The reader may remember that some weeks ago I made mention of an editorial in The Outlook in which the subject of sacrifice was treated after the Unitarian fashion, and which was reviewed in a strong article by Mr. Anin, Presbyterian preacher in the South. Later Dr. Abbott delivered a sermon on the same subject, which was reported by a stenographer, revised by the author, and published in The Outlook for December 26. The author evidently felt that the circumstances required of him the best and strongest effort he could put forth to defend his positions. The sermon is consequently the most intensely earnest piece of writing that I have seen from Dr. Abbott's pen. Much of it is not only true according to the Scriptures, but it stirs the heart of the thoughtful reader to its depths. But, notwithstanding the many excellencies of the sermon, the positions taken [178] on the main topic are such as can not be allowed to go unchallenged.

      The sermon teaches in most explicit and emphatic terms that sacrifice had a pagan origin. To quote a single passage, he says: "Many persons have the impression that Moses not only commanded sacrifice, but that it originated with him. Its origin is pagan, not Jewish." I am at a loss who the many are that have the impression here mentioned. Certainly they are not persons who believe the Bible, for it finds sacrifice in the family of Adam long before paganism had an existence. The assertion that it had a pagan origin is to deny flatly the truth of the statements about sacrifices said to have been offered by Cain, Abel and Noah. This recent criticism, does; and Dr. Abbott has long since committed himself to recent criticism.

      He further tells us that the pagan conception of sacrifices was that they were intended "to assuage the wrath of angry gods, or to win the favor of reluctant ones." This statement is followed by these remarks:

      This was Abraham's thought when he went up to Mount Moriah to offer his own son. By giving his son a sacrifice to Jehovah he would appease Jehovah's wrath, or would still further win Jehovah's favor. And God interposed to teach him that no such sacrifice was needed--nay, that no such sacrifice was permissible. The story from which our text is taken is not of the sacrifice, but of the salvation of Isaac. In this intervention human sacrifice was brought to an end for Israel. It died, so far as the Jewish nation was concerned, before the Jewish nation was born.

      The assertion that Abraham went up to Mount Moriah with such a thought and purpose as is here affirmed, is a palpable contradiction of the account of this transaction given in Genesis; for it is there said that he went up because God gave him an express command [179] to do so. If that account is true, there was no wrath of God for him to appease; but a simple and unexplained command of God for him to obey; and he obeyed it because he had such faith in God as to be sure that whatever he would command must be right. Dr. Abbott evidently does not believe that such a command was given; and if he does not believe that part of the account, why does he believe any part? and especially, why does he believe that God "interposed"? The fact that God commanded the sacrifice to be made, and the fact that when it was about to be made he interposed to prevent it, stand on precisely the same ground of evidence; why, then, accept the one and reject the other? Can there be any reason, except that the one suits the fancy of the preacher and that the other does not? And this is the "scientific" way to deal with the Bible!

      But the preacher, not content with contradicting the leading fact in the narrative, proceeds to invent a fact which had no existence by saying that "in this intervention human sacrifice was brought to an end for Israel." How could that be brought to an end which had never had a beginning? When had Abraham, or any of his ancestors, offered human sacrifice before? When had any man, of any tribe or kindred, offered human sacrifice before? Will Dr. Abbott tell us? Other unbelievers in the Scriptures have explained the offering of Isaac differently by saying that when Abraham saw the heathen around him in Canaan offering their sons to imaginary gods, he concluded to emulate their zeal by offering his own son to the true and living God. But who will prove to us that he had ever seen this practice among the Canaanites? The first mention of it in the Bible is in the Book of Leviticus, where it is mentioned to be prohibited: and the first instance of it is in the case of [180] Mesha, King of Moab, who offered his son on the wall of his city when it was besieged by the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom (2 Kings 3:27). If a man can not believe facts recorded in the Scriptures, how can he expect others to believe facts which he himself invents?

      Further on in this sermon, Dr. Abbott denies that Moses, in the only legislation that he credits him with, said anything at all about sacrifice. His words are: "And when the great prophet of Israel appeared, in the first teaching which he gave mankind, nothing whatever was said about sacrifice." What shall be thought of this denial, when the very first precept of the book of the covenant, after the ten commandments, contains these words: "An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen" (Ex. 20:24)? Again it is said in this same book: "He that sacrificeth to any god, save unto Jehovah only, shall be utterly destroyed" (22:20). And again: "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread" (23:18). Three distinct precepts on the subject are given in this first legislation, yet our learned D. D., who studies the Bible scientifically, declares that "nothing whatever is said about it." How often shall I entreat these new critics to study their Bibles, and to know what is in them before they begin to write like oracles?

      Once more. He quotes Lev. 1:2, 3 from the A. V., closing with these words: "If this offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will, and says: "That is the foundation of the Levitical code. No man shall be put under compulsion; he shall not be required; there shall be no bribe to induce him; he shall offer it of his own voluntary will." Now, instead of the words at [181] the close of this quotation, which Dr. Abbott italicizes and makes the "foundation of the Levitical code," we have in the Revised Version these words, "that he may be accepted before Jehovah." So the foundation drops out when the text is correctly rendered. A critic who follows the "scientific" method ought to be sure of his text before he makes it his "foundation," lest he be found building on the sand.

      But if the rendering adopted from the Old Version were correct, it would only show that in this passage the law speaks of voluntary or freewill offerings. It could not be strained to imply that there were no others. And that there were offerings which were required at a man's peril, ought to be known to every Bible student, and much more to a man of Dr. Abbott's pretensions. The regular morning and evening sacrifices, those of the Sabbath, those of the new moon, those of the feast of the Passover, and of the feast of Pentecost, and of the feast of Tabernacles, are well-known examples. Those required of men who had committed trespass against a neighbor, or a trespass in holy things, and the large class called sin or guilt offerings, were every one compulsory. And so were many others. How a man who has ever read the Books of Leviticus and Numbers, and especially how a man who has studied "scientifically," as we must suppose that Dr. Lyman Abbott has done, can speak of sacrifice under the Levitical law as he does, is beyond any ordinary comprehension. It would be well for him to explain how this can be. [182]

[SEBC 178-182]