Is there any thing in the nature or scope of the history of the primitive times, which should call for an express de- Proofs that Sacrificial Atonement was not peculiar to the Examination of those cases of Moral Transgression, for which Atonement was confessedly provided; and which CHAPTER I. Outline of the principal positions. " "THE Positions," says Mr. Davison, "which I shall have ultimately to offer, as the result to which the investigation leads, are these :— "First, That a divine appointment of sacrifice cannot be maintained, as the more probable account of the origin of that mode of worship. "Secondly, That its human institution, if that be admitted, does not intrench in any manner upon the honour and sanctity of the Mosaic law; nor invade, much less invalidate, the essential doctrine of the Christian Atonement. "Thirdly, That if any person shall still prefer to ascribe the first sacrifices to a divine appointment, there is yet no tenable ground for the belief that any revelation of their intent, in reference to the future sacrifice and atonement of the Gospel, was joined with them." p. 8. Being desirous of bringing this discussion into as small a compass, as justice to its important topics will permit me, I shall decline entering into a close examination of Mr. Davison's second position. If he can establish his first position the believer has no alternative. He knows it to be an unquestionable fact, that God did under the law declare sacrifices to be both typical and expiatory rites; and therefore he cannot presume to affirm, that their being adopted rites must necessarily disqualify them for B his great purposes; or that their human institution could "intrench in any manner upon the honour and sanctity of the Mosaic law, or invade, much less invalidate, the essential doctrine of the Christian Atonement." But it appears to me that this conclusion must rather be embraced by faith, than deduced by reason from the probabilities of the case. We should say "God has been pleased to adopt, and apply as a type of his most stupendous work, the scheme of man's redemption, this human institution; we cannot discover any satisfactory reasons (I am stating my view of it) for his acceptance of it previous to such adoption and application:-we should have expected too, that his chosen means of salvation,—an atoning sacrifice, having been determined from the begining, would have been typified from the beginning; especially as we find the primeval practice of sacrifice expressly recorded;-but he has willed it otherwise his thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor our ways as his ways."" In this, or some such manner, Mr. Davison's theory would, I am persuaded, be received into the reluctant minds of a large majority of Christians, if he could establish it. There is against it a general renitency of the common sense (Mr. D. perhaps will say prejudices) of believers, which creates in favour of the opposite opinion a strong presumption of its reasonableness, and consistency with the general tenor of Scripture. Two species of prediction, prophecy and type, announce the wonderful scheme of redemption. The latter, under the law, is universally acknowledged to be not less various,—not less circumstantial,-not less prominent-than the former. Surely the reason of many a Christian must be startled by the bare proposition, that of two equal streams of prophecy, both tending to the same point, the one took its rise from the beginning and from divine revelation; while the other not only did not 6 take its rise, for many ages afterwards-but did not derive its symbols from divine revelation, and owed its wondrous and circumstantial coincidences to nothing but mere human invention; which was afterwards borrowed by the Deity to typify the sacrifice of Christ. "The positions" (said a venerable and learned friend, to whom I had mentioned my intention of opposing Mr. Davison's theory,) "the positions, you oppose, seem to disunite the unbroken connection, which existed in the counsels of God concerning the • Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world.'" His words I am sure express the general sense of many, nay of most pious Christians; who have been accustomed to contemplate that chain of sacrificial type, which Mr. Davison abruptly severs from the Patriarchal world, as extending from the fall of the first, to the victory of the last Adam. But these are points on which I am anticipating the course of my argument. The following are the principal positions which I shall endeavour to maintain against those of Mr. Davison. I. There is sufficient evidence of the divine institution of sacrifice. II. Sacrifice was used, and appointed by God to be used from the beginning as an expiatory rite. III. The Patriarchs and other holy men had some revelation of the Redeemer as the antitype of sacrifice. The proofs of the divine institution of sacrifice are twofold. I. Its probability. II. The direct, and indirect testimonies of Scripture. The latter are, undoubtedly, the proofs on which the decision of the question principally depends; but the former are by no means unworthy of consideration, and of no slight weight in the scale. his great purposes; or that their human institution could “intrench in any manner upon the honour and sanctity of the Mosaic law, or invade, much less invalidate, the essential doctrine of the Christian Atonement." But it appears to me that this conclusion must rather be embraced by faith, than deduced by reason from the probabilities of the case. We should say "God has been pleased to adopt, and apply as a type of his most stupendous work, the scheme of man's redemption, this human institution; we cannot discover any satisfactory reasons (I am stating my view of it) for his acceptance of it previous to such adoption and application:-we should have expected too, that his chosen means of salvation,-an atoning sacrifice, having been determined from the begining, would have been typified from the beginning; especially as we find the primeval practice of sacrifice expressly recorded;-but he has willed it otherwise his thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor our ways as his ways."" In this, or some such manner, Mr. Davison's theory would, I am persuaded, be received into the reluctant minds of a large majority of Christians, if he could establish it. There is against it a general renitency of the common sense (Mr. D. perhaps will say prejudices) of believers, which creates in favour of the opposite opinion a strong presumption of its reasonableness, and consistency with the general tenor of Scripture. Two species of prediction, prophecy and type, announce the wonderful scheme of redemption. The latter, under the law, is universally acknowledged to be not less various,-not less circumstantial,--not less prominent-than the former. Surely the reason of many a Christian must be startled by the bare proposition, that of two equal streams of prophecy, both tending to the same point, the one took its rise from the beginning and from divine revelation; while the other not only did not |