A Treatise On The Origin Of Expiatory Sacrifice

Front matter

1 27 600

A TREATISE

ORIGIN

Chapter I

Respecting the Character of a Religion suitable to a fallen Creature, p. 3.

If God be pleased to reveal a system of religion, that system must be adapted to the necessities of those to whom it is revealed, p. 3.

I. A religion, suitable to the condition of a sinless creature, is unsuitable to the condition of a sinful creature, p. 3.

1. A sinless creature has no need to court reconciliation

with God, p. 3,

2. A sinful creature has need to court such reconci-

liation, p. 4.

3. No religion can be suitable to the condition of a fallen

creature, except one that holds forth the possibility of a reconciliation with God, p. 4.

IF. A religion, professedly SUITABLE to the condition of fallen man, is alone the subject of the present discussion, p. 4.

Chapter II

Respecting the Principle of Reconciliation avowedly set forth in the Religion, which God has actually communicated to Man* under tfa Aspect of a Religion suitable to a fallen Creature, p. 6.

It will not be controverted, that the possibility of a reconciliation with God is essential to a religion suited to the condition of a fallen creature, p. 6.

b

X CONTENTS.

L Accordingly, under all its three Dispensations the religion, which God is known to have communicated to sinful man, holds forth the possibility of a reconciliation with himself. But, in holding forth the possibility, a question arises, whether it also propounds the principle on which that reconciliation is to he effected, p. 6.

II. For the purpose of answering this question, we must advert to the declarations of the divinely communicated religion itself, p. 7.

- 1. Under the Christian Dispensation, the principle is both developed and reduced to effectual practice, p. 7. 2. Under the Levitical Dispensation, the principle is also developed and reduced to practice : but much indefiniteness of knowledge must have prevailed, as to the mode in which it was finally to be rendered effectively beneficial to man, p. 8.

III. So far as our inquiries have hitherto been directed, we find, that under two successive Dispensations of the divinely communicated religion, both the possibility and the principle of a reconciliation with God have been distinctly revealed, p. 9.

Chapter III

Respecting the Connection of the revealed Principle of Recond^ Hation with the outward Act ofpiacular Sacrifice, p. 9.

But neither the Christian Dispensation nor the Levitical Dispensation commenced with the fall of man. The. Patriarchal Dispensation preceded them both. Hence the question arises, whether the principle of reconciliation was known, under Patriarchism. Before this question is discussed, it will be proper to make some remarks on the connexion of the revealed principle of reconciliation with the outward act of piacular sacrifice. Now the three Dispensations of the divinely communicated religion are manifestly connected, as parts of a whole. Their connexion, therefore, leads us to expect their affinity, p. 9

L All the three Dispensations are characterised by the rite of animal sacrifice, as contradistinguished from vegetable

CONTENTS. Xl

sacrifice. Here, consequently, we have an affinity of the outward act, p. 11.

II. Prom the Christian Dispensation we learn, that the inward purpose of the outward act, so far as regards that Dispensation, is atonement for sin, p. 12.

III. But, hitherto, we hare only reached a presumption, that such also was the inward purpose under the two preceding Dispensations, p. 13.

1. Case of the Levitical Dispensation, p. 14.

(1.) Under the Levitical Dispensation, the inward purpose is the same, as under the Christian Dispensation, p. 14.

(2.) And, to this identity of inward purpose, is superadded a studied and intentional connexion, p. 15.

2. In the case of the Patriarchal Dispensation, we have

hitherto determined nothing- more than the actual

existence of animal sacrifice, p. 16.

(1.) With respect to the inward purpose and the intentional connexion, we can as yet urge nothing- beyond bare analogical presumption, p. 16.

(2.) Should this presumption prove well founded, piacular sacrifice must have been instituted of God from the beginning, p. 17.

(3.) If God were the original institutor of^ piacular sacrifice under Patriarchism, this circumstance would evince its intentional connexion with the consummating piacular sacrifice under Christianity, p. 19.

CHAPTER IV, A Statement of the leading Objections to the Opinion, that the Rite of Piacular Sacrifice was originally instituted^ by God

himself under the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 20. A recent Work by Mr. Davison contends, that primitive sacrifice

under the Patriarchal Dispensation was of mere human origin,

XU CONTENTS,

I. The hinge of the question turns upon the character of the sacrifice offered, p. 20.

1. Eucharistic sacrifice or the outward sign of thanks-

giving, p. 21.

2. Homologetic sacrifice or the outward sign of con-

fession, p. 21.

3. Simple deprecatory sacrifice or the purchase of pardon

by gifts, p. 21.

4. Complex expiatory sacrifice or the purchase of pardon

through the medium of vicarious suffering, p. 22. II. The question is narrowed to the point: Whether any of the animal sacrifices, approlatively offered up under PatriarcMsni, were or were not piacular $ If piacular, they must have been instituted of God: if not piacular, they wwzy have heen instituted of man, p. 24.

III. On this principle, denying the divine institution of primitive

sacrifice, Mr. Davison also denies its piacularity, p. 26.

IV. His leading arguments may be reduced under two heads,

1. He contends, that we have no evidence whatsoever of

the existence of the 'doctrine of an atonement previous to the delivery of the Law, p. 27.

2. And he further contends, that we have no evidence of

the divine institution of primitive patriarchal sacrifice, p. 28.

V. Hence, denying, altogether, both the BARB existence, and the DIVINELY APPROVED existence, of piacular sacrifice anterior to the delivery of the Law, he concludes, that the origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice was purely human, p. 28.

Chapter V

Remarks on the Concession, that the Doctrine of an Atonement by Animal Sacrifice cannot be deduced from the Light of Nature or from the Principles of Reason, p. 29.

Previous to a regular discussion of Mr. Davison's two grand objectoiy arguments, it will be proper to notice a very important concession on his part, p, 29.

CONTENTS. X1I1

He concedes, that the doctrine of an a tenement by animal sacrifice cannot be deduced from the light of nature or from the principles of reason, p. 29.

II. Remarks upon, and conclusions from, the concession, p. 32,

SECTION IL

EVIDENCE OF THE DIVINELY-APPROVED EXISTENCE OF THE DOC- TRINE OF AN ATONEMENT PREVIOUS TO THE DELIVERY OF THE JAW FROM MOUNT SINAI, p. 35.

Chapter 1

Respecting the Assertion, that, at the Delivery of the Law, the Doctrine of an Atonement was a New Doctrine, of which we find no probable vestige in tJie Primitive Religion, p. 35.

Mr. Davison asserts, that the doctrine of an atonement was a NEW doctrine, revealed for the first time at the promulgation of the Law, p. 35.

I. Mr. Davison's words import, that the doctrine, simply as a doctrine, was utterly ur&nown during- the patriarchal ages, p. 38.

II. Such language is far too large to be correct, p. 33.

1. It corresponds not with matter of fact, p. 39*

(1.) Human sacrifices were devoted anterior to the

delivery of the Law, p. 39. (2.) The notion, associated with these offerings, was

strictly piacular, p. 40.

2. It does not fully agree with Mr Davison's own allow*

ances, p. 43.

IIL In the consistent development of his own ideas, Mr. Davison. would have expressed himself better, had he said, that, Before the promulgation of the Law, the doctrine of an atonement had no DIVINELY-APPROVED existence* p. 45.

IV. For, if we descend from the much too high ground taken by Mr. Davison, the true question will now he, not Whether the doctrine of a& atonement EXISTED anterior 9 the

XIV CONTENTS.

delivery of the Law ; because, on this point, there can be no reasonable doubt : but the true question will JiencefortJi be, Whether the doctrine of an atonement existed anterior to the delivery of the Law WITH THE DIVINE SANCTION

AND APPROBATION, p. 46.

Chapter II

Evidence of the divinely-approved existence of 'the Doctrine of an Atonement during^ the Patriarchal Ages, from its universal prevalence tfvroughout the Gentile World, p. 4 7.

Expiatory sacrifice prevailed universally throughout the gentile

world. Whence did it originate ? p. 47.

I. According- to Mr. Davison, it originated from the workings of unauthorised superstition, p. 48.

II. This theory might account for the existence of the practice in

some one SINGLE nation: but it will not account for its

UNIVERSALITY, p. 49.

III. An inquiry into the common origin, from which the doctrine

of an atonement and the practice of expiatory sacrifice alike originated, p. 50.

1. This common origin could not have been the Law of

Moses, p. -50.

2. It must hare been the patriarch Noah, p. 51.

3. But Noah could not communicate what he did not

possess. Therefore the doctrine of an atonement and the practice of expiatory sacrifice must have been familiar to Noah. But the just man could not have derived them from a blind superstition. Therefore, mediately or immediately, Noah must have derived them from God, p. 59.

Chapter III

Evidence of the divinely-approved Existence of the Doctrine of an Atonement during the Patriarchal Ages, from the Character of the Sacrifices recorded in the Book of Job, p. 53.

As a recorded matter of fact, Job and his friends offered up ccr* tafn sacrifices for sin, p. 53,

CONTENTS. XV

I. Scriptural statement of their respective sacrifices for sin, p. 55.

1. Sacrifices of Job anterior to his trials, p. 55.

2. Sacrifice of his three friends after his trials, p. 55.

II* The question is : Under what aspect, and with what prevailing idea, were the respective sacrifices of Job and his three friends offered up $ p. 56.

1. This question resolves itself into an inquiry: Whether

the sacrifices for sin, recorded in the Book of Job, were real expiatory sacrifices ; or whether they simply and nakedly expressed a mere act of deprecation? p. 57.

2. The mere phraseology of the history, in its original

Hebrew, leaves the question undetermined, p. 57.

3. But much light is thrown on the subject by the cir-

cumstance, that the sacrifice of the three friends was COMMANDED BY GOD : because it thence follows, that God must hare approved of the attendant 'principle, whatever that principle was. Now that principle must have been, either simple deprecation, or complex expiation, p. 59.

(1.) Prom the nature of the divine attributes, the principle could not have been the principle of simple deprecatory sacrifice, p, 60. (2.) Therefore it must have been the principle of complex expiatory sacrifice, p. 64.

4. The only mode, in which this argument can be re-

butted, is by the assertion, that the sacrifices in question were homologetic. But this assertion cannot be maintained: because the sacrifices were clearly sacrifices for sin ; and, therefore, must have been either deprecatory or expiatory, p. 66. III. Remarks on Mr. Davison's management of the sacrifice of the three friends, p. 68.

XVI CONTENTS.

Chapter IV

Evidence of the divinely-approved Existence of the Doctrine of an Atonement during the Patriarchal Ages, from the Character of the Sacrifice of Noah, p. 71. The preceding remarks may throw some light on the true nature

and notional intent of Noah's sacrifice, p. 71. I. Sgnntural account of the sacrifice of Noah, p. 72. II. Irf the hare narrative, we learn nothing 1 direct, as to the character of the sacrifice, p. 73.

Ill* But we learn much from the narrative, as to the intention of the sacrificer, p. 74.

1. The mode, in which God accepted the sacrifice, proves

it to have been deprecatory, p. 74.

2, The recorded answer of God also proves it to have

been deprecatory, p. 76.

IV* Hence we are certain, that the sacrifice was deprecatory in

its nature and intent, p. 77,

V. But here a question arises : Whether it was simply deprecatory ; or whether it was complexly deprecatory, that is to say, deprecatory with the sup erad ded idea of an atommentf p, 78.

1. The argument, which proved the sacrifice of Job's

three friends to have been expiatory, will equally prove the piacularity of Nodh's sacrifice, p. 79.

2. This result corresponds with the conclusion, to which

we have already been brought by the UNIVERSALITY of expiatory sacrifice among 1 the Pagans, p. SO. VI. Sentiments of the early Church on the subject, p. SI.

1. Statement of Cyril of Alexandria, p. 82.

2. Statement of Eusebius of Cesarea, p. 82.

3. Conclusion drawn from their statements, p, 83,

CONTENTS. XVII

Section III

EVIDENCE OF THE PHIMEVAL DIVINE INSTITUTION OF EXPIATORY SACRIFICE, p. 83.

Chapter I

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Expiatory Sacri* fce^from the History of the Offerings of Cain and Abel, p. 85.

PART I. Respecting the Import of the Hebrew Word Chattath, p. 85

Those persons, who maintain the primeval divine institution of piacular sacrifice, consider the scriptural history of the offerings of Cain and Abel as "speaking- decidedly in their favour. But to this opinion Mr. Davison objects, on the score that the history, being- really neutral, cannot be legitimately adduced in the way of argument. For he contends, that the Hebrew word Chattath, which primarily denotes ", may denote, in its secondary sense, a punishment for sin as well as an offering for sin, p. 85.

I. In regard to the alleged sense of punishment for sin, Mr. Davison, instead of solid proof, resorts to mere etymological conjecture, p. 90.

II. That the word Chattath denotes an offering for sin, has been

PJXVED: we have a right, therefore, to expect the same PROOF that it denotes also a punishment for sin, before we adopt any such speculation, p. 91.

III. Mr. Davison has NOT proved, that, in actual use, the word

Chattath e-ver denotes punishment for sin: though he appeals to the Scptuagint ; and though he produces what he requires us to admit as actual examples, p. 94.

J. His appeal to the authority of the Septuagint totally

fails of establishing his point, p. 94. 2. Nor is his appeal to the alleged actual force of the

word, as employed by certain of the sacred writers,

in any wise more successful, p. 95.

(1.) Example from Lament, iv. 6. p. 95.

(2.) Example from Zechar, xiv. 19. p. 97.

(3.) Example from Lament iii. S9. p. 99.

XV1U CONTENTS,

IV. Mr. Davison, in short, cannot prove his point, by the adduction of any one definite text from the whole Hebrew Scriptures, p. 103.

V. Of this, it might seem, he is conscious : for he finally lowers his demand so far as only to ask, that the word Chattath should be allowed to denote sin with its penal consequences implied. His demand shall be granted, whensoever his allegation shall have been PROVED, p. 105.

1. His allegation is not proved by the use of the word

Chattath, in Numb, xxxiL 23. p. 107.

2. Neither is it proved by the use of the word, in Numb.

xviii. 22, and in other parallel texts, p. 108.

PART IT.

Respecting the true Purport of the Scriptural History of the Offerings of Cam and Abel, p. 112.

Mr. Davison's unauthorised gloss on the word Chattath being now set aside, it only remains to shew, from the history of the offerings of Cain and Abel, that the rite of expiatory sacrifice must have been divinely instituted at the very commencement of the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 112. I. Statement of the narrative, according to our common English

version, p. 112.

II. Unsatisfactoriness of the rendering', sin lieth at the door, p. 113.

1. It conveys no distinct explanation of the difference,

which God made between the respective offerings of Cain and Abel, p. 1 14.

2. It describes not the Almighty, as speaking in a manner

suitable to his own wisdom and dignity, p. 118. III. Now the word Chattath can only be rendered sin, and sin-offering. In the present place, the rendering sin is inadmissible. Therefore the rendering sin-offering must inevitably be adopted: for, as to Mr. Davison's third proposed rendering punishment for sin, the word js incapable of bearing any such sense, p, 130.

CONTENTS. XIX

IV An Inquiry into the reason, why God accepted the one offering-, and rejected the other, p. 123.

1. The spirit of Cain was that of a proud rejection of the

principle of an atonement, p. 125.

2. The spirit of Abel was that of a humble admission of

the principle, p. 127.

V. Summary of the argument in favour of the translation, A

sin-offering coucheth at the door, p. 128.

VI. This translation is required, not only by the necessity of common sense, but likewise by the very phraseology of the passage, p. 129.

VII. Its strict propriety is contextually corroborated by the last

clause of God's expostulation with Cain, p. 131.

VIII. A statement of the general result of the discussion, p. 134. IX. God's expostulation with Cain justly translated and metrically arranged, p. 137.

Chapter II

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Expiatory Sacrifice, from the Attestation of the Inspired Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 138.

With the necessary tenor of the history of the first recorded sacrifice, agrees the expository attestation in the Epistle to ths Hebrews, p. 138.

I. Respecting the true definition of the word Faith, as employed throughout the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 139.

II. Application of the definition to that faith, by which Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, p. 143.

III. Remarks on Mr. Davison's definition of the word Faith,

IV. Remarks on Dr. Spencer's definition of the faith of Abel,

V. Statement of the consequences, which result from Heb. xi. 4. p. 150.

1. The text is fatal to the unauthorised speculation, that the antecedent moral conduct of Cain and Abel

XX CONTENTS-

furnishes the true cause of the different fate of their respective sacrifices, p. 150.

% The text demonstrates, that the sin of Cain was infidelity, p. 151.

3. The text establishes the view which has been taken of the Mosaic history of the transaction, p. 152. (I.) Speculation, that Abel brought the best of his

flock, while Cain brought only the refuse of his

produce, p. 152. (2.) Speculation, that Abel believed his sacrifice

would be accepted, while Cain disbelieved,

p. 153. (3.) True statement of the nature of the superiority

of Abel's faith, p. 15*.

Chapter III

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Sacrifice, and of the Primeval Revelation of the Doctrine of an Atonement, from the peculiarity of the language employed under the Law of Moses j p. 155.

The language of the Law itself imports the primeval divine institution of sacrifice and the primeval revelation of the doctrine of an atonement, p. 155.

I. In the Law, the observance of the naked rite of sacrifice itself is never once enjoined.: but every commandment under the Law respects exclusively the mode and occasion of sacrifice, p. 155.

1. This position is fully exemplified by the exordium of

the book of Leviticus, p. 156.

2. Throughout the Law, the previous existence of sacri-

fice, as a divine institution, is always assumed as a substratum, p. 158.

3. That the rite of sacrifice itself was not commanded

under- the Law, is expressly asserted by God through the mouth of Jeremiah, p. 160.

4. Statement of the extraordinary result from Mr. Da-

CONTENTS. XXI

vison's system when combined with the text from Jeremiah, p. 161.

II. A similar train of argument will equally apply to the question, which respects the revelation of the doctrine of an atonement, p. 165.

1. Under the Lau, that doctrine is no where revealed as

a new doctrine, but is merely approbatively recognised as an old doctrine, p. 167.

2, The text, adduced by Mr. Davison as containing a

formal revelation of the doctrine, in no wise answers to the character which he* would ascribe to it, p. 170.

Chapter IV

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Sacrifice, from the Amoral Argument, that a divinely -uncommanded superstitious Observance cannot be acceptable or well-pleasing to God, p. 172.

A strong moral argument, in favour of the divine institution of primitive sacrifice, may be deduced from the position, that a superstitious observance, uncommanded of God, cannot be acceptable or well-pleasing to God, p. 172. I. This argument is, by Hallet, stated defectively, p. 172. II. Hence, in its defective, and therefore inconclusive, form, the

argument is easily confuted by Mr. Davison, p. 173. III. His confutation, however, affects the argument, only when stated defectively. Let the defective statement be corrected : and the confutation is rendered harmless, p. 174

1. The precept of St. Paul, Let all things be done de-

cently and in order, confers upon the Church an authority to regulate the mode of God's worship. Hence, as a mere commandment of men may, under certain circumstances, be well pleasing to God ; so the bare circumstance of primitive sacrifice having been accepted of God is insufficient to establish its divine institution, p. 174.

2. According to the Apostle's account of Will-worship >

XX11 CONTENTS.

primitive sacrifice, if, when viewed as a human institution, it bears a character essentially superstitious, could not have been well pleasing 1 to God, p. 176.

3. Primitive sacrifice, viewed as a human institution, can

only, on the principle of St. Paul, be viewed as an act of essentially superstitious will-worship, p. 177. (1.) Case of expiatory sacrifice, p. 177. (2.) Case of deprecatory sacrifice, p. 178. (3.) Case of honiologetic sacrifice, p. 178. , (4.) Case of eucharistic sacrifice, p. 179.

4. That sacrifice, when not ordained of God, is no better

than an act of mere superstitious will-worship, appears further from the circumstance, that no person now ever thinks of sacrificing, because no person now imagines that he can please God by the act of sacrifice. But, if sacrifice be now superstition, because it is not now commanded of God ; it must equally have been superstition during the patriarchal ages, if, during those ages, it were a mere human institution, p. ISO.

5. The answer, that sacrifice is now abrogated, because

Christ, the end 'of sacrifice, has come, is wholly insufficient: for, in the first place, such an answer would account only for the cessation of expiatory sacrifice ; and, in the second place, it travels quite wide of the hypothesis upon which the whole of the present discussion avowedly reposes, for, in the very nature of things, no uncommanded sacrifice, if such were the sacrifice of the patriarchal ages, can have been a prophetic type of the sacrifice of Christ. Hence, if uncommanded sacrifice were pleasing to God during the patriarchal ages, no reason can be assigned why it should not be equally pleasing to God in the present day: and the question will then still recur, Why do not we sacrifice, as well as the early patriarchs ? p 181.

6. The sum, therefore, of the matter is, that sacrifice of

whatsoever description, if not commanded of God, can only have been an act of that precise gratuitous

CONTENTS. SXJ11

superstition, which the Apostle censures under the name of Witt-worship, and which evidently is represented as unpleasing to God, p, J82,

IV. Hence, finally the moral argument from the position, that a superstitious observance, uncommanded of God, cannot be acceptable or well-pleasing to God, when stated fully and correctly, demonstrates the divine origin of primitive sacrifice, and is itself altogether unaffected by the alleged confutation of Mr. Davison, p. 183.

Section IV

NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS,' TO. THE OPINION,* THAT 1EXPIATORY SA- CRIFICE WAS DIVINELY INSTITUTED AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PATRIARCHAL DISPENSATION, p, 185.

Chapter I

Respecting the objection founded upon the alleged circumstance, that there is no express mention of the Primeval Divine Institution of Expiatory Sacrifice, p. 185.

Mr. Davison objects, that there is no express mention of the primeval divine institution of expiatory sacrifice, p. 185. I* On the neutrality of the scriptural history of Cain and Abel,

Mr. Davison says more than will be conceded, p. 188. II. A truth may be conveyed in other modes, than that of a regular scholastic enunciation, p. 188.

1. Instance from the Socinian objection respecting the

two-fold nature of Christ, p. 188.

2. Instance from the Socinian objection respecting the

doctrine of the Trinity, p. 189.

3. Parallel instance from Mr. Davison's objection respect-

ing the primitive divine institution of expiatory sacrifice, p. 190.

III. The brief reply to the objection is, that God COMMANDED Cain to devote a sin-offering, p. 191.

XXIV CONTENTS.

CHAPTER If,

Respecting the objection founded upon the alleged circumstance, that, while the Primitive Divine Institution of Expiatory Sacrifice is no where expressly mentioned, the Primitive Divine Institution of the Sabbath is carefully and specifically recorded, p. 192.

Mr. Davison objects, that, while the primeval divine institution of expiatory sacrifice is no where mentioned, the primeval divine institution of the sabbath is expressly recorded, p. 192. I. The objection is founded upon a palpable error : for the primeval divine institution of the sabbath, though it may be gathered by induction, is yet no where expressly recorded throughout the entire book of Genesis, p. 194. II. This matter is so obvious, that Justin and the earlier Fathers maintain, that the sabbath was first divinely instituted under Moses ; and that, as it was not a primitive institution, so the patriarchs did not observe it, p. 199. III. With them agree the more ancient Rabbins of the Jewish church, p. 203.

Chapter III

Respecting the Objection founded upon the alleged circumstance, that there is no express mention of the atoning Virtue of Sacrifice under the PatriarcJial Dispensation, p. 211.

Mr. Davison objects, that there is no express mention of the atoning virtue of sacrifice under the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 211.

I. To the present objection an answer has already been given

by the adduction of direct scriptural testimony, that Cain was commanded of God to bring A SIN-OFFERING, p. 211.

II. It may peradventure be said, that the term sin-offering does

not necessarily involve the idea of atonement by vicarious suffering. Such a possible objection shall be answered by anticipation, p. 213. 1, The word Chattath, as defined by Moses himself, IN-

VARIABLY denotes a sin-offering of atonement,

CONTENTS. XXV

2. Moses, to whom the word was specially familiar, employs this precise word to describe the sacrifice which Cain was commanded to devote, p. 215.

Chapter IV

Respecting the moral Objection to the rendering, A Sin-offering coucheth at the Door, p. 217.

Mr. Davison objects, that the rendering, A sin-offering coucheth at the door, is morally discordant with the general spirit of scripture, p. 217.

Z. His objection is wholly built upon an unproved and an unproveable assumption, that Cain, anterior to his sacrifice, had been a grievous moral offender, p. 218. II. He has totally misconceived the general drift and purpose of the whole history, p. 319.

Chapter V

Respecting the Objection founded upon a supposed Retrogradation of the Levitical Dispensation, as viewed in reference to the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 222.

Mr. Davison objects, that the maintenance of the primitive divine institution of expiatory sacrifice involves a retrogradation of the Levitical Dispensation, as viewed in reference to the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 222.

I. Piacular sacrifice, under each of the two earlier Dispensa-

tions, was the same in dignity and purpose. Hence, where there is no inequality, there can be no retrogradation, p. 225.

II. But Mr. Davison argues, that, under the Law, expiation

was made only for ceremonial offences while, under Patriarchism, if expiation were made for any thing, it must have been made for moral offences. Hence, on such an hypothesis, the retrogradation still continues, p* 227.

1. Mr. Davison departs from his own principle, p. 227.

2. The principle itself is false : for Mr. Davison has con-

c

XXVI CONTENTS.

founded together two matters, which ought to have been carefully separated, p. 228.

S. Mr. Davison's inconclusive reasoning 1 from the language of David and Paul, p. 2SO.

4. St. Paul expressly teaches us, that, so far as typical

sacrifice could make expiation, the sacrifices under the Law made expiation for moral, no less than for ceremonial, offences, p. 235.

5. The same doctrine is maintained by the Jews, p. 238,

Chapter VI

Respecting the Objection founded on the Declaration, that the System of the Gospel is a Mystery, which was hidden of old time, but which now is made manifest, p. 241.

Mr. Davison objects, that the system, which he opposes, is inconsistent with the declaration, that the Dispensation of the Gospel is a mystery, which was hidden of old time, but which now is made manifest, p. 241.

I. The true question respects, not the patriarchal extent of the

knowledge of an atonement, but the patriarchal existence of the doctrine, p. 243.

II. Remarks on written, as opposed to unwritten^ communica-

tions, p. 245.

Chapter VII

Respecting the Objection, that the Idea of an Animal Couching at the Door of Cain is inconsistent with t/ie recorded professsion of Cain, p. 250.

Mr. Davison objects, that the idea of a sin-offering couching at the door of the agi'iculturist Cain is inconsistent with his recorded profession, p. 250.

I. Mr. Davison assumes, what he ought to have proved, that the

door was really the door of Cain, p. 252.

II. We have an equal right to say, that it was the door of a consecrated tent or tabernacle. Each is a mere conjecture : and to found an express objection upon an unproved conjecture can scarcely be deemed legitimate q-Uicism, p 4 255,

CONTENTS- X3CV11

Chapter VIII

Respecting the Objection founded on the alleged Novelty of the Opinion, that Piacular Sacrifice was, from the first* di~ vinety instituted under the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 257.

Mr. Davison objects, that the hypothesis of the primitive divine

institution of sacrifice is a mere modern figment first struck