the most important and significant type of the atonement by the blood of Jesus.

But when the Israelites had multiplied, were released from the sway of Egypt, and had become a nation; then the Law was given. The primitive, and significant rite of sacrifice was still retained, but its principle was applied to a more diversified and complex code of transgressions; adapted to the situation of the people, and to the counsels of the Almighty. A solemn record was to be put forth, establishing a national code of religion and polity, by which the Israelites were to be guided then, and in future ages; when Moses should be no more, and till the Lord should raise up a "prophet like unto Moses." To ensure obedience and reverence to this code the Divine sanction was distinctly stamped upon every part of it. Man was not to add to, or take away from it, much less to be supposed to have originated it. Therefore Moses frequently says, the Lord spake, the Lord commanded, and the like. But while the previous history speaks of sacrifice, as the chief, almost sole religious observance, without any period being mentioned in which it assumed a typical character; the Law, in no single instance, represents it as a rite, which then for the first time had received the sanction of Divine command.

These circumstances offered a strong presumption that Moses spoke of sacrifice as universally known to be of Divine origin;--a presumption, indeed, so strong, that, in my opinion, nothing but the express declaration of its being of human institution; or some decisive proof that the scope of the history of the primitive times indispensably demanded its mention, can set it aside. The former, we know, is not to be found. The latter I shall discuss under our third question. But we must first enter upon those points, which were proposed as the second question.

CHAPTER VI.

II. In what sense would the general tenor of the Law pre-dispose the Jews to interpret those passages of the Primeval and Patriarchal history in which no mention was made of the origin of Sacrifice?

In considering the points suggested by the preceding question, we have unavoidably anticipated, in some degree, the answer to the present.

The impression on the mind of Moses, which I have endeavoured to shew, precluded the necessity of his directly mentioning the origin of sacrifice in the book of Genesis, will be found to rest upon a just estimate of the feelings and prepossessions of the Jews.

The Levitical Law was the place in which the Jews would naturally seek the authority of Sacrifice; and we have no proof that even the substance of the facts recorded in the book of Genesis was related to them previously to the promulgation of the Law. It appears to me a complete subversion of the matter to suppose, that a Jew would deduce the origin and intent of sacrifice from the cursory account given by Moses of Abel's sacrifice, when all the associations of his mind recently excited, both by repeated declarations of the Divine sanction, and by sensible tokens of the presence of the Deity, strongly, almost irresistibly, led him to regard not only Sacrifice, but every part of his ritual as of Divine authority.

What inference, then, would a Jew draw from the simple statement, that " Abel also brought the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and unto his offering?"

The firstlings and the fat thereof were sacrificial terms *. The import of these was determinate, and perfectly well known. But they were terms applied to a commanded offering-an offering, which, the law taught them, derived its sanction from God, not from man. Had they not received it with the most unquestionable demonstrations of its Divine authority? Does not the book of Leviticus open with the explicit and emphatic declaration, that "the Lord called unto Moses and spake unto him out of the Tabernacle of the congregation, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any of you bring an offering," &c. And does not God himself say "I have GIVEN you the blood +." (Lev. xvii. 11.) Not a syllable respecting his having adopted the rite, or man's having invented it.

When the children of Israel, therefore, read the account of Abel's coming to offer the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof, and the recorded acceptance of his offering; could they entertain even a suspicion, that the very rite, which was enforced upon them with such solemn declarations of the Divine

*Lev. iii. 17. Deut. xii. 6.

I decline entering upon the controversy respecting the sense of in Gen. iv. 7. because, from my very slight acquaintance with Hebrew, of which I am now only a learner, I cannot pretend to arbitrate the merits of the respective arguments. The reader will find some criticisms on Mr. Davison's reasonings in the Quarterly Theological Review for September, 1825, to which I refer him. One part of Mr. Davison's work connected with this point, I cannot pass without observing the excessive and undiscriminating severity with which he has condemned Lightfoot. That this author's views were not sometimes erroneous cannot be affirmed. But this by no means justifies Mr. Davison (p. 70) in declaring, that "he is one of the last writers to deserve our confidence, either for his perspicuity as a scholar, or his justness of thinking as a divine."

It may be urged here that GIVEN or decreed in this passage may refer to its immediate sanction. This amounts at the utmost to a possibility. But this possibility I shall presently attempt to destroy, when I show the true bearing of this memorable passage upon the question of the expiatory import of the primitive sacrifices.

D

sanction, was offered by Abel as a mere human invention?

Again. Could the Israelites, who had beheld every thing, however minute, connected with their ceremonial code distinctly stamped with the Divine sanction, and the absolute creation of Divine command; could they suppose, that Sacrifice, the principal feature of their worship, the very ordinance to which all other parts of the ritual were entirely subservient, was a mere human invention? Could they conjecture, that God, who had planned and ordered the tapestry, and the very loops of the tabernacle, should have been directed by man to the atoning Sacrifice, which was to cover our sinfulness-that He, who appointed the vail of separation, should borrow from his creatures, the blood that was to be sprinkled before the mercy seat? Or could they imagine, that He, who ordained the very vestments of the priests, the form and the materials of the altar, should have left human reason, the reason of a corrupt, fallen, and erring creature, to discover the victim, for which the altar was to be built, and with which the priest was to approach it? Surely not! Every association of a Jewish mind, nay the very evidence of his outward senses, must have led him to consider all his ceremonial as of Divine appointment, and Sacrifice the crown of all, the most solemn, the most important of Divine institutions.

But we may advance still farther. The Jews, to whom this history was addressed, were taught that they were neither to add nor to diminish aught from God's commands; (Deut. iv. 2.) and the manner, in which the Divine indignation was roused by any attempt to proceed in God's worship otherwise than he had commanded, was abundantly manifested in the cases of Nadab and Abihu, and of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. With such doctrines, and such examples * before their eyes could they infer, that

* Whether the apostle (Coloss. ii.) does or does not condemn will

Abel brought his offering, and that offering was accepted, without a Divine authority for it? Could they conjecture, nay could they believe this, unless Moses had expressly and positively declared it?

I conclude, then, that the natural and strong presumption of those, to whom the narrative contained in the book of Genesis was addressed, must have been in favour of the Divine institution of Sacrifice, and that the historian must have been fully aware of this presumption, and would have undeceived them

HAD IT BEEN ERRONEOUS.

Was there then any thing in his narrative which demanded any special notice of the Divine institution of Sacrifice? This is our next question.

CHAPTER VII.

III. Is there any thing in the nature and scope of the history of the primitive times, which should call for an express declaration of the origin of Sacrifice; if it were instituted by God?

A PARADOXICAL, I may almost say sceptical, tone seems to characterize the reasoning, which, (upon

worship, I shall not examine here. Neither shall I enter upon Mr. Davison's arguments and statements respecting that subject. I am not contending that the human origin of sacrifice would necessarily render it unacceptable to the Deity. All I claim, and I think it cannot be denied, is, that the offering of sacrifice of human invention must have appeared highly criminal IN THE EYES OF THE ISRAELITES; and that an ACCEPTED sacrifice could be of that description, is what they would neither contemplate, nor believe, unless DISTINCTLY IN-, FORMED UPON INDISPUTABLE AUTHORITY. But the offering of any rite of human invention as having a sacramental efficacy, must be, criminal in the eye of God.