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