 
 
CHAP. III.] PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. 89 
 
 Atonement is opposed to any part of the holy 
 scriptures, has, I trust, been satisfactorily refuted. 
 Those passages which have been brought by our 
 opponents to impugn it, when examined and col- 
 lated with other texts, are found to be, not only 
 in perfect harmony with it, but many of them 
 direct proofs of it : and I am persuaded that any 
 other passage, which at first sight may be thought 
 to be at variance with the Atonement, when care- 
 fully investigated, will be seen to be perfectly 
 consonant with it. But the weight of this remark 
 will be more sensibly felt when I adduce the vast 
 mass of scriptural evidence which will be found 
 in support of it ; for the inevitable inference from 
 these multiplied passages must be, that a doctrine 
 so plainly revealed, so variously illustrated, so 
 essential to every religious dispensation, and so 
 interwoven in the very texture of this sacred 
 book, from the beginning to the end of it, cannot 
 be contradicted by other portions of the same 
 scriptures. To suppose this possible, is to give 
 up the very lowest claim of its being a divine 
 revelation. If, therefore, any insulated passage 
 should see7n to be in opposition to it, it may justly 
 be assumed that it is only in appearance; and 
 that, in real fact, it is in perfect unison with the 
 rest of the sacred volume. But I am anticipating 
 what will come with greater propriety and advan- 
 
90 OBJECTIONS ON THE [SECT. II. 
 
 tage in another part of this Treatfse. In the 
 mean time I proceed to the fourth and last class 
 of objections brought by Socinians against this 
 doctrine. 
 
 , CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Answer to Objections against the Doctrine of 
 the Atonement, on the alleged ground thUt it 
 is founded on an unauthorized assumption of 
 the piacidar and vicarious nature of Sacri- 
 fices ; and the perpetual Obligation of the 
 Law of Moses, 
 
 One of the principal arguments in support of the 
 Atonement is derived from the expiatory quality 
 of animal sacrifices under all the dispensations of 
 religion previous to that of the gospel. It is con- 
 tended;, that ever since the introduction of sin^ a 
 remedial process has been carrying on^ by the 
 wisdom and goodness of God^ for removing both 
 its penal and moral effects. This process has 
 been developing itself in various successive forms, 
 each making further advances towards the per- 
 fection of the system, and each attended with 
 increased light and information, as to the exact 
 nature and quality of the ultimate remedy. It is 
 
CHAP. rV.] GROUND OF SACRIFICE. 91 
 
 this which constitutes the most important feature 
 of divine revelation; and it may be fitly compared 
 to " the rising sun^ which shineth more and more 
 unto the perfect day." At its first dawning, it 
 rendered the whole horizon visible; but it did not 
 cast sufficient light to give distinctness to every 
 object: but at each successive advance in its 
 course it made some fresh discovery, till, at length, 
 it brought life and immortality, with every thing 
 pertaining to both, fully to light, in the dispensa- 
 tion of the gospel. 
 
 Now, the very fact that the whole of this pro- 
 cess is remedial^ is a presumptive evidence that, 
 from the very commencement, so much of the plan 
 of recovery was made known as was necessary 
 for the direction and salvation of the primitive 
 race of men: for otherwise, we must suppose 
 that, notwithstanding the intimations given them 
 of life, they were left in ignorance of the way in 
 which it was to be obtained; — that, though he 
 gave them reason to expect mercy, he said nothing 
 of the channel through which it was to flow ; and 
 though God had his own eye perpetually fixed 
 on the method by which " justice and mercy were 
 to meet together, righteousness and peace to kiss 
 each other," yet he never gave them an intimation 
 
92 ON SACRIFICE IN GENERAL. [sECT. II. 
 
 of his plan, but left them, in all the perplexity of 
 uncertainty and distress, to discover, as well as 
 they could, how a sinner could be just before 
 God, and be admitted into his favour; — a sup- 
 position as much at variance with our ideas of 
 the goodness of God, as it is with his customary 
 dealings with man, and the plainest declarations 
 of scripture. Hence we might fairly presume^ 
 from the very necessities of man, and the good- 
 ness of God, as displayed in his first intimation 
 of mercy, that there would be something in each 
 dispensation of religion, which should have a pro- 
 minent and decided reference to the great object 
 of them all ; — something which should lead those 
 who were anxious about their everlasting well- 
 being, to repose upon a solid foundation, and to 
 adopt the right method of recovering the lost 
 image and favour of God. It would not be ne- 
 cessary that they should have a clear perception 
 of all that was peculiar to this salvation — of the 
 full character of him that was to save them — of 
 all the means and every exact step by which he 
 was to accomplish the work, nor of all the circum- 
 stances which should accompany it. But the great 
 fact of God^s intention to save man, and the 
 grand jmnciple on which this salvation was to 
 rest, we may reasonably su])pose would be re- 
 
CHAP. IV.] ON SACRIFICE IN GENERAL. 93 
 
 vealed^ and stand out, in every dispensation of 
 religion, with a prominency which could not fail 
 to attract universal attention. 
 
 Nor is it a little remarkable, that there is one 
 grand peculiarity — one singular rite — one promi- 
 nent feature, running through each of these dis- 
 pensations, which is admirably adapted to display 
 and illustrate both the fact and the principle to 
 which reference has just been made ; and this is 
 SACRIFICE. From the very commencement of reli- 
 gious worship, after sin had pntered into the world, 
 down to the time when Jesus Christ suffered death 
 upon the cross, this singular rite was universally 
 practised. Intimation of it seems to be given, 
 where no mention whatever is made of the man- 
 ner in which the primitive family worshipped God, 
 after their expulsion from Paradise ; for it is dif- 
 ficult to divine for what purpose those animals 
 could have been put to death, of whose skins the 
 Lord God made coats and clothed Adam and his 
 wife,^ unless they were slain for sacrifice ; espe- 
 cially as it appears probable that animal food was 
 not permitted till after the deluge. Be this how- 
 ever as it may, in the very first account we have 
 upon record of any worship being paid to the 
 supreme Being, mention is made of sacrifice; and 
 
 8 Gen. iii. 21. 
 
94 ON SACRIFICE IN GENERAL. [SECT. U. 
 
 ill such a way as to mark the peculiar suitable- 
 ness of it to man as a sinner^ and the direct 
 approbation of it^ by God, as ofiered under this 
 character. " It came to pass," says the sacred 
 historian, ^ 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 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."^ 
 
 From this period, down to the time of Noah^s 
 leaving the ark after the deluge, there is no act 
 of religious worship recorded ; but the very next 
 instance which occurs, again places sacrifice be- 
 fore us as the distinctive feature of religious wor- 
 ship; for " Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; 
 and took of every clean beast, and of every clean 
 fowl, and offered burnt-offerings unto the Lord ;" 
 and here also, as in the case of Abel, God mani- 
 fests his approbation of the offering ; for " the 
 Lord," it is added, " smelled a sweet savour; and 
 the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse 
 the ground any more for man's sake."^ 
 
 The next account we have of any religious 
 service is in the commencement of Abraham's 
 
 9 Gen. iv. 3r-5. i Gen. viii. 20, 21. 
 
CHAP. IV.] ON SACRIFICE IN GENERAL. 96 
 
 history ; and there also the same fact meets us 
 as on the two former occasions. " The Lord ap- 
 peared unto Abram, and said. Unto thy seed will 
 I give this land : and then huilded he an altar 
 unto the Lord, who appeared unto him :" - and 
 at almost each successive remove, we find the 
 patriarch raising an altar^ and calling on the name 
 of the Lord. 
 
 The next mention that is made of sacrifice is 
 that ever memorable one of this patriarch, offer- 
 ing up his son, in obedience to the direct command 
 of God, who had said, " take thy son, thine only 
 son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and g^t thee into 
 the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a 
 burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which 
 I will tell thee of." And when his hand was 
 stayed from slaying his son, he saw " behind him 
 a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns, and 
 Abraham took the ram, and offered him up for a 
 burnt-offering in the stead of his son f ^ and this 
 instance marks the grand peculiarity of sacrifice, 
 its vicarious character; — he offered the ram in- 
 stead of his son. 
 
 After these instances, it is unnecessary to refer 
 to the cases of saci'ifice in the patriarchal age. 
 
 2 X>en, xii. 7. 3 Gen. xxii. 2, &c. 
 
96 ON SACRIFICE IN GENERAL. [SECT. II, 
 
 It is too obvious to need remark, that this was 
 the great peculiarity which pervaded the whole 
 of religious service down from Abel to the time 
 of Moses. With Moses commenced a new dis- 
 pensation; and it was distinguished from that 
 which preceded it by various particulars ; but it 
 had one thing in common with it, and which, 
 above all others, was conspicuous in the ritual of 
 this divinely commissioned legislator. This was 
 sacrifice. It was commanded upon all occasions 
 of divine worship. It constituted the essence of 
 all the services on the grand festivals. It was 
 the main affair in the greatest of all solemnities, 
 on the annual return of the great day of Atone- 
 ment : and it formed a part of every morning and 
 evening service. It was continued down to the 
 very crucifixion of our blessed Lord, and the 
 consequent dissolution of the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion ; and then it ceased for ever, as being su- 
 perseded by its great antitype, and having 
 answered all the purposes for which it was 
 originally designed. 
 
 Now, these facts are deserving of peculiar 
 attention, both as establishing the importance 
 attached to sacrifice from the first introduction of 
 sin, through every generation of man down to the 
 time of Christ,— as forming the connecting link 
 
CHAP. IV.] ON SACRIFICE IN GENERAL. 97 
 
 between each dispensation^ and as terminating 
 at that very point when it was useless as a sign, 
 and had introduced the great sacrifice which it 
 was intended to prefigure. These facts seem 
 naturally to lead to the conclusion, that sacrifice 
 was originally instituted by God ; — that it had a 
 direct reference to the salvation of man; — and 
 was significant of what our Lord accomplished 
 on the cross. And if any thing were wanted to 
 complete the evidence of this original design of 
 sacrifice, we should find it supplied in the scrip- 
 tural declarations, that he was " the Lamb of God 
 which taketh away the sin of the world,"* that he 
 was " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
 world :"^ and especially in the epistle to the 
 Hebrews, which seems to have been written with 
 the express design of connecting the death of our 
 Lord with the sacrifices under the Old Testament 
 dispensations. 
 
 This, then, is the prima facie evidence of the 
 reference which sacrifice has to the death of 
 Christ. The death of animals offered in sacri- 
 fice, and the death of Christ offered on the ci-oss, 
 appear to have an obvious relation to each other; 
 and that, not occasional and incidental, but from 
 
 * John i. 29. 5 Rev. xiii. 8. 
 
 H 
 
98 SACRIFICE REFERS TO CHRIST. [SECT. II. 
 
 the beginning, uniform, intended, studied and 
 exact. They answer to each other as shadow 
 and substance. There are not the same number 
 of lineaments in eacli, nor the same distinctness 
 and minuteness of features; but there is the 
 same outline^ tlie same external correspondence, 
 so as to mark their certain relation to each other, 
 and their accordance with nothing else but them- 
 selves. Now, if we can clearly ascertain what 
 was the original design of sacrifice, and in what 
 light God approved of, and sanctioned it, then 
 we shall be able to form a correct view of what 
 was intended by the death of Christ, and under 
 what aspect it is considered by God himself. 
 If sacrifices, from the first, were offered as piacu- 
 lar, as expiatory of moral transgression, as an 
 atonement for guilt, and were accepted of God 
 as such; or, if they had not this ori«i;?«/ design, 
 but were afterwards commanded by God to be 
 presented with this reference, and were recog- 
 nised by God as such ; then it will follow that 
 the death of Christ was piacular, expiatory, and 
 atoning ; and that it is in this light that it is pri- 
 marily and essentially to be considered. But 
 against this view of the subject, there are two 
 kinds of opponents. They deny, in common, 
 that sacrifices were originally instituted by 
 God ; or that they were either offered or ac~ 
 
CHAP. IV.] SACRIFICE REFERS TO CHRIST. 99 
 
 cepted at first as piacular and expiatory : but that 
 after having been presented in the patriarchal 
 age as thank-offerings for blessings received^ or 
 as penitential acknowledgments of sins com- 
 mitted^ they were^, under the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion^ commanded by God^ and directed to be of- 
 fered as expiations and atonements for certain 
 ceremonial offences ; but without any reference to 
 the death of Jesus Christy as an atonement for the 
 sins of the world. But^ notwithstanding this denial 
 of any primeval or Mosaic reference of sacrifice to 
 the crucifixion of our Lord, one part of these ob- 
 jectors are as strenuous advocates for the doc- 
 trine of the Atonement, as those who go farther 
 backward in their views of the original in- 
 stitution and design of sacrifice ; and main- 
 tain that it was fully revealed in the prophetic 
 era^ and was intentionally reserved for the 
 last and greatest display of God's intentions 
 of mercy to mankind, previously to the actual 
 appearance of the Son of God on earth, and his 
 expiating the sins of the world on the cross. ^ 
 
 ^ The doctrine of the Atonement, says Mr. Davison, in his 
 '• Inquiry into the origin and intent of Primitive Sacrifice," is of 
 the very essence of the Christian faith ; it is the chief article of 
 its characteristic system ; but it is also that one point of its 
 system, which is the latest touched upon in the predictions of 
 prophecy, not being directly introduced in a specific notice, 
 
 h2 
 
100 OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS [SECT. II. 
 
 These writers, therefore, though they deprive 
 this doctrine of one of its most powerful sup- 
 so far as I know, before the predictions of the prophet Isaiah. 
 For although some of the prophetic Psalms foreshow the siiffer^- 
 ings of the Messiah, they do not exhibit the vicarious and expia- 
 tory import of these sufferings, as the prophet Isaiah does. pp. 
 160, 161." 
 
 This view of the subject corresponds mainly with that of 
 Bishop Warburton ; and it has arisen out of the system of 
 tliese able writers, that the developement of God's purposes of 
 mercy to man has been gradual, and the several parts oi it 
 brought to light, at different and distant periods of time. As- 
 suming then, this progressive character of divine revelation, 
 Mr. Davison contends, that if the doctrine of the Atonement, 
 the full developement of which was reserved for the gospel era, 
 was originally taught in the primitive and patriarchal age, 
 then that progressive character of revelation, which is evi- 
 dently stamped on every part of it, is, in this respect de- 
 stroyed : and, as he denies that the vicarious and expiatory na- 
 ture of sacrifice was understood by the Patriarchs, or was 
 taught by Moses, there must have been a retrogradation, in- 
 stead of a progression of divine knowledge. Hence, he sets 
 himself to disprove the divine original of sacrifice, and that it 
 was ever ofiered to, or accepted of, God as substitutive and 
 piacular. If, however, it can be shown that the general out- 
 line, and no more, of God's plan was originally revealed — 
 that the parts of the scheme were filled up at various and re- 
 mote intervals — that Moses taught more of it than was taught 
 to the first family, or known to the Patriarchs — that David 
 and the prophets continued, in succession, to throw fresh light 
 upon it — and that it was ultimately realized on the cross, and 
 displayed in its fulness by the apostles of our Lord in their dis- 
 
CHAP. IV.] VIEW OF SACRIFICE. 
 
 101 
 
 ports, and, in this part of their argument, seem 
 to concur with Socinians, are nevertheless care- 
 fully to be distinguished from them; for the 
 latter deny the doctrine of the Atonement altoge- 
 ther, and proceed to much greater lengths than 
 the former, even in rejecting the argument from 
 sacrifice ; for Mr. Davison, to whom reference 
 is made in the preceding note, towards the end 
 of his " Inquiry,^' thus writes : " Primitive sacri- 
 fice therefore must be left in the obscurity under 
 
 courses and epistles, then there will be no plea for the notion 
 of retrogradation in the system, though it be maintained that 
 the atonement was symbolically represented by primitive sa- 
 crifices, and that the shadows gave way to the substance, when 
 the penalty of man's transgressions was paid on the cross. 
 Be this, however, as it may, if it can be shown that sacrifice 
 is really of divine institution, and was first appointed in the 
 prime of the world j and that it was more fully expanded in 
 the ritual of Moses, and was really typical of the great Atone- 
 ment of Christ, then, whatever becomes of Mr. Davison's or 
 Bishop Warburton's system, we must hold fast the truth, and 
 adhere to the record. That such was the original institution 
 of sacrifice has been shown by many, and recently, in an an- 
 swer to Mr. Davison, by Mr. Molesworth ; but especially by 
 Mr. Faber, in his " Treatise on the Origin of Expiatory Sa- 
 crifice." This author has proved his point w ith a force of ar- 
 gument and clearness of evidence which must, I should think, 
 carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind. The contro- 
 versy has lately been ably reviewed in the fifth number of the 
 British Critic and Theological Quarterly Review. 
 
102 THE NATURE OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE. [sECT. II. 
 
 which the scripture has laid it;'^ and thus con- 
 cludes, in italics, '' I do not press a peremptory 
 decision against its divine origin, ^^"^ 
 
 It is, however, of great importance that this 
 matter should be carefully investigated: and 
 though it cannot be expected in this treatise that 
 I should go into the full discussion of it ; nor, 
 since the elaborate work to which the last note 
 refers, is it necessary, yet I think it right to state 
 such evidence in support of the divine origin 
 and typical reference of sacrifice, as appears to 
 myself conclusive, and likely to satisfy the can- 
 did reader. I will therefore attempt, as briefly 
 as I can consistently with perspicuity, to show — 
 
 I. That the sacrifice of animals was of 
 divine institution. 
 
 II. That they tvere originally offered and ac- 
 cepted as piacular and vicarious. 
 
 III. That they had a direct reference to the 
 death of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 If these propositions can be made out, the 
 
 inference to the vicarious and expiatory nature of 
 
 the death of Christ will be clear and unavoidable ; 
 
 and it will be evident that, from the first intro- 
 
 7 p. 168. 
 
CHAP. IV.] SACRIFICE OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 103 
 
 duct ion of sin^ regard was had in sacrifice^ both 
 by him who offered and him who accepted it, to 
 an atoneftient hereafter to be made for the sins of 
 the world. 
 
 I. I am induced to believe that animal sacri- 
 fice IV as originally of divine institution ; for 
 the following reasons : — 
 
 1 . I find that the first and only thing men- 
 tioned in the religious services of the primitive 
 fainily, and which was received with the divine 
 approbation^ was animal sacrifice. Cain pre- 
 sented an offering of the fruits of the ground ; 
 Abel a sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock and 
 of the fat. Cain's offering was rejected, and 
 Abel's was accepted. This fact, taken in con- 
 nexion with the explanation given of it in the 
 epistle to the Hebrews, that '' by faith Abel 
 offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than 
 Cain/'^ conveys to my mind the divine institu- 
 tion of ANIMAL sacrifice. Aiid 1 rcst simply 
 on the facts of the case. If we might have pre- 
 viously conjectured the probable result of these 
 different offerings, on the ground of their rela- 
 tive suitableness to express religious feeling, 
 and to obtain divine approbation, we should not 
 have hesitated to decide in favour of Cain's. 
 8 Heb. xi. 4. 
 
104 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 It was a mark of gratitude for the success of his 
 labours^ and an appropriate expression of his 
 sense of obligation, and such an offering as it 
 would seem reasonable that his benefactor would 
 kindly accept. Abel's, on the contrary, was a 
 bloody victim, and carried, on the very face of 
 it, something disgusting and repulsive. Sin 
 had, indeed, introduced death into the world; 
 and animals, it should seem, had partaken of 
 the calamity : but that the infliction of death on 
 any of God's creatures, and that in the way of 
 doing God service — unless he had given di- 
 rection to that effect, and had explained the 
 cause — could be acceptable to the Divine Being, 
 and receive a marked token of his approbation, 
 is utterly incredible ; and the thought of such a 
 sacrifice could never have spontaneously arisen 
 in the mind of Abel : and I state this, with a 
 perfect recollection of all that has been written 
 to show the possibility of its having originally 
 occurred to Abel, that such a sacrifice would be 
 acceptable to God, both as eucharistic of his 
 favours, and deprecatory of his displeasure. 
 For, let us suppose the fact, that bloody victims 
 offered in sacrifice are a proper way of express- 
 ing our gratitude to God for the blessings he con- 
 fers upon us, and that the idea of offering them 
 would spontaneously arise in a well disposed 
 
CHAP. IV.] OP DIVINE INSTITUTION. 105 
 
 mind ; whence is it^ that no one^ in this enlight- 
 ened day^ ever presents such an offering to God? 
 It is not that Christianity forbids such a mode of 
 making our acknowledgment of divine favours : 
 it forbids no way of presenting a reasonable 
 ^^ sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God ;'^ and 
 and if this were of such a nature;, it would 
 be perfectly consistent with divine revelation. 
 The only reason, then, for its universal discon- 
 tinuance since the sacrifice of Christ on the cross 
 is, that it never suggests itself as a suitable way 
 of making an offering unto God. And corres- 
 pondent with this statement is the fact, that many 
 of the most enlightened of heathen philosophers 
 have expressed their surprise that men should 
 ever have thought that such sacrifices could be 
 acceptable to the Deity. ^ We may conclude, 
 
 9 "After all that has been said," says Mr. Faber, (p. 23, 24,) 
 " by Bishop Warburton and himself, (Mr. Davison,) we may 
 not unreasonably doubt, whether, independently of a divine com- 
 mand, and as contradistingidsJied from mere vegetable oblation , 
 ANIMAL SACRIFICE, which involvcs the practice of slaughtering 
 and burning an innocent and sensitive victim, could ever, under 
 any aspect, have been adopted as a rite likely to gain the 
 favour of the Deity. 
 
 " On this point, we ourselves, accustomed as we are from our 
 infancy to the perusal of scripture, are perhaps not altogether 
 competent judges. Would we learn how so singular an insti- 
 
106 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 then, with perfect safety^ that the idea of pre- 
 senting a victim in sacrifice would never have 
 
 tution must strike the minds of thinking men, who had not been 
 prepossessed by our own course of early education, we should 
 do well to hear the remarks of those, who, independently of the 
 liglit aftbrded by revelation, philosophically contemplated the 
 bare rite of animal sacrifice, as it existed under paganism. 
 
 " 1. Now, it is a remarkable fact, that persons, thus circum- 
 stanced, have not unfrequently expressed their astonishment 
 how and upon what rational principles, so strange an institution 
 as that of animal sacrifice could ever have originated : for as 
 to the notion of its being pleasing to the Deity, such a matter 
 struck them as being a manifest impossibility. 
 
 " (1.) Thus we are told that Pythagoras and Plato, so far 
 from being able to account for the origin of animal sacrifice 
 on any possibly rational grounds, expressed their amazement 
 how the dismal, though universal, custom of defiling all places 
 with the blood of brute beasts, could ever, in the first instance, 
 have been excogitated- Jamb, de Vit. Pythag. p. 106 — 118. 
 
 " (2) Thus also Porphyry introduces an ancient Greek poet, 
 who roundly declares the utter impossibility of animal sacri- 
 fice being grateful to the gods, "notwithstanding men hoped 
 to gain their favour by the adoption of such an ordinance. 
 Porphyr. de Abstin. lib. ii. ^ 58. p. 96. 
 
 " (3.) And thus Porphyry himself, espousing the sentiments 
 of Theophrastus, strenuously argues against the practice of 
 animal sacrifice, as being clearly both unlawful, and noxious 
 and unholy. When ive slcmghler an animal icJiich has been 
 guilty of no injustice, says he, do ice not practically confess 
 that ive ourselves act unjustly ? Therefore, on the ground of 
 honour, ice ought in no wise to sacrifice animals. Neither ought 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 107 
 
 entered the mind of Abel^ without a divine 
 'Command. 
 
 we to sacrifice them for the sake of procuring certain benefits. 
 For he who seeks to obtain a be7iefit tJirough an act of injustice^ 
 mayiveli incur the suspicion of entertaining but small gratitude 
 for any benefit ivhich he may receive. Therefore ice ought not 
 to sacrifice animals to the gods, through a hope of deriving 
 beiiefit from them. Hence , if ice may not sacrifice animals for 
 any of these reasons, it is jua^iifest, that any sacrifice of animals 
 to the gods cannot but be unlaicfid. Theoplirast. et Porpliyr. 
 apud Euseb. Prop. Evan. lib. iv. c. 15. p. 90, 91. Lutet. Rob. 
 Stephan. 1544. 
 
 " 2. These masters of reasoning among the Gentiles were 
 encountered by a fact, alike remarkable and indisputable ; tJie 
 universal prevcdence o/ animal sacrifice. For the origination 
 of the rite, under the aspect of a human invention, they pro- 
 fessed themselves unable to account on any satisfactory prin- 
 ciples : and Porphyry, after Theophrastus, argues, that the 
 practice is altogether irreconcileable to right reason, and that 
 on no such ground can the difficulty be solved." Faber's 
 Treatise on the Origin of Expiatory Sacrifice, pp. 23 — 25. 
 
 I cannot help, at the conclusion of this note, submitting to 
 the consideration of those who so strenuously insist that animal 
 SACRIFICE did not originate in the divine command, but was the 
 spontaneous suggestion of reason ; and was so general, that all 
 the world, in the earliest ages of it, adopted it ; whether^ in 
 denying it a place among positive institutions, they may not be 
 advancing it to the rank of a moral duty : for, if it were a 
 practice which so naturally arose from the dictates of reason 
 and reflection, that all men fell into it, then it seems to acquire 
 the character of a duty, the reason of which was obvious to cdly 
 
108 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIOINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 2. The probability that Abel offered his sacri- 
 fice in conformity with a divine institution, is 
 greatly increased by the fact, that, at this period^ 
 a constant and familiar intercourse ivas kept up 
 betiveen God and this primitive fainily. This 
 
 irrespective of the ivill of the supreme Legislator, and which 
 lias its origin in the very constitution of man ; and, independent 
 of all changes in the forms, and diversity in the dispensations 
 of religion, carries along with it an indispensable and perpetual 
 obligation. Should there be any justice in this remark, it 
 remains for them further to reflect, whether this notion of sacri- 
 fice be not directly opposed to the authority of our blessecH 
 Lord, who said to the ceremonious Pharisees : " Go ye, and 
 learn what that means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice." 
 In this contradistinction between conflicting duties, the supe- 
 riority is given to moral above positive precepts ; — but if we 
 deny that sacrifice is a positive institution, and assert that it is 
 coeval with the human race, and a natural dictate of our com- 
 mon reason, then the obligation to practise it is co-extensive 
 with that of mercy, and is of co-paramount importance. The 
 scriptures, however, never view it in this light; but represent 
 it as one of those duties, tiie performance of which has for its 
 object the sole will of the Legislator, and may become offensive^ 
 when it usurps the place of moral practices : " To what purpose 
 is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the Lord. 
 I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed 
 beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, 
 
 or of he-goats. Wash you, make you clean ; put away the 
 
 evil of your doings — cease to do evil; learn to do well." 
 Isa. i. 11, &c. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 109 
 
 is evident from the instruction given them re- 
 specting their clothing ; the marked and visible 
 difference between the manner in which the offer- 
 ings of Cain and Abel were received; the re- 
 monstrance with Cain^ on his unreasonable re- 
 sentment against Abel on account of that differ- 
 ence; the instruction given to Caiii^ of the pro- 
 per way of avoiding a repetition of the repulse ; 
 the enquiry made of him, after he had murdered 
 his brother ; the curse denounced upon him in 
 consequence of it; and the future conference 
 with Cain, and the mark placed upon him, to 
 avoid the vindictive hand of an avenger : all 
 these things plainly indicate, that the intercourse, 
 which had formerly subsisted in Paradise be- 
 tween God and the first family, was still main- 
 tained. Now, can it be supposed, under such 
 circumstances, that no instruction would be asked 
 or given, on the all-important subject of reli- 
 gion ? It is true, nothing of this kind is upon 
 record; no mention whatever is made of any 
 thing connected with religion, save one solitary 
 fact respecting an offering that was presented by 
 Cain, and a sacrifice that was offered by Abel, 
 with the rejection of the one, and the acceptance 
 of the other. But is it at all credible, that in 
 this incipient state of things — in the new and 
 distressing circumstances in which sin had re- 
 
110 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 cently placed the first family, with their unavoid- 
 able anxiety to know in what way a sinner could 
 be accepted by God, by what means they, and 
 the generations to spring from them, should 
 maintain intercourse with their heavenly Father, 
 and what worship would be approved by him ; 
 is it credible that, with such frequent opportuni- 
 ties as they then enjoyed of satisfying all their 
 desires on these important topics^ and receiving 
 information, as we know they did, on things 
 of a very subordinate nature, they should never 
 of themselves have enquired^ or that God should 
 never have condescended to give them instruc- 
 tion, in what way they should worship him, or 
 what services would be acceptable to him ? We 
 grant, indeed, that we are not at liberty to de- 
 termine the precise nature either of their en- 
 quiries, or of the answers God might return; 
 but we are compelled to believe that so?ne ques- 
 tions would be put, and so??ie instruction 
 given ; and when we find that one thing, and 
 one thing only, is recorded of their acceptable 
 religious services, and that altogether so unna- 
 tural as to be irreconcileable with the suggestions 
 of reason; and yet that^ strange as this pecu- 
 liarity was^ it was introduced into every future 
 dispensation of religion, and was universally 
 practised till the crucifixion of our blessed Lord, 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. Ill 
 
 when all the plans and purposes of God's mercy 
 to man were fully developed ; that it then ceased 
 for ever^ but was still frequently referred to as 
 bearing a direct relation to the death of Christ; 
 can we hesitate for a moment to decide^ that this 
 peculiarity^ — this animal sacrifice^ was a matter 
 of divine revelation and of express command? 
 
 3. But I further add, that this account of the 
 origin of animal sacrifice, answers all the cir- 
 cumstances connected imth the instance of it 
 which we are now considering. 
 
 On the supposition of animal sacrifice being 
 a human invention, it appears difficult to recon- 
 cile the statement of facts, connected with the 
 first instance of its being offered, with such an 
 hypothesis. If God had given no direction or 
 command upon the subject, the offering of Cain 
 would have appeared far more likely, as we have 
 seen, to obtain the divine approbation, than the 
 bloody victim of Abel. There would seem, also, 
 to be something mysterious, if not unintelligible, 
 in the remonstrance which God made with Cain 
 for the unreasonableness of his anger upon the 
 occasion. If he had presented the more rational 
 ofiering, he had cause to be displeased at the 
 reception it had met with: and if he had no 
 
112 ANIMAL SACRIFICE [sECT. 11. 
 
 guide but the dictates of his own mind, to know 
 what offering would be acceptable, he had done 
 well in presenting the fruits of the field rather than 
 the firstlings of the flock ; and he must have been at 
 a loss to know what was meant by ^^ sin lying at 
 the door." Nor shall we find, on this hypothesis, 
 the account give by the apostle of this transaction 
 in the least more intelligible. He informs us that 
 Abel's was the more excellent sacrifice, and that 
 it derived its superiority from the faith with 
 which it was offered : but, in the eye of reason, 
 we have already seen, that Cain's '' fruit of the 
 ground" was more appropriate than AbePs ani- 
 mal sacrifice; and it is inconcei\'Tible -^Yi^d faith 
 could have to do with the mere dictates of rea- 
 son, and the ideas of propriety. On this scheme, 
 then, we meet with nothing but perplexity and 
 mystery, both in the narrative, and the subse- 
 quent opinion given of it by an inspired apostle. 
 It is true, indeed, that ingenious criticism may 
 give such a character and turn to the affair as to 
 render it apparently consistent and intelligible, — 
 and what is there which ingenuity cannot make 
 plausible? But the natural construction — the 
 obvious import of the narrative would lead us to 
 no such interpretation: and though, where the 
 plain and first-sight sense of a passage would 
 bring us to a conclusion at variance with some 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 113 
 
 generally recognized truths we should be autho- 
 rized to call in the aid of criticism to make it 
 harmonize with the analogy of faith ; yet^ where 
 that sense is in no such opposition to other 
 truths; but^ on the contrary^ perfectly agrees 
 with them, there is the greatest probability that 
 the obvious is the genuine and real sense. Now 
 these remarks apply to the case in question. On 
 the supposition that both Cain and Abel had 
 been previously instructed on the subject of ani- 
 mal sacrifice and other offerings^ it is natural to 
 conclude that Cain's was rejected, because it was 
 either unsuited to his character^ or he had not 
 conformed to his instructions : and that AbePs 
 was accepted for the contrary reasons. When 
 Cain, again, was angry at the preference given 
 to AbePs offering, nothing could be more reason- 
 able than the reply^ ^' if thou doest well, shalt thou 
 not be accepted? and if thou doest not well^ 
 sin lieth at the door;" as if it had been said, ^' if 
 thy character and course of conduct correspond 
 with the directions giveix thee respecting the 
 proper sacrifice;, undoubtedly both thou and thy 
 offering would be accepted ; but if thy manner 
 of life be unsuitable to the offering thou hast 
 made, and at variance with the instructions thou 
 hast received on that subject, the proper remedy 
 is to correct the mistake, to conform to thy in- 
 
 I 
 
114 ANIMAL SACRIFICR [.SECT. II. 
 
 structions, to offer the prescribed sacrifice, and 
 all will be well; — the remedy is at hand, — the 
 sacrifice lies at the door, and all that remains is, 
 duly to present it.*' 
 
 This natural construction of the narrative 
 equally corresponds with the account of the 
 transaction given by St. Paul. '' By faith,'' he 
 informs us, "^ Abel offered unto God a more ex- 
 cellent sacrifice than Cain;" that is, by implicitly 
 following the directions he had received respect- 
 ing the proper offerings to be presented in religi- 
 ous worship, and believing that God w as the best 
 judge of what was suitable on such an occasion, 
 he '' offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, 
 by which he obtained witness that he was righte- 
 ous, God testifying of his gifts." According to 
 this view of the subject, every thing falls in na- 
 turally with the narrative; strictly harmonizes 
 with the view of the apostle; and correctly cor- 
 responds with the whole analogy of faith. The 
 passage, indeed, admits of further illustration 
 by the aid of criticism, and the natural interpre- 
 tation is greatly confirmed, by a nearer exami- 
 nation of the words and the construction of the 
 whole; and I shall soon make reference to the 
 additional evidence which a minute investigation 
 of it affords ; but it is sufficient for my present 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 115 
 
 purpose to state, that the natural, and, I think, 
 unavoidable conclusion which we had arrived at 
 before, is exceedingly strengthened by the fact 
 that it readily answers all the conditions of the 
 question ; whilst the contrary hypothesis, in or- 
 der to appear in the least degree plausible, re- 
 quires the utmost force of ingenuity and laboured 
 criticism. 
 
 4. This conclusion is capable of still further 
 confirmation from the direction given to Cain^ 
 when he had failed to obtain the divine favour 
 by his offering of the fruits of the ground. God 
 remonstrated witli him on the unreasonableness 
 of his resentment because his offering had not 
 been accepted : " why," he was asked, " art 
 thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 
 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? 
 and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the doorP 
 This latter part of the address, it will be seen, 
 points out the nature of the sacrifice which Cain 
 ought to have offered, and the only means which 
 were still left him, of finding acceptance with 
 God. The passage has been variously trans- 
 lated and interpreted by different commentators ; 
 but their conclusions I believe are reduced 
 to three. The word Chattath (/iNJOn) it is 
 agreed, means primarily sin. In a secondary 
 
 i2 
 
] IG ANIMAL SACRIFICE [sECT. II. 
 
 sense, it is allowed, that it is very frequently 
 and properly translated sin-offerincj \ and it is 
 contended that it may also, in a secondary sense, 
 be transl^ited punishment for sin. It is between 
 the application of it in one of these secondary 
 senses, that the whole controversy really lies; 
 because it seems to be mutually agreed, that in 
 this passage, it cannot be understood in its pri- 
 mary sense, as simply meaning sin. This re- 
 stricted sense of it would reduce the passage to 
 such a truism, and such a tautology, as cannot, 
 with reverence, be ascribed to God ; for the 
 remonstrance, in this case would be, " if thou 
 doest not well," if thou sinnest, " sin lieth at the 
 door." The only question then is, in which of 
 the two secondary supposed senses it must here 
 be taken. The advocates for the former of them 
 fully concede, that if a single passage, in the Old 
 Testament, can be adduced, in which the word must 
 necessarily be taken in the sense of punishment 
 for sin, then it may possibly be so construed in 
 the passage before us. But after a minute and 
 critical examination of every place where it oc- 
 curs, it is shown, that in not one of them is that 
 sense necessarily required : in each, it admits 
 of either its simple and primary construction, or 
 of the other secondary sense, of a sin-offering. 
 As, therefore, in conceding the most, it is only 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. ] 17 
 
 barely possible that punishment for sin may be 
 a proper rendering of the terin^ this application 
 of it cannot be admitted to settle the disputed 
 passage^ and particularly so, as the necessity of 
 the case does not force us to this construction; 
 for it is admitted on all hands, and is shown by 
 very numerous passages of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, that it is often used, and must be used 
 in tlie sense a sin-offering. The conclusion 
 tlien is inevitable. It cannot be used in the 
 simple sense of sin ; it is never, v/ith certainty, 
 M^^A^^ punishment for sin^ and therefore cannot 
 be pretended that it ought to be so taken here ; 
 and of course, as the only remaining alternative, 
 it must be understood, in this place, as a sin- 
 offering. ^ 
 
 The passage then, with this translation of 
 Chattath, stands thus: if thou doest not well, 
 
 ' I take no merit to myself for this criticism, inasmuch as 
 it is only the condensed argument of Mr. Faber_, extending 
 through a most elaborate investigation of all the passages in 
 which Chattath occurs. He appears to me to have proved 
 his point, with a clearness of reasoning and weight of scrip- 
 tural authority, which can neither be resisted nor evaded. 
 And I am happy to have this opinion sanctioned, by an 
 able review of his work in the British Critic and Theologi- 
 cal Review. No. 5. pp. 77, 78. Sec Fabers '' Treatise," &c, 
 pp. 85—137. 
 
118 ANIMAL SACRIFICE [SECT. II. 
 
 a SIN-OFFERING lictli, OF couclieth, at the door.'' 
 But if this be the real sense of the passage^ we 
 have the authentication of God himself to ani- 
 mal SACRIFICE. He refers to it^ as a thing well 
 understood : as an institution which Cain had 
 disregarded^ and for the neglecting of which he 
 had incurred the divine displeasure; and he is 
 reminded that^ if he would recover the lost fa- 
 vour^ he must have recourse to a sin-offering, 
 as the only sacrifice which, under his circum- 
 stances, God would accept at his hands. 
 
 On the expiatory quality of this sin-offering, 
 I say nothing at present. I adduce the case 
 here, merely to show that animal sacrifice re- 
 ceived the approbation of the Almighty, and 
 that he enjoined it upon Cain as tlie only offer- 
 ing he would accept at his hands. If this do 
 not amount to an absolute proof of the divine 
 origin of animal sacrifice, it comes as near to 
 it as possible, since we find in the firsts and only 
 instance mentioned of it in the ante-diluvian 
 world, it was received as an acceptable offering 
 from Abel ; the neglect of it, was visited by re- 
 proof of Cain ; and the use of it was enjoined, as 
 the only method of avoiding the penal conse- 
 quences of sin. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 119 
 
 5. We are brought to the same conclusion, 
 with a force of evidence amounting, I should al- 
 most say, to demonstration, by the account given 
 of the offerings of Cain and Abel, by the in- 
 spired author of the epistle to the Hebrews. 
 " By Faith;' says the apostle, " Abel offered 
 unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain."'^ 
 The ground of this superiority, it appears, was 
 Faith. Abel had a faith, which Cain had not, 
 and on this account his animal sacrifice was ac- 
 cepted, and his brother's vegetable offering was 
 rejected. If, therefore, we adhere to the defini- 
 tion which the inspired author himself has given 
 of faith, in the immediately preceding context, 
 we shall clearly ascertain the real cause of AbePs 
 acceptance with God ; and discover the true ori- 
 gin of animal sacrifice. " Faith," says the apostle, 
 " is the substance of things hoped for ; the evi- 
 dence of things not seen."' But " things hoped 
 for," and " things not seen,'' cannot be matters 
 of mere speculation, and unauthorized expecta- 
 tion; they must be subjects of divine testimony; 
 matters which God has revealed, according to the 
 declaration of St. Paul, *" Faith comes by hear- 
 ing, and hearing by the word of God." The 
 foundatio7i, then, on which faith rests, is divine 
 revelation ; and the objects on which it fixes it- 
 
 2 Heb. xi. 4. ^ Ver. 1. 
 
120 ANIMAL SACRIFICE [SECT. II. 
 
 self^ are as various as the matters which are re- 
 vealed. It is one in principle^ but it is inulti- 
 plied ill object. The principle in this^ as in all the 
 other instances recorded in this chapter, is divine 
 revelation. The specific subject, in this particu- 
 lar case, is animctl sacrifice ; and the revelation 
 must necessarily relate to it. He believed what 
 had been rez;^«/(?^ respecting the kind of sacrifice 
 which God would accept. Cain did not believe 
 this; and therefore his offering was rejected, 
 and his brother's sacrifice was accepted. If this 
 reasoning be correct — and it appears to be in- 
 controvertible — we are necessarily brought, by 
 the authority of an inspired apostle, to the con- 
 clusion, that ANIMAL SACRIFICE was a subject of 
 divine revelation, and therefore that it had its 
 origin in God, and not in man:''^ 
 
 6. I add, finally, that the universal iwactice of 
 ANIMAL SACRIFICE in all agcs, and in all parts 
 of the world, before the Christian era, taken in 
 connexion ivith the preceding account of Abel's 
 sacrifice, attaches the highest degree of pro- 
 batnlity to the opinion that it was of divine 
 origin. 
 
 '* See this argument ably insisted upon by Faber on Expia- 
 tory Sacrifice, pp. 138 — 145. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF DIVINE ORIOIN. 121 
 
 1 assume the fact, conceded on all hands, of the 
 universal practice of offering victims in religious 
 worship in all heathen countries. Such a cus- 
 tom must have arisen either from the common 
 principles of human nature operating accord- 
 ing to one uniform law, and having the force 
 of a moral sense ; or from one commoji source, 
 coeval with the parent family of the human race, 
 and carrying along with it an authority fi'om 
 which there could be no appeal. That it is not 
 a common dictate of our nature is, I think, too 
 obvious to need proof. We may admit that pos- 
 sibly some individuals might have thought the 
 offering of sensitive animals in sacrifice would be 
 a likely way of propitiating the favour of their 
 gods, and that their example might induce others 
 to adopt the same practice; and that, hence, 
 many nations might ultimately copy it. But this 
 would, at most, be only a very partial and limited 
 practice. It is impossible that it should have 
 taken place in all nations,, and become univer- 
 sal. There must have been many to whom the 
 example would have been unknown; and more, 
 who would have questioned the reasonable- 
 ness of it, and refused to follow it. Be- 
 sides, as I have before intimated, if it were 
 a common suggestion of our nature, that this 
 is a proper way of paying homage to the 
 
122 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. 11. 
 
 supreme Being, it would have continued down 
 to the present day, and formed an essential part 
 of the Christian dispensation; for Christianity is 
 a reasonable service, and precludes no rational 
 way of cultivating the divine favour. We cannot 
 therefore rank this universal practice of the Gen- 
 tile world with those which nature and reason 
 spontaneously suggest, and would render impera- 
 tive on the whole of the human race. We have 
 no alternative then but to ascribe it to one common 
 source, and to an orginal authority from which 
 there was no appeal. It could arise in no other 
 way. Nor is it difficult to trace it to the fountain 
 head. Immediately after the deluge, '^ 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." Nor was he, any 
 more than Abel, left without witness that his sa- 
 crifice was accepted, for '' the Lord smelled a 
 sweet savour," and immediately entered into a 
 gracious covenant never again '^ to curse the 
 ground for man^s sake."^ This would perpetuate 
 the practice of animal sacrifice from his time, 
 among all the generations which sprung from hini 
 in all their various emigrations and dispersions 
 over the world, and satisfactorily account for tlie 
 unanimous concurrence of all nations in this 
 ^ Gcii. viii, 20, &c. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 123 
 
 custom. The connexion between the sacrifice of 
 Noah and that of Abel is obvious — they were 
 both animal, and both received a token of the 
 divine approbation : and admitting the divine 
 institution of sacrifice, we have a solution, and 
 the only solution which the case admits, of the 
 acknowledged universality of animal sacrifices. 
 
 Each of these arguments, taken separately, 
 makes a strong case in support of our hypothesis : 
 and taken collectively, and in their close con- 
 nexion with each other, they form a body of 
 evidence which must, J presume, carry conviction 
 to every candid mind that animal sacrifice is of 
 
 DIVINE institution. 
 
 Nor is it, I think, less clear 
 
 II, That animal sacrifice, from its first 
 appointment, v^as expiatory and vicarious. 
 
 It is denied, not only that animal sacrifice was 
 at first of divine institution, but also, by some, 
 that it was originally — and by others, that it was 
 ever piacular and vicarious. The former con- 
 ceive that reason might suggest that the offering 
 of bloody victims would be a suitable way of ex- 
 pressing thanks to God for the blessings of his 
 providence, or of deprecating his displeasure for 
 
124 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 the commission of sin ; yet that it could never 
 have entered the mind of man to suppose that it 
 would be accepted of God as an atonement for 
 transgression. Hence they deny that animal sa- 
 crifice had this expiatory character before the 
 dispensation of Moses ; and maintain that it was 
 invested, at this, for the first time, with a vicarious 
 quality. '' Having," says Mr. Davison, " gone 
 thus far in showing that the rigkf, and the sense, 
 of animal sacrifice for sin, are not incapable of 
 being explained, under its supposed human ori- 
 gin; its sense, 1 mean, as to the first condition 
 of that kind of sacrifice ; I come to its second 
 condition, its expiatory atoning power, a character 
 this, wholly distinct from the former, and of quite 
 another order and import. The guilt of the wor 
 shipper is the subject of the first : the remedy, or 
 the remission of his sin, the subject of the second. 
 " But here, instead of attempting to deduce 
 the doctrine of expiation and atonement by ani- 
 mal sacrifice from the light of nature, or the prin- 
 ciples of reason, I confess myself unable to com- 
 prehend, with the most ignorant, liow it can be 
 grounded on any such principles, or justified by 
 them. There exists no discernible connexion 
 between the one and the other. On the contrary, 
 nature has nothing to say for such an expiatory 
 power, and reason every thing to say against it. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 125 
 
 — — If^ therefore, tlie primitive age had its expia- 
 
 tory sacrifices, sacrifices framed according to this 
 standard, it would be difficult to account for them 
 as rational rites ; still more difficult to think that, 
 under the palpable incapacity of their human 
 origin, they could have been accepted by God. 
 No : expiatory sacrifice must have been of God^s 
 own appointment, to reconcile it either to God, 
 or to man himself, till he was fallen under a de- 
 plorable superstition." He then attempts to show 
 that the sacrifices of the patriarchs had not this 
 expiatory character, and that they did not assume 
 it till the Mosaic economy. " Here then," he says, 
 " in the Mosaic law, the declared expiatory power 
 of sacrifice, of a certainty, begins. Here also 
 commences the typical character of sacrifice, as 
 a rite of atonement^ on the stock of an acknow- 
 ledged instittdion. From this stock, sacrifice 
 bears its evidence, on solid grounds, and with 
 unqualified force, to that which is the one con- 
 spicuous and unequivocal object of its typical 
 character, the grace of the Christian Atonement. 
 And as the human principle oi expiatory sacrifice 
 can never be vindicated at all, so the divine prin- 
 ciple of it, in the Mosaic law, will never be ex- 
 plained to any purpose, with satisfaction to our 
 reason, or with honour to the divine economy, 
 except by its reference, as a preparatory rite. 
 
126 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 and a prophetic sign^ directed to its pre-ordained 
 prototype in the evangelical dispensation."^' 
 
 Socinians, however, go much furtlier than this, 
 and deny, in all cases, and at all times, the pia- 
 cular and expiatory character of sacrifices; or that 
 they have any reference whatever, either as a 
 '^ preparatory rite, or a prophetic sign, directed 
 to any pre-ordained prototype in the evangelical 
 dispensation." " We can," say they, " discover 
 nothing of them in the earliest times, but that 
 they were offered as a tribute of gratitude, or an 
 expression of dependence and subjection, and 
 that their being accepted was regarded as a ma- 
 nifestation of approbation and favour. In later 
 ages, they were considered as giving a religious 
 sanction to covenants and engagements. This 
 seems to be the whole of what can be known 
 concerning them prior to the Jewish institution. 
 Sacrifices and ceremonial worship had ob- 
 tained general footing in the world, before they 
 were established by divine institution, in the mi- 
 nistry of Moses. The design of the Mosaic 
 economy was to separate Israel from the idola- 
 trous nations, and preserve them from their idola- 
 trous practices : to this purpose the whole of their 
 
 ' Davison's Enquiry, &c. p, 27 — 33. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 127 
 
 ritual service was directed. The designs of God 
 were not at that time sufficiently ripened^ nor 
 the people prepared^ for such a pure and spiritual 
 worship as the gospel teaches : hence the sacri- 
 ficature was imposed until the times of reforma- 
 tion^ and the people were placed under such a state 
 of things as was calculated to prepare them gra- 
 dually for a more perfect economy." ^ It is evident 
 that they (the Jewish sacrifices) were not vica- 
 rious^ because they were not to be offered in any 
 case when life was forfeited by the transgression 
 of the law; consequently^ not being vicarious 
 themselves^ they could not point to a vicarious 
 sacrifice as their antitype." Expressions and 
 reasonings of this kind abound among Socinian 
 writers^ and show that they consider animal sacri- 
 fice, in no case, expiatory, and never referable 
 to the great atonement made on the cross for the 
 sins of the world. 
 
 In opposition to both these opinions, I maintain 
 
 1. That ANIMAL SACRIFICES Were universally 
 considered as expiatory hy the heathen world ; 
 and the fact can ordy be accounted for on the 
 supposition that they were invested with that 
 quality by God himself at their original insti- 
 tution. 
 
128 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 That these sacrifices were thus universally 
 offered to pagan deities, under the notion that 
 they would avert their wrath, or atone for offences, 
 has l^een so abundantly shown by Archbishop 
 Magee, in his '^ Discourses and Dissertations on 
 the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sa- 
 crifice,"^ that it is unnecessary to adduce any 
 further evidence on the subject ; and 1 shall as- 
 sume it here as an undisputed fact. This expia- 
 tory quality of pagan sacrifices indeed was never 
 questioned by those who adopted the views of 
 Bishop Warburton and Mr. Davison: and the 
 latter writer endeavours to account for it, as one 
 of the suggestions, not of nature and reason, 
 which he represents as disclaiming it, but of " a 
 deplorable superstition," which invested the 
 heathen deities with terror, and deemed the 
 sacrifice of animals, or human victims, the only 
 means by which their favour could be purchased, 
 or their wrath averted. He has, however, as I 
 conceive, entirely failed to establish this point. 
 It is readily admitted that superstition has had re- 
 
 « See particularly of his Dissertations Nos. XXXIII. LVI. 
 In reading these Dissertations^ one feels at a loss which to 
 admire most, the confidence with which Dr. Priestley has 
 denied this notorious fact (Theological Repository, vol. 1, 
 p. 400, 6<:c.) or the patience and erudition with which the 
 archbishop has demonstrated it. 
 
EXPIATORV AND VICARIOUS. 129 
 
 course to many practices, which are equally ab- 
 horrent to nature and reason, and in her contri- 
 vances there is an endless diversity. Variety, 
 indeed, is her peculiar characteristic, while that 
 of nature and reason is uniformity. Had we 
 therefore met with some insulated instances of 
 this notion attached to animal sacrifice, we should 
 have had no difficulty in tracing them to this 
 source. But the facts before us are not partial, 
 but universal ; not the peculiarity of a few na- 
 tions or ages, but the leading and distinctive 
 feature of all people, languages, and times : and 
 it is this uniformity in the character of heathen 
 sacrifices that places them beyond the range of 
 invention^ or the caprice of superstition. Now, 
 as it is denied that it could derive its origin from 
 nature or reason, ^ we are shut up to the alterna- 
 tive, that it was invested with this expiatory 
 quality by God himself. But in what way, it 
 may be asked, can we trace pagan sacrifice to 
 this divine origin? Evidently, by referring it 
 to the common source, from which all the post- 
 
 9 " Instead oF attempting to deduce the doctrine of Expia- 
 tion and Atonement from the light of nature or the principles 
 of reason, I confess myself unable to comprehend, with the 
 inost ignorant, how it can be grounded on any such principles, 
 or be justified by them." — Davison's Inquiry into the Origin> 
 &c. p. 27. 
 
 K 
 
130 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 diluviaii nations of the earth derived their exist- 
 ence — to the Patriarch Noah. He obtained it 
 from his forefathers, and they from the primitive 
 family. This, and this only, solves the whole 
 difficulty of the case. If the Supreme Being 
 instituted sacrifice, and instructed the parent 
 family to offer victims as emblematical expiations 
 of sin, then they would hand down the doctrine 
 to their posterity, and thus it would be trans- 
 mitted to Noah; and, through him, to all the 
 nations of the earth, who sprung from him. 
 Hence its universality, and hence the notion of its 
 atoning character, when offered even to the 
 gods of the heathen. 
 
 But that this was really the character origi- 
 nally stamped on animal sacrifice will appear, 
 with additional evidence, if we consider the de- 
 scription given of these sacrifices antecedently to 
 the Levitical dispensation ; and I will therefore 
 endeavour to show — 
 
 2. That ANIMAL SACRIFICE wcis Considered as 
 EXPIATORY and atoning, from the first that we 
 have an account of as offered by Abely doivn to 
 the last of them as offered by Job, antecedently, 
 as it isy probably, to the time of Moses. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 131 
 
 We have already seeii^ that the character given 
 of AbePs sacrifice, and the directions given to 
 Cain in what way he might repair the defect of his 
 vegetable offering, establish the divine origin of 
 sacrifice. But the facts of that case prove more. 
 They show that animal sacrifice was to be viewed 
 in the light of an expiation and atonement, I 
 need not repeat what has already been advanced 
 on the subject of these first sacrifices.^ If the 
 word rendered ^^ Sin," must, in that statement,* 
 as we have seen, been understood in its common 
 and secondary sense as a si7i- offering ; and if 
 that term, again and again occur in the Levitical 
 rites, where it is acknowledged on all hands "^ that 
 it is used to express an expiatory sacrifice, then 
 it inevitably follows that, in the case of Cain's 
 directed sacrifice, it could mean nothing less than 
 that it was to have in it the quality of atone- 
 ment. Now, not to dwell again on this fact as 
 proving the divine origin of sacrifice, 1 adduce 
 it here as incontestably showing that this charac- 
 ter was appropriated to it by the Divine Being: 
 for if, as Mr. Davison contends, this character 
 of animal sacrifice could not have originated in 
 the suggestion either of " nature or reason ;'' 
 and if, in the present case, superstition is alto- 
 
 1 pp. 115—120. 2 Genesis iv. 7. nb^ton. 
 2 Of course, in this argument, I except Socinians. 
 
 k2 
 
132 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 ^ether out of the question, then it was stamped 
 upon it by God himself, and he alone can be 
 the author both of the Institution, and the doctrine 
 of the Atonement necessarily connected with it. 
 
 But the argument is further strengthened by 
 the consideration that the account of this sacri- 
 fice is given by Moses, and was intended for the 
 instruction of the people, whose religious ser- 
 vices he was appointed to establish and explarn. 
 Now if, throughout the whole of the Levitical 
 rites, a sin-offering was invariably expressive of 
 an atoning sacrifice,"^ and the Jews so under- 
 stood it wherever they met with the term, what 
 construction must they naturally and necessarily 
 have put upon it, when they read the account 
 of the first sacrifice of Cain and Abel? It 
 must obviously be that which they gave to it on 
 every other occasion, and they could not avoid 
 connecting with it the idea of expiation. Hence 
 we see, from the first instance upon record of 
 animal sacrifice, that it was impressed with 
 
 * ** In the Hebrew language, the word, which we translate 
 Sin-ojjer'uig when u;;ed in its sacrificial sense, invariably denotes 
 Expiatory offering for sin, agreeably to the strict definition of 
 the term which has been given by Tyloses himself. Exod. 
 XXX. 10. See also Exod. xxix. 3().-' — Faber on the Origin of 
 Expiatory Sacrifice, p. 58. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 133 
 
 the all-important character of an atonement for 
 
 sin. 
 
 ' No further mention of animal sacrifice is made 
 in the short narrative of the long period between 
 the time of Abel and the deluge : and the next 
 instance of it is the burnt-offerings of Noah, 
 after God had caused a great wind to pass over 
 the earth, and assuage the waters, and had 
 stopped the fountains of the deep and the win- 
 dows of heaven. On this most affecting occa- 
 sion, Noah came forth from his long confinement 
 in the ark ; and, with a heart deeply penetrated 
 with the terrible example of a world in ruins for 
 its transgressions, — with the dreadful wrath of 
 God, as bursting forth against his enemies, — 
 with the infinite goodness of his heavenly Father 
 for the singular favour conferred on himself, — 
 and, probably also with dread lest a similar ca- 
 tastrophe should again occur, he *-' builded an 
 altar unto the Lord ', and took of every clean beast, 
 and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-ofier- 
 ings unto the Lord." 
 
 In the terms by which these sacrifices, or 
 biirnt-oferings are designated, nothing conclu- 
 sive can be drawn as to their character, whether 
 they were simply thanksgivings for the mercies he 
 
134 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 had received, or whether they were intended 
 to deprecate the divine wrath for the future, 
 or whether both these ideas were combined. 
 But the facts of the case will throw much light 
 upon them; and these I have just stated, in 
 order that we might place ourselves in Noah^s 
 situation, and thus excite feelings by which we 
 should have been actuated in offering up the first 
 solemn sacrifice, after such an eventful period 
 since his last public service. Perhaps gratitude 
 would be the first sensation; but this would be 
 immediately followed by horror at the universal 
 desolation which surrounded him, and dread lest 
 so terrible a destruction should again visit the 
 earth. In his sacrifice, then, he would unite 
 thanksgiving and prayer : thanks for the past, 
 and deprecation for the future : and his burnt- 
 offerings, calculated as they were to express his 
 sense of the evil of sin, and the only way in 
 which its fearful consequences could be typically 
 removed, would be associated with the desire 
 that such calamities might hereafter be averted. 
 The facts then of the case would naturally lead 
 us to suppose that the character of his burnt- 
 offerings would be chiefly deprecatory y — pre- 
 sented with the hope that God would cease from 
 his displeasure. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 135 
 
 But what may be only probable from the cir- 
 cumstances accommpanying the sacrifice^ be- 
 comes certain from the results of it. We may 
 arrive at a perfect knowledge of the nature of a 
 sacrifice^ if we can ascertain the 7nanner in 
 which it was accepted. The precise purport 
 of a request may be discovered, when we get 
 possession of the answer that was returned: 
 that which might, before, in some degree, be 
 vague and undefined, now is interpreted, and 
 becomes clear and specific. What then was 
 the answer of God to this sacrifice of Noah? 
 " And the Lord smelled a sweet savour :" or, as 
 others have, perhaps, more correctly rendered 
 the Hebrew text, " the Lord smelled an odour 
 of rest."^ The burnt-offerings were grateful. 
 They were accepted as deprecations of his wrath : 
 they were presented with that view, and they 
 had that effect. They were ayi odour of placa- 
 bility : ^ and that God would no more drown the 
 world by the waters of a flood. " And the Lord 
 said in his heart, I will not again curse the 
 ground any more for man's sake, for the imagi- 
 nation of man's heart is evil from his youth ; 
 
 ^ ** Odoratus est Dominus odorem quiet is : hoc est. Qui 
 antea commotus erat, quietus et placatus, Noaciii sacrificio, 
 recldebatur." — Spencer, cle Leg', lib. iii. 
 
 *5 " Odorem placabilitatis;" according- to the Syriac ver- 
 sion, as adduced by Dr. vSpencer ut supra. 
 
136 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 neither will I again smite any more every living 
 thing, as I have done. While the earth remain- 
 eth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, 
 and summer and winter, and day and night shall 
 not cease.'' ^ 
 
 Can any thing more clearly discover the pre- 
 dominant idea with which these burnt-offerings 
 were presented, than this clear and definite re- 
 sult from them? That idea must have been de- 
 precatory, because, immediately on these sacrifices 
 being presented, God ceased from his displea- 
 sure, and entered into a covenant not to repeat 
 the calamity with which he had recently visited 
 the world. 
 
 It must not, however, be overlooked that sacri- 
 fices offered in the way of averting the divine anger 
 against sin, may be of hvo kinds. They may 
 be presented under the idea of buying off this 
 displeasure, as gifts may be made to a judge, to 
 conciliate his favour, and escape the infliction of 
 a penalty. This was a very common idea con- 
 nected with sacrifices in pagan nations;" but 
 one which, in no way, can be looked upon by 
 
 T Gen. viii. 'iO— 22. 
 
 8 '' Qua tu mercede, Deorum 
 
 Emeris auriculas'" Pers. Sat. ii. See also Homer. 
 Iliad, ix. 492, &c. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 137 
 
 the Judge of all the earth, but with abhorrence. 
 The Jews did, indeed, in their great degeneracy, 
 seem to attach such a notion to their sacrifices 
 and religious rites ; and when they did so, they 
 were rejected with indignation.^ Whatever 
 then might be the intention of the person offer- 
 ing a sacrifice, we are quite sure that it never 
 could he accepted by God as a bribe, nor be 
 followed by any token of his approbation. The 
 fact, therefore, that Noah's sacrifice was divinely 
 accepted and approved, renders it impossible 
 that he could, in deprecating the future displea- 
 sure of God, have had the intention of offering 
 a gift to pacify his wrath. There is then only 
 one remaining way, in which, as a deprecatory 
 sacrifice, his burnt-offerings could have been pre- 
 sented — and this is, as expiatory and piacular. 
 If he did not intend it as a bribe, he must have 
 intended it as an atonement : no other intention 
 of a deprecatory sacrifice is possible. ^ If there- 
 fore God accepted it in this character, we have 
 his approbation of expiatory sacrifices ; and if he 
 accepted it as such, he must first have enjoined 
 it, for neither natui'e nor reason, says Mr. Da- 
 vison, could have associated this quality with 
 sacrifices ; it must come from God ; and we 
 
 9 Isai. i. 10—15. 
 
 ^ See Faber on the Origin of Primitive Sacrifice, pp. 78 — 80. 
 
138 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 have therefore again been brought to the conclu- 
 sion^ that not only was animal sacrifice originally 
 of divine institution, but it was also by God in- 
 vested with an atoning and expiating power. 
 
 The only remaining sacrifices which are dis- 
 tinctly detailed till the time of Moses, are those 
 of Job; for though we read of the Patriarchs, 
 and especially of Abraham, building altars, and 
 offering victims, there is nothing minutely re- 
 corded from which we could come to any certain 
 conclusion as to their peculiar character. I am 
 aware that various opinions are entertained re- 
 specting both the period when Job lived, and the 
 author to whom the book is to be ascribed. Nor 
 is it necessary for me to go into this question on 
 the present occasion, since the most accredited 
 writers on this subject place Job among the Pa- 
 triarchs ; and the latest of the authors to whom, 
 with any show of reason, it has been attributed 
 is Moses.'^ And hence, upon any probable cal- 
 culation of times, we are carried back to a 
 period antecedent to the Levitical dispensation. 
 
 - For ail account of the most recent opinions on this sub- 
 ject — ^vide Abp. Magee's Dissertations, No. LIX. Dr. Hales' 
 Analys. vol. 2, p. 53. Dr. Mason Good's Translation. Intro- 
 ductory Dissertation, p. xlv. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 139 
 
 Now, in tlie book of Job we have an account 
 of two particular sacrifices; one at the com- 
 mencement^ and the other at the conclusion of it. 
 The former is thus narrated. " His sons went, 
 and feasted in their houses, every one his day : 
 and sent and called for their three sisters, to eat 
 and drink with them. And it was so, when the 
 days of their feasting were gone about^ that 
 Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early 
 in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings ac- 
 cording 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 con- 
 tinually."^ Of the nature and quality of these 
 ^^ burnt-offerings," nothing can be concluded with 
 certainty from the term by which they are desig- 
 nated. But the facts of the case will elucidate 
 both. The sacrifices were offered by the father 
 in behalf of his sons, and that on the ground 
 that in their festivity they might have offended 
 God. This precludes the possibility of their 
 being presented either as thank-offerings, or 
 confessions of personal sin. They must there- 
 fore be ranked among those sacrifices, which 
 were intended to deprecate the displeasure of 
 the Almighty. And the only question which 
 remains now to be considered is, whether Job 
 5 Job i. 4, 5. 
 
140 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 presented tliein as a gift^ in order to purchase 
 the divine forbearance with his sons, or as an ex- 
 piation, to atone for their transgression^, agree- 
 ably to the character of the sacrifices offered, as 
 we have seen^ by Noah, and before him by Abel. 
 If the piety of Job forbid us to suppose the 
 former, we must add this, as another instance of 
 piactdar sacrifices antecedent to the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation ; and as neither '^ nature nor reason" 
 could suggest such a species of sacrifice, (and 
 superstition is here out of the question,) we are 
 driven to the conclusion that this character was 
 originally stamped upon them by the Almighty 
 himself. The remaining sacrifice, recorded at 
 the conclusion of this extraordinary history, 
 brings us, even with stronger evidence, to the 
 same decision. '' It was so,'' says the sacred 
 historian, '^ that, after the Lord had spoken 
 these words unto Job^ the Lord said to Eliphaz 
 the Temanite, My ivrath is kindled acjainst 
 thee and against thy two friends ; for ye have 
 not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my 
 servant Job hath. Therefore, take unto you 
 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 : lest I deal with you 
 after your folly ^ iu that ye have not spoken of 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 141 
 
 me the thing which is rights like my servant Job. 
 So Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite^ 
 and Zophar the Naamathite^ went and did ac- 
 cording as the Lord commanded them : the Lord 
 also accepted Job."* 
 
 Nothing can be more manifest than that here 
 the sacrifices were to be deprecatory of the divine 
 wrath ; and the observations already made on the 
 previous sacrifices are equally applicable here, 
 and show that they were expiatory. But the 
 case is much stronger here than in any of those 
 which have preceded it: for we have^ in this 
 instance^ God himself expressly commandmg 
 the atonement. In all the former we were com- 
 pelled, by the very character of the offerings, to 
 conclude that they were both piacular and of di- 
 vine appointment; and in the case of Cain, 
 we had all but demonstration, that it was com- 
 manded ; but if any reason could be suggested 
 for setting aside such an inference in the pre- 
 ceding cases, it must utterly fail here, since the 
 expiatory sacrifice is expressly enjoined by 
 God's autliority . And I would still further remark, 
 that if it should be alleged that, possibly, in the 
 former instances, the pious Abel, Noah, and Job, 
 might have offered their several victims in the 
 ♦ Job xlii. 7—9. 
 
142 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 mistaken notion that they could bribe the divine 
 justice by offering a gift ; and that God^ in con- 
 descension to human infirmity, was pleased to 
 accept of this well-meant but mistaken notion 
 of the value of animal sacrifice — (a supposition 
 which, if grounded on fact, would, after all, lead 
 to the most fearful conclusions) — these allegations, 
 in the present instance, must be entirely out of 
 the question, seeing that God expressly com- 
 manded these burnt-offerings ; and it is equally 
 abhorent to common sense and piety to suppose, 
 that the Judge of all the earth would enjoin 
 upon hi«s creatures the necessity of offering a 
 gift to ward off a justly incurred penalty. As, 
 therefore, this could be no other than a piacular 
 and atoning sacrifice ; and as it was offered be- 
 fore the Levitical priesthood, and was com- 
 manded and accepted by God himself, there can 
 be no pretence for asserting that the doctrine of 
 expiation of sin by sacrifices was first taught by 
 Moses, after the giving of the law upon Mount 
 Sinai : ^ and we are necessarily brought again to 
 
 ^ It has been said of tlie two sacrifices recorded in the book 
 of Job, that they are instances of a " religion of worship and 
 prayer, by sacrifice," by which it should seem as if it were 
 meant to be inferred, that the benefit conferred was to be as- 
 scribed to the prayer, and the sacrifice to be considered only 
 as an adjunct, calculated to give a suitable solemnity and im- 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 143 
 
 the conclusion t\mt, from the beginning^ sacrifices 
 ivere both piacular and of divine institidion. 
 
 We are now brought down to the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation^ when it is acknowledged by all^ ex- 
 cept by Socinians, that animal sacrifices were 
 possessed of an expiatory and an atoning power: 
 though it is contended by some^ that it was not^ 
 till now^ for the first time, that, in this character, 
 they had either the authority or the express 
 sanction of the Almighty. It is not necessary 
 for my argument to attempt any further to refute 
 this hypothesis; and to show that it would be 
 extremely difficult to prove that, if sacrifices had 
 not this high authority and expiatory power be- 
 
 portance to the ceremony. (Davison's Inquiry, &c. p. 190.) 
 jBut, surely, this can never be seriously maintained against all 
 that is said of Abel's sacrifice and Noah's burnt-oiferings, 
 when transferred, as it necessarily must be, to those before us. 
 There must have been some intrinsic meaning and intention of 
 mind in oifering- the sacrifices, as well as in the prayer : and 
 that meaning is of such paramount importance, that, in com- 
 parison of it, the very mentioning of prayer is lost sight of in 
 the two first of these cases. Now, what that intention was, 
 we have already seen ; and the additional fact, that interces- 
 sion was added to sacrifice, only shows that the sacrifices of 
 the Patriarchs had the nearest possible resemblance to that of 
 their great Anti-type, who, after he had once offered himself to 
 God for us, passed, as our Great High Priest, into the heavens ; 
 and there " ever liveth to make intercession for us/' 
 
]44 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 fore the Mosaic economy^ that they noiv re- 
 ceived this sanction and superadded quality, for, 
 on the face of the narrative, nothing seems 
 clearer than that the customary character of ani- 
 mal sacrifice was carried into this new dispensa- 
 tion ; and that it was merely made available to 
 a variety of penalties, and appropriated to a 
 multiplicity of cases, which had been created by 
 the new state of things, and to which, of course, 
 it had not previously had any relation. Nor is it 
 necessary for me to point out the various ob- 
 jections which would lie against the notion that 
 the ideas v/hich superstition had first attached 
 (for it is conceded that superstition among pagan 
 nations had attached the notion of expiation to 
 sacrifices long before the Levitical economy) to 
 sacrifice, should be adopted into the system ul- 
 timately enjoined by God himself, — and in this 
 way, not only allowing that superstition had an- 
 ticipated God in his dispensation of mercy, but 
 also that it had pointed out to him the very way 
 of conferring it — all that was wanted, in addi- 
 tion to the admission of all orthodox writers 
 that the expiatory power of animal sacrifice was 
 fully recognized and established by the Mosaic 
 ritual, was to show that this quality had always 
 belonged to it, was originally stamped upon it 
 by God himself, and was coeval with its first 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 145 
 
 institution. This having been done, we are now 
 furnished with an unbroken chain of evidence, 
 extending down from the primeval state, through 
 both the Patriarchal and Levitical dispensations, 
 to the advent of our blessed Lord, that piacular 
 atonement constituted the very essence of reli- 
 gion ; and that " without shedding of blood there 
 was no remission" of sins. 
 
 But with this great fact before us, it is still 
 necessary to enquire for what kind of offences 
 these sacrifices were admitted as expiations and 
 atonements. For, whilst some contend that they 
 could not, in any case, be vicarious, because there 
 were many transgressions for which the Mosaic 
 sacrificature made no provision ; others maintain 
 that they were only possessed of this atoning 
 power in matters relating to rites and ceremonies. 
 Hence it has been assumed, as the foundation of 
 an argument against the expiatory character of 
 the patriarchal sacrifices, that in the Mosaic law 
 provision was made only for ceremonial offences : 
 " Since," says an eminent writer, " expiation for 
 moral sin was not the privilege of the later dis- 
 pensation, that of Moses — since atonement for all 
 the greater instances of transgression, and even 
 in the extent of man's ordinary obliquity of prac- 
 tice, was not included in the operation of the 
 
 L * 
 
146 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 Mosaic rites ; had such an institute of atonement 
 been granted^ in the first period of things^ to the 
 primeval race, the divine economy would have 
 been retrograde ; a sacrament of grace and par- 
 don would have been withdrawn ; or, which is 
 the same thing, it would have reduced from 
 greater purposes to less ; and all this is a change 
 in the revealed ratification of the divine mercy, 
 and the remedial provisions of the divine law — 
 a change of disproportion in the appointment, 
 and of loss and disfavour in the effect, which is 
 highly inconsistent with our best notions of the 
 progressive order of revealed religion, and with 
 the actual evidences of that order contained in 
 the general system of it."^ 
 
 Hence, it is necessary to show, 
 
 3. That ANIMAL SACRIFICE, botk iti the patri- 
 archal and LEviTicAL dispensations^ was expia- 
 tory O/' MORAL TRANSGRESSION. 
 
 That part of this statement, which relates to 
 the patriarchal economy, is so obviously true, that 
 it scarcely requires any proof. It is, indeed, 
 admitted as a necessary consequence of primeval 
 
 6 Davison's " Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive 
 Sacrifice/' pp, 84, 85. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOLTS. 147 
 
 sacrifice being of divine institution^ and of a pia- 
 cular power ; and a supposed absurdity of this 
 conclusion is adduced^ as we have firsf seen^ 
 against the probability of such a quality and origin 
 really belonging to animal sacrifice. If these 
 sacrifices were expiatory of any things it must 
 have been of moral transgression^ since only 
 such^ in the patriarchal age^ was possible. Now, 
 that they were expiatory, I trust, has been suf- 
 ficiently evinced: and that they were expiatory 
 of Tftoral transgression, and of that alone, is an 
 inevitable consequence ; but so far from shrink- 
 ing from the conclusion to v/hich we are thus 
 brought ; or fearing that we shall be reduced to 
 the dilemma of retrograding in the dispensation 
 of mercy, I wish to give all the distinctness pos- 
 sible to the fact that animal sacrifice was, from 
 the beginning, expiatory of moral offences, 
 AND OF THOSE ONLY ; and that, wherever it has 
 diverged to other objects, it has been in the way 
 of accommodation — has been incidental, tempo- 
 rary, and extraneous. The great affair, upon 
 which it had an aspect, from the very commence- 
 ment, and of which it never for a moment lost 
 sight, was the atonement for sin ; and that not 
 ceremonial, but moral. Strange indeed would 
 it have been, if, when the conscience of our great 
 progenitors were burdened with guilt, and their 
 
 l2 
 
148 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 minds were trembling under the apprehension of 
 its fearful consequences; and when^ in this piti- 
 able condition, the Father of mercies intimated 
 his intention of repairing this dreadful evil, and 
 for this purpose directed them to animal sacrifice 
 as the medium by which he might at all times be 
 approached and propitiated, strange indeed 
 would it have been, if he had made no provision 
 for the expiation of moral transgression. This 
 was the only thing they wanted; and to have 
 omitted this would have been to mock their hopes, 
 and to leave them poor, and wretched, and miser- 
 able, and blind, and naked. No : the whole sys- 
 tem of revelation was intended to develop this 
 grand mystery of redemption by the blood of the 
 cross. The development was slow and gradual. 
 Each succeeding dispensation brought something 
 more to light respecting it, and made some new 
 discovery of the way and greatness of this salva- 
 tion. Patriarchs saw it at a distance, and rejoiced. 
 It was the high privilege of Priests and Levites 
 to be every day familiarized with the emblems of 
 it, both in their religious and political offices. 
 Poets, under a divine afflatus, sung of its glories 
 and the future achievements of the Great De- 
 liverer: and Prophets, as the time drew nigh, 
 were permitted, in vision, to behold the day of 
 the Son of Man, and to gaze on the Sun of 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 149 
 
 Righteousness. In all tliiS;, there was a regular 
 progression from the first promise, that " the seed 
 of the woman should bruise the serpent's head;" 
 but it was a progression in the unfolding of a 
 principle^ which had been made known from the 
 beg'mning ; and that principle was nothing less 
 than that, in some way or other to them yet un- 
 known, by some great agent of God's providing, 
 of whom, probably, they had no clear conception, 
 the moral trangressions of man should be expiated, 
 and their penal consequences finally averted. 
 This great principle was emblematized in animal 
 sacrifice. In reference to it, Abel offered a better 
 sacrifice than Cain; Noah brought down the 
 Divine blessing on the renewed earth ; the pagan 
 world, forgetting the true God, propitiated their 
 deities ; Job offered burnt-offerings for his sons, 
 and presented his intercession with the sacrifice of 
 his friends, and thus averted the wrath which their 
 frowardness had excited. The same principle 
 pervaded the Levitical services. The great days of 
 Atonement fixed all eyes and hearts upon it ; — the 
 morning and evening sacrifices kept it in almost 
 hourly remembrance ;— the ceremony of the scape- 
 goat represented it as in a drama ; — and the very 
 peculiarities of the Mosaic dispensation, its rites, 
 and ceremonies, and political usages, exhibited 
 it not only on every occasion, but in almost every 
 
150 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 variety of form. In this there was no retrogres- 
 sion^ no privation of a sacrament^ nothing that 
 indicated the least intermission in carrying into 
 effect the purposes of divine mercy to man ; but 
 every thing advanced^ till the whole was consum- 
 mated^ and the blessed Saviour poured a flood 
 of light upon life and immortality by the gospel.'' 
 
 But it is proper to give somewhat more of 
 distinctness to these topics ; and to notice the 
 effects of expiatory sacrifice on the relative con- 
 dition of those who offered it^ both as it regards 
 God and man. Did it affect them in both these 
 relations, or only in the former ?^ This question 
 resolves itself into another : What ivere the penal 
 evils, from which expiatory sacrifice exempted 
 the offerer? Were they temporal or spiritual? 
 Did they relate to civil institutions, or the divine 
 government? or to both? 
 
 In order to answer these questions correctly, 
 we must distinguish between the primary and 
 secondary objects of expiatory sacrifice ; between 
 what it was intended, at its first institution to 
 efiect, and to what it was made applicable, in the 
 progress of God^s dispensations with man; be- 
 
 '' Tou Ziorypoq (jjioriauyTOQ i^iotjy. k. r. X. 2 Tim. i. 10. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 151 
 
 tween what inherently belonged to it, and what 
 was superinduced by local and adventitious in_ 
 stitutions. For want of always keeping these 
 obvious distinctions in view^ much confusion^ as 
 it appears to me^ has attended the discussion of 
 animal sacrifice ; and I cannot but think that most 
 of the difficulties with which it has been embar- 
 rassed^ might have been removed by carefully 
 considering what was its original design; and 
 what^ in process of time, has been engrafted 
 upon it. 
 
 It is agreed, as we have seen, that if expiatory 
 sacrifice were offered before the Levitical dispen- 
 sation, it must have been for moral transgression, 
 as no other could then have existed: and that 
 expiatory sacrifice was offered from the begin- 
 ning, after what has been said, I have a right 
 now to assume. The penal consequences, there- 
 fore, which were removed by it, must, like the 
 transgression, be moral and not civil ; spiritual 
 and not temporal ; relating to the future and not 
 to the present world. " The wages of sin were 
 death ;" the expiation of sin, therefore, must be 
 followed by life. That this was not a temporal, 
 but spiritual life, is obvious from the fact, that 
 no atonement, no expiation for sin, was ever 
 allowed to arrest the arm of death. 
 
152 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT, II. 
 
 That the exemption is purely of the kind just 
 described^ is evident both from the fact that Abel's 
 sacrifice did not exempt him from temporal death, 
 and from the very nature of things, which must be 
 changed, by a perpetual miracle, if the natural 
 course of temporal good or evil were made depend- 
 ent on the offering of such sacrifices. In the case 
 of the first animal sacrifice, of which any account is 
 given, we find that it was immediately followed by 
 temporal death ; for Cain, out of envy of the success 
 of his brother's offering, slew him. Hence, if it had 
 been originally the intention of sacrifice to remove 
 the penalty of temporal de^th^ or to interfere with 
 the ordinary course of human conduct, or politi- 
 cal institutions, Abel's sacrifice would have utterly 
 failed of its purpose ; and Cain w ould, in respect 
 of the things of this life, have had greatly the 
 advantage over his more righteous brother. But, 
 viewing the expiatory sacrifice of Abel as relating 
 entirely to transactions of a moral nature between 
 God and himself, and regarding solely God's dis- 
 tribution of good and evil, in the future world, 
 every thing is plain, consistent, and satisfactory .» 
 
 9 I cannot omit this opportunity of expressing the conviction 
 which this case brings to my mind, of the knowledge which the 
 first family had oi' a. fulure state of existence. Supposing the 
 absence of this knowledge, to what a state of doubt, and 
 anxiety, and distress, — yea, and of temptation, to cast away 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 153 
 
 Abel was accepted of his God. His premature 
 and violent death was, humanly speaking, a con- 
 tingency, a result of the ordinary effect of the 
 evil workings of a wicked disposition in his bro- 
 ther, which could not have been averted without 
 a preternatural interference with the usual course 
 of human nature ; an interposition which, in the 
 
 tlie fear of God, must tlils catastrophe, resulting from Abel's 
 piety and the divine approbation of it, have reduced all who 
 knew, or aftervv^ards heard of it ? Having no idea of any state 
 beyond the present, in which such characters as Abel migh 
 hope for a more equable distribution of good and evil, the 
 conclusion would be inevitable, that the condition of the wicked 
 was preferable to that of the righteous ; and that no protection 
 or advantage was to be derived from God by a dutiful and 
 aflectionate obedience to his will. '* Here," they would naturally 
 say, " is the pious Abel utterly cut off' from life and its enjoy- 
 ments, and perished for ever, and that for the very act of a 
 religious observance, of which God had expressed his open 
 approbation ; and there is Cain, whom God has rejected for 
 his impiety and disobedience, after the commission of the most 
 horrible deed, preserved in life, and a mark is set upon him to 
 protect him from violence ! Surely it is worse than in vain to 
 serve God ; the wicked are the men whose life is preserved, 
 and who triumph in their sin." What an overwhelming dis- 
 couragement must this have been to the righteous; and what a 
 floodgate must it have opened to the commission of sin! 
 Admit, however, the primeval knowledge of a future state of 
 rewards and punishments, and every thing at once appears in 
 its tru% light. 
 
154 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 present case, it should seem^ was not an object 
 of sufficient importance to justify a suspension of 
 the ordinary connexion between cause and effect. 
 But the cfreat point was secured. The penalty 
 of sin was removed. God was well pleased with 
 the sacrifice, and " an entrance was ministered 
 unto him abundantly into the everlasting king- 
 dom." 
 
 This, then, was the great benefit resulting from 
 piacular and atoning sacrifices. They interposed 
 between the sinner and his Judge. They averted 
 the infliction of the penalty of transgression, not 
 as a civil offence committed against the order of 
 society, — with this they had nothing to do ; civil 
 government is upheld by other sanctions and 
 other penalties ; — not as violations of ritual and 
 ceremonial institutions, — these had then no exist- 
 ence ; — but as sins against God. They re-instated 
 the sinner in his favour, as though he had never 
 offended ; and they secured to him all the spiritual 
 and eternal blessings which would have followed 
 a life of uninterrupted obedience. 
 
 We have here^ also, a clear view of the vica- 
 rious import of sacrifice. The victim was the 
 substitute of the sinner. The penalty was, in 
 figure, transferred from the latter to the former. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 155 
 
 God accepted the transfer; and the guilty was 
 acquitted as though he had been innocent^ accord- 
 ing to the significant description given of the 
 ceremony in later times^ when the believer ''' put 
 his hand upon the head of the burnt-offerings and 
 it was accepted for him, to make Atonement 
 for him." 9 
 
 This also explains the superior excellence of 
 AbePs above his brother's offering, as proceed- 
 ing, according to St. PauPs account of it, from 
 faith. ^ There was no intrinsic value in his sacri- 
 fice. It derived its entire worth from the object 
 to which it was referred, and from the disposition 
 of mind with which it was offered. It proceeded 
 from an implicit acquiescence in the divine ap- 
 pointment, and an assured belief that it was con- 
 nected, though in what way he probably had no 
 distinct conception, with some great Deliverer, 
 hereafter to appear in the world, who should 
 " take away sin by the sacrifice of himself" 
 
 It carries us, also, through the whole period 
 of sacrificature, to the actual suspension of the 
 Supreme Victim, of which all others were but 
 types and shadows, on the accursed tree, for the 
 
 9 Levit. i. 4. ^ Heb. ii. 4. 
 
156 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 redemption of the world ; and the whole mystery 
 of sacrifice was fully developed, and an " ever- 
 lasting righteousness was brought in, which was 
 upon all and unto all them that believe." Here 
 we learn the great design of the sacrifice on the 
 great days of atonement; of the singular cere- 
 mony of the scape-goat ; of the daily sacrifice at 
 the morning and evening service of the Temple. 
 In all these cases the sacrifices were expiatory. 
 When offered in faith, as AbePs was, they took 
 away sin. They averted its penalty. They brought 
 down the divine blessing. They gave a title to 
 an eternal inheritance. But they did nothing 
 more. They did not interfere with human go- 
 vernments. They did not intercept the hand of 
 civil justice. They did not ward off the temporal 
 evils of sin ; nor reinstate the political offender 
 in his former condition in life. They had no 
 reference whatever to these things. They were, 
 as we have seen, of a perfectly different character; 
 and human affairs proceeded as if there had been 
 no provision whatever for the moral and penal 
 consequences of sin. Nor has the Atoneinent of 
 Jesus Christ inade the least alteration in this 
 respect. It has nothing to do with human go- 
 vernments, or penal statutes, or the ordinary 
 course of temporal events. They proceed just as 
 if no such atonements had been made : and the 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 157 
 
 political offender^ if I may so speak, now stands 
 in the same relation to the penalties of human 
 laws as he always did ; and suffers for his offences 
 as others do; though, in his relation to God, 
 through faith in the blood of the Atonement, he 
 may be pardoned, justified, and made eternally 
 happy. 
 
 This, then, is the state of things as it at first 
 existed in its simplest form in the patriarchal 
 ages ; as it existed also in the Levitical dispensa- 
 tion, but in a more complex manner; and as it 
 still exists, in the anti-type, in the economy under 
 which we now live. 
 
 1 said, " as it existed in the Levitical dispensa- 
 tion, but in a more complex manner ;^'^ and this is 
 the point to which our attention is now particularly 
 called. The Mosaic economy is a distinct case. 
 It has many things in common with what preceded 
 and followed it, but it has some things peculiar. 
 It retained the original institution of sacrifice, 
 with all the qualities which belonged to it. These 
 were still prominent, fundamental, and the sub- 
 stratum on which the whole system was built.^ 
 
 2 " It is a remarkable circumstance, which I think," says 
 Mr. Faber, " has not been sufficiently attended to by Mr. Davi- 
 
158 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [vSECT. II. 
 
 But other things were superadded and engrafted 
 upon it^ which gave it^ in some respects^ a new 
 
 son, that the rite of sacrifice is introduced into the law of Moses, 
 not as if it were an ordinance then ^ for the first time, appointed 
 by. God, but as if it were an institution already familiar to the 
 people in consequence of some well-known ancient precept : 
 and it is also a remarkable circumstance, that every sacrificial 
 command under the law respects exclusively the mode and 
 occasion of sacrifice, while tlie observance of the nalctclrite itself 
 is never once independently and abstractedly enjoined. The 
 law, in short, recognizes and modifies the rite ; but no where, 
 so far as I know, does it enjoin the observance of the naked 
 rite itself under the aspect of a then first promulgated divine 
 institution. 
 
 " Taking this viev^' of the question, we shall find, that the 
 exordium of the book of Leviticus, where, with a reference to 
 the law, the ordinance of sacrifice begins to be regularly dis- 
 cussed, well deserves our most serious attention. In that por- 
 tion of holy writ, no com3IANd to sacrifice to the Lord their God 
 is laid upon the Israelites, as if hitherto they had sacrificed 
 independently of any divine command, and as if now, at length, 
 they were to begin to sacrifice in pursuance of a divine com- 
 mand ; but a form of speech is adopted, through no less than 
 three entire chapters, which seems not obscurely to imply, that 
 a divine command to that purpose was universally known to 
 have been long since in actual existence." — Faber on Expiatory 
 Sacrifice, pp. 155 — 157. 
 
 Again : " Throughout the whole code of the Mosaic law, 
 the bare rite itself is never once explicitly commanded. This 
 matter is not a little remarkable, though it has been altogether 
 overlooked by Mr. Davison. He strenuously contends, that. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 159 
 
 aspect, and which require a distinct consideration. 
 It is then what was peculiar to this dispensation, 
 and not what it had in common with the former, 
 that we have now to notice. 
 
 In this singular economy, the Supreme Being 
 connected himself with his favoured people in a 
 new character. He placed himself at the head 
 of their civil government, and thus constituted it 
 a theocracy. In this way the Hebrew nation 
 became doubly responsible to him, — first as the 
 original and supreme Governor of the world, ad- 
 ministering its affairs by his providence and grace; 
 and awarding, as the sanction of his universal 
 
 as the divine institution of sacrifice is no where mentioned under 
 patriarchisni;, so we find it for the first time expressly men- 
 tioned under the law. Here lies his error. So far from his 
 statement being accurate, its terms ought to have been exactly 
 inverted. Under patriarchism, the divine institution of sacrifice 
 is distinctly referred to in the history of Cain and Abel : but, 
 under the law it no where appears. Much, under the law, is 
 said as to the regidation of sacrifice ; and commands to this 
 purpose are recorded with a copious minuteness : but we are 
 no where told, that, under the law, the naked rite of sacrifice 
 was first divinely instituted. Throughout the whole code of 
 Moses, its previous existence is assumed as a suhstratimi. The 
 law professes to do nothing more, than regulate and modify 
 a very ancient divine institution of patriarchism." — Ihid. pp, 
 159, 160. 
 
160 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 laws^ rewards and punisliments. agi'eeably to the 
 light and privileges which he had conferred upon 
 them ; and it w^as in this relation to Him, that 
 they were required to offer the sacrifices of which 
 we have been hitherto speaking, conformably to 
 his original institution. But they were now placed 
 in a new relation to Him, as their civil and poli- 
 tical head ; and, in this character, they owed him 
 duties corresponding with his government as their 
 national king. These duties also were enforced 
 by sanctions peculiar to their civil polity; and 
 are never to be confounded with those which 
 previously existed under the patriarchal dispen- 
 sation. They might, and probably would, in 
 many respects, resemble each other : they might 
 consist of penal and expiatory offerings: they 
 might require the same functions in their priests : 
 they might be presented in the same Temple : 
 and they might be offered to the same Supreme 
 Being : but still they were widely and essentially 
 different, both in the relation they bore to the 
 moral conduct of the persons who offered them, 
 the relative character of Him to whom they were 
 presented, and the special object for which they 
 were designed. Irrespective of their political 
 obligations, they were previously bound to offer 
 sacrifices for the expiation of their moral offences ; 
 and no change whatever took place in this re- 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICAUIOrs. 1()1 
 
 spect.^ Their animal victims would still, on par- 
 ticular and proper occasions, have regard to moral 
 transgressions, and those only : but on others, 
 they would have a reference to the peculiar polity 
 of their nation, and be presented under the direc- 
 tions and limitations which that polity prescribed. 
 The same course of conduct, viewed in relation 
 to these different authorities, would have a two- 
 fold aspect, and would require a twofold treat- 
 ment. Moral offences, when they became also 
 state offences, might admit of no expiation, and 
 no substitution for personal suffering; and yet, 
 as they regarded the Supreme Government, and 
 as incurring the original penalty of sin, they 
 might, through the medium of vicarious sacrifices, 
 be entirely blotted out; and whilst, under the 
 theocracy, the offender could not escape death, 
 under the general dispensation, he might be made 
 a partaker of endless life. Nor is there any thing 
 mysterious or paradoxical in this diversity of 
 treatment. It is one of daily occurrence ; and 
 
 3 " This people," (the JewsJ says the author of the Scripture 
 Account of Sacrifices, " as to their inward state, were doubtless 
 under the same control, both of the law of nature and of the 
 divine providence, as they were before the law ; this having- 
 introduced no change in this respect. They were consequently 
 entitled to the pardon of all their sins, of what nature soever, 
 upon the same terms as before." p. 168. 
 
 M 
 
162 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 nothing is more common than for a judge to ex- 
 hort a criminal to seek that mercy at the throne 
 of God, which it is impossible he should receive 
 at an earthly tribunal. The only difference be- 
 tween the two cases is, that God was the consti- 
 tuted head both of the moral and political govern- 
 ment of the one ; and of the moral government 
 alone of the other. But this does not alter the 
 nature of things. It might be as inexpedient to 
 admit an expiatory sacrifice to remove the penalty 
 of a crime, wlpich demanded the death of the 
 offender, in the peculiar government of the Jewish 
 nation, as it would be to allow a pecuniary com- 
 mutation of penalty for a similar offence in ordi- 
 nary cases. ^ Hence we find many crimes, in the 
 Levitical dispensation, which admitted of no vica- 
 
 * I have avoided entering into the question whether the 
 sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood were ever permitted to 
 arrest the penalty of death, when threatened in the Mosaic law, 
 as not being essential to my argument. I may, however, add, 
 that, even in the political peculiarity of this dispensation, many 
 offences were exempted by atonement, which would otherwise 
 have been visited by the forfeiture of life. (See Levit. vi. 3 ; 
 also V. 4.) Indeed it would seem that such was the severity 
 of the penal enactments of this law, that oil offences exposed 
 the offender to the punishment of death ; and that whenever 
 the penalty was remitted, it was solely on the ground of sacri- 
 fice. (See Deut. xxvii. 26. Ezek. xviii. 19—23. Gal. iii. 10. 
 James ii. 10.) 
 
CPIAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 163 
 
 rious expiation. The offender was amenable^ in 
 his own person^ to the injured laws of his couatry^ 
 and neither wealth nor sacrifices could ward off 
 the stroke of justice. 
 
 It is this distinction between the moral and 
 political government of the Jews that obviates 
 the Socinian objection against vicarious sacrifices_, 
 founded on the fact^ that there were many cases 
 of crime for which the Levitical economy admitted 
 no atonement. It was not as offences committed 
 against the moral Governor of the worlds but 
 against the political state of which God was the 
 representative^ that they were excluded from the 
 benefit of piacular expiation. There were no 
 cases exempted from atonement, in the former 
 relation ; there might be many that were excluded, 
 in the latter : and as the argument for piacular 
 and vicarious atonements is founded, not on what 
 was peculiar to the Jewish nation as a theocracy, 
 but on what it had in common with the patriarchal 
 age — derived from the original institution of sacri- 
 fice in the primeval state — introduced, with fresh 
 sanctions and enlarged extent, into the Levitical 
 dispensation — celebrated with greater frequency 
 and more imposing ceremony in the Temple ser- 
 vice, and on appointed festivals^ and interwoven 
 
 m2 
 
164 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 with all the peculiar rites of this holy nation — 
 the objection falls at once to the ground. It 
 arises out of a mistaken notion that what was 
 peculiar to the political state of the Jews, might 
 be applied as an argument against the general 
 character of atonements, as having place in the 
 moral government of God.^ 
 
 5 In offering this obvious solution of the objection above 
 stated, 1 am far from either forgetting or undervaluing the 
 able refutation of it by Archbishop Magee ; and I should 
 think it an injustice to my readers to deny them the satisfac- 
 tion of reading it in my pages. In answering the argument 
 that " sacrifice could not have implied any thing vicarious, as 
 an atonement could not be made where life was forfeited," — 
 the archbishop replies, " There is no argument advanced by 
 the opponents of the doctrine of Atonement, with greater 
 confidence than this ; and there is none which abounds with 
 greater fallacies. It is untrue, in point of fact; it is sophisti- 
 cal, in point of reasoning ; and it is impertinent, in point of 
 application. 
 
 I. It is untrue; for atonements were made in cases, when, 
 without atonement y life was forfeited. This appears at once, 
 from the passage of Leviticus last referred to; (xvii. 11.) 
 which positively asserts the atonement to be made for the life 
 of the offerer : it also appears from the unbending rigour of 
 the law in general, which seems to have denounced death 
 against every violation of it. (See Deut. xxvii. 26. Ezek. 
 viii. 19 — 2.3. Gal. iii. 10. James ii. 10,) and, in particular, 
 from those specific cases, of pprjurij (Levit. vi. 3.) and of pro- 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 165 
 
 This view of the subject also obviates the objec- 
 tion against the divine institution of expiatory sa- 
 
 fane sivearing (v. 4.) for which atonements were appointed, 
 notwithstanding the strict sentence of the law was death 
 (Exod. XX. 7. — and Levit. xxiv. 16.) 
 
 2. Et is sophistical ; for, from the circumstance of atone- 
 ment not being appointed in those cases in which death was 
 peremptorily denounced, it is inferred, that no atonement 
 could be made where life was forfeited ; whereas the true 
 statement of the proposition evidently is, that life was for- 
 feited where no atotiement was permitted to be made. It is 
 true, indeed, that death is not expressly denounced in those 
 cases in which atonements were allowed; but this was be- 
 cause the atonement was permitted to arrest the sentence of 
 the law, as appears particularly from this — that where the pre- 
 scribed atonement was not made, the law, no longer suspended 
 in its natural operation, pronounced the sentence of death. 
 The real nature of the case seems to be this : the rigid ten- 
 dency of the law being to secure obedience, on pain of for- 
 feiture of life ; all such offences, as were of so aggravated a 
 kind as to preclude forgiveness, were left under the original 
 sentence of the law, whilst such as were attended with cir- 
 cumstances of mitigation, were forgiven on the condition of a 
 public and humble acknowledgment of the offence, by com- 
 plying with certain prescribed modes of atonement. It should 
 be remembered also, that the law was not given at different 
 times, so as that its denunciations and atonements should be 
 promulgated at different periods ; both were announced at the 
 same time, and therefore in such cases as admitted of pardon, 
 the penalty being superseded by the atonement, the punish- 
 ment strictly due to the offence is consequently not denounced, 
 and can only be collected now from the general tendency of 
 
166 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 orifice in the primeval state, grounded on the sup- 
 position tliat that privilege was denied to the 
 Mosaic dispensation -, and that thus '^ the divine 
 economy would have been retrograde ; a sacra- 
 ment of grace and pardon would have been with- 
 drawn."^' It is evident that nothing in the 7ia- 
 ture of expiatory sacrifice for moral transgres- 
 sions, as committed against God, hi his charac- 
 ter of universal Governor, was either added or 
 taken away by the Mosaic dispensation. The 
 
 the law, from some collateral bearings of the Mosaic code, or 
 from the inflictions which actually followed on the neglect of 
 the atonement. The whole strength of the present objection 
 rests upon this : that we have not both the atonement pre- 
 scribed, and the punishment denounced : that is, the punish- 
 ment both remitted and denounced at the same time. 
 But I have dwelt too long upon this ; especially when 
 3. The whole argument is inapplicable. For even they 
 who hold the doctrine of vicarious punishment, feel it not ne- 
 cessary to contend, that the evil inflicted on tlie victim, should 
 be exactly the same in quality and degree, with that denounced 
 against the offender : it depending, they say, upon the will of 
 the legislator, what satisfaction he will accept in place of the 
 punishment of the offender. (See Outram de Sacri, lib. i. 
 cap. xxi. § 1, 2 — 9.) But still less will this argument apply, 
 where vicarious 'punishment is not contended for, but merely as 
 an emblematical substitute, the result of institution, and which, 
 in no respect, involves the notion of an equivalent." No. 
 xxxviii. vol. 1, p. 358—361. 
 *^ Davi.son's Inquiry, &c. p. 85. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 167 
 
 previous system, whatever it was, was still con- 
 tinued; and to this wdiS superadded ih^ application 
 of sacrifice to the theo-political state of the 
 Jews. The diiferent degrees of crime, to which 
 it was rendered subsidiary, related to the theo- 
 cracy. The exempt cases were moral offences 
 against the state, or against God, as the politi- 
 cal head of that state. Expiation, to the full 
 extent of all moral delinquencies against the 
 Judge of the whole earth, was as attainable under 
 this economy, as under the Patriarchal ; and the 
 devout penitent, looking through the type, to 
 the promise, that the seed of the woman should 
 bruise the serpent^s head, of which the sacrifice 
 was a symbol, obtained remission of his sins. 
 On the great day of atonement, at the morn- 
 ing and evening sacrifices of the temple, and on 
 other special occasions, the moral offences of 
 the faithful were the chief, if not the only ob- 
 jects, that fell within the scope and design of the 
 sacrifices : and these, like " the blood of Jesus 
 Christ, cleansed from all sin." The apostle con- 
 sidered this point so clearly established, that he 
 grounded upon it an argument for the necessity 
 of having a priest more perfect and more en- 
 during than those appointed under the tempo- 
 rary dispensation of the law, who should preside 
 over the church of God for ever : " For such an 
 
168 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 high priest/^ says he, ^^ became us^ who is holy, 
 harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and 
 made higher than the heavens ; who needeth nbt 
 daily, as those high priests, fo offer up sacri- 
 fices , first for his oivn sins, and for the peo- 
 2)les ; for this he did once, when he offered up 
 himself. For the law maketh men high priests, 
 which have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, 
 which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is 
 consecrated for evermore."^ 
 
 Here then is no retrogradation, no withdraw- 
 ing a sacrament, no deterioration in the condi- 
 tion of God's favoured people. On the contrary, 
 there is an accession of privilege, an increase of 
 expiatory sacrifices, applicable not only to the par- 
 don of all moral offences against God, but also to 
 many, that were of an aggravated nature, against 
 their theocracy. Their sacrifices were multiplied. 
 An order of men was instituted to take the sole 
 charge of administering them. A tabernacle, 
 and afterwards a splendid temple, was built for 
 drawing to them a more public and solemn atten- 
 tion; the ceremonies with which they should be 
 offered were minutely described ; the very uten- 
 sils, which were requisite for the due perform- 
 ance of them, were themselves purified by sacri- 
 1 Hcb. vii. 2G— 28. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 169 
 
 fice^ and even the daily intercourse of life^ as 
 well as every transaction of a public and national 
 nature^ was inseparably connected with them. 
 Here then we see the plan of divine mercy to 
 man progressively developed. The idea of ex- 
 piation by sacrifice was continually presenting 
 itself Not even a political offence could be 
 pardoned, without a recognition of the princi- 
 ple j and while the humble penitent obtained, 
 through faith in these typical sacrifices, the for- 
 giveness of all his sins, even the careless and 
 profligate learned that there could be no exemp- 
 tion from the temporal penalties of his oflences, 
 but in virtue of expiatory sacrifice; so that, 
 whether politically or morally, '' without shed- 
 ding of blood, there was no remission" of sin. 
 
 This view of the subject, finally, places in its 
 true light the general law of God, as distin- 
 guished from that of 3Ioses and shows that ex- 
 piatory sacrifice has a priinary reference to the 
 former, and is surperinduced on the latter. In 
 certain respects, indeed, the universal and Levi- 
 tical law are the same. The moral decalogue 
 must be in perfect harmony with every revela- 
 tion of the divine will to man, as being grounded 
 on the eternal nature and fitness of things : and 
 as it was the expiation of ;/^ora/ offences, to which 
 
170 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 sacrifice^ in its original institution, was exclu- 
 sively directed, it comes in, with equal propriety 
 and effect, to the atonement of moral offences 
 under the latter dispensation ; and is, therefore, 
 sometimes referred to the penalty of transgres- 
 sion denounced in the Mosaic law, as though this 
 were its exclusive object; as, for instance, when 
 it is said, " the law was our schoohnaster to 
 bring us unto Clirist." " Cursed is every one that 
 continueth not in all things which are written in 
 the book of the law to do them." " Christ hath 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 made a curse for us." But it it is manifest, that 
 it is to the moral law of Moses, as re-enacting 
 the general law of God^s government, that we 
 are to understand such passages as applicable ; 
 and this is remarkably evident from the connexion 
 in which the words just recited stand; for the 
 apostle has regard to the faith of Abraham long 
 before the giving of the law, in the whole of this 
 chapter, and adduces it to show that both Jews 
 and Gentiles were eventually to be saved in one 
 common way : ^*^ The scripture, says he, fore- 
 seeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
 Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed." Then follow the passages just quoted; 
 and they are adduced to show that Christ hath 
 
CHA.P. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 171 
 
 redeemed all, both Jew and Gentile, from the 
 curse of the law. ^ Every thing in the law was 
 calculated to direct the minds of men to the 
 great atonement. The whole system was an in- 
 structive lesson on the nature of the great ex- 
 piation. This law admitted of no breach with- 
 out incurring a penalty. No penalty was re- 
 mitted but in reference to an atonement; and 
 as all had repeatedly " sinned and come short of 
 the glory of God," all were under a curse ; and 
 it being ^'^ impossible that the blood of bulls and 
 goats could take away sin," '^^ Christ redeemed all 
 from the curse of the law, being made a curse 
 for them." This is the obvious import of such 
 passages as the above ; and they can never be 
 restricted to the law of Moses, as placed in op- 
 position to God^s universal law, without offering 
 violence to the reasoning of the apostle, and be- 
 ing placed in array against the analogy of faith. 
 
 It is, therefore, insinuated without the least 
 foundation in fact, that redemption from the 
 curse of the law by Jesus Christ, means only, 
 that he introduced a new dispensation, which 
 exempted men from the burdensome rites of the 
 Levitical priesthood ; and that it has no regard 
 to the general law under which the rest of the 
 
 8 Gal. iii. 
 
172 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 world livedo nor that under which we, as Chris- 
 tians, now live. The fact is, it is from the ori- 
 ginal penalty connected with a breach of God's 
 moral law, and which was re-published, with 
 additional ceremony, on Mount Sinai, that ex- 
 piatory sacrifice at first released the transgres- 
 sor ; and it was for violations of the same law, 
 under the M osaic dispensation, that they retained 
 their original character, though they were also 
 made subservient, for special purposes, to the 
 political administration of the Jewish theocracy. 
 This however was the accommodation; the 
 former, the iritention. 
 
 I have only to add — 
 
 4. That ANIMAL SACRIFICE, thus showu to be 
 divine in its institution, expiatory in its quality, 
 and extending its power to moral transgres- 
 sions, was also strictly vicarious. The life of 
 the animal was offered as a substitute for the life 
 of the offender. 
 
 It is contended, as we have seen, that '' ani- 
 mal sacrifice could not be vicarious , because, in 
 certain cases where life was forfeited, it was not 
 permitted to arrest the course of justice." This 
 objection, however, has been shown to be 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS^ 173 
 
 grounded on a mistaken notion of the facts of 
 the case. Animal sacrifice, both in its original 
 institution, and through the whole course of its 
 application, both in the Patriarchal and Leviti- 
 cal dispensations, down to the time of Christ, 
 when it \Vas superseded, was offered as an atone- 
 ment for all moral offences against God as the 
 universal king : and although in the Mosaic le- 
 gislation, it was not permitted to remove the pe- 
 nalties of all 9 such offences against the theo- 
 cracy, as endangered the state, yet in a// cases, 
 where it tvas prescribed, it was vicarious. The 
 death of the victim was alivays substituted for 
 that of the offender. If an offence were com- 
 mitted against God, it incurred the penalty of 
 death, as '^ the wages of sin." If committed 
 against the state, it incurred the forfeiture of 
 life, under the appellation of the '' curse" de- 
 nounced against those '^ who continued not in all 
 things, written in the book of the law to do them ;" 
 and the victim slain in sacrifice, when offered up 
 in the prescribed form, and with the requisite moral 
 
 9 I say " in all such offences ;" for in several instances of 
 great offences against tiie state, such as perjury, theft, breach 
 of trust, &c. the penalty of death was permitted to be arrested 
 by atonement and sacrifice. See Levit. vi. 1 — 7. Exod. xxii. 1, 
 &c. — *^ On the efficacy of the Mosaic Atonement, applied to cases 
 of moral transgression," See Magee, No. xxxvii. vol. 1, p. 333. 
 
174 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [SECT. II. 
 
 disposition of mind, arrested the course of divine 
 or political justice, (as the case might be,) and 
 exempted the offender from the penalty. 
 
 That the idea that victims offered in sacrifice 
 would be accepted in the place of those who had 
 offended, prevailed from the earliest times, is 
 evident fi*om the fact that, long before the giving 
 of the law, the custom of offering human sacri- 
 fices to false gods had become inveterate among 
 heathen nations. This was the crying sin of 
 the Phenicians and Canaanites, at the time of 
 the Exodus ; and was the occasion of their be- 
 ing cast out of their land before the Israelites, 
 who were cautioned against falling into the same 
 offence, lest in their turn they also should be 
 ejected from the promised land. " Thou shalt 
 not let any of thy seed," says God to Israel, 
 "^ pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt 
 thou profane the name of thy God. — Defile not 
 ye yourselves in any of these things \ for in all 
 these, the nations are defiled which I cast out be- 
 fore you. — Ye shall therefore not commit any of 
 these abominations — that the land spue not you 
 out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the 
 nations that were before you."^ Now that the 
 
 1 Lev it. xviii. 21 — 28. See also xx. 1 — 5. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 175 
 
 notion connected with human sacrifices^ was 
 piacularmid vicarious, is most evident from the 
 reference which the prophet Micah makes to the 
 horrid practice, when he askS;, " Will the Lord 
 be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten 
 thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give ?ny first 
 born for my transgression, the fruit of my body 
 for the sin of my soul, .^" ^ Nothing can be clearer 
 than that here an expiatory substitution is the 
 predominant, idea, and that alone upon which a 
 personal exemption from death is founded. It is 
 true, indeed, that the question is only proposed 
 in order to be rejected ; but it is also true, that 
 the opinion connected with sacrifice was that it 
 was vicarious ; and this instance of substitution 
 was rejected, because human victims were for- 
 bidden, and held in abhorrence of God. This 
 was the abuse of a doctrine which had been 
 handed down from the Patriarchal age \ and is of 
 
 " For evidence of the universal prevalence of human sacri- 
 fices, see Archbishop Magee, No. V. p. 96 — 129, and the/«c^ 
 is as extensive as the victims offered up, that every where the idea 
 prevailed that the gods could only be appeased by atonements. 
 "Regem ipsum, ^f^XuiircBccElestis fiaculum, immolabant." 
 Mosfuit in populis, quos condidit advena Dido, 
 Poscere ccede Deos veniam, ac flagrantibus aris 
 (Infandum dictu) parvos imponere natos. 
 
 Sil. Italic. 4. 
 3 Micah vi. 6. 7. 
 
176 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. II. 
 
 itself a proof of the universal prevalence of the 
 principle of vicarious sacrifice. The principle 
 was of divine institution; the abuse of it, of 
 mans corruption. 
 
 It is in this way only that we can satisfactorily 
 explain the numerous descriptions given of the 
 atonement in the Levitical law : as when it is 
 said, '-' he shall put his hand on the head of the 
 burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for hhn^ 
 to make atonement for him.^ And the priest 
 shall make an atonanent for them, and it shall 
 he forgiven them."^ The life of the flesh is in 
 the blood : and I have given it to you upon the 
 altar, to make an atonement for your souls : for 
 it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the 
 so?d."^^ But, perhaps, of all others, the ceremony 
 of the scape-goat, connected with the sacrifice 
 of atonement, conveys the clearest notion of the 
 vicarious import of sacrifice. Aaron ^^ shall 
 take," as he was divinely instructed, '^ of the 
 congregation of the children of Israel, two kids 
 of the goats for a sin-offering, — and he shall 
 take the two goats, and present them before the 
 Lord, — and shall cast lots upon the goats : one 
 lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape- 
 goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat, upon 
 3 Levit. i. 4. ^ iv. 20. •' xvii. 11. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 177 
 
 which the Lord's lot fell^ and offer him for a sin- 
 offering. But the goat on which the lot fell to 
 be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive be- 
 fore the Lord, to make an atonement with him^, 
 and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wil- 
 derness. Then shall he kill the goat of the 
 
 sin-offering that is for the people, and bring the 
 ])lood within the vail, and sprinkle it upon the 
 mercy-seat^ and before the mercy- seat; — and he 
 shall bring the live goat : and Aaron shall lay both 
 his hands upon the head of the live goat, and con- 
 fess over him all the iniquities of the children of 
 Israel^ and all their transgressions in all their 
 
 Si7ly PUTTING THEM ON 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 THEIR INIQUITIES INTO A LAND NOT 
 
 INHABITED : and he shall let go the goat in the 
 wilderness."^ Here then we have two animals 
 constituting one sacrifice."^ On the head of one 
 
 « Levit. xvi. 5—22. 
 
 7 « On this," sfvys Archbishop Magee, '' see what has been 
 said in pp. 370, 371, of vol. 1, and attend particularly to the 
 5th, 7th, and 10th verses of Levit. xvi. from which it appears 
 that the two goals are, throughout the chapter, spoken of as 
 one sin-offering ; being expressly so called in the fii^t of these 
 verses ; presented jointly as the offering of the people in the 
 second: and though separated into two distinct jjorts, by the 
 lot cast in the 9th verse, yet each described as contributing to 
 
 N 
 
178 ANIMAL SACRIFICE ORIGINALLY [sECT. 11. 
 
 of them^ the high priest places his haricls^ and 
 confesses the sins of the people, with all their 
 aggravations, — or as it is expressed, " all the 
 
 INIQUITIES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND ALL 
 THEIR TRANSGRESSIONS, IN ALL THEIR SINS" 
 
 (surely not their political^ but their moral delin- 
 quencies, — at least, these must be included.) One 
 of the goats is killed, and the other, on which 
 the sins \^ ere confessed, is then led '^ into the 
 wilderness — into the land not inhabited," where 
 their sins could no more be had in remembrance : 
 
 the atonement for the people, as appears from the 10th verse 
 compared with the 17th. The death of the animal waS re- 
 quisite to represent the means by which the expiation was 
 effected ; and the bearing away the sins of the people on tl;e 
 head of the animal, was requisite to exhibit the effect, namely, 
 the removal of the g^uilt. But for these distinct objects, two 
 
 animals were necessary to complete the sin-offering. Rhen- 
 
 ford contends, that this point is completely established, by 
 an evidence resulting from the nature of the ceremony itself; 
 for he says. The imposition of hands, and the confession, and 
 implied translation of sins upon the victim, being usual in the 
 sacrifice of animals in expiation ; and this ceremony being 
 omitted in the case of the goat that was slain, whilst it was 
 employed in the case of the goat that was sent away; de- 
 cidedly prove that both animals were designed to be consi- 
 dered as one offering, and that he latter, consequently, repre- 
 sented him who was to bear the sins of Israel, and by his suf- 
 ferings to expiate and remove them," — Magee^ vol. 2, pp. 
 344- '^46. 
 
CHAP. IV.] EXPIATORY AND VICARIOUS. 179 
 
 and thus an atonement was made for the people 
 of Israel. Can any thing convey a more strik- 
 ing idea of the penal consequences of sin being 
 transferred from the people to the offerings, and 
 the perfect remission of their sins, in conse- 
 quence of this transference, than this symbolical 
 representation? Who among the Israelites 
 could doubt that sin deserved death ; that the 
 death of the offender was typically transferred 
 to the sacrifice ; and that, henceforth, his sin 
 v/as no more to be remembered?^ Minute cri- 
 
 s Mr. Faber has furnished us with a very interesting ac- 
 count of a singular custom which prevailed among the Egyp- 
 tians, on offering certain sacrifices ; and which throws mudi 
 light on the idea connected with laying the hand on the head 
 of a victim, and confessing sin. " There is," says he, " a cu- 
 rious particular, mentioned by Plutarch from Castor, relative 
 to the expiatory sacrifice of the Egyptians. — Herodotus had 
 stated, that the Egyptians, in the devotement of their expiatory 
 sacrifice, were wont to deprecate upon the head of the vica- 
 rious victim the several evils which might otherwise fall either 
 upon the sacrificers themselves, or upon all Egypt ; and he had 
 moreover remarked, that the bulls, destined for such oblations, 
 were, after a careful examination, sealed upon the horns by sa- 
 cerdotal ofBcers, set apart for that precise purpose." — Herod. 
 Hist. lib. ii. § 38, 39. 
 
 '' Both these matters are confirmed by Plutarch : but he adds, 
 what Herodotus had omitted to specify, an account of the 
 exact impression made by the sacred signet. Those of tJic 
 priesthood, says he, ivho are called sealers, mark the hull, des- 
 tined for the expJatori/ sacrifice, iviti, a seal, which (as Castor 
 
 n2 
 
180 ANIMAL SACRIFICE A TYPE OF [SECT. II. 
 
 ticism niifylit possibly invent another way of ac- 
 counting for the ceremony, but the plain common 
 sense of mankind would put no other construc- 
 tion on this, and other atonements, than that they 
 were offered as vicarious sacrifices, and that 
 the pardon of sin was inseparably connected 
 with them. No other natural construction could 
 be given of them, than ^\dX animal sacrifice was, 
 at least a condition or consider at ion , ivithout 
 which sin could, in no case, he pardoned: that 
 neither repentance nor amendment of life would 
 avail for the remission of sin, if sacinfice were 
 7ieglected ; and tliat the expiatory, piacular, and 
 vicarious offering, was the real ground of their 
 acceptance with God. 
 
 Having, then, I trust, made it plain that ani- 
 mal SACRIFICE is of divine origin, and, that it 
 
 tells us) bears the device of a mem in a kneeling attitude, with 
 his arms hound behind him, and icith a sicord pointing to his 
 tJii'oat. — Plutarch, de Isid. et Osir. § 31. ^ 
 
 " NoW;, when the professed object of the sacrifice is consi- 
 dered, there can be little doubt, I think, as to the import of the 
 device upon the signet. It set forth, that the penalty, or 
 deadly calamity, impending over the head of the sacrificer, 
 was transferred to the head of the victim : it exhibited the 
 fate of the sacrificer, when not secured by the mysterious effi- 
 cacy of the vicarious sacrifice." — Fabers Treatise on Sacri- 
 fice, p. 42. 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 181 
 
 was instituted for the purpose of expiatory and 
 vicarious atonement for moral transgression ; 
 it only remains that 1 show — • 
 
 III. That it had a direct reference to the 
 
 SACRIFICE OF OUR LoRD JeSUS ChRIST UPON THE 
 CROSS. 
 
 This link is stili wanting to connect it with 
 the Christian dispensation^ and to prove that^ from 
 the beginnings the faith of God's people was 
 directed to some great atoning sacrifice^ here- 
 after to be offered, which should have an intrin- 
 sic value in itself, and which should ^^ take away 
 the sins of the world. '^ 
 
 "^1. The fact that animal sacrifice ceased to 
 be offered, ivhen the Chinstian religion began to 
 spread over the world, is, of itself, presimiptive 
 evidence that its object was accofnplished, and 
 that a dispensation had commenced, which su 
 perseded the necessity of making any further 
 atonement for sin. Sacrifice^ be it remembered, 
 was deemed necessary to expiate sin; and as 
 every human being, from the first parent of man, 
 down to the coming of our Lord, had occasion 
 for such an expiation, sacrifice was an essential 
 constituent of every dispensation, till the esta- 
 
182 ANIMAL SACRIFICE TYPICAL [SECT. II. 
 
 blishment of the religion of Christ. But this 
 necessity did not cease at his advent. It has 
 been as pressing since as ever it was before ; and 
 expiation is as needful now as it was in the Patri- 
 archal orLevitical economy. Would then sacrifice 
 have ceased to be offered, if some substitute for 
 it had not been provided ? Would that remedy 
 for a burdened conscience, which had given re- 
 pose to so many thousands of penitent sinners, have 
 been withdrawn, if some other, of at least equal 
 efficiency, had not been brought to light? Would 
 that propitiatory of the divine favour, which had 
 hitherto been ^' the hope of the ends of the 
 earth," have been set aside, unless some other 
 access to the mercy-seat had been discovered for 
 those who wish to ^^ draw nigh unto God?'' 
 Most assuredly not. This would indeed have 
 been to retrograde " in the divine economy ; to 
 withdraw a sacrament of grace and pardon ; and 
 to reduce purposes of mercy from the greater to 
 the less :" a remedial appointment would have 
 been cancelled, and a wretched world left to 
 hopeless despair. This, then, cannot for a mo- 
 ment be admitted. The Christian dispensation 
 must have provided something at least equally 
 efficacious with animal sacrifice, and this can be 
 nothing less than the sacrifice of him, who " re- 
 deemed us from the curse of the law, by being 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 183 
 
 made a curse for us.'^ He was the great anti- 
 type, and the representative was suspended ; he 
 was tlie living substance, and the shadow dis- 
 appeared. 
 
 2. We shall be brought to the same conclu- 
 sion, when ive reflect on the intrinsic value of 
 sacrifices. They were, in themselves^ perfectly 
 worthless in the sight of God : and when they 
 were offered under the notion of a bribe, they 
 were rejected with indignation. ^^ To what pur- 
 pose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, 
 saith the Lord ? — Bring no more vain oblations. — 
 If I were hungry, 1 would not tell thee : for the 
 world is mine, and the fulness thereof. — Will I 
 eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of 
 goats ?'^ Hence David, despairing to obtain the 
 pardon of his heinous offence by accumulating 
 sacrifices, and conscious that they possessed no 
 inherent quality to buy off the divine displeasure, 
 says, " Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I 
 give it thee : thou delightest not in burnt-offer- 
 ings." And who does not at once see, that 
 " the blood of bulls and goats could not take 
 away sin?" and that, however suitable they 
 might be, as emblems to set forth something 
 that had intrinsic value ; and however appropri- 
 ate for the expressing of faith in some means to 
 
184 ANIMAL SACRIFICE TYPICAL [sECT. II. 
 
 be hereafter provided by God, for removing the 
 penalty of transgression, they had nothing in 
 themselves^ with which either nature or reason 
 could invest them^ to make them a proper 
 atonement for moral offences ? They were then^ 
 at the best, a\ hat indeed they are called by the 
 inspired writers, only types and shadows. They 
 were a voice proclaiming the divine mercy to 
 man, and the channel through which it should 
 for a time flow, — but they were no more. 
 They made known the atonement, but they 
 were not the real expiation. They symbo- 
 lized the death which the offender deserved, 
 but the sufferings of animals could not commute 
 the awful penalty. The act of sacrificing them 
 could express the faith of the penitent, that ano- 
 ther voluntary offering might take away the guilt 
 of sin, but it could not make the satisfaction 
 which injured justice demanded. All these 
 things clearly show that sacrifice had an ulterior 
 object, and another victim in view ; and, point- 
 ing, as it did, to this, it was set aside as worth- 
 less when the great Deliverer appeai'ed. 
 
 But we are not left to draw our conclusions 
 merely from the reason of things. We have the 
 more sure word of inspiration to establish them. 
 For— 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 185 
 
 3. The name of the Lamb of God is ex- 
 pressly given to our Lord Jesus Christ, in re- 
 ference to the victim so constantly offered up in 
 sacrifice under the former dispensations. And 
 in this sacrificial character, he is expressly said 
 " to take away the sin of the world." ^ It was^ 
 no doubt^ in reference to this animal^ which was 
 daily sacrificed for the sins of the people^ that 
 the prophet Isaiah^ speaking of the sufferings of 
 Messiah, says of him, " he was brought as 
 a lamb to the slaughter : " ^ and St. Peter makes 
 a similar allusion, when he says, ^^ ye were not 
 redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
 
 gold but icith the precious blood of Christ, 
 
 as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, " 
 This passage seems to have a special relation to 
 the price of redemption annually paid for the 
 life of every Jew, as recorded in the book of 
 Exodus : ^ and the apostle reminds Christians 
 that it cost more to redeem their souls, than the 
 " half shekel of silver," the price of their ransom 
 under the former dispensation, yea, that they 
 were not redeemed at all with silver or gold, 
 but with the precious blood of Christ as of a 
 spotless and perfect lamb. 
 
 9 Joh. i. 29. 1 Is. liii. 7. ~ 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. 
 
 3 XXX. 12 — 14—1(7. 
 
186 AMIMAL SACRIFICE TYPICAL [sECT. U. 
 
 The allusion to the sacrificial lamb is still, if 
 possible, more direct and pointed in the Apo- 
 calypse, where St. John saw the Son of God, as 
 the ^' Lamb siai?i from the foundation of the 
 world,^"^^ — that Being to whom all the lambs slain 
 in sacrifice, since sin first entered into the world, 
 had a typical reference, and from which they 
 derived all their virtue to take away sin. And 
 so universally is this peculiar character of the 
 Saviour, as " the Lamb of God,^' recognised, 
 that he is represented, even in heaven, as sus- 
 taining it, and in it receiving the homage of the 
 unnumbered multitude who surround the throne. 
 '^ The four and twenty elders," says St.' John, 
 " fell down before the Lamb, having every one 
 of them harps and golden vials full of odours — 
 and I heard ten thousand times ten thousand, 
 and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud 
 voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain to re- 
 ceive power and riches, and wisdom and strength, 
 and honour and glory, and blessing."^ 
 
 It is scarcely necessary after this, and espe- 
 cially as the subject will again come before us, 
 to adduce further proof of the reference which 
 the expiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament 
 dispensations had to the Saviour, as bearing the 
 ^ Rev. xiii. 8. ^ Rev. v. 8—13. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 187 
 
 sins of his people upon the cross^ but I will just 
 add— 
 
 4. That the whole system of sacrifices is re- 
 presented in the New Testament as being in- 
 tended to shadow forth the redemption of the 
 world by Jesus Christ. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah had predicted of the 
 Messiah that he should bear our iniquities : '^ It 
 pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put 
 him to grief: when thou shall make his soul an 
 offering for sin, he shall see his seed."^ In this, 
 there is an evident allusion to the sin-offering, 
 so often mentioned in the Levitical law ; and St. 
 Paul takes up the same idea of Christ, when he 
 says, " he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
 knew no sin:'^' an expression which most com- 
 mentators understand to be an evident allusion 
 to the sin-offerings of the previous dispensa- 
 tions.^ But why do we dwell on particular ex- 
 pressions ? St, Paul assures us, that the whole 
 
 6 Isai. liii. 10. 7 2 Cor. v. 2. 
 
 s See Abp. Magee, vol. 2, p. 234—213. '' The siu-offer- 
 ing, the trespass-oft'ering, and the perpetual burnt-offering, 
 were all expiatory of particular or general guilt ; and were 
 all typical of the sacrifice upon the cross." — Bp. Jlorsley on 
 Hosea;, ^iv. 2. 
 
188 ANIMAL SACRIFICE TYPICAL [sECT. II. 
 
 Levitical ritual liad so immediate a reference to 
 our Lord Jesus Christy that he says, " the Law 
 is our schoohnaster to bring us unto Christ;''^ 
 and he writes the principal part of his Epistle to 
 the Hebrews to point out the exact parallel be- 
 tween the type and the antitype. 
 
 We may therefore safely conclude that, as 
 animal sacrifice was originally of divine insti- 
 titution, and under both the Patriarchal and 
 Mosaic dispensations, was strictly expiatory of 
 moral transgressions, and of vicarious import, 
 so also it had a direct reference to the sacrifice 
 of the death of Christ, and derived all its in- 
 trinsic value from the atonement, which was 
 made for the sins of the world, when he suffered 
 on ^' the accursed tree." 
 
 I have now noticed the principal objections 
 which have been brought against the doctrine of 
 the Atonement, as received by those who are 
 usually denominated orthodox Christians. That 
 other difficulties may be raised against it, is only 
 to say that ingenuity never wants means to give 
 a colourable pretext to whatever it undertakes to 
 advocate : and if nothing is to be received as 
 truth, which has not silenced all that error can 
 D Gal. iii. 24. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OP THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 189 
 
 advance against it, the articles of faith will be 
 reduced within very narrow limits indeed. The 
 objections, however, which have;^ been noticed, 
 comprehend, I believe, the substance of all the 
 rest: and if these have been satisfactorily re- 
 moved, none, it is presumed, can create any for- 
 midable difficulty. 
 
 On the subject of animal sacrifice, I have 
 dwelt somewhat at large, both because it has 
 recently excited considerable interest, by the 
 discussion of it, by some able writers; and 
 because it appears to me to have a most 
 important aspect on the doctrine I have under- 
 taken to defend ; for, though the view here taken 
 of it may not be thought, by some, to be essen- 
 tial to the argument of the vicarious and expia- 
 tory sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, especi- 
 ally since many of those who look upon it in a 
 different way, still strenuously advocate the or- 
 thodox doctrine of the Atonement, yet it throws 
 so much light on the whole subject, is so con- 
 stantly alluded to in the New Testament, in 
 many of the passages which are adduced in sup- 
 port of it, and will be so often appealed to in 
 the evidence hereafter to be brought in its vin- 
 dication, that I could not allow myself to proceed, 
 till I had made this ground sure, and removed 
 
190 CONCLUDING REMARKS. [sECT. II. 
 
 such obstructions as were likel}^ to impede the 
 anxious enquirer after trutli. And I trust the 
 candid reader will be convinced, by what has 
 been advanced^ that it may now, not only be le- 
 gitimately brought forward to illustrate the doc- 
 trine of the Atonement, but that it may be safely 
 appealed to, as an important pillar and support 
 of it. 
 
SECTION III. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL EVIDEISCE IN SUPPORT OF THE 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 A Collectio?i of Passages of Scripture^ which are 
 supposed to contain or illustrate the Doctrine 
 of the Atonement, 
 
 Having obviated the various objections which 
 are usually brought against the Doctrine of the 
 Atonement, I will now endeavour to support it 
 by scriptural authorities. It is " to the law and 
 to the testimony" that every thing, in matters of 
 faith and doctrine, must be ultimately referred. 
 In speculation, there may be an endless variety; 
 and when the results of it are cheerfully submitted 
 to the infallible decision of the sacred record, 
 there may be no great evil in it ; but the danger 
 is, of making these speculations the interpreters 
 of the inspired volume; and thus constituting 
 human opinions the arbiters of a book that was 
 
192 GENERAL REMARKS ON [sECT. III. 
 
 written to guide and decide those opinions. Few 
 things have done greater injury to the cause of 
 divine truth, than the framing of religious systems, 
 and then bringing them to the word of God, with 
 the view of supporting them. The consequence 
 has been a distortion and wresting of the holy 
 scriptures to countenance the most fatal errors, 
 and to reduce the revelation of God's will, given 
 to man for the purpose of making him wise unto 
 salvation, to the destructive office of leading him 
 to perdition. I cannot help attributing it to causes 
 of this kind, that the doctrine of the Atonement 
 has fallen into discredit among persons, who still 
 are anxious to retain the name of Christians. 
 The scriptures are so clear and so copious on 
 this doctrine, and place it in so important a light, 
 as being the only foundation of a sinner's hope ; 
 they present it under such a variety of aspects, 
 and lay such a stress on it, as the final result of 
 all God's counsels of mercy to man ; they exhibit 
 it as so wonderfully combining the wisdom and 
 goodness — the justice and mercy — the power and 
 grace of the Divine Being, and the effect of the 
 united offices of the three persons in the Godhead, 
 to save and bless a perishing world, that it would 
 seem almost impossible for a person to cast his 
 eye over the sacred volume, with the least desire 
 to gain a correct knowledge of the nature and 
 
CHAP. I.] SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 193 
 
 importance of this doctrine^ without arriving at 
 the truth, and obtaining a right feeling upon it. 
 And I cannot but hope that the candid reader 
 will be of this opinion, when I have placed before 
 him, in one view, the accumulated evidence which 
 the scriptures afford of the truth of this doctrine, 
 and in the very words of scripture, without note 
 or comment. I will quote them in the consecutive 
 order in which they lie in the Bible^ and as given 
 in our authorized translation.^ 
 
 1 I am quite aware that the correctness of the authorized 
 translation of two or three of these texts has been questioned ; 
 and if the truth of the doctrine of the Atonement rested on these 
 alone, it would be an indispensable duty to go into a minute 
 criticism of them ; but it is not upon one or two passages that 
 the doctrine is founded, nor on the turn which may be given to 
 a few detached expressions ; but upon the broad and prominent 
 and self-evident meaning of almost innumerable passages, 
 expressed in every variety of form, and interwoven in the very 
 texture of the sacred volume. And I mention this, not so much 
 with the view of apologizing for the sparing manner in which 
 I have entered into critical discussions of particular texts, as 
 for satisfying the merely English reader, that this fundamental 
 doctrine does not rest on one or two insulated texts, which 
 might probably admit of another construction, but has its origin 
 in the common-sense meaning of multiplied and undisputed 
 passages of holy writ. The author of this Treatise values 
 legitimate criticism and minute interpretation very highly, and 
 some portion of his time and humble talent has been spent upon 
 them ; but, in a case like the present, he would rather rest his 
 cause on the number and variety of scripture evidence, than on 
 the clearest result of verbal criticism. 
 
194 SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. [SECT. III. 
 
 J believe, then, that Jesus Christ made an 
 atonement for sin, by dying the just for, or in 
 the place of, the unjust, because I find the follow- 
 ing passages in the holy scripture. • 
 
 " 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. — All we like sheep have gone 
 astray, and the Lord hath laid upon him the 
 iniquity of us all. — Thou shalt make his soul an 
 offering for sin. — Messiah shall be cut off, but not 
 for himself. — The Son of man came ... to give 
 his life a ransom for many. — This is my blood of 
 the New Testament, which is shed for many, for 
 the remission of sins. — He took bread and blessed 
 it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and 
 said. Take, eat, this is my body. — O fools and 
 slow of heart, to believe all that the prophets have 
 spoken ! Ought not Christ to have suffered these 
 things . . . and beginning at Moses and all the 
 prophets, he explained unto them in all the scrip- 
 tures the things concerning himself. — Thus it is 
 written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer . . . 
 and that repentance and remission of sins should 
 be preached in his name. — Behold the Lamb of 
 God, which taketh away the sin of the world. — 
 The bread which I give is my flesh, which I will 
 
CHAP, r.] SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 195 
 
 give for the life of the world. — The good shepherd 
 layeth down his life for the sheep. — It is expedient 
 for us that one man should die for the people^ and 
 that the* whole nation perish not : and this spake 
 he not of himself ; but being high-priest that year^ 
 he prophesied that Jesus should die for that na- 
 tion. — Greater love hath no man than this, that a 
 man lay down his life for his friends. — Neither is 
 there salvation in any other; for there is none 
 other name under heaven given among men, 
 whereby we must be saved. — To him give all the 
 prophets witness, that, through his name, who- 
 soever believeth in him shall receive remission of 
 sins. — Through this man is preached unto you the 
 forgiveness of sins ; and by him all that believe 
 are justified from all things, from which they could 
 not be justified by the law of Moses. — Feed the 
 church of God, which he hath purchased with his 
 own blood. — 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 righte- 
 ousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
 through the forbearance of God. — Who was de- 
 livered for our offences. — When we were yet 
 without strength, in due time Christ died for the 
 ungodly. — Scarcely for a righteous man will one 
 die, yet peradventure, for a good man, some 
 
 o2 
 
196 SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. [sECT. III. 
 
 would even dare to die ; but God commendetli 
 his love towards us^ in tliat^ while we were yet 
 sinners^ Christ died for us ; much niore^ then, 
 being now justified by his blood, we shall be 
 saved from wrath through him. 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 : and not only so, 
 but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, by whom we have received the atone- 
 ment. — By the righteousness of one, the free gift 
 came upon all men unto justification of life. — By 
 the obedience of one man, shall many be made 
 righteous. — For what the law could not do, in 
 that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending 
 his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and 
 for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. — He spared 
 not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. — 
 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that 
 died. — We preach Christ crucified. — I determined 
 not to know any thing among you, save Jesus 
 Christ, and him crucified. — Even Christ our Pass- 
 over was sacrificed for us. — Christ died for our 
 sins according to the scripture. - He hath made 
 him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we 
 might be made the righteousness of God in him. — 
 Ye are bought with a price. — God hath reconciled 
 us to himself, through Jesus Christ. — God was in 
 
CHAP, r.] SCRIPTURAI. EVIDENCE. JOT 
 
 Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them. — The love 
 of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, 
 that if one died for all, then w^ere all dead ; and 
 that he died for all, that they which live should 
 not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him 
 that died for them and rose again. — Who gave 
 himself for our sins. — Who loved me, and gave 
 himself for me. — He hath redeemed us from the 
 curse of the law, being made a curse for us. — 
 God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ. — In whom we have re- 
 demption, through his blood, the forgiveness of 
 sins, according to the riches of his grace. — That 
 he might reconcile both unto God, in one body, 
 by the cross. — God, for Christ^s sake, hath for- 
 given you. — Christ also hath loved us, and given 
 himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God 
 for a sweet-smelling savour. — And having made 
 peace through the blood of his cross, by him to 
 reconcile all things to himself — And you that were 
 sometime alienated, hath he reconciled, in the 
 body of his flesh, through death.— God hath not 
 appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us.— 
 Who gave himself a ransom for all. — Who gave 
 himself for us, that he might redeem us from all 
 iniquity.—When he had, by himself, purged our 
 
198 SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. [sECT. III. 
 
 sins^ sat down on the right hand of the Majesty 
 on high. — That he^ by the grace of God, should 
 taste of death for every man. — That he might be 
 a merciful and faithful high-priest ... to make 
 reconciliation for the sins of the people. — Who 
 needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to oifer 
 up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for 
 the people's : for this he did once when he offered 
 up himself. — Neither by the blood of goats and 
 calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once 
 into the holy place, having obtained eternal re- 
 demption for us. — By one offering he hath per- 
 fected for ever them that are sanctified. — Having 
 therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the 
 blood of Jesus. — For this cause, he is the Media- 
 tor of the New Testament, that, by means of 
 death, for the redemption of the transgressions 
 that were under the first testament, they which 
 are called might receive the promise of eternal 
 inheritance. — Now once, in the end 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. — This man, after he had offered one 
 sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right 
 hand of God. — Wherefore Jesus also, that he 
 might sanctify the people with his own blood, 
 suffered without the gate. — Ye were not redeemed 
 with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but 
 
CHAP. I.] SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. 191) 
 
 with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
 without blemish and without spot. — Who his own- 
 self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 
 that we being dead to sin might live to righteous- 
 ness, by whose stripes ye were healed. — Christ 
 also hath once suffered for our sins, the just for 
 the unjust, that he might bring us to God. — 
 Denying the Lord that bought them. — The blood 
 of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanseth us from all 
 sin, — If any man sin, we have an advocate with 
 the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is 
 the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours 
 only, but for the sins of the whole world. — Your 
 sins are forgiven you for his name^s sake. — 
 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 
 he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitia- 
 tion for our sins. — Unto him that loved us and 
 washed us from our sins in his own blood. — In 
 the midst of the throne . . . stood a Lamb as it had 
 been slain.— They fell down before the Lamb, and 
 sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take 
 the book ; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed 
 us to God by thy blood out of every kindred and 
 tongue and people and nation. — Worthy is the 
 Lamb that was slain.— The Lamb slain from the 
 foundation of the world." ~ 
 
 - Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10, 12. Dan. ix. 26. Matt. xx. 28 : xxvi. 
 26, 28. Mark x. 45. Luke xxiv. 25, 26, and 46, 47. John i. 
 
200 REMARKS ON THE SCRIPTURE [sECT. Ill 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 Remarks on the Scripture Evidence of the 
 Doctrine. 
 
 I THOUGHT it best to bring into one view the chief 
 passages of scripture^ which relate to the doctrine 
 of salvation, through the Atonement of Jesus 
 Christ;, that the reader might have before him^ 
 not only the evidence on which the truth of the 
 doctrine rests^ but also the high importance which 
 is attached to it : and having done this^ I will now 
 proceed to make a few remarks on the relation 
 they bear to the Atonement. And the first point 
 to which I would call the attention of the reader is 
 
 2:) ; vi. 51 ; X. 11 ; xi. 49—51 ; xv. 12, 13. Actsiv. 12; x.43 
 xiii. 38, 39 ; xx. 28, 38. Rom. iii. 24, 25 ; iv. 25 ; v. 6—11 
 18, 19 ; viii. 3, 32, 34. 1 Cor. i. 23 ; ii. 2 ; v. 7 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 23 
 XV. 3. 2 Cor. V. 14, 15, 18, 19, 21. Gal. i. 4; ii. 20 ; iii. 13 
 vi. 14. Eph. i. 7; ii. 16; iv. 32; v. 2. Col. i. 14, 20, 22 
 1 Thes. V. 9, 10. 1 Tim. ii. 6. Tit. ii. 14. Heb. i. 3; ii. 9, 17 
 vii. 27; ix- 12—1.5, 26, 28 ; x. 12; xiii. 12. 1 Pet.i. 18, 19 
 ii. 24; iii. 18. 2 Pet. ii. 1. 1 John i. 7 ; ii. 1, 2, 12. Rev. i. 5 
 V. 6, 8, 9, 12, 13; xiii. 6. 
 
CHAP. II.] EVIDENCE OF THE DOCTRINE. 201 
 
 1. The body of evidence tvhick they afford to 
 the doctrine. I readily grant that they do not 
 all bear an equally strong and direct testimony to 
 its truth : but I shall have no difficulty in showing 
 that they all have some relation to it : and as, in 
 cases of a civil or criminal nature which are 
 brought before courts of law, incidental and col- 
 lateral evidence is often considered of the most 
 convincing and satisfactory nature, because it 
 grows out of facts and admits of no collusion, so 
 it is in the subject before us. Many of the just 
 recited passages, being written without any ap- 
 parent design of supporting the atonement, and 
 yet implying it, plainly show that it was a doc- 
 trine well settled in the mind of the writers, and 
 that it is incidentally alluded to, or interwoven in 
 the subject, as a truth fully established and uni- 
 versally believed. 
 
 Let it then be remarked, that the truth of this 
 doctrine does not rest on one or two insulated 
 passages of holy scripture, but on such a body of 
 accumulated evidence as can scarcely be brought 
 in support of any other revealed truth. If no 
 Christian would feel it respectful to the Divine 
 Author of the sacred volume to doubt the truth 
 of any doctrine clearly revealed, though it were 
 supported by only one or two texts of scripture ; 
 
202 REMARKS ON THE SCRIPTURE [SECT. III. 
 
 surely no one will hesitate to receive a doctrine 
 which is confirmed by such numerous and inde- 
 pendent passages as those just recited; passages, 
 deduced from the Old Testament and the New, 
 from each of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 
 almost every Epistle, and the Revelation of St. 
 John : issuing from the lips of prophets, apostles, 
 and the Son of God : and selected from subjects, 
 some of which are directly on the doctrine; others, 
 clearly implying it; and not a few, proceeding 
 upon it, as the foundation of all that is valuable 
 to us in possession, or vast and everlasting in 
 hope. 
 
 But strong as this evidence is in the number 
 of its witnesses, it will receive still further con- 
 firmation by a consideration of 
 
 2. The various ways in which they give their 
 testimony to the truth of this doctrine. Though 
 the point upon which they bear is uniformly the 
 same, yet the modes in which they express them- 
 selves are greatly diversified. I will class them 
 under several distinct heads ; and advert to those 
 passages 
 
 (1.) Which represent pardon and reconcilia- 
 tion as flowincj from our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 
CHAP. Jl.] EVIDENCE OF THE DOCTRINE. 203 
 
 firsts indeed, without any immediate reference to 
 his death ; but still in such a way as to show that 
 they would not have been granted, but out of re- 
 gard, in some way or other, to him. " To him," 
 it is stated, " give all the prophets witness, that, 
 through his name^ whosoever believeth in him, 
 should receive remission of their sins.^ Be it 
 known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, 
 that, through his najne, is preached unto you 
 forgiveness of sins.* Through faith in his blood, 
 to declare his righteousness for the remission of 
 sins that are past.^ God, for Christ's sake, hath 
 forgiven you.^ Your siiis are forgiven you for 
 his name's sake? Who hath reconciled us to 
 himself, through Jesus Christ?" God ivas in 
 Christy reconciling the world unto himself.'-^ By 
 him, to reconcile all things to himself^ That he 
 might be a ?nerciful andfaithfid high-priest — to 
 make reconciliation for the sins of the people."" 
 
 In these passages we clearly perceive that the 
 blessings of pardon and reconciliation with God 
 are inseparably connected, by some means or 
 other, with our Lord Jesus Christ : and we shall 
 find by others, which I shall now adduce, that the 
 
 3 Acts X. 43. ^ Acts xiii. .38. ^ Rom. iii. 25. 
 
 6Eph.iv. 32. 7 1 John ii. 12. ^ 2 Cor. v. 18. 9 Ibid. v. 19. 
 
 1 Col. i. 20. ' Heb. ii. 17. 
 
204 SCHIPTLRE EVIDENCE [sECT. 111. 
 
 connecting link is his death. And this fact may 
 serve to ilhistrate the genera? truths that when 
 benefits are said to be conferred upon nian^ 
 through Jesus Christ, it is in reference to his suf- 
 ferings and death upon the cross. It is througli 
 this channel alone that God communicates with 
 man; and this fact being once understood, it was 
 unnecessary that it should, in every case, be 
 directly stated. Such allusions as are just men- 
 tioned will be sufficient to call forth the customary 
 association of thought. The texts are such as 
 follow. " When we were enemies, we were re- 
 conciled to God by the death of his Son.^ In 
 whom we have redemption through his bloody the 
 forgiveness of sins.* That he might reconcile 
 both in one body by the cross.^ Having made 
 peace through the blood of his cross ^ by him to 
 reconcile all things unto himself."^ 
 
 The plain and only conclusion which can be 
 drawn from such passages as these is, that the 
 death of our Lord Jesus Christ is an indispensable 
 consideration and condition in the remission of 
 sins, and reconciliation with himself I will next 
 adduce a few passages in which we shall find. 
 
 Rom. V. 10. t Eph. i. 7 ; also Col. i. 14. 
 
 ^Eph. ii. 16. 6 Col. i. 21,22. 
 
CHAP. II.] OF THE DOCTRINE. 205 
 
 (2.) That SALVATION is ascribed to him alone. 
 The numerous texts^ indeed, in which he is deno- 
 minated the Saviour^ plainly imply that deliver- 
 ance from the penal consequences of sin is to be 
 ascribed to him alone. His very name designates 
 that this was to be the prominent part of his cha- 
 racter, and the great object for which he should 
 be sent into the world. The angel, therefore, 
 who foretold his birth, gave directions that they 
 should " call his name JesuSy for he shall save his 
 people from their sins."' And, corresponding 
 with his name, it is declared " neither is there 
 salvation in any other; for there is 7ione other 
 name under heaven given among inen whereby 
 we must be saved.^' We shall be saved from 
 wrath through himr He became the author of 
 eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.^ 
 God hath appointed us to obtain salvation by 
 our Lord Jesus Christy who hath died for us,^^- 
 And this last passage leads me again to connect 
 the more ^^/2^ra/ expressions of salvation through 
 Christ, with the more inmiediate meajis by which 
 it is obtained, that is, his death -upon the cross ; 
 and the same conclusion will again follow, that 
 this death was an indispensable condition and 
 
 7 Matt. i. 21. « Acts iv. \% '-^ Rom. v. 9. 
 
 ^ Heb. V. 9. 2 1 Thess. v. 9, 10. 
 
206 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 consideration to the attainment of this deliverance 
 from the fearful consequences of sin. 
 
 But I proceed a step further, and call attention 
 to those texts which speak of 
 
 (3.) The death of Christ as the price of 
 OUR ransom and redemption. " The Son of man 
 came to give his life a ransom for many.^ Who 
 gave hhnselfa ransotn for all.* Who gave him- 
 self for us, that he might redeem us from all 
 iniquity.^ Feed the church of God, v^hich he 
 purchased with his blood !' BeiJiA*. .tified freely 
 by the redemption that is^ 'iiJiohv)?,'ifjesusJ 
 Christ hath redeemed us fr^/' j^f^l-mh^idiiBiia 
 law, being made a curse fonkc^c.- t aare^Jar-*' ^<^ 
 imth a price. ^ In whom we have r : „mptioL 
 through his blood} By his own bh 4^....j^i)^''''^d 
 in once into the holy place, having obtaiDP^^v'^!;QKnal 
 redemption for us.^ By means of death ibv the 
 redeinption of the transgressions ihat were under 
 the first testament.'^ Ye were not redeaned with 
 corruptible things — but with the precious blood 
 of Christ} Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed 
 us to God by thy blood P^ 
 
 ^ Matt. XX. 28 ; also Mark x. 45. * i Tim. ii. 6. 
 
 5 Tit. ii. 16. 6 Acts XX. 28. 7 Rom. iii. 24. « Gal. iii. 1 3. 
 
 9 1 Cor. vi. 20. 1 Eph. i. 7 ; also Col. i. 14. "~ Heb. ix. 12. 
 
 ^ Heb. ix. 1.5. * 1 Pet. i. 18. •' Rev. v. 9. 
 
CHAP. II.] OF THE DOCTRINE. 207 
 
 There coulcl^ one should suppose, be but one 
 conclusion drawn from these passages of scrip- 
 ture. The custom of offering a ransom for a 
 captive, and paying a price to redeem what had 
 been forfeited or lost, is of such common occur- 
 rence, that it would be equally absurd to produce 
 instances of it, or to state that the sum paid was 
 considered an equivalent for the benefit obtained. 
 But the specific price of ransom and redemption, 
 of which such frequent mention, as we have seen, 
 is made in the New Testament, it is of the utmost 
 importance.jijDirt»6tice. It was the blood, the life, 
 i^l'=' p<^r«o^ of duf lord Jesus Christ. To ransom 
 S\i\iMtt W \a\(k ao^ his own life : to redeem the 
 lost "^ie ^hed h\s own blood: to restore the ac- 
 cursed He sustained on the cross their curse, 
 Homi,f|\eh^- we have the benefit and the price 
 putd fh^it most distinctly stated ; man' s redemp- 
 tion,'Sind Christ's .deaths as the purchase of it. 
 His ransom^ alld Christ's blood, as the price of it. 
 Would it not then be in the highest degree ab- 
 surd to deny that the death of the Son of God is 
 the condition and consideration for which man 
 obtains the inestimable benefit of life and salva- 
 tion ? And if this be the case, the doctrine of 
 the Atonement is satisfactorily proved. We are 
 saved by the death of Christ ; and not in virtue 
 of our own repentance, nor by the unconditional 
 
208 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 exercise of divine grace and mercy. Let us^ how- 
 ever^ view the subject in another light, and notice 
 those passages of scripture which represent our 
 Lord Jesus Christ as 
 
 (4.) Suffering for our sins. This will bring 
 the evidence still more home to the subject. It 
 will show, not only the benefit we receive from 
 his death, but also the specific and definite cause 
 of his sufferings ; and prove that they were ex- 
 clusively and entirely penal and vicarious. It is 
 stated, that " he was wounded for our transgres- 
 sions^ he was bruised for our iniquities: the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon him, and 
 with his stripes ive are healed — The Lord hath 
 laid upon him the ifiiquity of us all. *^ The Son 
 of man came to give his life u vdin^om for many J 
 Who gave himself di ransom for all^ He was 
 delivered for our offences.^ Christ died for the 
 ungodly ^ While we were yet sinners, Christ 
 died for us. When we were enemies we were 
 reconciled to God by the death of his Son." He 
 spared not his own Son, but delivered him up 
 for us alW Christ died for our sins,"^ Who gave 
 himself for our sinsJ" Who his own self hare 
 
 6 Is. liii. 5, 6. 7 Matt. xx. 28. « 1 Tim. ii. 6. 
 9 Rom. iv. 25. i Rom. v. 6. 2 Rom. v. 8, 10. 3 Rom,viii. 32. 
 4 1 Cor. XV. 3. 5 Gal. i. 4. 
 
CHAP. II.] OF THE DOCTRINE. 209 
 
 our sins in his own body on the tree — by whose 
 stripes ye were healed.^ Christ also hath once 
 suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust, ^^"^ 
 
 In order to form a just conception of passages 
 like these^ it is necessary to have a correct idea 
 of the way in which God regards sin. It is much 
 the custom of those^ who entertain the notion that 
 nothing is wanted for its remission but the re- 
 pentance of the offender, to represent transgres- 
 sion as incapable of provoking the wrath of 
 Almighty God, and to consider it as utterly un- 
 deserving of the punishment of everlasting death. 
 And I apprehend that the desire of removing 
 such an imputation lies at the root of their efforts 
 to set aside the doctrine of the Atonement. We 
 shall, however, find nothing in scripture to coun- 
 tenance this notion of the venial nature of sin. 
 On the contrary, this book assures us that " the 
 wrath of God is revealed from heaven against 
 all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men f"^^ — 
 that " if we sin wilfully— there remaineth no more 
 SACRIFICE FOR SINS ; but a certain fearful look- 
 ing FOR of judgment AND FIERY INDIGNATION 
 WHICH SHALL DEVOUR THE ADVERSARIES — for We 
 
 know him that hath said. Vengeance helongeth 
 
 6 1 Pet. ii. 24. 7 i Pet. iii. 18. » Rom. i. 18. 
 
 P 
 
210 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [sECT. III. 
 
 unto me, I will recompense, saith 'the Lord — 
 It is A FEARFUL THING to fall iiito the hands of 
 the living God." ^ " See then that ye refuse not 
 him that speaketh ; for if they escaped not, who 
 refused him that spake on earth, much more shall 
 not we escape, if we turn away from him that 
 speaketh from heaven — for our God is a con- 
 suming FIRE." ^ " Depart from me ye cursed 
 into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil 
 and his angels — and these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment."- These, and many 
 similar passages, plainly show that sin is a much 
 greater evil, and will incur a much severer punish- 
 ment than many are wont to imagine ; moreover, 
 that it is not doing an injustice to God to suppose 
 that he looks upon it with wrath and indignation. 
 
 There is nothing, then, in the character or 
 veniality of sin, which can induce a reasonable 
 suspicion that it is made of too much importance, 
 when we represent extraordinary means as being 
 necessary to avert its consequences, and to recon- 
 cile a just and holy God to the offender. The 
 language of scripture, we see, fully bears us out 
 in this view of it \ and if it shall appear, from the 
 
 9Heb. X. 26, 27, 30, 3]. 
 1 Heb.xii. 25, 29. 2 Matt. xxv. 41, 4G. 
 
CHAP. II.] CONTINUED. 211 
 
 same scriptures^ that nothing less than the death 
 of the Son of God could avail to this purpose, 
 there will be no need to have recourse to meta- 
 phor and allusion to account for these statements^ 
 because there is enough, in the nature of the 
 case, to justify a literal and exact construction 
 of them. 
 
 I would also remark, that the sufferings and 
 death of Christ, mentioned in the passages cited 
 above, whether in reference to sin or to trans- 
 gressors, are evidently to be understood in the 
 same sense. If he died for sin, it was to remove 
 its penal consequences ; if he died for sinners, it 
 was to exempt them from punishment; and, in 
 both cases, he may be strictly said to die '' the 
 just, for the unjust;" and the texts may be cited 
 as synonymous and convertible.^ 
 
 ^ From the same mode of expression being' used in reference 
 both to sin and sinners, in one or two of the above cited pas- 
 sages^ Socinians would persuade us that the Greek prepositions 
 virep and irepl are not to be understood as signifying for, in 
 the sense of, in the place or stead, but for, in the sense of, 
 on account of, that is, for the benefit of But this construction 
 of the prepositions does not at all remove the difficulty, if there 
 be any ; for it is not less absurd to speak of dying for the 
 benefit of our offences , than in stead of them. The fact is, that 
 
 p2 
 
^12 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [sECT. III. 
 
 Having premised these particulars^ I may now 
 observe that, in the texts referred to, the only 
 conclusion that can fairly be drawn from them is, 
 that Christ suffered in the place and stead of 
 sinnerSy so as, l)y his death, to avert their 
 punishrnent : or, in other words, that his death 
 is such a consideration and condition in the 
 remission of the penalty of sin, that, icithotit it, 
 that penalty ivould have taken its due course, 
 and have been fully inflicted on the offender. 
 
 This is the conclusion to which the passages 
 above quoted would naturally lead any indif- 
 ferent reader. He could draw no other inference, 
 unless previously admonished that another con- 
 struction of them was possible, because he would 
 find the same thing repeated in such a variety of 
 ways, and all in such plain and perspicuous lan- 
 guage, that his mind could only be drawn to one 
 point — to one grand truth — the doctrine we are 
 
 it is in reference to the fenalbj of transgression that the death 
 of Christ takes place ; and it is the same thing, in regard to 
 this, whether he be said to die for the sins, which incur that 
 penalty, or the sinner, who is to sutferit. Hence Valckenarius, 
 on 1 Cor. XV. 3. says, " Christus dicitur mortem subiisse vVep 
 Ttov dfiapTiojy v/.twv, vel simpliciter vnep T^fiQy. He died for 
 onr sins, or simply, he died for 7is.^^ p. 324. 
 
CHAP. II.] CONTINUED. 213 
 
 maintaining — that Christ died for sinners in order 
 to relieve them from its penalty ; — that he was 
 wounded for their transgressions ; — that he bore 
 the chastisement due to them ; — that he suffered 
 for their ^ins; — that he^ who was "just/' died in 
 the place and stead of those who were '' unjust;" — 
 and that if he had not undertaken to reconcile 
 sinners to their offended judge^ they must have 
 suffered the penalty of transgression^ as the ene- 
 mies of God;— and he would be convinced that 
 the plain and obvious doctrine of the whole is, 
 that the sufferings which Christ endured on the 
 cross, were such a consideration and condition in 
 the pardoning of sin, that the latter could not 
 have taken place, if the former had not been 
 undergone. 
 
 I may further add, that, what would be inferred 
 from the natural interpretation of the passages, 
 is confirmed by the jicst and grammatical con- 
 struction of them. 
 
 On the first of the texts above cited, in con- 
 nexion with its context, in the fifty-third of Isaiah, 
 it has been shown by Archbishop Magee, with a 
 depth of research, and patience of investigation, 
 as well as with a force of argument, and clearness 
 of evidence which have seldom been equalled. 
 
214 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 '^ 1. That neither the expressions used by Isaiah 
 in the fourth verse/ nor the application made of 
 them by St. Matthew^ "" are in any degree incon- 
 sistent with the acceptation of the phrase hearing 
 sins, here employed by the prophet, in the sense 
 of sustaining, or undergoing the burden of them, 
 by siiffering for them : 2. That the use of the 
 expression in other parts of the Old Testament^ 
 so far from opposing, justifies and confirms this 
 acceptation : and, 3. That the minute description 
 of the sufferings of Christy their cause and their 
 effects, which here accompanies this phrase, not 
 only establishes this interpretation, but fully un- 
 folds the whole nature of the Christian atonement^ 
 by showing that Christ has suffered, in our place, 
 what was due to our transgressions; and that by, 
 and in virtue of his sufferings, our reconciliation 
 with God has been effected."^' 
 
 ■* " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ; 
 yet we did esteem him stricken of God, and afflicted." 
 
 5 Matt. viii. 17. " That it might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our in- 
 firmities, and bare our sicknesses." 
 
 ^ See Dissertations on the Atonement, vol. i. p. 463. See 
 the whole disquisition, extending from page 399 to 482. As the 
 Archbishop has left nothing to be added to his elaborate com- 
 ment, and as it would be difficult to abridge, and unsuitable to 
 this Treatise to quote tlie whole of it, I must refer my readers 
 to the work itself for full satisfaction on this important passage. 
 
CHAP, fl.] CONTINUED. 215 
 
 With regard to the passages cited from the 
 New Testament, I would observe, that in all of 
 them, the natural is the true and real construction. 
 Both the common use of the prepositions avri, 
 {jTrap, ^la, and TTEpi, here used, (with the exception 
 perhaps of Sia, which occurs only once,) and the 
 subject with which they stand connected, convey 
 and require the meaning of vicarious substitution. 
 I believe the preposition avA admits of no other 
 sense than that of equivalence or substitution, 
 except by way of accommodation ; and even then, 
 it so far retains its original meaning, as to carry 
 it, by implication, into its more remote significa- 
 tions. In the Septuagint, it is continually, if not 
 universally, used in its appropriate sense. Take 
 an instance or two. " God hath appointed me an- 
 other seed, instead,^^ or in the place, "of Abel." ^ 
 " Wherefore have ye returned evil /or," or in the 
 place of, " good ?"^ " Joseph gave them bread in 
 exchange for,"^^ or as an equivalent for, " horses 
 and for the flocks, &c."9 " There Aaron died — 
 and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest^s office 
 in his steadP ^ To these passages from the Se[)- 
 
 7 ^irepfxa erepov clvrVApeX. Gen. iv. 25. 
 s JJovrjpci (xvtI fcaXwj/. Gen. xliv. 4. 
 9 "Aprovg dvrl t(jju ittttwi'. k. t. X. xlvii. 17. 
 1 Kal lepdrevaev 'EXea^ap vloq cIvtov dvr dvrov. Deut. X. 6. 
 See also Gen. ii. 21 ; ix. 6; xxii. 18; xxx. 2; xxxvi. 33. 
 
216 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 tiiagint^ I will add one or two from the New 
 Testament^, where the same idea is fully conveyed. 
 " Archelaus reigned in Judaea in the room of his 
 father Herod."" ^' If he ask a fish^ will he for 
 (or in the stead of) a fish, give him a serpent ?" ^ 
 " Ye have heard that it hath been said. An eye 
 for an eye, and a tooth /or a tooth." ^ " Recom- 
 pense to no man evil /or evil,"^' or one bad action 
 in the stead of another. In all these passages 
 the idea of substitution or equivalence, or com- 
 mutation, is associated with the use of the pre- 
 position, and no other can possibly be attached 
 to it. The same use of it is constantly found in 
 classic writers, as may be seen by consulting the 
 passages placed at the foot of the page.^' When, 
 
 ' dvrl 'Hp(odod. Matt. ii. 22. 
 
 3 fxy] dvTi IxQvoq o(j)iy eTri^ujaei clvtw. Luke xi. 11. 
 * 0(f)dakn6y civTi 6(j)daX]jiov, Kai voovTa avrl o^ovtoq. Matt. 
 V. 38. 
 
 ^ Mr]cev\ KUKov uvtI kukov aVo^iooVrec. Rom. xii. 17. 
 Kat dvToi re uyrl noXejiov eiprjvriv e\w/^eOa, nai TOiq uWoic; 
 "EWrjaiy dva-rravaiv Katcibv TrocTjcrwiJiev. And let us both ourselves 
 choose peace instead of war, and also, &c. Thucid. Hist. lib. 
 iv. § 20. 'AvTi ce rijjfjQ kuI ^o^tjq, diria /xdWuv. But instead 
 o/ honour and glory, blame would rather be incurred. Thucid. 
 lib. iv. § 86. 
 
 7] dpa ^rj TL €L(XKOfJi€.v a^iov eivat 
 
 Tjoeic evoq dvTi '7r€(f>ctadai. — Horn. 11. xiii. 446, 447, 
 " Three warriors slain for one^ 
 
CHAP. II. j CONTINUED. 217 
 
 therefore^ we find it said, as it is by our Lord 
 himself, both in the gospel of St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark, that " the Son of man came — to give 
 his life a ransom for^ many/' {^ovvai rrw -^vyjiv 
 cwTov XvTpov avTL TToWCov) cw[i m\j Teasouable doubt 
 be entertained that we are to understand, that our 
 Lord laid down his life in the place and stead of 
 his people." 
 
 "Ev av^' kvoq. One for one. Plato de Leg. 4. 
 "AWoy Tiva (piXov dvrl /3acrt\ewc s^reiv. Xeii. Hel. 7- 
 
 a'sta de juoi 
 
 Tijurjq, eVet reQvrjKev dvr efj.ov fxovrj. 
 
 "Since she alone hath died for me." 
 
 Eurip. Alcest. 445, 446. 
 
 Oi^' dvrl aov ye Kardavelv vipeiixevqv . Ibid. 540. 
 AW 6v (TV veKpov diTi crov rovK eK(f)€peiQ ; lb. 732. 
 
 And these last examples are deserving of the greater attention* 
 because they are exactly similar to that in the gospel. Alcestis 
 underwent death in the place of her husband Admetus, and 
 thus paid her own life as the ransom of his. The only condi- 
 tion on which his life could be spared was that some one should 
 die in his place and stead ; and when no other could be found, 
 the love of Alcestis was stronger than death, and she heroically 
 sacrificed her own life to redeem her husband from death. 
 Who, that recollects this affecting story, can for a moment 
 question the infinitely greater love of the Son of God, or doubt 
 that he offered up his life as a ransom for sinners, as this 
 generous woman did hers for the ransom of Admetus ? 
 
218 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. 111. 
 
 But this conclusion^ to vvhicli we are neces- 
 sarily brought by the meaning and constant use 
 of the preposition avA (for), is rendered abso- 
 lutely certain by the subject with which it is con- 
 nected. Our Lord states^ that it was his errand, 
 in coming into the world, to give his life as a 
 7^anso7n, or price of redetiiption (XvTpovy redemp- 
 tionis pretium) for many : but what idea can we 
 attach to a price paid as a ransom for any one, 
 but that of an equivalent ? And if that price 
 were " neither silver nor gold," but " the precious 
 blood of Christ," — if it were the life of the Son of 
 God, — who can hesitate in believing that this was 
 substituted and accepted as an equivalent for 
 the forfeited life of transgressors? The very 
 lowest idea that can be attached to the passage 
 is, that the death of Christ was the condition and 
 consideration on which alone the sinner could 
 be restored to life and liberty. And, if this be 
 true, we have incontrovertibly established the 
 doctrine of the Atonement. 
 
 Having established, from the preceding com- 
 ment on our Lord's offering his life a ransom for 
 many, the doctrine that his life was laid down in 
 the place and stead of transgressors, there will 
 be no difficulty in coming to the same conclusion, 
 from each of the other passages which are placed 
 
CHAP. II.] CONTINUED. 219 
 
 at the head of this division of the subject. When 
 we read that ^' Christ died for the tmgodly ;" — 
 that ^'^ whilst we were yet sinners, Christ died 
 for us ;" — that " when we were enemies, we were 
 reconciled to God by the death of his So7if 
 that he was ^' delivered up for us all f' that 
 " he died for our sins ;" that he ^^ bare our sins 
 in his own body on the tree f that '^ he suffered 
 for our sins^ the just for the unjust ;'^ — we are 
 irresistibly led to conclude that he died in the 
 place and stead of sinners; and that his death is 
 the indispensable condition and consideration on 
 which offenders are exempted from the penalty 
 of sin. The passages, in their natural and ob- 
 vious interpretation, can mean nothing less. 
 
 But a more minute examination of these texts 
 will render it impossible to entertain a reason- 
 able doubt of the correctness of this conclusion. 
 The prepositions virlp and Trtpt, which are those 
 only that are used in these passages, have gene- 
 rally the signification which has been affixed to 
 avTi) and it will be found that they are often 
 used as synonymous and convertible. When, 
 for instance, we find our Lord saying, " that the 
 Son of man came — to give his life a ransom /or 
 (avTi) many,'' who can doubt that St. Paul had 
 this very passage in his mind, when, speaking of 
 
220 SCRTPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 the same Saviour, he said, " who gave himself 
 
 a ranSO?tl for {virlp) all?^^ {avTiXvTpovvnlp wavrMvy 
 
 and if, as we have seen is the case, the former 
 preposition can admit only the sense of substitu- 
 tion, we are equally certain that the latter in this 
 text, is to be taken in the same way ; and hence 
 bofk passages are direct and positive evidence of 
 the vicarious character of our Lord^s death. *^ 
 
 Now, having established this meaning of virip, 
 
 7 1 Tim. ii. 6. 
 
 ^ 'Hie same convertible use of the jjrepositions cIvtI and 
 vTrejO is found in the Alcestis of Euripides, in reference to her 
 dying for her husband. Instances of the use of dvrl have al- 
 ready been given (pp. 216, 217.) The following show that 
 virep has the same signification. 
 
 M.rj Ovija^ vTrip rov^' dvSpoQ, ovd' eyu) ttjoo (tov, v. 706. 
 
 ^0(f>(t}g S' €(f)€vp€Q, wore ixrj Qavelv Trore, 
 
 'Et T-qv irapovffav KaTdai'eiv Treiaciq dei 
 
 Yvyut')(^ virep aov. W. 715 — 7 J 7. 
 
 'Ejuol c ovei^OQ pi) Qavelv vTrep tckpov. 
 
 Eurip. Androm. v. 411. 
 
 In these instances, no doubt was ever entertained that the 
 death of Alcestis was substituted for that of Admetus. It 
 was vicarious, and the indispensable condition on which her 
 husband could be exempted from dying. What sound reason 
 then can be assigned for not ascribing the same vicarious im- 
 port to the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is again and 
 again, as we have seen, represented in the same way, and in 
 the same language as that before us? 
 
CITAP. II.] CONTINUED. *^^1 
 
 when standing in connexion with the death ot 
 Christ as a rcmsom for sinners, we may safely 
 apply it to the rest of the cases, where it relates 
 to his suffering on the cross, though not immedi- 
 ately associated with the idea of the price of re- 
 demption. It can have no other import than 
 that he suffered in the place and stead of trans- 
 gressors, and that this was the indispensable 
 co7idition of their exemption from the penalty of 
 
 sm, 
 
 9 I cannot dismiss this topic without quoting a passage from 
 St. Clement, one of the apostolical fathers, to show in wliat 
 sense he understood the expression of Clirist ♦' giving himself 
 FOR MS." In reference to Gal. i. 4, he says, Aici r^V dyaizriv 
 rjv effxev Trpoc rif^dq, to aifia uvrod edtvKey vrrep v/zwv 'hjcrodq 
 XpicT-dg 6 Kvptoc 7i//wr, iv deXrifiarc Oeov, Kal r^y frapm 
 VTrep rr/c crapKdc VfiQy, Kal rrjy 4^vx^y vrrip ribv ^f^vx^v t^^cJv. 
 Pair. Apost. vol. i. pp. 189, 190. On account of the love 
 which he bore towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord, according to 
 the will of God, gave his blood for us; his flesh for our 
 FLESH, AND HIS SOUL FOR OUR SOULS. St. Ignatius also, ano- 
 ther of the apostolic fathers, speaking of Christ, says, Aovg 
 Uvrdv Mp vi^^y ^vrpoy, He gave himself for us, as the price 
 of redemption. Ignat. ad Trallenses. 
 
 In reference to 2 Cor. v. 21, Eusebius has Tdv fx^ yv6vTa 
 ^ifiapriav 6 OeoQ virep l]ii(^v dp-apTiav eVon/ffer, dprixPvxoy vTrep 
 TrdyrioyrifxC^yTrpoefxeyogdvTdv. Demonstrat. Evang. lib. x. God 
 made him to be sin for ns who knew not sin, when he gave him, 
 ^ as a ransom, {duTi^l.vxov life for life) for its all. And again 
 he speaks of Christ as having been made dvTiy^vxov rj^iiy fcai 
 
222 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [sECT. 111. 
 
 If, therefore^ we had no further scriptural au- 
 thority than the texts referred to in this divi- 
 
 dvTiXvTpov. TJicodoret, in explaining 1 TLni. ii. 6. says, Zlov 
 -i Xvrpov eavTov SecioKe, He gave himself as it ivere a certain 
 price of redemption. 
 
 Rnphelius on Rom. v. 8, thus comments : 'Y-^ep ri^idv aVe- 
 dave, id est, dvAy loco, vice nos-tra mortims est;, ut nos mortis 
 pcena liberaremur. Vicar iam enim mortem Jioc locjiiendi ge- 
 nere Grceci declarant. Neque Socinianis^ qui secus interpre- 
 tantur, quenquam ex Graecis credo assensorem esse. Nostrae 
 seiitentise Xenoplion adstipulatur. Nam cum Seuthes puerum 
 formosum bello captum occidere vellet, Episthenes autem, 
 puerorum amator, se pro iliius morte deprecatorem praeberet, 
 rogat Seuthes Episthenem : 'H kcu iOeXoig dv, w 'ETriaOevec, 
 'YnEP TOYTOY AllOeANEIN ; Vellesne, mi Episthenes, pro 
 HOC MORI? Cumque is nihil dubitaret pro pueri vita cervicem 
 prsebere, Seuthes vicissim puerum interrogate, ei iraiaeiev dvTov 
 ANTI eKetvov; numhwic feriri fro seveij1.et? DeExped. Cyri. 
 
 &c. Et Hist. Grsec. &c. Upoenrojv oe 6 'AyecnXdoi:, orrriQ 
 
 irapexoiTO iTnruv kclI oirXa A.at dvSpd CoKipov, on €t,e(TTt uvtm 
 ptj arpareveadai, iTz6tr]Gev uvtoj rdvra (TvvT6fji.u)Q TtpdrTeadai, 
 wairep dv tiq tov 'YHEP AYTOY AnOGANOYMENON TrpoQv- 
 pu)Q ^rjToir). Qimmqne Agesilaiis de nunc iasset fore, nt, cjincim- 
 cjue daret equum et arma et peritnm hominem, immnnis esset a 
 militia : effecit, id Jicec non aliter magna celeritate facerent, 
 atqiie si quis alacriter aliqnem suo loco moriturum quaereret. 
 De Venat. pag. 768. 'AvrtXoxoc roi) irarpoq 'YHEPAIIO- 
 GANftN;, Toadvrrjq eTV)(ev evKXeiaq, (oare pdrog (f)iXo7rdT(i}p napd 
 toIq 'EXXrjcnv dyayupevdrjvai. Antilochus PRO PATRE morti 
 sese objiciens, tantiim glorice consecidiis est, ut soliis apud 
 Grcecos amans pcdris appelletur. — Et quid opus est aliis exem- 
 plis ? cum luculentissimum sit, Joh. xi. .50, ubi mortuus dicitur 
 
CHAP. II.] CONTINUED. 223 
 
 sion of the subject, for maintaining that Christ 
 died in the place and stead of sinners, I see not 
 how this authority could be respected, without 
 receiving the doctrine of the vicarious death of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. But we have much 
 more to advance in support of this important 
 truth; and I will next adduce those passages of 
 scripture in which our Lord is spoken of, in re- 
 ference 
 
 (5.) To the Patriarchal a7id Jeivish Sacri- 
 fices, It has, I trust, been fully established that 
 sacrifice was of divine institution, of an expia- 
 tory and vicarious power, and was typical of the 
 sacrifice which the Messiah was to offer for the 
 sins of the world. I may, therefore, now as- 
 sume these qualities of sacrifices; and I have 
 only to show that, in point of fact, Jesus Christ 
 actually and designedly fulfilled all that was pre- 
 figured of him, under the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation. If this point be made out, it will 
 necessarily follow, that he made a vicarious 
 atonement for the sins of mankind, and that 
 this is the consideration and condition to which 
 regard is always had in the pardoning of sin. 
 
 Salvator virep rov Xaov. Quod quale sit, mox exponitur, Ivd 
 fxr} oXov TO edvog aTroXTyrat." Rapkelii, Annot. torn. ii. pp. 253, 
 •254. 
 
224 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 Let it tlieii be remarked^ that numerous pasages 
 of the New Testament speak of Jesus Cln-ist in 
 every variety of sacrificial terms. In some of 
 them — 
 
 [1. He is either expressly called a sacrifice, 
 or said to have been offered up as a sacrifice. 
 The texts of this description are the following: 
 '^ Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. ' He 
 hath given himself for us, an offering and a sa- 
 crifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour.'^ 
 Who needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice — for 
 this he once did, when he offered up himself. ^ 
 Now once, in the end of the world, hath he ap- 
 peared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of him- 
 self.^ This man — once offered one sacrifice for 
 
 We have seen that the force of passages like 
 these is attempted to be evaded, by assigning to 
 them a figurative meaning; and alleging that 
 Christians themselves are often represented as 
 offering themselves as sacrifices to God. But, 
 in addition to what has been said in a former 
 part of this treatise, in answer to this objection, 
 it may be replied, that figurative language has 
 
 1 1 Cor V. 7. 2 Eph. V. 2. ^ Heb. vii. 7. 
 
 * Heb. ix. 26. ^ Heb. x. 12. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 225 
 
 always a relation to something 7'eal, and to which 
 it is referred as the standard of illustration. 
 Metaphorical sacrifice must, therefore, have 
 some substantial reality, from which it borrows 
 its ideal resemblance, and derives its figurative 
 allusion. But what is the original from which 
 the supposed figures in the present instances are 
 drawn ? Not the sacrifices of the Old Testa- 
 ment dispensation \ — for these themselves, as we 
 have seen, were only types, — " shadows,'' as 
 they are called, " of good things to come : " and, 
 if these were not the copy, it were in vain to 
 look for it any where else, but in Him, of whom 
 the apostle says, " the body is of Christ.'' It is, 
 therefore, from the sacrifice of our Lord, that the 
 figurative sacrifices (figurative I mean only in 
 reference to the object they were to represent) 
 are drawn: and it is in reference only to him as 
 the trye sacrifice, that Christians are exhorted 
 to present their " bodies a living sacrifice, holy 
 and acceptable unto God." 
 
 But if this were less evident than it is, it will 
 be seen, at the slightest glance, that Christ is 
 spoken of, in these texts, in a way in which it 
 would be the greatest impiety to speak of the 
 most exalted Christians. Whose name, for in- 
 stance, could be introduced without blasphemy 
 
 Q 
 
22G SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [sECT. III. 
 
 into tlie passage^ " Christ our Passover is sacri- 
 ficed for us?" Of whom^ again, could it be 
 said, '' Now once, in the end of the world hath 
 he appeared, to put away sin, by the sacrifice 
 of himself? " Most evident then it is, that Jesus 
 Christ is not only spoken of as a sacrifice for 
 sin, — but that he is in truth, the one only and 
 great sacrifice^ from which all others derive their 
 origin as types, or to which they bear reference 
 as figurative allusions. 
 
 But not only does he bear the general charac- 
 ter of the one great sacrifice, but to him are ap- 
 propriated also all its distinctions and peculia- 
 rities. 
 
 [2. He iSy for instance, set forth as an of- 
 fering FOR SIN, in the following texts. Isaiah, 
 foreshowing his sufferings, said of him, " Thou 
 shalt make his soul an offering for sin.'^''^ St. 
 Paul represents God as having '' made him to be 
 sin for us."^ He is spoken of as superior to the 
 high priests under the law, inasmuch as he 
 " needeth not daily, as those high priests, to 
 offer up sacrifice, first for his oivn sins, and 
 then for the people's ; for this he did once, when 
 he offered up himself.'^" " Christ was once 
 
 c Isai. liii. 10. 7 2 Cor. V. 21. ^ Heb. vii. 27. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 227 
 
 offered to bear the sins of many;"^ and finally 
 it is said of him^ "this man — q^^r ^6/ one sacrifice 
 for sin.^^^ 
 
 In support of this application of the first of 
 these passages from Isaiah^ I must refer to 
 Archbishop Magee, who has vindicated this use 
 of it against the objections of Dr. Priestley, as 
 it appears to me, with a correctness of criticism, 
 and force of argument which are invincible.^ I 
 will make, however, one or two remarks on 
 the text from 2 Cor. v. 21. When the apostle 
 says, that God '' made him sin for us, who knew 
 no sin, that we might be made the righteousness 
 
 of God in him." {rhv \iy\ yvovra ajmapTiav, virlp i^^twv 
 
 ajxapriav k.X.) he evidently alludes to the sin- 
 offerings of the former dispensations, both because 
 this mode of speaking of such sacrifices, from 
 its pervading the whole of the Greek Septuagint, 
 was familiar to the Jews, and also from its corres- 
 pondence, as we are told, with the peculiar idiom 
 of the Hebrew. And in this sense, it has been 
 generally understood by the most learned com- 
 mentators, both ancient and modern.^ And in- 
 
 9 Heb. ix. 28. i Heb. x. 12. 
 
 2 Discourse, &c. vol. 1, pp. 223—234. 
 
 3 Among the latter maybe mentioned, Vitringa, Hammond, 
 Le Clerc, Whitby, Macknight, Doddridge, &c. ; and among 
 
 q2 
 
228 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 deed^ wlietlier we understand the passage as 
 meaning a sin-offering, or simply, that God 
 made him, who had no sin of his own, to be a 
 sin for {vttI^) us, ^^ that we might be made the 
 righteousness of God in him," we are brought 
 to the same conclusion ; for the substitution of a 
 sinless person, for one that is guilty, in order to 
 take away his sin and restore him to the divine 
 favour, is the obvious and only meaning of the 
 passage, even as thus rendered ; and every Jew 
 knew that there was only one possible way of 
 effecting this transition, and this was by sa- 
 crifice. 
 
 The texts, then, above recited, lead us to the 
 right view of the nature of our Lord's sacrifice. 
 It was an offering for sin. Sin-offerings were 
 
 the former, Gregory Naz. thus comments upon it: 'Ajuaprui 
 r)Kovae ^C efxe, 6 aipujv rrjy d^apriav rov Koafxov. Orat. xxxvi. 
 He ivas called sin, on my account, tvho takes away the sin of 
 the world. Oecumenins, 'Afiapria Xeyerai to virep dfxapTiujy 
 Qvfxa. in ii. ad Cor. The sacrifice for our sins is called sin. 
 Cyril of Alex, says, Feyore acjydyiov 6 XpLcrroq virep riov d/uap- 
 tlQv ri^Qv, Kara rdq ypa<pdQ' rdvnjq eVeA.a tiJq dirlar dfiapTiav 
 dvTOv iovofxaadai (pafiev. In Actis Ephesinis. Christ was 
 made a sacrifice for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and 
 on Tins ACCOUNT, y)e say that he teas called sin. For other 
 authorities, to the same purport, consult Suiceri Thesaur. in 
 VOC. ' Ap.apTdvu),' Afxapria. k.\. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 229 
 
 of such constant recurrence^ both under the Pa- 
 triarchal and Levitical dispensations^ and so fa- 
 miliar to the Jews^ that it was impossible for this 
 people to dissociate the passages before us from 
 these atoning sacrifices, unless they were ad- 
 monished that they were not to be so understood. 
 And as no such intimation is given, it is obvious 
 that they would take them in the natural and 
 usual acceptation. Unless, therefore, we are 
 prepared to say that the scriptures, under the in- 
 spiration of the Holy Spirit, were purposely in- 
 tended to lead men into error, and this on fun- 
 damental points, — we have no alternative but to 
 admit that the death of Jesus Christ was an 
 offering for sin. 
 
 P' 
 
 We have, then, advanced a step further in 
 oof of the atoning sacrifice of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. We had before seen that his death was 
 offered in our place and stead, and we are 
 now taught what was the intention of that vica- 
 rious substitution : it was to remove the penalty 
 of sin. He was an offering for sin. Should 
 it then be said that Christ merely substituted his 
 life for ours, just as one friend might die for 
 another, to rescue him from any imminent dan- 
 ger, and that therefore we cannot conclude any 
 thing from this, as to the expiatory quality of 
 
230 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 his sacrifice^ — though it would be a sufficient 
 reply to such an objection^ that all vicarious sa- 
 crifices^ from the nature of their original insti- 
 tution^ and universal use, were "piacular, yet 
 these texts meet the very letter of the objection, 
 and tell us that the offering was for sin^ that 
 ^^ he bore our sins in his own body on the tree ; '^ 
 and, therefore, that his death is an indispensa- 
 ble condition and consideration in the remis- 
 sion of sin. 
 
 If any doubt could still be entertained that 
 Jesus Christ was a real sacrifice for sin, it must 
 be removed, when it is observed that — 
 
 [3. He is frequently designated by the name 
 OF THAT VICTIM, wMch was daily offered under 
 the Levitical dispensation to take away sin. 
 He is described as " The Lamb of God, which 
 taketh away the sin of the world. "^ " Ye were 
 redeemed,'' says St. Peter,—'' with the precious 
 blood of Christ, as of a Lamb, without blemish 
 and without spot."' " I beheld,'' says St. 
 John, " and lo, in the midst of the throne— stood 
 a Lamby as it had been slain ;"^ and he appears, 
 in the heavens, as " the Lamb slain from the 
 foundation of the world." ^ 
 4 John i. 29. ^ \ Pet. i. 18, 19. 6 Rev. v. 6. 7 Rev. xiii. 8. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 231 
 
 What Jew could hear or repeat such language 
 as this^ without instantly associating with it, either 
 " the lamb for a burnt-offering," so frequent 
 among the Patriarchs;^ or the Lamb annually 
 offered in commemoration of the passover;^'^ or, 
 more especially, the '' two lambs of the first year, 
 without spot,'' which they presented to God " day 
 by day, for a continual burnt-offering," one of 
 them '^ in the morning, and the other at even '?" ^ 
 and how was it possible, with these associations, 
 to separate from the sacrifice of our blessed Lord 
 the idea of an atonement for sin ? Had such 
 a disjunction of apparently inseparable things 
 been possible, it was precluded, in the present 
 case, by the addition, — in the first of these 
 texts, — he taketh away the sin of the world ; 
 and, — in another, — we were redemed by the pre- 
 cious blood of this Lamb. If lambs, then, when 
 presented in sacrifice, were ever offered up to 
 take away sin, — and this was the daily use 
 of them, — then must Jesus Christ, from his very 
 designation of being " the Lamb of God," have 
 been offered on the cross, for the real and literal 
 purpose of taking away the sin of the world ; 
 and his death was an indispensable conditio?! 
 to the pardoning of sin. 
 
 8 Gen. xvii. 7, 8. ^ Exod. xii. 3, 
 
 ^ Numb, xxviii. 3, 4, 
 
232 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [sECT. III. 
 
 But we have still further evidence of this^ in 
 various texts, where 
 
 [4. He is spoken of as actually bearing our 
 SINS, AND TAKING THEM AWAY. Nor is this idea of 
 the subject to be confounded with any that have 
 gone before. It is one of peculiar significancy 
 and importance ; because, while it represents the 
 nature of his sacrifice, it points out also its 
 blessed effects.^ 
 
 The passages on which this remark is founded 
 are as follow : " He was wounded for our trans- 
 gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon hwi, and 
 with his stripes we are healed. All we, like 
 sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned every 
 one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on 
 
 him the iniquity of us all for he shall hear 
 
 their iniquities,'^ Who his own self bare our 
 
 2 lai. liii. 5, 6, and 11. In the elegant and critical Trans- 
 lation of Bishop Lowth, the passage is thus given — 
 " But he was wounded for our transgressions ; 
 Was smitten for our iniquities ; 
 The chastisement, by which our peace is eli'ccted, was 
 
 laid upon him ; 
 And by his bruises we are healed. 
 We all of us like sheep have strayed ; 
 W^e have turned aside^ every one to his own wayj 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 233 
 
 silts in his oivn body on the tree. ^ Now once, 
 in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put 
 away sin (kg adLrr)<yiv ajuapTiag) by the sacrifice of 
 himself. Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
 of many. * The Lamb of God, which taketh 
 away the sin of the world. 
 
 "5 
 
 In these texts, we have it distinctly stated, 
 that our sins were laid upon Christ ; that he bare 
 them in his own body ; that he offered himself a 
 sacrifice ; and that he took them away. Here, then, 
 we have the three particulars belonging to sacri- 
 fices, the sin — the atonement — the forgiveness, as 
 repeatedly mentioned in the Levitical law, to the 
 following effect : '^ It shall be, when he shall be 
 guilty in one of those things, that he shall confess 
 that he hath sinned in that thing ; and he shall 
 bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord for his sin 
 which he hath sinned — unto the priest — and the 
 priest shall make an atonement for him as touch- 
 
 And Jehovah hath inade to light upon him the iniquity 
 of us all. 
 
 It was exacted, and he was made answerable 
 
 The punishment of their iniquities he shall bear.'''' 
 If the correctness of the authorized translation should be 
 called in question, that of Bishop Lowth will not be doubted ; 
 and if the former support the doctrine of the Atonement, this 
 will be found to state it in still stronger language. 
 
 3 1 Pet. ii. 24. ^ Heb. ix. 26—28. ^ Joh. i. 29. 
 
234 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 ing the sin that he hath sinned in one of these, 
 and it shall be forgiven hiiu."^ " He shall put 
 his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering, 
 and it shall be accepted for him, to make atone- 
 ment for him."^ In these, and numerous similar 
 passages, we have it so clearly stated, that sin 
 (no matter, as it regards the present argument, 
 whether moral or ceremonial) was to be con- 
 fessed over the victim, with the hand laid upon 
 its head, — that the victim, with this transfer of 
 guilt, was to be offered in sacrifice, — and that the 
 sin was, in consequence, forgiven, — as to render 
 all comment superfluous. Let us suppose a 
 Jew, with all his familiarity with these atone- 
 ments, reading the statements of other Jews, 
 that a victim, of a different kind, had the sins of 
 the world laid upon him,— that he bore those 
 sins in his own body, — and that he took them 
 away by the sacrifice of himself, — and I ask, how 
 is it possible he could understand such lan- 
 guage, otherwise than he had always understood 
 similar passages in the writings of Moses? Nor 
 would it be necessary for the association of such 
 ideas, that the whole process of making an atone- 
 ment should be minutely detailed in all its differ- 
 ent stages. In (he law, he had often read of an 
 atonement, without a particular statement of the 
 
 6 Lev. V. 5, 6-8—13. ? Lev. i. 4. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 235 
 
 sins that required it^ or the pardon which fol- 
 lowed it;^ he had read of the sin being laid on 
 the. victim^ without the consequent forgiveness;'-^ 
 and the remission of sin^ without any allusion to 
 the atonement ? ^ But the mention of any one of 
 these particulars would naturally and necessarily 
 bring along with it the association of the other; 
 and wherever sin was taken away, he would be 
 sure there had been an atonement, for " without 
 shedding of blood is no remission."^ The very 
 same impression and connexion of ideas would 
 also be produced, when he read simply of the 
 Christian victim '' bearing our sins in his own 
 body on the tree ; "—of his " putting away sin 
 by the sacrifice of himself ;''— of laying " upon 
 him the iniquity of us all;''— of the Lamb of 
 God, which taketh away the sin of the world.'' 
 
 These conclusions are so obvious that I waive 
 the critical examination of some of the passages 
 here cited, and to some of which, I am aware, 
 Socinians have given a different construction. 
 If it were an insulated text on which this 
 turns, or if it were expressed in terms novel or 
 ambiguous, it would be necessary to enter into a 
 
 8 Exod. xxix. 36. Levit. i. 4. 9 Levit. iii. 8—13. 
 
 1 Exod. xxxiv. 7. Numb. xiv. 20. ^ See pp. 65 — 67. 
 
 Heb. ix. 22. 
 
236 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 close investigation of its import. But here we 
 have many passages, all bearing on a well un- 
 derstood doctrine, and written in language, of 
 all others, the most familiar to a Jew ; and I 
 cannot think that any candid reader can, for a 
 moment, hesitate to give them the sense for 
 which I contend;^ and they furnish another 
 clear proof, that the death of Jesus Christ is an 
 indispe7isal)le consideration and condition in the 
 remission of sin. 
 
 There is another peculiarity in sacrifice to 
 which the New Testament frequently calls our 
 attention. It is the blood of the Atonemeid. 
 
 [5. Christ is frequently represented k^ shed- 
 ding HIS BLOOD, for the various purposes set 
 forth in the Levitical dispensation. It was the 
 blood of the victim that constituted the atone- 
 ment ; and with this was inseparably connected 
 the remission of sins. 
 
 It is the blood which constitutes the life of 
 
 3 Those who wish to see the two passages from Isaiah liii. 
 and 1 Pet. ii. 24, aoainst which Socinians have brought 
 their strongest objections, critically examined;, and fixed to 
 their legitimate meaning, as direct proofs of the Atonement, 
 may consult Archbishop Mageo's 42d Dissertation;, vol. Ij, pp. 
 399-__471^ -^inX especially pp. 4G5— 470. 
 
CHAP. II.] PROM SACRIFICE. 237 
 
 animals, and this was forbidden to Noali, when 
 he was permitted the use of animal food : " The 
 flesh, with the life thereof, which is the blood 
 thereof^ shall ye not eat."^ And it was in tliis 
 that the atonement specifically consisted : '^ The 
 life of the flesh," says the divine Legislator, " is 
 in the blood ; and I have given it to you upon 
 the altar to make an atonement for your souls ; 
 
 FOR IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKETH AN ATONEMENT 
 
 FOR THE souL."^ It will therefore be observed, 
 that in every sacrifice, particular directions were 
 given about the blood of the victim, — that it 
 should be sprinkled around the altar ; that, with 
 it, the priests should touch the horns of the altar; ^ 
 that the high-prie^st should enter with it into the 
 holy place, and then sprinkle it before the mercy 
 seat. ^ 
 
 Now in reference to this, particular mention 
 is made of the blood of Christ in the New Tes- 
 tament. The Evangelist, St. John, records that, 
 at the crucifixion of our Lord, a soldier '^ pierced 
 his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and 
 water ;"^ and of such importance did he deem 
 this fact, that he gives his attestation of it with 
 peculiar emphasis and solemnity: " and he that 
 
 ^ Gen. ix. 4. ^ Lev, xvii. 11. See also Exod. xxiv. 8. 
 
 6 Levit. i. ii. iii. iv. * Levit. xvi. 15. ^ John xix. 34. 
 
238 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [SECT. III. 
 
 saw it bare record, and his record is true, and 
 he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might 
 believe."^ And no wonder that so much atten- 
 tion was called to this event; for it was then 
 
 that THE BLOOD OF THE GREAT SACRIFICE MADE AN 
 
 ATONEMENT FOR OUR SOULS ; and in reference to 
 which it is called " the blood of the everlast- 
 ing COVENANT," ^ plainly implying that it was in 
 relation to this alone, that the blood of victims, 
 slain under the Patriarchal and Levitical dispen- 
 sations, derived its power to atone for transgres- 
 sion : and if it was considered as a sin under the 
 law, of more than ordinary magnitude, to profane 
 the blood of a victim, it was an offence infinitely 
 more aggravated under the gospel, to '^ tread 
 under foot the Son of God, and to count the 
 blood of the covenant an unholy thing." " 
 
 The texts which refer to the blood of Jesus 
 Christ as the atoning sacrifice, are numerous and 
 striking;. Our Lord himself had it in view when he 
 said, " This is my blood, which is shed for many, 
 for the remission of sinsJ^^ St. Paul had it 
 before him, when he represented the church of 
 God as " purchased withh is own blood. ^^'^ And 
 all the following passages relate to the same 
 
 9 John xix. 35. i Heb. xiii. 20. ^ Heb.x. 29. 
 
 3 Matt. xxvi. 28. * Acts. xx. 28, 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 239 
 
 doctrine ] " whom God hath set forth to be a pro- 
 pitiatioTiy through faith in his hlood.^ Much 
 more then being justified by his blood, we shall 
 be saved from wrath through him.^ Having 
 made peace through the blood of his cross, by 
 him to reconcile all things unto himself.^ Nei- 
 ther by the blood of goats and calves^ but by 
 his own blood he entered in once into the holy 
 place, having obtained eternal redemption for 
 us.^ Having therefore boldness to enter into 
 the holiest by the blood of Jesus, '^ The blood 
 of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all 
 sin. ^ Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
 from our sins in his own blood.- Thou wast 
 slain, and hast redeemed us to God, b^/ thy 
 blood.^ We are come — to the blood of sprink- 
 ling, that speaketh better things than that of 
 Abel.* Elect — through sanctification — and the 
 sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." ^ 
 
 Now, when it is considered that there are be- 
 tween thirty and forty passages in the Old Testa- 
 ment, where the blood of the atonement is men- 
 tioned, and that there is a corresponding fre- 
 quency, with which this peculiarity is alluded to in 
 
 5 Rom. iii. 25. 6 Rqui. v. 9. 7 Col. i. 20. « Heb. ix. 12. 
 
 9 Heb. X. 19. 1 1 John i. 7. 2 Rev. i. 5. ^ Rev. v. 9. 
 
 * Heb. xii. 24. ^ 1 Pet. i. 2. 
 
240 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE. [sECT. 111. 
 
 the New ; we cannot but admit that both design 
 and importance are to be attached to this fact ; 
 and when we perceive that there is the same 
 variety in the application of the blood of Christy 
 both as to the shedding of it, — to the sacredness 
 of it, to the sprinkling of it, and its atoning 
 effects, we cannot but conclude, that there is the 
 same connexion between the blood of Christ as 
 poured out on the cross, and the atonement of 
 our sins, as there was between the blood of ani- 
 mal victims, and the atonement for sins under 
 the law; and if, without shedding of blood, 
 there is no remission ^^ of sin," then the 
 blood of Christ, which constituted the atoning 
 sacrifice, is an indispensable condition and con- 
 sideration in the pardoning of sin. 
 
 I have only to add, on the evidence arising to 
 the doctrine of the Atonement, from the minute 
 application of all the peculiarities and properties 
 of the Patriarchal and Levitical sacrifices to the 
 death of Christ, that 
 
 [6. He is denominated, in allusion to the va- 
 rious atonements for taking aivaij sin of the 
 former dispensations, a Propitiation and Pro- 
 pitiatory SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 241 
 
 The texts I allude to are the following : " If 
 any man sin, we have an advocate with the 
 Father, Jesus Christ the righteous : and he is 
 the Propitiation for our sins: and not for ours 
 only^ hut also for the sins of the ivhole world. ^ 
 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that 
 he loved us, and sent his son to be the Propi- 
 tiation for our sins.^ Being justified freely by 
 his grace, through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus ; whom God hath set forth to be a 
 PropitiaJiony through faith in his blood, to de- 
 clare his righteousness for the remission of sins 
 that are past."^ 
 
 I said that Christ is denominated a propitia- 
 tion for our sins in reference to the various atone- 
 ments for taking away sin in the former dispen- 
 sations. In order to see the force of this obser- 
 vation, it is necessary to remark, that the He- 
 brew term ")D3, which is usually translated, to 
 atone, is almost always rendered by the Septua- 
 gint, by WaGKOfxai or k^iXaaKOfiai, to appease, to 
 propitiate, to reconcile, to atone. This Hebrew 
 word, as Schleusner states, signifies properly to 
 cover, to remove out of sight, and then, to ex- 
 piate, to atone, to appease. ^ This distinction 
 
 6 1 John ii. 1, 2. 7 1 John iv. 10. a Rom. iii. 24, 25. 
 9 " Respondet {iXdaKofxat) in vers. Alex. hebr. "jQlD quod 
 
 R 
 
^42 SCRIPTURE ETVIDENCE [sECT. III. 
 
 between its primary and secondary sense must 
 be kept in view ; because^, while the latter points 
 out the intention and effect of the act, the former, 
 which necessarily carries its original idea into all 
 its more remote uses, indicates the means or in- 
 strument by wliich the intention is accomplished. 
 When, therefore, it is used in the sense of expia- 
 tory^ or of appeasincj , we are to understand that 
 it effects this by covering or removing out of 
 sight what was obnoxious, or had occasioned of- 
 fence : and as the manner of doing this must vary 
 with the nature of the offence, the expiation or 
 atonement will have relation to a great variety 
 of objects. It may regard both moral sins and 
 ceremonial defilements, it may relate to persons, 
 places, and things ; and, in point of fact, we find 
 this to be the case; for expiations were made for 
 transgressions, and ritual pollutions ; for indivi- 
 duals and the whole congregation ; for the tem- 
 ple, the altar, and the sacred utensils : but what- 
 ever was the subject, the>expiation or atonement 
 itself consisted in removing out of the way 
 whatever was obnoxioiis. Now, in this gr^at 
 variety of cases, it is with the particular one 
 between man and his Creator, that we are more 
 immediately concerned. Man has offended his 
 
 proprie est tegerCj e conspeciu removere, delude veio cxpiare, 
 placare. 
 
CHAP. IT.] FROM SACRIFICE. ^43 
 
 God; and sm is the ground of that offence : and 
 the expiation or atonement consists in removing 
 sin out of the waij. This, then, is the particu- 
 lar case, and the question is, by what means this 
 expiation or atonement is effected? And the only 
 answer is, by animal sacrifice. This was ap- 
 pointed for every case of transgression, whether 
 moral or ceremonial, and " without shedding of 
 blood there was no remission." These sacrifices 
 expiated, atoned, appeased; the offence was 
 removed, the atonement effected, and the parties 
 reconciled. The victim then was vicarious; it 
 stood between the offender and his Judge; it 
 was indispensable to the reconciliation or atone- 
 ment; and it was the instrument through which 
 the cause of offence was removed. It was of- 
 fered kiQ TO iXacTKEcrOai Tag ajLiapTLag tov Xaov tO 
 
 make atonement fo7\ or to expiate'^ the sins 
 of the people; and the term by which this act 
 was accomplished was, in the Hebrew, the verb 
 
 "IDD, in the Septuagint, iXaaKto, iXatr/cojuai, k'^iXaaKO- 
 
 jiiai, and in the English "to make reconciliation;" 
 and the ivhole transaction, comprehending the 
 result, was expressed by the Hebrew noun "iDD, 
 the Greek Wacj^oq, and the English reconcilia- 
 tion. This word I have used as synonymous 
 with atonement, in its strict sense, and as it is 
 
 ^ Heb. ii. 17. 7 See Macknight and Owen in loco. 
 
 r2 
 
244 SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE [sECT. III. 
 
 evidently used by our translators^ who, in the 
 only passage in the New Testament where they 
 have adopted it, have given it as correlative with 
 reconciliation,^ 
 
 After these remarks, we can have no difficulty 
 in deciding that, when St. Paul speaks of Jesus 
 Christ being the ^' jwopitiation (iXad^ioc the expia- 
 tion — the ato7ie)nent) for our sins," and of God 
 ^ having sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
 our sins," he meant, that Jesus Christ stood in the 
 same relation between God and sinners, as the 
 animal sacrifice had formerly done ; and that, like 
 them, he expiated sin by his blood, and thus 
 reconciled the sinner to God. 
 
 The same conclusion will follow from the use 
 of LXacTTrjpiov, which is also rendered by our trans- 
 lators propitiation^ For though this term re- 
 quires the application of some such noun as Sv/uLa 
 or ispeiov, (victim or sacrifice,) yet it necessarily 
 conveys the idea of propitiation and atonement ; 
 and indeed, more explicitly than the former term, 
 
 « " We joy in God, through our LordJesus Christ, by whom 
 we have now received the atonement," or reconciliation, ti}p ko- 
 TaWayrjv eXdpofiev. Rom. v. 11. In our old English writers it 
 was formerly written At-one-ment. See Mincheus, Johrmoj-t, &c. 
 
 y Honi. iii. '25. 
 
CHAP. II.] FROM SACRIFICE. 245 
 
 points to the means by which this reconciliation 
 is effected^— the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 as the great sacrifice for sin : and every view we 
 take of the subject^ brings us to the same con- 
 clusion^ that the death of Christ is an indis- 
 pensable consideration and condition in the 
 pardoning of sin, 
 
 Such^ then, are the proofs from scripture texts, 
 and the doctrine of sacrifice, of the inseparable 
 connexion between the death of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the salvation of the sinner. Not only 
 do most numerous passages of the sacred volume, 
 expressed in almost every variety of language, 
 plain and figurative, direct and incidental, narra- 
 tive, doctrinal, and interwoven in its very texture, 
 declare this; but also the whole fabric of sacrificial 
 rites, and the Levitical priesthood, — constituting 
 the religion of the faithful from the first man down 
 to the coming of the Messiah ; and most minutely, 
 and in all its prominent parts, referred to by 
 writers of the New Testament, and directly ap- 
 plied to Christ, and that in such language as could 
 not fail to excite in the minds both of Jews and 
 Gentiles, whose whole religion had hitherto con- 
 sisted of sacrifice, the idea of expiatory, propitia- 
 tory, and vicarious atonement, — declares, with a 
 tone and emphasis not to be resisted, that the 
 
246 EVIDENCE FROM THE [SECT. III. 
 
 remission of sin is never granted but out of 
 regard to the all-sufficient iVtonement of tlie Son 
 of God. 
 
 I mighty then, here close the subject of scripture 
 evidence on the doctrine of the Atonement. To 
 those, who submit their opinions to the standard 
 of God's word, the proof will appear complete. 
 But as the doctrine is of fundamental importance^ 
 and is capable of further proof and illustration 
 from the holy scriptures, I will state one or two 
 other arguments in support of it. The first, shall 
 be drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews : the 
 second, from our Lord's own explanation of his 
 sufferings : and the third, from the grand subject 
 of the apostle's preaching, and the success with 
 which it was followed. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1 THINK the truth of this doctrine may be esta- 
 blished from the Epistle to the Hebrews; and 
 the particular argument I would urge from this 
 epistle is, that it seems to be the principal design 
 of the author of it to run a parallel between the 
 Levitical priesthood and that of Christ ; and to 
 
CHAP. III.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 247 
 
 show, that, in all respects^ the latter was supe- 
 rior to the former, and the real object for which 
 the other ivas instituted. 
 
 In this argument, I assume, as having been 
 proved, that the sacrifices for sins of the Mosaic 
 dispensation were expiatory and vicarious : and 
 I maintain that if a designed parallel can be shown 
 to exist between these sacrifices and that of Christ, 
 and that, in those very particulars in which the 
 former were piacular, the latter is shown to be 
 pre-eminent, it will follow that the comparison of 
 the two relates to this atoning power and intrinsic 
 excellence; and that the latter was a real and true 
 sacrifice for sin, and an absolute condition in its 
 remission. Nor can this conclusion be evaded 
 by pretending that the parallel is run between 
 the former as real, and the latter as ficjurative ; 
 both because it is evident that it is in relation, 
 not to the nature and object of sacrifice in v>/hich 
 they are compared — for these are assumed by the 
 apostle to be the same ; but to their real andjn- 
 trinsic value; and also, because, that which in 
 either could be considered as a mere figure, be- 
 longed to the Levitical priesthood, whilst the 
 reality and substance belonged inherently to that 
 of Christ. In other words : Both of these sacri- 
 fices were equally real, but not equal in their 
 
248 EVIDENCE FROM THE [SECT. III. 
 
 intrinsic value. In respect oi value, that of pre- 
 vious sacritices was merely representative : they 
 had none of their own, but they borrowed one, 
 from the sacrifice which was hereafter to be made, 
 and of which these were mere types or shadows. 
 It is, indeed, to the nature of this relation to each 
 other that I shall turn my first attention ; for it 
 will be seen that, in this epistle, 
 
 1 . St. Paid contrasts the sacrifices of the former 
 dispensations^ and thai of Christ , in the way of 
 SHADOW AND SUBSTANCE. " The law," says he, 
 " having a shadow of good things to come, and 
 not the very iinacje of the things, can 7iever, with 
 those sacrifices, ivhich they offered year by year 
 continucdly, inake the comers thereunto perfect. 
 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? 
 because that the worshippers once purged should 
 have had no more conscience of sins." ^ Here it 
 is assumed that these sacrifices had no inherent 
 worth to obtain remission of sin, — for " it was 
 impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could 
 take away sin," — arid they were therefore, in this 
 respect, only shadows : but there were " cjood 
 things to co7ne,^^ of which they had received suf- 
 ficient information, — a sacrifice was hereafter to 
 
 ' Heb. X. \, 2. 
 
CHAP. III.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 249 
 
 be offered, which should release them from the 
 guilt of sin; and, in the mean time, this benefit 
 might be aptly symbolized by the present system, 
 and call forth the faith of the true worshipper to 
 that remedy for transgression, which God, in due 
 time, would produce, as " a propitiation for the 
 sins of the world." If, then, these sacrifices were 
 followed only by a shadowy benefit, a benefit 
 which was to be really received by faith in another 
 sacrifice, then it must necessarily follow that that 
 sacrifice, when it took place, was a r^a/ sacrifice, 
 and that its results were the substance of which 
 the former were only types. For if the shadow 
 be a true representation of the substance, and the 
 former were intended typically to expiate sin, 
 what conclusion can we draw from this statement 
 of the apostle, but that the death of Christ really 
 pocures that for the believer, which was only 
 adumbrated in the sacrifices of the Jews ; and 
 that the sacrifice he offered was as really an atone- 
 ment for transgressions against the moral law, 
 as the others were for offences against the cere- 
 monial law ? " 
 
 " See the same argument urged by the apostle in Heb. viii. 
 4, 5;, and ix, 24. If any one should be disposed to interpret 
 the shadows mentioned in the verse from which I have reasoned, 
 as implying no more than that the gospel is as much superior 
 to the ceremonial law, as the substance is to (he sJiadoiv, withoui 
 
250 EVIDENCE FROM THE [sECT. III. 
 
 2. He also forms a comparison between the 
 
 PRIESTS OF THE TWO DISPENSATIONS; and tlllS Cail 
 
 only hold good on the assumption that the priest 
 of the latter ivas as really suchy as those of the 
 former. 
 
 " Every liigli-priest/' says be, '^ taken from 
 among men, is ordained for men, in things per- 
 taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and 
 sacrifices for sins ; who can have compassion on 
 the ignorant, and on them that are ont of the 
 way ; for that he himself also is compassed with 
 infirmity." And these distinguishing and essen- 
 tial qualities of a high-priest, he assures us, were 
 possessed by Christ. ^^ In all things," he states, 
 " it behoved him to be made like unto his bre- 
 thren , that he might be a merciful and faithful 
 high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
 reconciliation for the sins of the people : for in 
 that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he 
 is able to succour them that are tempted." ^ 
 
 urging that such an interpi etation vvoukl destroy the whole of 
 the apostle's argument, let him weigli the two last quoted 
 passages, and lie will tind it impossible to give such an inter- 
 pretation without offering the greatest violence to common 
 language and to common sense. 
 
 ^ Heb. V. 1, 2, compared with ii. 17, 18. 
 
CHAP. HI.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 251 
 
 That Christ is not here called a higli-jxriest by 
 way of accoimnodation is too evident to need 
 proof. The exact parallel which the apostle runs 
 between him and the Jewish high-priests^ in their 
 being taken from among their brethren ; in their 
 being ordained for men^ in things pertaining to 
 God ; in their appointment to offer gifts and sa- 
 crifices, and to make reconciliation for the sins 
 of the people ; and in their being subject to human 
 infirmity and suffering;, in order that they might 
 be able to succour those that are tempted ; that 
 is, their exact conformity, both in election and 
 office and character, proves, beyond controversy, 
 that the priesthood of Christ was as real as that 
 of Aaron and his successors. Beside, with what 
 propriety could the apostle insist upon the neces- 
 sity of this resemblance between the Levitical 
 priests and Christ, if the latter were not a priest 
 in the true sense of the word? On any other 
 supposition than that the Jewish priesthood was 
 typical of that of Christ, both the argument and the 
 parallel of the apostle appear to be unintelligible. 
 Now if it be indisputably certain that the Jewish 
 priests offered sacrifices, and made atonement, 
 in order to procure the remission of sin, and re- 
 instate the offender in the divine favour, it is also 
 equally certain that Jesus Christ made a true 
 sacrifice and atonement for the sins of mankind. 
 
252 EVIDENCE FROM THE [sECT. 111. 
 
 This argument will receive additional confirma- 
 tion by noticing a superiority which the sacrifice 
 of Christ had over tliose of the Levitical priest- 
 hood ; for 
 
 3. He^ again^ compares the sacrifices which 
 EACH OFFERED UP; and states an advantage 
 
 WHICH THAT OF ChRIST HAD OVER THOSE OF 
 FORMER PRIESTS. 
 
 " Such an high-priest," says the apostle, " became 
 us, 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."^ Here, then, it is not 
 only declared in express terms that Christ offered 
 up himself as a sacrifice, in the same sense as the 
 Jewish priests offered sacrifices, — but, moreover, 
 the particular e7id IS specified for which he offered 
 up himself; it was not to expiate his ow7i sins, 
 {for he ivas holy and separate fi^om sinners,^) 
 as the Jewish priests were required to do ; but it 
 was to make a sacrifice for the sins of the people; 
 and that, but once^ whilst the latter were presented 
 daily ; for such was the intrinsic value of his sa- 
 crifice, in connexion with the spotless purity of 
 
 * Heb. vii. 27. ^ Ver. 26. 
 
CHAP. III.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 253 
 
 his nature^, which needed no sacrifice on its own 
 account, that " his one oblation," as our church 
 has expressed it, " of himself once offered was a 
 full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and 
 satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ;"^ 
 and it was in this that his superiority over the 
 Jewish priests chiefly consisted. Can it be 
 doubted then, with this passage of scripture be- 
 fore us, whether we are to consider the death of 
 Christ as a real propitiatory sacrifice for man^s 
 transgression ? 
 
 4. The apostle, again, compares the respec- 
 tive EFFICACY of the Levitical sacrifices and that 
 of Christ ; and decides the superiority in favour 
 of the latter. 
 
 It is, indeed, the drift of the greater part of the 
 epistle to the Hebrews to show the superiority of 
 the Christian above the Jewish priesthood ; and 
 it deserves particular attention, as affording an 
 unanswerable argument in support of our hypo- 
 thesis, that the reasoning of the apostle, in every 
 view he takes of the subject, is founded upon an 
 assumed similarity and correspondence in the 
 nature and objects of these priesthoods ; and on 
 
 ^ Communion Semce. 
 
•i54 EVIDENCE FROM THE [sECT. III. 
 
 this ground he proves that Christ's is the perfec- 
 tion of that of the Jews, and in every point of 
 view infinitely its superior. Out of many pas- 
 sages where this comparison is formed, I will 
 adduce but one, regarding the relative efficacy 
 of the respective sacrifices : " If the blood of bulls 
 and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling 
 the unclean, 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?"^ that is, 
 if the sacrifice of animals and the sprinkling of 
 their blood was efficacious to the putting away 
 of ceremonial pollutions, and thus fitting the in- 
 dividual for the external service of God's sanc- 
 tuary; Jifiuch more shall the blood of Christ purify 
 the conscience from its moral defilement, and 
 render the soul fit for the pure and spiritual wor- 
 ship of God. The inference from this reasoning 
 is self-evident, — the sacrifice of Christ must be 
 real ; for with what propriety could it be said 
 that his sacrifice was of more value than those 
 of the Jewish priests, if he offered no sacrifice at 
 all ? Or how could they be compared, if their 
 nature and object were totally diderent? 
 
 7 Ifeb. ix. 13, 14. 
 
CHAP. III.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 255 
 
 The next subject of comparison which I shall 
 notice is that in which 
 
 5. He points out a correspondence between 
 THE PLACES 10 here the bodies of certain victims 
 were burned, aiid the death of Jesus Christ 
 occu7Ted. 
 
 " The bodies of those beasts^ whose blood is 
 brought into the sanctuary by the high-priest for 
 sin^ are burned without the camp. Wherefore 
 Jesus also^ that he might sanctify the people with 
 his own bloody suffered without the gateP^ This 
 correspondence may appear to be minute^ and 
 merely accidental; but an inspired apostle thought 
 it of such importance as to deserve particular no- 
 tice^ and considered it as having occurred by the 
 special design and over-ruling hand of divine 
 Providence. The fact is^ that every thing in the 
 type was appointed with the greatest precision, 
 and with an evident intent that the minutest par- 
 ticular should be regarded, — an exactness which 
 the apostle notices in another part of this epistle, 
 and for which he assigns a very cogent reason : 
 " There are priests," says he, " that offer gifts 
 according to the law ; who serve unto the example 
 
 8 Hen. xiii. II, 1-2. 
 
256 EVIDENCE FROM THE [sECT. III. 
 
 and shadow of heavenly thhujs, as Moses was 
 adiiionislied of God when lie was about to make 
 the tabernacle; for See^ saith he^ that thou make 
 all things according to the pattern showed to 
 thee in the mounts ^ As if it had been said, the 
 greatest particularity is necessary, even in the 
 minutest thing,, because the whole has an ulterior 
 leference. These indeed are only types and 
 shadows; and, in themselves, insignificant and 
 unimportant, — but they relate to a substance, to 
 an archetype, of infinite moment ; and in an affair 
 of such a nature, nothing is trivial, nothing must 
 be overlooked ; for " they serve unto the example 
 and shadow of heavenly things." It is on this 
 principle then that the burning of " the bodies of 
 those beasts, whose blood is brought into the 
 sanctuary by the high-priest for sin," took place 
 " without the camp," in order that it might typify 
 the shedding of Christ's blood without the gate ; 
 and when our Lord was crucified upon Calvary, 
 then was accomplished the intention of this 
 hitherto unmeaning ceremony, and then it was 
 stamped with its due importance. But who does 
 not see in this, a demonstration of the real sacri- 
 fice of the death of Christ? It would be as un- 
 reasonable to question this, as to deny that the 
 
 9 Heb. viii. 4, 5. 
 
CHAP. IT!.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 257 
 
 animals were really sacrificed whose bodies were 
 burned without the camp. 
 
 St. Paul points out another important corre- 
 spondence between the Jewish sacrifices and 
 that of Christ. 
 
 6. He states, that as the high-priest, on the 
 day of the great Atonement, entered into the 
 Holiest, with the blood op the victim, and 
 
 ^^^r^ INTERCEDED FOR THE PEOPLE; SO ChriSt alsO 
 ENTERED, WITH HIS OWN BLOOD, INTO HEAVEN, 
 
 and there makes intercession for us. 
 
 " Into the second (tabernacle) went the high- 
 priest alone every year, not without blood, which 
 he offered for himself and the errors of the peo- 
 ple,'^'' — so also, " Christ being come an high-priest 
 of good things to come, by a greater and more 
 perfect tabernacle — neither by the blood of goats 
 and calves, but by his oicn blood he entered in 
 once into the holy place, having obtained eternal 
 
 redemption for us." '' 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.^^ 
 
 1 Heb. ix. 7, 11, 12,24. 
 
258 EVIDENCE FROM THE [sECT. Til. 
 
 When the high-priest had offered the sacrifice, 
 he carried the blood into the second tabernacle^ 
 and presented it in behalf of himself and the 
 people. Christ did the same for us, after suffer- 
 ing on the cross. He entered by his own blood 
 into heaven, and there he makes intercession for 
 us. What does this imply, but tliat he made a 
 true sacrifice for sin, and thus obtained for his 
 people those invaluable blessings which were only 
 shadowed forth in the sacrifices of the Levitical 
 priesthood? Once more. 
 
 7. In reference to the sacrifices of the former 
 dispenscfiio?i, the apostle speaks of Christ's as 
 
 THE LAST SACRIFICE THAT SHALL EVER BE MADE I 
 
 and thereby evidently supposes that it was a true 
 sacrifice in the literal sense of the word. 
 
 He thus reasons : " If we sin wilfully after that 
 we have received the knowledge of the truth, 
 there retnaineth no more sacrifice for sins,^^^ 
 As if he had said. If a man had committed a sin, 
 such as the Jewish law had made no provision 
 for in its sacrifices, yet there might have been 
 some hope for him ; because a more valuable and 
 perfect sacrifice than these was afterwards to be 
 
 2 Heb. X. 26. 
 
CHAP. III.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 259 
 
 offered in Jesus Christ; a sacrifice whicli cleanseth 
 from all sin : but if lie should despise this, and 
 trample it under foot, his ruin is inevitable, be- 
 cause it is the last and most efficacious sacrifice 
 that ever can or will be offered : — '^ there remain- 
 eth" for him "no more sacrifice for sins; but a 
 certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery 
 indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." 
 Surely this must imply that Christ's was a real 
 sacrifice, seeing that it was the only one which 
 could reach cases of transgression for which the 
 previous ones had made no provision, and was 
 that, after which no other should ever be made. 
 [ will only add, that, 
 
 8. The apostle has also given a compara- 
 tive ESTIMATE OF THE GUILT WHICH ATTACHES TO 
 A CONTEMPT OF THE TWO PRIESTHOODS, AND THE 
 PROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT WHICH WILL FOLLOW 
 
 IT : and in doing this, he has furnished the most 
 decisive evidence that he considered the death 
 of Christ a real sacrifice for sin. 
 
 For if this were not the case, however proper 
 it might be to punish severely any disrespect to 
 Christ, yet the exact proportio7i of thi^s guilt and 
 punishment could not be inferred from what was 
 inflicted on a contempt of Jewish sacrifices, seeing 
 
 s2 
 
260 EVIDENCE FROM THE [SECT. HI. 
 
 that they had no reference to each other. On the 
 contrary, on the supposition that Clu*ist made a 
 true sacrifice, the reasoning and inference of the 
 apostle are clear and pertinent. The passage to 
 which I refer is this : " He that despised Moses' 
 law^ died without mercy, under two or three wit- 
 nesses : of hoiv 7nucli sorer punishment, suppose 
 ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden 
 under foot the Son of God; and hath counted the 
 BLOOD OF THE COVENANT ivhereivlth he ivas sanc- 
 tified, an unholy thing, (or common, which has no 
 more virtue in it than that of other men,) and hath 
 done despite unto the Spirit of grace ?"^ And this 
 admonition may well close this part of the argu- 
 ment. If the blood of Christ shotdd be the only 
 atonement, — if his death shotdd prove the only 
 ground of pardon and acceptance ivith God, how 
 awful must be their condition who systematically 
 reject it, and venture their everlasting well-being 
 on the UNcovENANTED merc'y of God ! 
 
 To sum up then the whole of this argument, 
 as grounded upon the comparison instituted by 
 the apostle between the Levitical sacrifices and 
 that of Christ, I have assumed, as being already 
 proved, that the sacrifices of the former dispen- 
 
 ' Jleb. X. 28— 2f). 
 
CHAP. III.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 261 
 
 sations were expiatory and vicarious^ and the 
 only appointed means of obtaining remission of 
 sins. It will not be denied that the death of 
 Jesus Christ is spoken, of in this epistle in lan- 
 guage applied to Jewish sacrifices ; and the only 
 question is^ whether this language be proper or 
 figurative ? If proper^ it necessarily follows that 
 the death of Christ is also an indispensable con- 
 dition of forgiveness of sin, and the only means 
 of obtaining it. That it is proper^ I have shown 
 from a variety of arguments drawn from the Jew- 
 ish priesthood, particularly in regard to those 
 points of comparison and resemblance which are 
 strikingly marked by the apostle himself; such as 
 the relation they bear to each other as shadow 
 and substance, as type and antitype : and that 
 the sacrifices of the Mosaic dispensation were in- 
 tended to prefigure, represent, and symbolize that 
 of Christ ; — that the office of high-priest, which 
 Christ is represented as sustaining in common 
 with that of the Jews, proves that, in that cha- 
 racter, he offered a real sacrifice ; — that the sacri- 
 fice which Christ offered up was greatly superior 
 to those of the Levitical priesthood, which neces- 
 sarily supposes that there was a correspondence 
 in kind, and a superiority only in quality ; — that 
 the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice was much greater 
 than that of the Jewish priesthood, which would 
 
262 EVIDENCE FROM THE [sECT. III. 
 
 be impossible if it were not a real sacrifice ;— that 
 the correspondence between the place of Christ's 
 siilfering^ and that of the burning of certain 
 victims^ in the view of the apostle^ was designed 
 to represent the typical nature of the sacrifices 
 under the law, and the real nature of that of 
 Christ; — that the entering of the high-priest, 
 with the blood of the victim, into the holy of 
 holies, and the corresponding entrance of our 
 blessed Lord into heaven, by his own blood, 
 brings us to the same conclusion ; — that the in- 
 timation that Christ's was the last sacrifice that 
 ever would be offered for sin, supposes that it 
 was of the nature of those which had gone before, 
 and, therefore, that it was a true sacrifice ; — and 
 finally, that the greater guilt and punishment of 
 contemning the blood of the covenant, shed by 
 the Son of God, than that of despising Moses' law, 
 whilst it suggested an awful warning not to neg- 
 lect the only atonement for sin which ever had or 
 ever would be made, furnished also a proof that 
 it was the blood of a real victim; and that, 
 through which alone we can obtain eternal re- 
 demption.* 
 
 * At the conclusion of this argument for the vicarious sacri- 
 fice of our Lord Jesus Christ, grounded on the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, I cannot help availing myself of the high authority 
 of Bishop Butler, in liis " Analogy of Religion/' in support of 
 
CHAP. 111.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 263 
 
 It being therefore clearly ascertained^ even 
 from this single Epistle to the Hebrews, that the 
 sacrifice which Christ made for the sins of the 
 world, was of the same nature as those under 
 
 one or two of the points, on which 1 have enlarged. " He is," 
 says that profound author, " the Lamb of God ; and as lie 
 voluntarily offered himself up, he is, throughout the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, styled our High-priest. And, which seems of 
 peculiar weight, he is described before hand, in the Old Testa- 
 ment, under the same characters of a priest, and an expiatory 
 victim (Isa. liii. Dan. ix. 24. Psal. ex. 4.) And whereas it is 
 objected, that all this is merely by way of allusion to the 
 sacrifices of the Mosaic law, the apostle, on the contrary, 
 afSrms, that ' the law was a shadow of good things to come, 
 and not the very image of the things ;' and that the priests 
 that offer gifts according to the law, serve unto tlie example 
 and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of 
 God, when he was about to make the tabernacle. ' For see,' 
 saith he, ' that thou make all things according to the pattern 
 showed to thee in the mount;' that is, the Levitical priesthood 
 was a shadow of the priesthood of Christ, in like manner as 
 the tabernacle made by jlloses was according to that showed 
 him in the mount. The priesthood of Christ, and the taber- 
 nacle in the mount, were the originals : of the former of which, 
 the Levitical priesthood was a type ; and of the latter, the 
 tabernacle made by Moses was a copy. The doctrine of this 
 epistle, then, plainly is, that the legal sacrifices were allusions 
 to the great and final atonement to be made by the blood of 
 Christ; and not that this was an allusion to those. Nor can 
 any thing be more express and determinate tlian the following 
 passage : ^ It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats 
 
I 
 
 264 EVIDENCE FROM HEBREWS. [sECT. III. 
 
 the Mosaic dispensation ; and that these were a 
 necessary consideration in the remission of sin^ 
 the conclnsion is^ again, unavoidable, that " the 
 death of Christ is an indispensable condition and 
 consideration in the pardoning of sin." 
 
 But we have still further scriptural evidence of 
 the truth of this important doctrine, — and 1 will 
 next proceed to show that it was most clearly 
 taught by our blessed Lord himself. This shall 
 be the subject of the following chapter. 
 
 should take away sin. Wherefore, when he cometh into the 
 world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering,' that is, of bulls and of 
 goats, ' thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me — 
 Lo, I come to do thy will O God. By which will we are sanc- 
 tified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
 all.' And to add one passage more of the like kind : ' Christ 
 was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that 
 look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin ;' 
 that is, without bearing sin, as he did at his first coming, by 
 being an offering for it ; without having our iniquities again 
 laid upon him ; without being any more a sin-offering ; * Unto 
 them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without 
 sin unto salvation.'" pp. 383, 384. Glasgow Edition, 
 
CHAP. IV.] EVIDENCE FROM OUR LORD. 265 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The truth of this doctrine may be further esta- 
 blished BY THE EXPLANATION WHICH OUR LoRD 
 HAS GIVEN OF HIS SUFFERINGS^ AFTER HIS RESUR- 
 RECTION. 
 
 Two of his disciples^ on the third day after his 
 crucifixion^ were conversing on the events on their 
 way to a village near Jerusalem ; and while they 
 wei*e communing with each other, and reasoning 
 on this catastrophe, " Jesus himself drew near, 
 and went with them," but so as not to betray his 
 person. On enquiring into the cause of their 
 gloom, and the subject of their conversation, they 
 inform him of all that had lately occurred in Jeru- 
 salem respecting the conduct of the Jews, and 
 the crucifixion of Christ; and expressed their 
 disappointment at the event, as being contrary 
 to their expectations of what would have hap- 
 pened, and subversive of their hopes that he 
 would have redeemed Israel. From which it 
 appears that they considered the ignominious 
 death of Jesus Christ as incompatible with the 
 
266 EVIDENCE FROM THE AUTHORITY [sECT. 111. 
 
 character of the Messiah, and the Redeemer of 
 his people. This wets the one and only cause of 
 their perplexity . With this exception, they would 
 have had no doubt of his being the Saviour of 
 the world. His birth, his life, his wisdom, his 
 kindness, his power and his wonderful works, 
 pointed him out as the promised seed, as the de- 
 scendant of Abraham, the prophet who was to 
 resemble Moses, and the Son of David. They 
 had hitherto believed him to be the Redeemer of 
 Israel, the great Personage whom the prophets 
 foretold, and who was '^ the H ope of the ends of 
 the earth." But his crucifixion was an insur- 
 mountable objection to their previous convictions; 
 and they concluded that they had been mistaken 
 respecting him. Hence they were greatly dejected, 
 and felt like men whose reasonable hopes of ho- 
 nour and happiness were suddenly dashed to the 
 ground; and who had nothing now to expect, 
 but shame for their credulity, and persecution for 
 their misjudged attachment. It was to remove 
 the mistaken notion that an ignominious death 
 was irreconcileable with what might justly be 
 expected to befall the Messiah ; and to show, on 
 the contrary, that it was indispensably necessary 
 to the accomplishment of the predictions respect- 
 ing him, and the object of his mission, that our 
 Lord entered into conversation with them, and 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF OUR LORD HIMSELF. 267 
 
 thus addressed them — '^ O fools (or inconsiderate 
 persons avoriroi) and slow of heart to believe all 
 that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ 
 to have suffered these things, and to have entered 
 into his glory ?"' As if he had said, " So far are 
 these sufferings from forming any ground of ob- 
 jection to the glorious character given of the 
 Messiah, and of his universal dominion, they 
 were absolutely necessary to constitute that cha- 
 racter, for it was abundantly shown in the scrip- 
 tures, that he must fo^st sifffer and then reign ; 
 and that he must enter into his glory by an igno- 
 minious death;" and " beginning at Moses, and 
 all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all 
 the scriptures the things concerning himself;"^ 
 not, probably, confining \\\mse\i exclusively to his 
 sufferings, but certainly making these the great 
 object of his exposition; — for other things re- 
 specting him they already understood, and had 
 concluded from them that he was the Messiah ; 
 but, on the single article of his death, they had 
 formed erroneous notions, and it was these that 
 he undertook to rectify. 
 
 There was a second occasion, on which our 
 Lord entered still more fully upon the same topic 
 of his sufferings. When the eleven were assem- 
 
 ^ Luke xxiv. 13 — 27. 
 
268 EVIDENCE FROM THE AUTHORITY [sECT. III. 
 
 bled at Jeriisaleui;, and listening to the extra- 
 ordinary account which the two disciples, who 
 had lately been conversing, as we have seen, with 
 the risen Saviour, " Jesus himself stood in the 
 midst of them ;" and after having convinced them 
 of the identity of his person, by showing them 
 his perforated hands and feet, '' he said unto 
 them ; These are the words which I spake unto 
 you while I was yet with you, that all things must 
 be fulfilled which vi ere written in the Law of 
 MosES, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, 
 concerning me — and he said unto them. Thus it is 
 written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the third day." "^ 
 
 Besides these passages in the gospel, there are 
 several others, as we have already seen, in which 
 our Lord speaks of " laying down his life for his 
 sheep," of " giving his life a ransom for many," 
 of " shedding his blood for the remission of sins," 
 and of " giving his flesh for the life of the world :" 
 in all of which he plainly teaches us, that neither 
 remission of sins, nor salvation, nor everlasting 
 life can be obtained, but in connexion with his 
 sufferings unto death. But I do not now dwell 
 upon these texts. I will confine my attention 
 entirely to the two discourses just referred to, 
 
 " Luke xxiv . 3() — 46. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF OUR LORD HIMSELF. ^69 
 
 which were held between our Lord and his dis- 
 ciples after his crucifixion and resurrection from 
 the dead, because they are not delivered in the 
 way of incidental observation or casual remark^ 
 but as arguments and reasonings to establish 
 the very point under discussion. They were in- 
 tended to meet the very objection which is now 
 urged against the doctrine of the Atonement, that 
 there was no necessity for the sufferings of Christ 
 to constitute him the Redeemer of Israel and the 
 Saviour of the world; and that there is no refer- 
 ence to him, in this character, in the Lata of 
 Moses, and Levitical sacrificature. Contrary to 
 both these notions^ we have the express authority 
 of our Lord himself. 
 
 L First HE ASSERTS THE NECESSITY OF HIS SUF- 
 FERINGS : and^ in answer to his disciples, who 
 were so perplexed with the fact of his crucifixion, 
 as to be ready to conclude from it that he could not 
 be the true Messiah, he asks, " Ought not Christ 
 (or Messiah) to have suffered these things ?"^ He 
 repeats this necessity a second time, and says, 
 '^ These are the words which I spake unto you, 
 
 ^ Luke xxiv. 26. 'Ov)(t -aOrct "EAEI Tvadeiy rov XpicTToy. 
 Did it not behove the Christ to suffer these thing's ? Could he 
 have been the Messiah if he had not ? For such is the obvious 
 import of the question. 
 
270 EVIDENCE FROM THE AUTHORITY [SECT. III. 
 
 while I was yet with you^ that all things qnusV 
 be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses 
 concerning me;" and, as if this were not sufficient 
 to mark the necessity of the case, he adds again, 
 with increased emphasis, " Thus it is written, and 
 thus it hehoijed Christ to suffer." ^ From these 
 reiterated declarations, that it was necessary that 
 the Messiah should suffer an ignominious and 
 painful death, we may conclude with certainty 
 that he could, in no other way, have fulfilled his 
 commission, or accomplished what had been pre- 
 dicted concerning him. If it had been possible 
 that this cup could have passed from him, we are 
 sure that when, in " his agony and bloody sweat," 
 he prayed that it might, it certainly would have 
 been removed ; but seeing that he drank it to the 
 very dregs, we are equally sure that he could not 
 have fulfilled his mission without drinking it. 
 
 Now the chief character in which he had been 
 announced to the world was that of a Saviour : 
 and, indeed, in this one word may be summed 
 up all that was foretold of his grace and mercy, 
 of his greatness and glory, of his achievements 
 and victories, and of the peace and happiness 
 which should result from his kingdom and govern- 
 
 "* Luke xxiv. 44. "On AEI TrXjjpiodfjvai. k. t. X. 
 ^ "OvTioq EAEI TraGeu' TOf Xpiaror. v. 40. 
 
CHAP. IV.] OF OUR LORD HIMSELF. 271 
 
 ment. Hence we find that, when his first appear- 
 ance was announced by an angel, "the good tidmgs 
 of great joy " were comprehended in this one sig- 
 nificant description of hini, " unto you is born this 
 day in the city of David a Saviour, which is 
 Christ the Lord."^ It was also in this character 
 that he was received by his disciples, and ex- 
 pected to '^ redeem Israel." But they had not 
 sufficiently considered the means by which this 
 salvation was to be accomplished; they were 
 clearly enough revealed in the scriptures, but in 
 their anticipations of the greatness of the event, 
 they had overlooked the ignominiousness of the 
 means ; and it had not entered their minds that 
 he was to save the world by dying on the cross. 
 This was the lesson they had still to learn ; and 
 it was this in which our Lord so copiously in- 
 structed them, just before he entered into his 
 glory. Hence it manifestly appears that his death 
 was essential to his character as a Saviour ; and 
 it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the 
 remission of sins is inseparably connected with 
 his crucifixion ; and the doctrine, we have seen, 
 rests upon the repeated and most solemn declara- 
 tions of our Lord himself. 
 
 This conclusion will receive additional con- 
 firmation, when we notice, in the next place, 
 
 •' Luke ii. 1 1. 
 
^72 EVIDENCE FROM THE AUTHORITY [sECT. HI. 
 
 2. The anthorities to which Jesus Christ refers 
 for the proof of the necessity of his sufferings. 
 These are chiefly, as we have just seen, in the texts 
 already quoted, the writings of Moses ; and these 
 writings, not only generally, as constituting the 
 whole of the first f\\e books of the sacred canon, 
 and one of the three grand divisions of the Old 
 Testament, but specifically the Levitical part of 
 them : " All things written in the law of Moses 
 concerning him."^ It is to this point I wish parti- 
 cularly to draw attention. In " the laiv of Moses " 
 nothing, that I am aware of, can be found as 
 applying to the death of Christ, or to him at all — 
 at least, with sufficient prominency to justify this 
 particular reference — except the Levitical sacri- 
 fices. In the book of Genesis, much is written 
 respecting the Messiah. The first intimation of 
 a Saviour relates to him; as did aiso the sacrifices 
 of Abel^ of Noah, and of Abraham; the promises 
 made to the patriarchs ; and several of the pro- 
 phetic addresses delivered by them, when dying, 
 to their children ; but in " the law of Moses " 
 there is no reference to the death of Christ, (and 
 it is of this that he is speaking,) except such as 
 may be supposed to exist in the offering of ani- 
 mals in the way of sacrifice. Now we have 
 already seen that these are alluded to most fre- 
 quently in the New Testament as typical of the 
 
 6 Luke xxiv. 44. also v. 27. 
 
CHAP. IV.] or OUR LORD HIMSELF. 273 
 
 death of our Lord Jesus Christ; and^ taking- this 
 view of the Levitical sacrifices, we see at once 
 the justice and propriety of our Lord's reference 
 to them — just after his crucifixion, and on the first 
 tiuie of his conversing with his disciples, after he 
 had given his life a ransom for many, and his flesh 
 for the life of the world — as explanatory, not only 
 of the necessity of the death he had undergone, 
 but also of its sacrificial nature, and of its being- 
 offered up as an Atonement for the sins of the 
 world. On reference to these sacrifices, the dis- 
 ciples would immediately call to mind the long- 
 continued custom of their priests, on the annual 
 returns of the Great Atonement, as well as of the 
 significant ceremonies connected with the offering 
 of the paschal lamb, and the morning and evening- 
 victims presented in the daily worship of the 
 Temple ; and would, at once, see both the exact 
 correspondence between the types and antitype, 
 and the necessity of his undergoing the death 
 which they had just deplored, and considered as 
 fatal to their hopes of his being the Messiah. 
 In this way, then, all their difficulties would be 
 removed ; and they would themselves wonder at 
 their own thoughtlessness, in not having pre- 
 viously discovered that the Messiah '' ought to 
 have suffered such things," and could not have 
 been the Messiah, if he had not suffered them. 
 
274 EVIDENCE FROM THE AUTHORITY [SECT. III. 
 
 Their iiiconsiderateiiesS, however^ has been the 
 cause of great benefit to succeeding generations, 
 because it has called forth the testimony of Jesus 
 Christ himself to the necessity of liis dying for 
 man^s offences ; and to the real intention of the 
 law of Moses. He had no sooner made the ne- 
 cessary sacrifice for sin, than he explained the 
 importance of it to his disciples, and taught them 
 that every thing in the system, which had con- 
 stituted their religion, from the creation of man, 
 and especially from the establishment of the Levi- 
 tical priesthood by Moses, down to that present 
 moment, had a direct regard to his death upon 
 the cross; and thus, by anticipation, the great 
 Author of our religion has himself answered the 
 objections now brought against the expiatory 
 nature of his death, and has taught us that there 
 can be no remission of sin, but in relation to his 
 sacrifice ; and that there never had been any for- 
 giveness, but in typical reference to that atone- 
 ment which he had just made upon the cross. 
 
 3. Nor is it undeserving of remark, that from 
 
 THIS TIME ANIMAL SACRIFICE CEASED TO BE A PART 
 OF THE RELIGION OF CHRISTIANS. For although 
 
 the disciples did, for a time, attend the Temple- 
 service at Jerusalem, and conform, in other places, 
 to the ritual services of the law, yet as their minds 
 
CHAP. lY.] OP OUR LORD HIMSELF. 275 
 
 became gradually more and more enlightened, 
 they saw that the Mosaic system was super- 
 seded, that sacrifices were no longer necessary, 
 and they exempted their Gentile converts entirely 
 from them. 
 
 This fact is, I think, worthy of peculiar atten- 
 tion. A system of sacrifice had been continued, 
 without intermission, for four thousand years, from 
 the creation of man down to the death of Christ, 
 in every nation, tribe, and tongue of the whole 
 family of man. Immediately on the crucifixion 
 of the Messiah these sacrifices ceased, and in 
 every church, planted by the apostles, they were 
 superseded by a more spiritual worship, and by 
 a faith, which reposed on the meritorious death 
 of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, instead 
 of those animal victims, which had every where, 
 till that time, been presented in behalf of offenders. 
 How can this universally admitted fact be ac- 
 counted for, but on the principles which are 
 advocated in this Treatise ? Does it not show, 
 in the clearest manner, tliat sacrifice was origin- 
 ally of divine institution ? — that, as it has been 
 shown to be expiatory and vicarious, so also it 
 was symbolical of the death of Christ upon the 
 cross? — and that, as soon as that sacrifice had 
 been offered, the whole system was superseded 
 
 t2 
 
276 EVIDENCE FROM OUR LORD. [sECT. III. 
 
 and a new order of things introduced^ by wliich, 
 through faith in the crucified Messiah, the peni- 
 tent sinner obtains the free and full forgiveness 
 of his sins ? These things are established, then, 
 both by the facts of the case, the concurrent voice 
 of the whole scriptures, and by the direct testi- 
 mony, given on the specific question before us, 
 of the very Author of our religion, our God and 
 Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 We have thus brought home the evidence of 
 this doctrine of the Atonement to the very highest 
 possible authority ; and if this be rejected, we 
 have no common ground on which to meet those 
 who impugn it. The controversy ceases to be 
 with men who bear the name of Christians, and 
 must be considered as having place only with 
 direct infidels ; and it is not with these that I have 
 at present any concern. 
 
 It may, however, be still satisfactory to the 
 Christian to find, that this doctrine, which has 
 been so fully established on scriptural authority, 
 was considered of prime importance, and was 
 daily insisted upon, with the greatest effect, by 
 the apostles of our blessed Lord. This shall be 
 the subject of the following chapter. 
 
CHAP, v.] EVIDENCE^ &C. 277 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Doctrine of our Lord's death, as an 
 Atonement for sin, ivas the constant subject of 
 all the Apostles' preacJmig, and the great in- 
 strument of their extraordinary success, 
 
 1. In this statement;, of course, I suppose that 
 other topics received their due share of attention, 
 and particularly that of our Lord^s resurrection 
 from the dead. This was the grand evidence of 
 his divine mission, and it v^as urged on all occa- 
 sions, both to convict the Jev^s of having put to 
 death their own Messiah, and to induce others to 
 believe in Christ as the only Saviour of the world. 
 This event they dwelt upon as authenticating 
 their credentials : but when they had established 
 this fact, they seldom failed to improve it, by 
 showing that it was from his crucifixion that the 
 hope of pardon and salvation was to be obtained. 
 It is difficult, in the brief narratives which are 
 given of the first discourses of our Lord's dis- 
 ciples in the Acts of the Apostles, to ascertain 
 precisely the points on which they most enlarged ; 
 
278 EVIDENCE FKOiM [sECT. III. 
 
 but the continual mention they make of salvation 
 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ would lead 
 to the reasonable conclusion^ that it v^as grounded 
 on the sacrifice w^hicli he made for sin upon the 
 cross ; and the more so^, as we have seen^ from 
 numerous other passages, that the remission of 
 sins is connected with his death. Thus, when 
 St. Peter, in his first discourse to the Jews, on 
 the day of Pentecost, had said " Let all the house 
 of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that 
 same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord 
 and Christ," and the multitude cried " Men and 
 brethren, what shall we do ?" he replied " Repent 
 and be baptized — iu the 7iame of Jesus Christ 
 for the remission of sins ^^'''^ it is not unreasonable 
 to suppose that he, who had heard, on the solemn 
 occasion of the last supper, his divine Master say 
 "• this is my blood of the New Testament, which 
 is shed for many for the remissio7i of sins ^"^^ had 
 a special regard to the blood of the Atonement 
 as the only ground of hope for pardon. When 
 again, upon another occasion, he addressed " the 
 rulers of the people and the elders of Israel," and 
 said, " This is the stone which was set at nought 
 of you builders, which is become the head of the 
 corner: neither is there salvation in any other; 
 for, there is none other name under heaven given 
 ' Acts ii. 37, 38. ^ xMatt. xxvi, 28. 
 
CHAP, v.] APOSTOLICAL PREACHING. 279 
 
 among 7nen., whereby we must be saved," ^ it is 
 natural to conclude that he had before him the 
 discourse of our Lord, just before his ascension, 
 when " he opened their understandings that they 
 might understand the scriptures, and said unto 
 them. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved 
 Christ to suffer — and that repentance and re- 
 mission of sin shoidd he preached in his 7iameP 
 If, again, we refer to the interesting narrative of 
 the Evangelist Philip joining himself to the chariot 
 of the Ethiopian Eunuch, and expounding to him 
 the fifty- third chapter of Isaiah^ we shall come to 
 the same conclusion: for who can doubt that, 
 when he " preached unto him Jesus," from that 
 affecting i^^iy " He was led as a sheep to the 
 slaughter^ and like a lamb dumb before his 
 shearer, so he opened not his mouth," ^ he di- 
 rected him to the Saviour, as " the Lamb ofGod, 
 ivhich taketh away the sin of the world 7^'' The 
 whole discourse also of St. Peter with Cornelius 
 and his friends, seems to have been on the doctrine 
 of the Atonement, as we may collect from the 
 conclusion of it, in which he says, ^* To him give 
 all the prophets witness that through his name, 
 whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remis- 
 sion of sins, ^^'^ The same inference may be drawn 
 
 9 Acts iv. 11, 12. 1 viii. 30—35. 2 x. 43. 
 
280 EVIDENCE FROM [sECT. 111. 
 
 from the concluding address of St. Paul in his 
 first sermon at Antioch^ when he said, ^^ Be it 
 known unto you, men and brethren, that through 
 this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of 
 sins : and by hiniy all that believe are justified 
 from all things^ from which ye could not be 
 justified by the law of Moses." ^ This seems also 
 to have been the subject of this same apostle's 
 three days' discussion with the Jews at Thessa- 
 loiiica, when " he reasoned w ith them out of the 
 scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must 
 needs have suffered, and risen again from the 
 dead, and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto 
 you, is Christ:"^ that is, he produced passages 
 of scripture to prove that whenever the Messiah 
 should appear, it would be necessary for him to 
 suffer, and to rise from the dead, — or, in other 
 words of this same apostle, that he should be 
 '^ delivered for our offences, and raised again for 
 our justification,^^ -^ — and, in point of fact, that this 
 Jesus, whom he preached, was that very Messiah. 
 The same conclusion may be drawn from his dis- 
 course with the elders of the church at Ephesus, 
 when he charged them to " feed the church of 
 God, which he purchased with his own blood." ^ 
 
 ^ Acts xiii. 38. 3D. -t xvii. 2, 3. 
 
 ' Horn, iv, 25. ^ Acts x.\. 28. 
 
CHAP. V.J APOSTOLICAL PREACllINCi. 281 
 
 From these, and similar intimations of the subject 
 of discourses preached by the apostles, imme- 
 diately after the crucifixion of our Lord, we should 
 be authorized, I conceive, to conclude, that the 
 theme on which they constantly dwelt, and made 
 of the greatest importance, was the death of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ as the foundation of hope for 
 the remission of sins. But what is, perhaps, 
 chiefly a matter of fair inference from these brief 
 notices of the sermons recorded in the Acts of 
 the Apostles, is reduced to matter of fact as it 
 regards St. Paul. I mention him in particular, 
 because, as far as I recollect, he is the only 
 apostle who informs us, in his epistles, what was 
 the constant subject of his preaching : what was 
 the doctrine of the rest of thein, in their luritings, 
 we can have no doubt, from the passages already 
 so copiously cited from almost all their epistles. 
 This apostle has again and again assured us, that 
 the gTand topic on which he constantly dwelt in 
 all countries, and before all congregations, was 
 the cross of Jesus Christ. " The Jews," says he, 
 " require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wis- 
 dom :" the former demanded some splendid proofs 
 of the greatness and glory of their expected Mes- 
 siah, and looked down with unutterable contempt 
 on him that had suffered at Jerusalem as a male- 
 factor; and the latter enquired what system of 
 
282 EVIDENCE FROM [sECT. 111. 
 
 philosophy was broiiglit to light by this leader 
 of a new sect^ and what were the proofs of his 
 superior claims to attention^ either in the novelty 
 of his discoveries^ or in the wisdom of his school. 
 To both of these the apostle had but one reply, 
 however humiliating it might be to the one, and 
 contemptible to the other; '^ We preach Christ 
 crucffied, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to 
 the Greeks foolishness : but unto them which are 
 called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power 
 of God, and the wisdom of God."^ In other 
 parts of this same epistle, he states what was the 
 one great object he had in view in all his inter- 
 course with the church of Corinth : it was neither 
 to gain applause as an eloquent preacher, nor to 
 attach himself to any party; but simply to preach 
 the gospel of salvation through a crucified Re- 
 deemer. " Christ," says he, " sent me not to bap- 
 tize, but to preach the gospel, not in the wisdom of 
 words, lest the cross of Christ should be made 
 of none effect. ^''^ " And I, brethren," says he 
 again, " when I came to you, came not with ex- 
 cellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto 
 you the testimony of God : for I determined not 
 to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, 
 and him crucified.'''''^ He writes in similar lan- 
 
 7 1 Cor. i. 22— 24. - i. 17. 9 ii. 1,2. 
 
CHAP, v.] APOSTOLICAL PREACHING. 283 
 
 guage to the Galatians^ and says, " God forbid 
 that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord 
 Jesus ClunstP ^ And that he does not here speak 
 of glorying in the cross of Christ in reference to 
 his sufferings for Christ, but of Christ's suffering 
 for 4is, is evident from the context ; for he there 
 speaks of persecution, or suffering for the cross 
 of Christ, or for the doctrine of Christ's cross. 
 Besides, it is not in our own sufferings, but in 
 those of Christ, that we ought chiefly and exclu- 
 sively to glory : and therefore the apostle must 
 liave regard here, as just stated, to the doctrine 
 of Christ's atonement on the cross. Now so con- 
 stantly had he insisted on this topic, in his dis- 
 courses at Galatia, that he reju'esents the suffering 
 Saviour as having been, as it might almost be 
 said, visibly placed before them. '' O foolish 
 Galatians," he exclaims, " who hath bewitched 
 you, that you should not obey the truth, before 
 whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set 
 forth crucified ainong you .'^" ^ 
 
 These passages, taken in connexion with nu- 
 merous others which represent all the blessings 
 of the gospel as flowing from the mercy of God 
 in Christ Jesus, show plainly in what light St. 
 
 ' Gal. vi. 14. " iii. 1. 
 
284 EVIDENCE PROM [SECT. HI. 
 
 Paul viewed the crucifixion of our Lord. It waS;, 
 iu his mind, the only channel through which grace 
 and salvation could flow to man ; and as it was 
 the great design of the gospel to bring sinners 
 into a state of reconciliation with God, and as 
 this could be effected only by the blood of the 
 cross, as has been abundantly shown, he was 
 therefore determined to preach the doctrine of 
 Christ^s death as the only atoning sacrifice for 
 sin; and this, to the exclusion of every other 
 topic which was not more or less connected with it. 
 
 Now, when we find this inspired apostle making 
 the doctrine of Christ crucified the constant theme 
 of his discourses, and concentrating in it all that 
 he deemed important to man, or comprehended 
 in his own commission from God, surely it is not 
 too much to conclude, that it involves the whole 
 scheme of the gospel, and is the only means by 
 which a sinner can hope for the remission of his 
 transgressions, and reconciliation with God. 
 
 As the apostle dwelt continually on this topic, 
 so he found also, 
 
 2. That the doctrine of Christ crucified for the 
 si7is of the ivorldivas the only efficieyit means of 
 spreading the gospel throughout the world. 
 
CHAP, v.] APOSTOLICAL PREACHING. *2Sti 
 
 He informs us that^ whilst the Jews were of- 
 fended at this doctrine, and the Greeks treated 
 it with contempt, it was, nevertheless, " mighty 
 through God, to the pulling down of strong 
 holds," and reducing the world to the " obedience 
 of faith." '^ We preach Christ crucified," says he, 
 " to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks 
 foolishness ; but unto them which are called both 
 Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and 
 the wisdom of God.^'' ^ And it is an historical 
 fact, that the most extraordinary results followed 
 this preaching. In spite of difficulties, apparently 
 insuperable, the work of the Lord abundantly 
 prospered in his hands ; and, published as this 
 same doctrine was by the rest of the apos- 
 tles and ministers of Jesus Christ, it spread 
 rapidly in every nation. Multitudes, both Jews 
 and Greeks, were converted to the faith; the 
 temples of false gods were deserted, their altars 
 thrown down, the kingdom of Satan fell, and 
 that of Christ was built upon its ruins ; so that, 
 in the course of two or three centuries, the doc- 
 trine of salvation through the blood of the cross, 
 Avas published through the Roman world, and 
 was received as the faith of the kings and princes 
 of the earth. This result, let it be remembered, 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. i. 23, 24. 
 
286 EVIDENCE FROM [sECT. III. 
 
 was the fruit of that doctrine which I have been 
 attempting in this Treatise to establish : and its 
 extraordinary effects are an evidence of its trutli. 
 God owned and blessed the labours of those who 
 published it^ to an extent far beyond the reach 
 of merely human efforts ; and he has thus made 
 known to all succeeding ministers^ by what means 
 he will accomplish the purposes of his grace and 
 mercy to a ruined world. All have sinned and 
 come short of the glory of God. Sin is no trivial 
 affair; — it is the casting ofi* of all allegiance to 
 God^ and joining against his kingdom in con- 
 federacy with the powers of darkness. This 
 defection in duty—this apostasy from God — this 
 revolt to Satan, must not be passed over as a 
 matter of comparative unimportance. Repent- 
 ance cannot repair the breach, nor atone for the 
 transgression. The Son of God, the gift of the 
 Father's pity and compassion to man, undertakes 
 the desperate cause. He becomes the sinner's 
 friend, dies " the just for the unjust," and "redeems 
 us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse 
 for us." He thus opens the way to reconciliation 
 with God ; and a commission is given to proclaim 
 these glad tidings throughout the world. The 
 apostles convey the message: they dwell with 
 rapture on the compassion of the Father and the 
 love of the Son. They can neither think, speak. 
 
CHAP, v.] APOSTOLICAL PREACHING. 287 
 
 nor write on any other subject than the cross^ 
 and are " cletermmed to know nothing save Jesus 
 Christ, and him crucified." God seals the truth 
 of this message by the gift of the Holy Ghost ; 
 the understandings of men are enlightened, their 
 hearts renewed; they turn from idols to serve 
 the living and true God, and the ends of the 
 earth see his salvation. And all this was the 
 fruit of the doctr'me of fo7'Cjiveness of sins by 
 the atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, 
 
 I have now brought to a conclusion my argu- 
 ment from scripture, that the death of Jesus Christ 
 was an Atonement and Vicarious Sacrifice for 
 the sins of mankind ; and that remission of sins 
 is never granted but in relation to it. And if 
 any truth may be considered as standing on an 
 immoveable basis, it is this. We have seen, not 
 only that the usual objections alleged against it 
 are without foundation, but also that it is sup- 
 ported by the authority of every dispensation of 
 mercy from God to man, from the first expulsion 
 of our primeval parents from Paradise, to the 
 last discourses of our blessed Lord, after he had 
 made the great sacrifice, and was risen again 
 from the dead. The docti'ine is asserted or im- 
 plied in a train of scripture texts which perhaps 
 
288 EVIDENCE FROM [sECT. IH. 
 
 it would be in vain to look for on any other : 
 it is expressed in every variety of language, plain 
 and metaphorical, narrative and doctrinal. Not 
 only has it a pre-eminent place in almost every 
 book in the Bible, but it was set forth in the 
 symbols of every religion of the world for four 
 thousand years, was embodied in every rite and 
 ceremony of the law, introduced in every possible 
 form into the gospel, and was the chief subject 
 of a whole treatise in the New Testament. Ani- 
 mal sacrifice, which had continued nearly from 
 the creation to the coming of the Messiah, ceased 
 when this Atonement had been made ; and from 
 that time, this became the grand theme of the 
 gospel, and occupied as prominent a place in the 
 new^ dispensation as sacrifice had done in the old ; 
 and the effect of preaching this doctrine has been 
 the conversion of millions of the human race, and 
 the complete transformation of their principles 
 and conduct. Nor has it yet lost its power : it 
 is still the great instrument used for evangelizing 
 the world ; and still the powers of darkness yield 
 to its force ; nor will it lose its virtue till " the 
 kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of 
 our Lord and his Christ." 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the Atonement: and if 
 other doctrines have in them a portion of gloiy, 
 
CHAP, v.] APOSTOLICAL PREACHING. 289 
 
 '^ this exceeds in glory^'' and will continue to be 
 held in admiration while the Lamb sits on the 
 throne, and one of the redeemed is left to say, 
 ^ Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive 
 power and riches, and wisdom and strength, and 
 honour and glory and blessing." 
 
 The blessed effects of preaching this doctrine 
 are so strikingly set forth by a late eminent 
 writer, as well as so appropriately to that part 
 of my subject which is now under consideration, 
 that I cannot resist the temptation, though the 
 quotation is somewhat long, of laying it before 
 my readers. 
 
 "If the cross of Christ," says Mr. M*Laurin, 
 " met with such contempt on earth, it met also 
 with incomparable honour. It made the greatest 
 revolution in the world that ever happened since 
 the creation, or that ever will happen till Shiloh 
 come again; a more glorious, a more lasting- 
 change than ever was produced by all the princes 
 and conquerors in the world. It conquered mul- 
 titudes of souls, and established a sovereignty 
 over men's thoughts, wills, and affections. This 
 was a conquest to which human power hath no 
 proportion. Persecutors turned apostles; and 
 
290 EVIDENCE FROM [sECT. III. 
 
 vast numbers of pagans^ after knowing the cross 
 of Christ, suffered death and torments cheerfully 
 to honour it. The growing light shone from east 
 to west ; and opposition was not only useless but 
 subservient to it. The changes it produced are 
 sometimes described by the prophets by the most 
 magnificent expressions; thus, for instance, Isa. 
 XXXV. ^ It turned the parched grounds into pools 
 of waters, made the habitations of dragons to be- 
 come places of grass, and reeds and rushes; 
 made wildernesses to bud and blossom as the 
 rose.^ It wrought this change among us, in the 
 
 utmost isles of the Gentiles. But the chief 
 
 effects of the cross of Christ, and which show 
 most of its glory, are its inward effects on the 
 souls of men. There it makes a new creation; 
 Christ is formed in them, the source and the 
 hope of glory. — The cross of Christ is an object 
 of such incomparable brightness, that it spread a 
 glory round it to all the nations of the earth, all 
 the corners of the universe, all the generations 
 of time, and all the ages of eternity. The 
 greatest actions or events which ever happened 
 on earth, filled, with their splendour and in- 
 fluence, but a moment of time, and a point of 
 space : the splendour of this great object fills 
 immensity and eternity. If we take a view of 
 
CFIAP. v.] APOSTOLICAL PREACHING. 291 
 
 its glory, we shall see it contemplated with at- 
 tention, spreading influence, and attracting looks 
 from times past, present, and to come; heaven, 
 earth, and hell, angels, saints, and devils. We 
 shall see it to be both the object of the deepest 
 admiration of the creatures, and the perfect ap- 
 probation of the infinite Creator : we shall see the 
 best part of mankind, the church of God, for four 
 thousand years looting forward to it before it 
 happened ; new generations yet unborn rising up 
 to admire and honour it, in continual successions, 
 till time shall be no more; innumerable multitudes 
 of angels and saints looking back to it with holy 
 transport, to the remotest ages of eternity. Other 
 glories decay by length of time : if the splendour 
 of this object change, it will be only by increasing. 
 The visible sun would spend his beams in process 
 of time, and as it were grow dim with age; this 
 object hath a rich stock of beams, which eternity 
 cannot exhaust. If saints and angels grow^ in 
 knowledge, the splendour of this object will be 
 still increasing ; it is unbelief that intercepts its 
 beams ; unbelief only takes place on earth, there 
 is no such thing in heaven or hell. It will be a 
 great part of future blessedness, to remember 
 the object that purchased it; and of future pu- 
 nishment, to remember the object that offered 
 deliverance from it. 
 
 u2 
 
292 EVIDKNCE^ &CC. [SECT. III. 
 
 " Its glory produces powerful effects vv^herever 
 it shines. They who behold this glory^ are trans- 
 formed into the same image. It melts cold and 
 fi'ozen hearts^ it breaks stony hearts, it pierces 
 adamant^ it penetrates through thick darkness. 
 
 " But it is impossible fully to describe all its 
 effects^ unless we could fully reckon up all the. 
 spiritual and eternal evils it prevents^ all the 
 riches of gTace and glory it purchases^, and all 
 the divine perfections it displays. It has this 
 peculiar to it^ that as it is full of glory itself^ it 
 communicates glory to all that behold it aright : 
 It gives them a glorious robe of righteousness ; 
 their God is their glory ; it calls them to glory 
 and virtue ; it gives them the spirit of God and 
 of glory ; it gives them joy unspeakable and full 
 of glory here^ and an exceeding great and eternal 
 weight of glory hereafter." ^ 
 
 ^ Sermons and Essays, pp. 122 — 125. 
 
CHAP. I.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 293 
 
 SECTION IV 
 
 The doctrine of the Atonement^ as stated in 
 the preceding sections, is not inconsistent' 
 with the nature and fitness of things. 
 
 It is objected by Socinians, that '^ The no- 
 tion of Christ making satisfaction for sins, and 
 of sinners being saved on the ground of his 
 satisfaction, involves ideas which are contrary 
 to the nature of things." I will endeavour to 
 show that there is no weight in this objection; 
 and that the doctrine of the Atonement is by no 
 means inconsistent with the established nature 
 and constituted order of things. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Preliminary Observations. 
 
 By " the nature of things/' I suppose we are 
 to understand that state of the world, under 
 
294 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. [sECT. IV. 
 
 which divine Providence has placed the human 
 race : because^ if we form any other idea of it, 
 as taking in either more or less than is to be 
 found in the present system^— facts as they 
 evidently exist in the established order of things, 
 may be as much at variance with it, as any sup- 
 posed part of the doctrine of the Atonement^ or 
 of any other article of revealed religion; and 
 then, we should be no more required to account 
 for any inconsistency in one case, than we are 
 in the other : all that can be reasonably de- 
 manded of us is, that we should show that the 
 doctrine of the Atonement shall, in no respect, vio- 
 late the grand principles which are in operation 
 in the present course of things, and the govern- 
 ment of the world. 
 
 And even in restricting the nature of things 
 to the system with which we are inseparably con- 
 nected, we must ever bear in mind that it is a 
 system but imperfectly understood. The go- 
 vernment itself is at present imperfect and 
 incomplete; and is evidently a part only of 
 another system, vastly more enlarged, and ex- 
 tending through a much longer duration of time. 
 In the present constitution and course of nature, 
 there are innumerable anomalies ; and the wisest of 
 philosophers have but groped in darkness, when 
 
CHAP. I.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 295 
 
 they have endeavoured to trace them to one 
 common source^ or connect them with one or 
 nlore universally acknowledged principles. It 
 should seem as if this state of things were only 
 as a single wheel, or minute spring in an infi- 
 nitely complicated piece of machinery: viewed 
 separately, and as detached from the rest, — and 
 this is the only view we can at present obtain of 
 it, as seen in the book of nature, — it is impossi- 
 ble to discover either the suitableness of its pecu- 
 liar construction, or its adaptation to the general 
 contrivance, or the part it is to perform, in the 
 operation of the whole. And even with the light 
 which revelation throws upon the system, we 
 can obtain only very inadequate conceptions of 
 it ; we see but ^^ as through a glass darkly,'' 
 and probably, in our present state, our capacity 
 is too limited to take in more than a few minute 
 parts of it. Till, then, we are able to recon- 
 cile all that we see around us, and all that his- 
 tory records, with the natm*e and fitness of that 
 constitution of things, under which we are evi- 
 dently placed, we shall not be justified in sus- 
 pecting the truth of any doctrine, when it has an 
 apparent foundation in divine revelation, though 
 it may involve certain points which cannot, with- 
 out difficulty, be reconciled with our notions of the 
 nature of things. If its difficulties bear an ana- 
 
^% PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. [sECT. IV. 
 
 logy to those wliicli the constitution of nature and 
 the government of divine Providence are con- 
 stantly throwing in our w^ay^ they are no 
 stronger evidence against the truth of a doctrine, 
 than the latter are, of the reality of the state of 
 things with which we are surrounded. The only 
 question we have in such a case to solve, is 
 its correspondence with divine revelation; and 
 having ascertained this, we receive it as truth, 
 though connected with matters which we may 
 not fully comprehend.^ 
 
 1 It will be seen that, in the above statement, I have had be- 
 fore me The Analogy of Religion to the constitution and 
 COURSE of Nature, by Bishop Butler. Those of my readers, 
 who would form a just estimate of the difficulties which re- 
 vealed religion may, in some of its doctrines, present, must 
 consult that justly celebrated work, and especially the ii. iii. 
 and vii. chapters of the first part ; and the iii. iv. and v. of 
 the second part. And I am happy to have this opportunity of 
 mentioning the " Introductory Essay" of my friend, the Rev. 
 Daniel Wilson, to this great work. Those, who may have 
 found it somewhat difficult to follow the elaborate author of the 
 analogy in the train, and connexion, and scope of some of his 
 reasonings, and through the somewhat lengthened and involved 
 construction of some of his sentences, will find, in the analysis 
 contained in the Essay, the way made perfectly jilain and easy. 
 And those, also, who may have wished to see the argument of 
 analogy pursued to its legitimate bearing on others of those pe- 
 culiar doctrines of our holy religion, at which infidel writers have 
 taken most otfencc, will be gratified in Jinding it carried on 
 
CHAP. I.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 297 
 
 The true and only correct view which can be 
 taken of the constitution of things to which the 
 human race is made subject, is that of a moral 
 government, — a government of rewards and pu- 
 nishments, corresponding with the moral charac- 
 ter of man. This I shall be authorized to assume 
 so long as the analogy of Bishop Butler, to which 
 reference is made in the preceding note, remains 
 unanswered, — that is as long as ^^ the constitu- 
 tion and course of nature" itself shall continue. 
 
 In this constitution of things, it is evident 
 that justice must be the predominant feature : 
 the awarding to every one according to his deeds 
 necessarily supposes it ; and to this character of 
 it, every thing around and within us bears testi- 
 mony. The final causes of things, the presages 
 of conscience, the facts of history, the daily oc- 
 currences of life, all have this direct bearing ; 
 and all lead to the conclusion, that the throne of 
 God, and his government of the world are esta- 
 blished on justice. The doctrines of revelation 
 harmonize with this view of the constitution of 
 the world. Every threatening against disobedi- 
 ence, and every encouragement to virtue are in- 
 
 witli a precision and force of reasoning scarcely inferior to that 
 of Butler himself. 
 
298 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. [SECT. IV. 
 
 dications that iiiah is regarded as a moral agent, 
 and will be dealt v^ith according to character. 
 
 But though justice be the predominant^ it is 
 not the only quality observable in this constitu- 
 tion of things. We see that the natural course 
 of distributive justice is sometimes intercepted, 
 and that men are dealt with better than they de- 
 serve. The appropriate consequences of vice 
 do not always follow : sometimes they are sus- 
 pended, sometimes mitigated, and sometimes 
 averted. This takes place equally in the physi- 
 cal, civil and moral course of the world : and 
 there is a remarkable analogy between the three. 
 A vicious course of conduct, though its natu- 
 ral tendency be to injure and destroy the health, 
 and it most frequently does so, yet it does not 
 always effect this : remedies are now and then 
 discovered, which repair the breach that licen- 
 tiousness had occasioned. Crime, though com- 
 monly, does not always draw after it the penalty; 
 it is sometimes evaded, and sometimes com- 
 muted. Nor does guilt always draw down the 
 divine indignation V it is sometimes pardoned, 
 and the punishment averted. Although, there- 
 fore, the coQstitution of things is moral, and every 
 thing bears the prominent character of justice, 
 yet this order of things manifestly admits of a 
 
CHAP. I.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 299 
 
 remedial system^ and leaves a way for the exer- 
 cise of mercy. This is evident to the slightest 
 observation ; and the only question is, how can 
 qualities so discordant be brought into union? 
 And how, — in the affair of sin, which is that 
 only with which we are now concerned, — how 
 can "justice and mercy meet together: righte- 
 ousness and peace kiss each other?" The an- 
 swer which ive return is, by means of the Atone- 
 ment : " Christ has redeemed us from the curse 
 of the law, by becoming a curse for us.^^ " He 
 died the just, for the unjust, that he might bring 
 us to God." This is our way of accounting for 
 it. But Socinians are dissatisfied with this way 
 of reconciling justice and mercy ; and say that 
 this doctrine is '^ contrary to the nature of 
 things,'' — is subversive of the constituted course 
 of the world, and must therefore be rejected. 
 Here then we are at issue, and it remains to be 
 considered whether what has been stated in the 
 preceding part of this treatise respecting the 
 Atonement, is really at variance with the esta- 
 blished order of things and the course of divine 
 Providence in the government of the world. I 
 maintain that it is not. 
 
 1. And let it be observed, that Socinians 
 themselves do not suppose that sin will be par- 
 
300 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. [SECT. IV. 
 
 cloned without repentance. They so far admit that 
 the government of the world is morale as that a dis- 
 tinction (slight indeed it is) will be made between 
 the virtuous and the vicious ; and that^ under cer- 
 tain circumstances^ some punishment of sin will be 
 inflicted ; but they contend that repentance alone 
 is sufficient for all the purposes of obtaining par- 
 don, and reinstating them in the divine favour, 
 if indeed they had ever forfeited it : and that, 
 to say that more than the offender can himself 
 perform to ward ofl" the penalty, is an impeach- 
 ment of the"^ mercy of God, and inconsistent with 
 the nature and fitness of things. 
 
 But, in opposition to this, we assert that there 
 are no proofs in the natural course of things, to 
 show that the repentance of one that has done 
 evil can efface the mischief of his wrong-doing ; 
 nor any evidence from scripture that God will 
 accept of it, as the reparation of the breach 
 made by sin. The conmion, and almost univer- 
 sal course of things is against this assumption, 
 and furnishes a strong presumptive proof that it 
 is founded in error. In an almost infinite majo- 
 rity of cases, repentance can effect nothing in 
 favour of the offender, either for his physical or 
 civil delinquencies ; and why it should be omni- 
 potent in moral cases, by no means appears; and. 
 
CHAP. I.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 301 
 
 in the face of facts of an analogous nature, all tend- 
 ing the contrary way, requires the clearest evi- 
 dence to prove it. The argument then from 
 analogy is clearly and pointedly against the So- 
 cinian system.^ 
 
 2 The observations of Bishop Butler on this point are deserving 
 of great attention. He says^ " There seems no probability, 
 that any thing we could do, would alone, and of itself, prevent 
 them (the penal consequences of sin) ; prevent their following 
 or being inflicted. But one would think at least, it were im- 
 possible that the contrary (that is, that punishment would not 
 be inflicted) should be thought certain. For we are not ac- 
 quainted with the whole of the case. We are not informed of 
 all the reasons, which render it fit that future punishments 
 should be inflicted, and, therefore, cannot know, whether any 
 thing we could do would make such an alteration as to render 
 it fit that they should be remitted. We do not know what 
 the whole natural, or appointed consequences of vice are, nor 
 in what way tliey would follow, if not prevented ; and, there- 
 fore, can in no sort say, whether we could do any thing which 
 would be sufficient to prevent them. Our ignorance being 
 thus manifest, let us recollect the analogy of nature, or 
 providence. For though this may be but a slight ground 
 to raise a positive opinion upon in this matter, yet it is 
 sufficient to answer a mere arhitrary assertion, without any 
 kind of evidence urged by u:ay of objection against a doctrine j 
 the proof of which is not rectson but revelation. Consider, 
 then, people ruin their fortunes by extravagance ; they bring 
 diseases upon themselves by excess ; they incur the penalties 
 of civil laws, and surely civil government is natural ; will sor- 
 row for these follies past, and behaving well for the future, alone 
 and of itself, prevent the natural consequences of them ? . . . , 
 
302 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. [SECT. IV. 
 
 2. We maintain, on the contrary, that all 
 analogy leads to the conclusion, that sin will be 
 
 And, though we ought to reason with all reverence, whenever 
 we reason concerning the Divine conduct, yet it may be added, 
 that it is clearly contrary to all our notions of govern n'lent, as 
 well as to what is, in fact, the general constitution of nature, 
 to suppose that doing well for the future should, in all cases, 
 prevent all the judicial bad consequences of having done evil, 
 or all the punishment annexed to disobedience. And we have 
 manifestly nothing from whence to determine, in what degree, 
 and in what cases reformation would prevent this punishment, 
 even supposing that it would in some. And, though the efficacy 
 of repentance itself alone, to prevent what mankind had ren- 
 dered themselves obnoxious to, and recover what they had for- 
 feited, is now insisted upon in opposition to Christianiiy ; yet 
 by the general prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices over the 
 heathen world, this notion of repentance alone being suf- 
 ficient to expiate guilt, appears to be contrary to the general 
 sense of mankind. Upon the whole, then, had the laws, the 
 general laws of God's government been permitted to operate 
 without any interposition in our behalf, the future punishment, 
 for ought we know to the contrary, or have any reason to 
 think, must inevitably have followed, notwithstanding any 
 thing we could have done to prevent it." 
 
 The Bishop then proceeds to show, that in this darkness of 
 nature, revelation comes in, and points out the way in which 
 mercy may be exercised to the sinner, in consistency with the 
 character of God's moral government ; and adds, respecting 
 the Son of God, " he interposed in such a manner as was ne- 
 cessary and effectual to prevent thnt execution of justice upon 
 sinners, which God had appointed should otherwise have been 
 executed upon ihcm ; or in suc/i a manner as to prevent that 
 
CPIAP. f.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 303 
 
 followed with its appropriate penalty, unless 
 averted by some foreign interposition. It is the 
 natural tendency of sin to draw after it punish- 
 ment. They stand in the connexion of cause 
 and effect; a connexion which is never broken 
 in the ordinary course of things. It holds in the 
 natural and civil constitution of the world ; and 
 there is nothing, in the nature of the case, to 
 take moral offences out of this constituted order. 
 If the connexion, in this case, be broken, it must 
 be by the intervention of some other cause more 
 powerful in operation than that which it has an- 
 nihilated ; and revelation steps in, and informs 
 us of such a cause. It assures us that God him- 
 self has interposed, and thus prevented the 
 otherwise inevitable ruin of man: " God so 
 loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
 perish.'^ " He died, the just for the unjust.'* 
 ^' He became sin (or a sin-offering) for us, — that 
 we might be made the righteousness of God in 
 him.'^ But, say Socinians, '^^ this doctrine is 
 contrary to the nature of things." If so, man 
 
 punishment from actually following , which, according to the 
 general laws of divine govermnenty must have followed the 
 sins of the world, had it not been for such interposition,^'' — The 
 Analogy of Religion, pp. 378 — 380. 
 
.•U)4 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. [SECT. IV. 
 
 is indeed in a deplorable condition ; for we have 
 already seen^ that nothing he can do for himself^ 
 in the ^\ay of repentance or reformation^ can 
 give him the least encouragement to hope that 
 his sins will be forgiven, or can interrupt the con- 
 nexion which the constituted order of nature de- 
 clares to exist between sin and its punishment. 
 But is the doctrine just stated really at variance 
 with the established order and course of the 
 world ? I trust I shall be able to show that it is 
 not; — and that there is nothing in the principles 
 of nature^ or in the divine government^ which 
 forbids the intervention of the Son of God to 
 avert the penalty of sin from nian^ by suffering it 
 himself. The general argument from analogy is 
 in favour of this attempt; for though, of itself, 
 it could suggest nothing certain upon this point ; 
 and had we no other argument to support our 
 hopes of the remission of sin, than such as are 
 founded on the fact, that many physical, civil, 
 and moral evils do admit of reparation ; and that 
 remedies seem to have been provided in the 
 course of nature for certain unavoidable evils, 
 we should only have just hope enough to keep 
 us from desperation; yet revelation disperses 
 the gloom, and holds forth a Saviour, who is 
 " able to save to the uttermost all that come unto 
 God by him :" and now leaving the general ar- 
 
CHAP. II.] PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 335 
 
 gument from analogy, I will avail myself of the 
 particular view of it, which the holy scriptures 
 suggest, between the divine and human govern- 
 ments; and show, from the resemblance which 
 these are represented as having to each other, 
 that a just and righteous penalty cannot be gra- 
 tuitously remitted; but that it may be commuted, 
 by the substitution of another in the place of 
 the offender ; and it is this peculiarity that con- 
 stitutes the doctrine of the Atonement. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 It appears from the analogy pointed out in 
 the holy scriptures between the divine and hu- 
 man governments^ that, though a just and 
 righteous penalty cannot be gratuitously re- 
 mitted, yet it may be commuted by the substi- 
 tution of another, under certain circumstances, 
 in the place of the offender. 
 
 Or, in other words. 
 
 Taking the character of God as it is revealed 
 in scripture, I shall attempt to shoiv, that the 
 consistency of that character is involved in his 
 executing the penalty annexed to the trans- 
 
306 ANALOGY BETWEEN THE DIVINE [SECT. IV. 
 
 ffression of his laws : and that there is nothing 
 contrary to the nature of things in snpposing 
 that that jyenalty was executed tipon Jesus 
 Christy when he became the substitute of sin- 
 nerSy and died upon the cross. 
 
 It is of importance to observe that, through- 
 out the scriptures, when they speak of a divine 
 government, it is with a manifest allusion to 
 those of men, as being in their great outlines 
 analogous. They are both moral ; they excite to 
 action by similar motives, — the hope of reward 
 and fear of punishment ; and they equally admit, 
 under certain conditions, the exercise of mercy. 
 They use, in the administration of them, the 
 same terms, and recognize the same principles. 
 It would seem, indeed, as if the divine govern- 
 ment had derived its language from those which 
 are common among men. The head of it is called 
 a prince, a jmler, a king, a judge, a laivgiver. 
 He has prescribed laws, and enforced them by 
 sanctions; he has erected a tribunal, and ap- 
 pointed a day of judgment. Now, all these ex- 
 pressions necessarily point out a resemblance, in 
 the grand distiiictive features, between the divine 
 and human governments ; and lead to the conclu- 
 sion that, in their principles, they are analogous : 
 fot what other idea can we attach to the use of 
 
CHAP. II.] AND HUMAN GOVERNMENTS. 307 
 
 these terms^ when found in the scriptures, than 
 that which they necessarily convey^ when applied 
 to civil establishments among men ? Unless they 
 were intended to lead the mind into this train, 
 they must unavoidably lead it into error. But, 
 without dwelling longer upon this point, it may 
 be observed, that the very tenn, moral govern- 
 ment of the world, such as we have seen that of 
 the present state is, necessarily implies an ana- 
 logy between that of God and of all good go- 
 vernments among men. Both profess to be 
 directed to the same objects, and to be guided 
 by the same principles. 
 
 As justice is the predominant and indispens- 
 able quality of moral government, it may be 
 proper to observe, that it may be considered 
 under two aspects ; one, as it regards every in- 
 dividual ; and the other, the community of which 
 he forms a part ; and agreeably to this twofold 
 office, justice may be distinguished into distri- 
 butive and PUBLIC The former consists in a 
 due administration of rewards and punishments, 
 according to personal desert. The latter has 
 respect to the well-being of the whole. Its 
 province is to guard the rights of moral govern- 
 ment, and to take care that public authority be 
 not impaired. Distributive justice can, in no 
 instance, admit of grace, which consists in treat- 
 
 x2 
 
308 GENERAL POINTS AT ISSUE. [sECT. IV. 
 
 ing a person more favourably than he deserves. 
 On tliis ground, therelbre, it is evident there is 
 no room either for repentance or atonement. 
 But pzib lie justice may admit of grace to the in- 
 dividual, provided the general good be not 
 thereby impaired. And as the enquiry now 
 before us relates to the moral government of 
 the world, it is obvious that it is with public 
 justice that we are principally concerned : and 
 the question is simply this : under what cir- 
 cumstances DOES PUBLIC JUSTICE ADMIT THE SUR- 
 RENDER OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE? That, uiider 
 some circumstances it does admit of this surren- 
 der, is disputed by none, inasmuch as all ac- 
 knowledge that some are admitted into heaven, 
 who, according to distributive justice, or per- 
 sonal desert, would have been excluded. The 
 question is, under what circumstances? Soci- 
 nians say, merely on the penitence of the sinner. 
 We deny this ; and contend that something in 
 the nature of an equivalent, — an equivalent in the 
 estimation of moral government, — to the sinner's 
 personal punishment, is absolutely necessary to 
 the pardon of sin. Here then we are again at 
 issue. To settle this point is the intention of 
 the following arguments : — 
 
 This point of analogy, and the nature of the 
 question in dispute being stated, I maintain, that 
 
CHAP. II.] GENERAL POINTS AT ISSUE. 309 
 
 the laws of God^^ like those of men^ were intended, 
 not for the good of the individual, in opposition 
 to the general interest of the universe ; but to 
 promote the good of the whole, though the sup- 
 posed interest of the individual should suffer 
 thereby; * — that every transgression of a just law is 
 a public injury ;— that penalties are intended to re- 
 pair that injury ; — and that the infliction of every 
 just and equal penalty does repair it. From these 
 
 5 By " the laws of God," I do not here mean those positive 
 precepts, which were local, and had their propriety in some 
 peculiarity of circumstances ; but those laws, whatever they 
 may be, which are common to the whole race of mankind, 
 which are essential to moral government, and have in them 
 a kind of moral necessity, as arising- out of the fitness of 
 things. By " penalties," I understand whatever is necessary 
 to enforce obedience to those laws, and to prevent the ge- 
 neral system from being injured by a breach of them. Should 
 any objection, therefore, be made against the meaning and ap- 
 plication of the terms laws and curse, as they occur in 
 scripture, to the general government of the world, it will not 
 reach my argument, I assume only, what it is presumed no 
 one will controvert, that there are some laws universally bind- 
 ing ; and some penalties, adequate to the enforcement of these 
 laws, without which there could be no moral government at all. 
 * See Archdeacon Paley's chapter on Civil Liberty, vol. ii. 
 chap. 5, in his Moral Philosophy, in which he maintains that 
 laws are a restraint on individual liberty, but necessary for the 
 public good. In this distinction is virtually implied the differ- 
 ence between dislributife and ptiblir justice. 
 
310 PUBLIC GOOD TAkES PRECEDENCE [SECT. IV. 
 
 premises, I conceive, consequences very import- 
 ant to the present discussion will unavoidably 
 follow ; and therefore I shall take the liberty of 
 enlarging a little on each, and of pointing out 
 their relation to the question before us. 
 
 There can be no difference of opinion as to 
 the intention of the divine laws. That i]\m first 
 design, like those which are considered just 
 among men, should be to promote the general 
 good ; and that the good of the individual should 
 be only a secondary object, is a truth so obvi- 
 ously arising from the principle, that the greater 
 good, when it cannot be obtained without the 
 sacrifice of the less, must be secured at this ex- 
 pense, that this point will not be controverted. 
 It is an affair of every day's occurrence to give 
 up something we value, for the attainment of 
 something on which we set a higher value; and 
 it involves the principle on which Archdeacon 
 Paley maintains that a portion of individual 
 liberty must be relinquished in order to secure 
 the public benefit. ^ It is true, all just and equit- 
 able laws do, as far as possible, aim at combin- 
 ing the public and private welfare; and it is 
 the perfection of the laws of God, that they in- 
 variably accomplish these objects, while each in- 
 5 See note, page 309. 
 
CHAP. II.] OF PRIVATE. 311 
 
 dividual continues in his allegiance : but^ in case 
 of revolt^ in which his happiness is set in oppo- 
 sition to that of the universe^ they^ in every in- 
 stance, throw their influence into the scale of the 
 latter, ^nd seek its v>^elfare in opposition to his. 
 Public good, therefore, is the first design of all 
 good laws, human or divine, to which that of the 
 individual must necessarily be subordinate. 
 
 From this statement it necessarily follows, 
 that every transgression of a just law is a public 
 injury, inasmuch as every such offence makes an 
 inroad on the welfare of the general community. 
 Sin is therefore to be considered, not merely as 
 a transgression of a divine command, without 
 any other consequence than an indignity offered 
 to God, but as that which, to a certain extent 
 disorganizes the whole plan of divine government, 
 and interrupts the well-being of the universal 
 family of man. It is not only an act of rebel- 
 lion against the Sovereign of the universe, but 
 it is a counteraction of the designs of infinite 
 goodness towards every being in creation. The 
 too generally prevailing notion of the venial na- 
 ture of sin arises from viewing each as an indi- 
 vidual offence, terminating in itself, and as un- 
 connected with the general system; but this is a 
 very partial and defective view of it. The first 
 
312 PENALTIES INTENDED TO [sECT. IV. 
 
 transgression, though considered simply as an 
 act of disobedience against God, was an aggra- 
 vated crime; but how greatly was its evil en- 
 hanced, by the consideration that it made a 
 breach on the order and harmony of the whole 
 range of intellectual existence ? 
 
 Every law supposes a penalty y — some evil to 
 be sustained paramount to the evil of trans- 
 gression; so that, upon the whole, when this 
 penalty has been exacted, the general system 
 may sustain no injury. This also evidently arises 
 out of the nature of things. A law without a 
 punishment is a dead letter ; it is the command 
 of a superior which may be treated with con- 
 tempt, and no evil ensue. If the penalty also 
 be less than the evil of transgression, the injury 
 is only partially repaired. Transgression re- 
 laxes the tone of authority : a just penalty re- 
 stores that tone: so that, transgression being 
 taken in connexion with its just punishment, no 
 injury upon the. whole is sustained. 
 
 That this exact proportion between offences 
 and their punishment does not exist in human 
 governments is acknowledged ; but this fact 
 proves only the imperfection of such systems : 
 it does not invalidate, but rather confirms the 
 
CHAP. 11.] REPAIR THE EVIL OF SIN. 313 
 
 principle upon which this position is founded^ 
 inasmuch as it is acknowledged on all hands, 
 that the nearer .the proportion between offences 
 and their penalties, the nearer is the approxima- 
 tion to perfection : and in the divine govern- 
 ment, this proportion must necessarily be exact, — 
 the penalty is neither greater nor less than the 
 offence deserves. 
 
 Upon the whole, then, we come to this con- 
 clusion : sin is a public evil, penalties are in- 
 tended to repair that evil, and just penalties, 
 such as cannot but take place in the divine go- 
 vernment, do repair it. 
 
 From these positions I infer — 
 
 1 . That punishment is not primarily ifitended 
 for the good of the individual transgressor, but 
 for that of the general community. — For if sin 
 be a public injury, and punishment be intended 
 to repair that injury, it necessarily follows that 
 regard, in the infliction of a penalty, is had, not 
 primarily to the offender, but to the collec- 
 tive body. It is acknowledged indeed, that 
 where the advantage of both can be combined, 
 there a good government would consult the wel- 
 fare of both ; but still, the main object, the grand 
 design in every punishment is to maintain the 
 
314 JUST PENALTIES AS [SECT. IV. 
 
 unimpaired authority of the laws, and the col- 
 lective good of the system. So far as the good 
 of the individual stands opposed to that of the 
 public, so far no regard whatever is paid to him. 
 The assassin must suffer death, rather than the 
 laws, which protect life and property should be 
 impaired. To suppose, therefore, that the di- 
 vine punishments are of the nature of chastise- 
 ments, intended only for the correction of the 
 transgressor, is to confound the less with the 
 greater good, and to destroy the sanctions of law 
 and justice. If the execution of a just penalty 
 must necessarily have for its object the indivi- 
 dual's good, the proof of this lies with those 
 who assert it. The two interests are certainly 
 separable ; and that which relates to the general 
 system, is that with which the law is chiefly con- 
 cerned. — I infer 
 
 2. That a just penalty cannot be remitted 
 by a jvst and good governor . — If laws them- 
 selves be good, that which enforces them, or 
 punishes the transgression of them, must be 
 good also. If it were wise and proper to pub- 
 lish a code of laws, it is equally so to maintain 
 it. And if it were deemed necessary, in order 
 to secure obedience to this system, to threaten 
 punishments, then it must be requisite also to 
 
CHAP. II.] NEEDFUL AS GOOD LAWS. 315 
 
 execute those sanctions. The law^ therefore, 
 and the motives to obedience must obviously 
 stand or fall together. If the latter be de- 
 stroyed, the former becomes a dead letter. The 
 Supreme Being, it may safely be presumed, 
 would not prescribe one law which is not neces- 
 sary to the well-being of those for whom it was 
 intended. Now, if it can be supposed that any 
 one of these laws may be transgressed, and pu- 
 nishment be remitted, it must also be supposed 
 that God is now indifferent to those interests which 
 he at first consulted ; and that, in order to spare 
 a guilty criminal, he relinquishes his regard and 
 affection for his dutiful and obedient servants. 
 The case is a very familiar one. It supposes 
 that a just and good governor would commit the 
 lives and property of his loyal subjects to the 
 disposal of the plunderer and assassin. There 
 cannot be a doubt that a faithful and impartial 
 execution oi just penalties is the perfection, not 
 only of a just, but of a kind government. It is 
 true that these penalties are, and sometimes 
 ought to be, remitted in human governments : 
 but the expediency or necessity of this remission 
 argues the imperfection ^ aot the excellence, of all 
 human systems. Here, penalties never can be 
 exactly proportioned to crimes : in the same act, 
 there may be many circumstances of mitigation, 
 or aggravation : a variety of things may render 
 
316 REPENTANCE NOT EQUIVALENT [sECT. IV. 
 
 the execution of penalties impracticable; greater 
 evils, in some cases, may result to the public, from 
 the execution than the remission of the penalty : 
 but these things constitute the peculiarity and im- 
 perfection of every thing human, and cannot apply 
 to the divine government. In this, every thing is 
 exactly proportioned ; the degree of suffering cor- 
 responds with the measure of offence ; the means 
 are always at hand to inflict the penalty, and 
 none are too mean to elude, and none too great 
 to avert it: and, therefore, we may safely con- 
 clude that, in all cases of transgression, under 
 the divine administration of affairs, the infliction 
 of just penalties will take place. It is as essen- 
 tial to the perfection of his government, as the 
 enacting of good and equitable laws.^' — Hence, 
 I infer, 
 
 3. That if repentance be all that is required 
 for the remission of sin, — tJten repentance is 
 
 ^ VV^hat is here stated, is a necessary assumption from the 
 perfection of the divine government. That the rewards and 
 punishments, which will be administered in the future world, 
 will be proportioned according to character, we have the 
 plainest assurance from our Lord himself. " The servant," 
 he says, " which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not him- 
 self, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with 
 many stripes. But he that knew not, but did commit things 
 worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto 
 
CHAP. II.] TO THE PENALTY OF SIN. 317 
 
 equivalent to the penalty annexed to a breach 
 of the divine law. — This^ I conceive, is an un- 
 avoidable conclusion from what has been just 
 stated. Whatever does away the evil of trans- 
 gression satisfies justice ; and without such a sa- 
 tisfaction, it has been shown, no forgiveness can 
 take place : if it could, the good of the universe, 
 must, in that particular case, be given up. Now, 
 if pardon necessarily follow repentance, then re- 
 pentance repairs the breach of sin, and is equiva- 
 lent to the penalty annexed to it; otherwise the 
 breach must remain after repentance; and, for 
 the sake of the guilty individual, the whole system 
 must sustain an injury. Since, then, it will not be 
 pretended that repentance repairs the evil of sin, 
 or is equivalent to its penalty, neither can it be 
 consistently maintained that sin can be pardoned in 
 consideration of repentance. — I infer again — 
 
 4. That as it is the office of public justice y to 
 
 whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required." 
 Luke xii. 47, 48. And with regard to the rewards of the 
 righteous, the parable of the talents assures us that they shall be 
 apportioned on the same principle. Matt. xxv. 15, &c. It 
 would seem as if a capacity for receiving happiness, or under- 
 going suiFering, would be given to men, according to their 
 character; and that that capacity y be it greater or less, will 
 be completely filled. 
 
318 PUBLIC JUSTICE THE CUAKDIAN [SECT. IV. 
 
 77iaintain the authority of the laiv^ and to pro- 
 tect the general interests of the commiinity^ so 
 whatever secures these objects, answers all the 
 indispensable claims of justice. — Public justice, 
 in the divine government, may be considered as 
 the guardian of the universe. It is her province, 
 if I may so speak, to see that no breach on the 
 public welfare remain unrepaired ; and she has 
 no other necessary concern with any particular 
 individual than as his happiness or suffering may 
 be necessarily connected with the universal well- 
 being. Does he transgress? She lays her 
 hand upon him, and demands reparation. Let 
 this be made, and her indispensable claims are 
 satisfied, though the criminal himself should 
 escape with impunity. In this case, there is no 
 room for complaint : the authority of no law has 
 been relaxed, — the right of no individual has 
 been violated, — no public good has been im- 
 paired, — and the universal system continues in 
 the same state, as if the delinquent himself had 
 suffered, in his own person, the full penalty of 
 his crime. Admitting, therefore, the possibility 
 of the reparation of a breach on the universal 
 system, by any other means than that of the 
 personal punishment of the criminal, there is 
 nothing, in the nature of things, to prevent 
 a commutation of penalty; because, in either 
 
CHAP. II.] OF PUBLIC INTERESTS. 319 
 
 case, the good of the whole is equally se- 
 cured. '^ 
 
 7 From this statement it may, perhaps, be inferred, that the 
 sinner, whose substitute has paid the penalty of sin, and thereby 
 satisfied public justice, has a just claim to pardon ; and that it 
 is io justice, and not to mercy, that he owes his acquittal. This 
 would be the case, if he had Jmnself provided the substitute, 
 and God had accepted it as his y for then, the transaction being 
 immediately between the judge and the criminal, the latter 
 would have a right to his discharge, when he had satisfied the 
 stipulated requisition. So also, I conceive, would he have this 
 claim, if it were possible that his actual guilt could be so trans- 
 ferred to a substitute, even of another s providing, as to become 
 the actual guilt of that substitute; for then, being literally free 
 from guilt, and perfectly innocent, justice could have no claim 
 against him. But though some divines have expressed them- 
 selves so unguardedly, when speaking of justification by faith 
 in Christ Jesus, as to convey this idea of the transfer of guilt? 
 it cannot possibly take place. Sin can never be so imputed to 
 Christ, as that he should become jjersonally guilty, and an 
 actual offender ; though it may be, and is, so imputed, as that 
 he should be treated as guilty and a sinner. The character, 
 however, of both the sinner and his surety continues just as it 
 was ; and God sees it exactly as it is, — the sinner as guilty, — 
 and Jesus Christ, as " holy and harmless and separate from sin." 
 This vievv, then, of the subject leaves the sinner, as far as re- 
 spects his legitimate claims, precisely where he was. He is a 
 transgressor, and therefore amenable to the tribunal of justice, 
 and can look for his acquittal to no other source than the gra- 
 tuitous mercy and favour of God. It is true, a door oi hope 
 is opened. A Saviour has appeared. A vicarious sacrifice has 
 
320 PUBLIC JUSTICE THE GUARDIA-N [SECT. IV. 
 
 In human governments, perhaps, it is impos- 
 sible, in some cases, to separate the punishment 
 
 been offered. Assurances of mercy have been given : and 
 means provided, whereby God can " be just, and yet the justifier 
 of him that believes." Without these, his case would have been 
 desperate : but now light breaks in upon his darkness. A 
 surety has been found. Terms of reconciliation have been 
 agreed upon and ratified. A system of grace is established : 
 and he may now approach, even with boldness, " the throne of 
 grace ;" and plead there, all that has been done and promised 
 on his behalf; and there learn how God can be ^'faithful and 
 just in forgiving his sin ;" and how he may be ^^ justified freely 
 by his grace, even through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus.^ These are remarkable texts, and directly meet the 
 objection alleged against our statement of the doctrine. They 
 show that divine justice has, in no respect, been compromised, — 
 that God is still '\faithfid and just f and yet that he can exer- 
 cise grace and mercy : and the mean by which these apparently 
 opposite qualities are brought together, is precisely that which 
 has been stated as satisfying public justice, — it is " through the 
 redemption that is in Christ Jesus." And if this passage (Rom. 
 iii. 24, &c.) be connected with its following context, it will 
 be seen, still more clearly, that God never has pardoned sin, but 
 in perfect consistency with }\\s justice; for Jesus Christ was set 
 forth as " a propitiation " expressly for the purpose of vindicat- 
 ing this quality of his nature, when he passed by the sins of 
 former ages ; — it was " to declare his righteousness for the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." 
 The transaction, then, as it regards the opening of a way of 
 salvation, being, if I may so speak, entirely between the Father 
 and the Son, excludes the sinner from every pretext of claim. 
 
CHAP. II.] OF PUBLIC INTERESTS. 
 
 321 
 
 of the individual from his olfence. This impos- 
 sibility, however, does not arise from the nature 
 of things, but from the peculiarity of the case. 
 No one has a right to offer himself, when life has 
 been forfeited, to suffer in the place of another^ 
 nor has any tribunal a right to accept the volun- 
 tary surrender of such a life : for though justice 
 might, in this particular instance, be satisfied, yet 
 it would be injured in another, and therefore 
 the public welfare would ultimately suffer by 
 such a substitution. This, however, is a diffi- 
 
 as a matter of justice, to his acquittal at the bar of judgment. 
 And, indeed, considering the subject merely on the ground ot 
 public justice, no reason can be assigned why a judge should 
 necessarily accept a substitute of any kind ; and many reasons 
 might be given why he should not, except under very pecnhar 
 circumstances, accept of him at all ; and if there were no other, 
 for this reason alone, that, in accepting such a substitution, an 
 unreformed character might again be sent forth into the world, 
 to repeat his oifences. But in the gospel, provision is made 
 for this very peculiarity; for it is the province of the Holy 
 Spirit, as our church expresses it, *' to sanctify all the elect 
 people of God." No objection, therefore, can lie against this 
 view of the subject, as destroying the freedom of divine grace, 
 and making remission of sins ac^eS^, which the sinner may f/<:«;/^ 
 as his due ; for whatever provision has been made for repairing 
 the evil of sin, that is entirely irrespective of any thing which 
 the offender has done; and he continues still a criminal, without 
 any legitimate plea, on the score of distributive justice, against 
 the sentence of condemnation being pronounced agains( him. 
 
 Y 
 
322 PUBLIC JUSTICE ADMITS OF [sECT . IV. 
 
 culty limited to human governments, from the 
 necessarily circumscribed powers with which 
 they are invested, and cannot be pleaded against 
 that with which we are now concerned, — the go- 
 vernment of God. 
 
 Hence I infer again, 
 
 5. That there is no absurdity/ or inconsist- 
 ency in supposing that Jesus Christ has paid 
 the fidl and equivalent penalty of sin. If it has 
 been shown that there is nothing, in the nature 
 of things, to prevent the substitution of another 
 in the place of the oifender, so as to preserve the 
 public good from sustaining injury, it will follow 
 that there is no absurdity in the doctrine of 
 Jesus Christ bearing, in his own person, the sins 
 of men, and making satisfaction to divine justice, 
 as the sinner's substitute. The only question to 
 be resolved is, whether his sufferings and death 
 be really such an equivalent for the persons whom 
 he represents, as satisfies the indispensable de- 
 mands of divine justice ; that is, whether he has 
 made such a satisfaction as fully answers the pur- 
 poses of God's moral government, and prevents 
 any injury to the general system by this commu- 
 tation of penalty? The possibility of such a 
 satisfaction is, I think, very clear ; the fact can 
 
CHAP, fl.] A COMMUTED PENALTY. S'23 
 
 be established only by the revealed word of God. 
 It is the province of reason merely to prove that 
 there is no absurdity or contradiction in the 
 doctrine ; its tridli is matter of pure revelation : ^ 
 and having sliown that there is no impossibility 
 involved in the doctrine we maintain^ in the na- 
 ture of things, we have next to consider whether 
 there be any in the peculiarity of the case. And 
 
 ^ " In this darkness, or this light of nature," says Bishop 
 Butler, " call it which you please, revelation comes in ; con- 
 firms every doubting fear which could enter into the heart of 
 man concerning the future unprevented consequence of wick- 
 edness ; supposes the world to be in a state of ruin, {ci suppo- 
 sition ivhicli seems to be the very ground of the Christian dis- 
 pensation, and which, if not proveable by reason, yet it is in 
 no wise contrary to it) ; teaches us, too, that the rules of di- 
 vine government are such, as not to admit of pardon immedi- 
 ately and directly upon repentance, or by the sole efficacy of 
 it ; but then teaches, at the same time, what nature might 
 justly have hoped, that the moral government of the universe 
 was not so rigid, but that there ivas roojn for an interposition 
 to avert the fatal consequences of vice ; which, therefore, by 
 this means, does admit of pardon. Revelation teaches us, 
 that the unknown laws of God's more general government, no 
 less than the particular laws by which we experience he go- 
 verns us at present, are compassionate as well as good, in the 
 more general notion of goodness ; and that he hath mercifulhj 
 provided that there shoidd be an interposition to prevent the 
 destruction of human kind, whatever that destruction unpre- 
 vented would have been." Analogy, pp. 379, 380. 
 
 y2 
 
324 HEVET.ATION TEACHES THAT [sECT. IV. 
 
 here we liave no light but what we derive from 
 the word of God. Sin^ we know, is an evil be- 
 yond all the powers of liuman calculation ; and 
 whether any substitute be equal to bear its 
 penalty, we cannot ascertain by the efforts of 
 unassisted reason : it seems clear that no finite 
 being could do so. But " to the law and to the 
 testimony." Here we tind Jesus Christ,—'^ the 
 brightness of his Father's glory, and the express 
 image of his person," and " who, being in the form 
 of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God, — made himself of no reputation, and took 
 upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
 in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion 
 as a man, he humbled himself, and became obe- 
 dient unto death, even the death of the cross," '^ — 
 " to redeem us from the curse of the law, by being- 
 made a curse for us."^ We therefore conclude, 
 that Jesus Christ has really paid an equivalent 
 penalty for sin, and made satisfaction to divine 
 justice for the transgressions of mankind. God 
 must know the extent of the penalty he has an- 
 nexed to his laws ; he also must know the value 
 of his Son's death : he has, in various forms, 
 declared himself satisfied with it, and therefore 
 we may be sure that it is such an equivalent for 
 
 ^> Phil. ii. (;— 8. 
 
 ^ »See tlie passages quoterl pp, 194 — 199, 
 
COAP. 11.] CHRIST BORE THE PENALTY. 325 
 
 the penalty of sin as satisfies the full demands 
 of his moral government. Reason admits that 
 i\\\s v{2i^ possible ; revelation declares \he fact ; 
 and therefore we may be certain of its reality : 
 and hence we believe that the Atonement of Jesus 
 Christ was a satisfaction for sin. I infer^ lastly, 
 
 6. That to look f 07' salvation in any other way 
 than by the Ato7ie?nent of Jesus Christ, iinplies 
 an expectation, either that the established order 
 and nature of things 7nay be changed ; or that 
 the penalty 7nay be fully discharged by the 
 offe7ider, and he survive the payment. It ap- 
 pears, I think, from what has been said, that the 
 goodness, as well as justice of God, forbids his 
 remitting the penalty annexed to a breach of any 
 of his laws. To do so, would, in effect, be to 
 repeal that law ; it would be to annihilate that, 
 which his wisdom had before determined to be 
 essential to the well-being of his creatures; — 
 a mutability of conduct which cannot attach to 
 Him, '^ with whom there is no variableness nor 
 shadow of turning." We ought never, therefore, 
 to forget, that the execution of a just penalty, or 
 its equivalent, is as essential to the character of 
 the Deity, and as much a part of his goodness, as 
 the appointment of just and righteous laws; they 
 are one and the same thing. Now, as all have 
 
 y3 
 
326 NO SALVATION BUT IN HIM. [sECT. IV. 
 
 become obnoxious to the penalty, it follows, 
 either that we must sustain it in our own person, 
 or in our substitute, or that it may be evaded. If 
 the last, whether by tears of penitence, or in any 
 other way, then the established order of things 
 may be set aside, the general system of the uni- 
 verse be deranged, the interests of every intelli- 
 gent being in existence be disregarded, and the 
 immutability, wisdom, and goodness of God him- 
 self be arraigned ; — and all this, for the sake of a 
 rebellious subject, who has presumed to lift up 
 his arm against the everlasting God, and renounce 
 allegiance to the universal King ! But if the 
 penalty be paid in our own person, then justice 
 takes its course on the individual transgressor. 
 Whether the sinner will survive that punishment, 
 and, having " payed the utmost farthing," come out 
 from his prison-house, is not now the question. 
 This is matter of pure revelation, and an enquiry 
 of greater importance cannot engage the thoughts 
 of him, who ventures his soul on the issue. If 
 be make a wrong conclusion, the consequence 
 will be unspeakably dreadful and irremediable. 
 There remains, then, but one way for the sin- 
 ner to escape punishment; and this is, by a 
 transfer of the penalty from him to a substitute, 
 provided one could be found willing and sufficient 
 to bear it. That such a transfer is not incom- 
 
CHAP. II.] NO SALVATION BUT IN HIM. 327 
 
 patible with public justice has^ I think^ been 
 proved: whether a proper substitute could be 
 found is another question, — a question which 
 probably could never have been solved by any 
 a priori reasoning. And we may well be 
 thankful that, in an affair of such magnitude, we 
 are not left to the deductions of reason. Reve- 
 lation, as we have seen, comes in to our aid, 
 and directs us to " one mighty to save ;" — and 
 who is represented as the only one equal to the 
 task of redeeming sinners to God ; for " there is 
 no other name under heaven given among men 
 whereby we must be saved," but that of Jesus 
 Christ. '^ To trample," therefore, " under foot the 
 Son of God, and account his blood" common, 
 must be to cut off all hope of salvation, and to 
 incur the risk of not surviving the payment of 
 the penalty of sin. One, and only one way is 
 pointed out in the scriptures : — we cannot avail 
 ourselves of it, and reject it at the same time; 
 and, therefore, if we deny the virtue of Christ's 
 sacrifice to exempt the sinner from punishment, 
 we make ourselves responsible for all our trans- 
 gressions, and must inevitably bear our curse. 
 Under these circumstances, we should do well to 
 ponder the question, which God himself has asked : 
 '' Can thine heart endure, or can thy hands be 
 strong, in the day that I shall deal with thee ?" 
 
328 CONCLUSIOK. [sect. IV- 
 
 Upon the whole^ then, it appears that the moral 
 government of God, and the welfare of the whole 
 human species, are involved in the due execution 
 of the penalty denounced against sin : and that, 
 to pardon transgression at the expense of the 
 threatening, would be an evil of incalculable mag- 
 nitude. The penalty is of equal importance with 
 the law it enforces : remit the one, and you give 
 up the other. Forgive sin upon milder conditions 
 than are necessary to support the authority of the 
 law, and you commit a proportionate injury on 
 every being comprehended within God's moral 
 government. Repentance, as the ground of for- 
 giveness, is totally out of the question, — unless 
 it can be shown that repentance does away the 
 evil of transgression, which no one has ever yet 
 pretended. It appears, however, that a com- 
 muted equivalent penalty is not inconsistent with 
 the principles of moral government, nor injurious 
 to the collective interests of the system. In con- 
 sidering the death of Jesus Christ as "^ a sacrifice 
 for sin," we look upon it as such a commuted 
 penalty — fully answerable to all the indispensable 
 claims of public justice. We do not, however, 
 pretend to ascertain the exact demerit of sin, nor 
 the precise value of the atonement. It is sufficient 
 for us to know that he, who understands the evil 
 of the one, has appointed the other as its complete 
 
CHAP. II.] CONCLUSION. 329 
 
 remedy; and hence we hesitate not to call the 
 death of Christy " a full, perfect, and sufficient 
 sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of 
 the whole world." 
 
 The doctrine, then, of the vicarious sacrifice of 
 Jesus Christ being the only condition and con- 
 sideration, on account of which God ever pardons 
 sin, is as consistent with the constitution and 
 course of nature, as displayed in God's moral 
 government of the world, as it is with every part 
 of his revealed word. Revelation and moral go- 
 vernment have both the same author; and, as 
 they must, so we have seen, they do, speak the 
 same language. In one, the language is clear, 
 decisive, and copious ; in the other, it is more 
 obscure, and conveyed in intimations and analo- 
 gies ; but still, as far as the latter can be under- 
 stood, it is consentaneous with the former ; and 
 presents nothing which can fairly be placed in 
 collision with it. God and nature both declare 
 that repentance cannot constitute a sinner right- 
 eous ; and, while the latter hears testimo7iy that 
 it is possible, nay^ that it is not improbable^ that 
 a compassionate Father may make an effectual 
 interposition to rescue man froin ruin ; — the 
 forme"' assures us that he has " set forth his 
 
330 CONCLUSION. [sect. IV. 
 
 Son to be a propitiation for our si?is,^^ in order 
 that '^ whosoever believeth in him shonld not 
 perish, but have everlasting life;'^'^ and we, there- 
 fore, fully believe that, in Christ Jesus, " we have 
 redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of 
 sins, according to the riches " of God's grace and 
 mercy to a ruined world. 
 
 I have now brought to a conclusion my argu- 
 ment on the Doctrine of the Atonement ; and 
 have, I trust, satisfactorily shown that, when 
 divested of extraneous matter, and placed on its 
 scriptural gronnd, as being a necessary consi- 
 deration or condition in the remission of sin, it 
 is not liable to the objections usually alleged 
 against it : but, on the contrary, that it rests on 
 the immoveable basis of the inspired volume; 
 and is, in no respect, at variance with the con- 
 stituted order and fitness of things. It is the 
 grand Subject of Revelation. It is the only 
 Foundation of Hope. It is the everlasting- 
 Song of the Redeemed in Heaven. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 26, 1.12, after long^ insert ago. 
 147, 1. 3, for first, redid j?i.<st. 
 168, 1. 5, after and, insert Ihen, 
 
PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 A TRIBUTE of PARENTAL AFFECTION to the Memory 
 
 of I beloved and only Daughter; with an Appendix, giving a short 
 Account of the last Illness and Death of her Brother, Charles Stanger 
 Jerram. 5th Edition, price 6*. 
 
 CONVERSATIONS on INFANT BAPTISM, and some 
 
 Popular Objections against the Church of the United Kingdom ; with 
 an Appendix on Baptismal Regeneration. 2nd Edition, price 5*. 6d. 
 
 TWO VISITATION SERMONS preached at Guildford 
 
 in the Spring and Autumn of 1825. Price 2^, 6rf. 
 
 A SERMON, occasioned by the Death of John Mason 
 Good, M.D. F.R.S., &c. Preached at St. John's Chapel, Bedford Row, 
 on the 21st of January, 1827. Price Is. 6d. 
 
 THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES 
 ALONE FOR SALVATION : 
 
 A SERMON, preached at Tavistock Chapel, Drury Lane, 
 
 Tuesday, Nov. 27th 1827, in the course of Lectures on the points of Con- 
 troversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Price Is. 
 
 ON PRAYING IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE: 
 
 A SERMON preached as above, on Tuesday, January the 
 
 22d, 1828. Price Is. 
 
 TWO SERMONS ADDRESSED to the CHILDREN of 
 
 the SCHOOLS for RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION at St. John's Chapel, 
 Bedford Row, on Easter Tuesday in 1825 and 1826. 2nd Edition, 
 price each 3^?.