their proper form, then we know them; not before."(2) have been turned to spiritual blessings as the result of this, since in this life they neither obtained exemption One very misleading notion, as the reader will per- from labour, suffering, or death. Now those who adopt ceive from what has been already said, lies at the bot- the principle of Mr. Davison, and will allow of no revetom of these remarks. It is assumed contrary to evi-lations in those ages being assumed but those which dence, that the Book of Genesis is a complete history are recorded by Moses, are bound to allow that there of the religious opinions of the patriarchs, and that they was in the promise something which was intended to knew nothing on the subject of theology but what ap- give religious hope and comfort to the first pair, and to pears on the face of the account given by Moses, who their immediate posterity, or they cannot account for touches their theological system but incidentally. We the existence of religious worship and the hope which say that this notion is unfounded, not only because we it implies, since there is no other recorded promise of must necessarily infer, that in order to be religious, nay, the same antiquity, and they will allow nothing to be even moral men, they knew much more than the rapid assumed besides what is written. If, then, this first Mosaic sketch includes; but we conclude this fact on promise ministered to the religious hope, faith, and comthe authority of the inspired writers of the New Testa- fort of our first parents, it turned that hope to the ment. Thus, for instance, we have seen that Abraham spiritual blessings which they had lost, namely, the had a revelation of a future state, and that Enoch pro- favour of God and eternal life, and to these as coming phesied of the "coming of the Lord to judgment, with to them through the bruising of the head of the serpent thousands of his saints," though neither of those reve- by the seed of the woman. The same conclusion we lations are recorded by Moses. But though this is suf- must come to, if we adopt what we appear compelled ficient to show that the view taken of the primitive to do, on apostolic authority, the doctrine of collateral theology, by Mr. Davison, and those whose opinions expository revelations, for these would throw light he has undertaken to advocate, is far too narrow, and upon the figurative and symbolic terms of the promise, that his conclusions, from such premises, must be un- and show much of its real and spiritual import. In satisfactory; it is not on this ground that his notion either case we must resort to this promise as the source of the general and indefinite nature of the first promise of that hope of pardon and spiritual victory, which, shall be refuted. Let it be forgotten, for a moment, from the time it was given, became an inmate in the that Adam was naturally the religious head and reli- bosoms of faithful men, and animated them in their gious teacher of his family; that there was always an moral conflicts. Whoever, then, the seed of the woman inspiration in the church of God; that the general might be, he was, in this very promise, exhibited as the promises and prophecies were adapted to excite inquiry; restorer of the all-important spiritual blessings of the and that spiritual men would always, more or less, as Divine favour, power over Satan, and eternal life. now, be led into the mystery veiled under the letter and Thus their notions of his character, and, indeed, of symbol; yet, taking the prophecy simply by itself, it will his superior nature, would be still farther advanced. be obvious from a careful consideration of it, that the But the bruising of the head of Satan, which could view just given does not do it justice, and that it must only be understood of a fatal blow to be inflicted on the have been more amply and more particularly under-power which he had acquired over man, and which stood than Mr. Davision, in support of his hypothesis, would represent. He would have it taken so generally as to be incapable of interpretation "into the several parts of its appointed completion," and to be only able to convey some one general notion of a deliverer. But why are we to confine it to one general indistinct impression? Why, though the several parts of this prophetic promise should be allowed to be comparatively obscure, and their impression to be general, should it not be considered in the parts of which it is actually composed and why should not each part have been apprehended separately and distinctively, though yet obscurely? Of several parts the prophecy is, in fact, composed, and to these parts, as well as to the general impression made by the whole, must the attention of the patriarchs have been necessarily directed. The Divine nature, the incarnation, the vicarious nature of Messiah's sufferings, and their atoning efficacy, we are told, came to man "by separate channels," and were not in any way to be apprehended in this promise. In their farther and full developement, we grant this; but let us see whether this promise, interpreted even by itself," must not have led the patriarchs many steps, at least, towards all these doctrines. The Divine nature of the promised Redeemer, we are told, was a separate revelation; but surely, this promise clearly indicated that he was to be of a superior nature, not only to man, but to that fell spirit whom he was to subdue, and whose subtlety, power, and malice, our first parents had so lamentably experienced that he was to deprive him of that dominion which he had acquired over man, and restore the world from the evil effects which it had sustained from the success of his temptations. This was seen in the promise by an easy and natural interpretation, and the step from this to the absolute Divinity of this Restorer, or, at least, to an apprehension of the probability of it, was certainly not a large and difficult one. The blessings, too, which he was to procure for sinful man were of such a nature as to give the most exalted ideas of the being who could bring them back to man when forfeited by a most righteous sentence. They were spiritual blessings. For, if our first parents were to derive any consolation or benefit from the promise in this life; if it was to turn their repentance to any account; or to give them any hope and confidence towards God, whom they had offended, to be assured that the head of the serpent should be bruised, then their attention must (2) Inquiry, &c. had displayed itself in the introduction of suffering and death, in the evil dispositions of men towards each other, and all the miseries which so soon sprung up in society, directed their hope also to future blessings as to themselves and their posterity, which blessings could be no less than deliverance from the evils which the subtlety of the serpent had introduced, namely, as to them, deliverance from affliction and death; and, as to society, a return to primeval purity. Whether they looked for this deliverance by a renovation of the present world, or by the introduction of the pious into another, we cannot say. If our first parents were, for some time, uncertain as to this point, the antediluvian family could not long remain so, since the doctrine of a future life was known to Enoch, and, if not before, was revealed to others by the fact of his translation, and he was but "the seventh from Adam." But whether by the renovation of the earth, and the restoration of the body of man to immortality in this world, or by the resurrection of the body and the glorification of the soul in a future state, still was such a restoration implied in the promise, and the person by whom death was to be conquered and sin expelled from man's heart, and immortality and bliss restored, was still "the seed of the woman." That the Divinity of a being capable of bestowing such favours, was, at least, indicated in the first promise, is not, therefore, too strong a conclusion; and though new communications of this truth, coming through "separate channels," illustrated the text of this revelation, yet in the channel of the original promise, through which came the first hope of "a Redeemer," we see those concomitant circumstances from which it could not but be inferred, that he was, at least, super-human and super-angelic. He was the seed of the woman, and yet superior to "the archangel fallen"-and he was seen in that promise, as he is seen now, though with greater detail of circumstance, as the great medium of pardon, moral renovation, immortality, and eternal life. It is equally untenable to say, that the doctrine of the incarnation was not to be deduced from the promise before us, but that this also came by "a separate channel." The farther revelation of this truth opened for itself various courses, but it is there also. The being there spoken of as superior to the serpent, and as so superior to man, even in his innocence and perfection, that he should subdue the power which had subdued Adam, and recover what Adam lost, was, nevertheless, to be "the SEED of the woman :" to be her offspring even in her fallen state; so that in truth so much of | reflecting part of the first family; and, if so, then this promise may be considered as the basis of Abel's faith, and its doctrine as visibly imbodied in what was peculiar in Abel's offering. Even if we were not able to refer to a promise sufficiently definite to support such an expression of faith, the former view we have taken would still hold good, that all faith necessarily supposes a previous revelation; and if faith does, by its acts, refer to a particular revelation, then an actual previous revelation of some particular doctrine, object, or view, must necessarily be supposed, or it is not faith, but fancy and presumption. the doctrine of the incarnation was to be deduced from the promise, that this "seed of the woman" was at once to be man, and more than man. And then for the doctrine of his "vicarious sufferings" and their efficacy, why should we be compelled wholly to look for the first indication of this to revelations coming to man through separate and later channels? These, we again thankfully acknowledge, have been abundantly opened; but, if we allow Adam and the patriarchs to have been men of but common powers of reflection (though to them a very vigorous and even cultivated intellect might in justice be conceded), then the first indication of this truth also must have been seen in the first promise. It was comparatively dim and obscure, we grant; but there was a substantive manifestation of it; and to say nothing of collateral instruction from GOD himself, it was apprehended in the first promise, not by difficult and distant, but by near and natural inference, that the restoration of man should be effected by the sufferings of the Restorer. For what could be understood by the bruising of the heel of the seed of the woman in the conflict which was to spring from the eninity put between that seed, some one distinguished person so called, and the serpent but a temporary injury and suffering? and why should he sustain the injury rather than any other descendant of the woman, except that the conflict in which he engaged, was in his character of Redeemer, coming forth to the struggle for man's sake, and for man's rescue? As he was a being superior to man, and yet man, then is there an indication of his incarnation: if of his incarnation, then it was indicated also that his sufferings were voluntary, for to suffer could not spring from his weakness who was able to subdue, but from the will of him who chose, in this way, to subdue the grand enemy. His suffering, then, was for man, and it was voluntary suffering for man; and if voluntary, then was there a connexion between this his temporary voluntary suffering and the bruis-gently seek him," and this seeking or worshipping God ing of the serpent's head, that is, his conquest over Satan, and the rescue of man from his dominion; in other words, there was an efficacy in his sufferings which connected themselves, not by accident, but by appointment and institution, with man's salvation from those evils, spiritual and corporal, which had been induced by the power and malice of the devil. It is vainly urged against this, by Mr. Davison, that the faith spoken of by St. Paul in Hebrews xi. had for its simple and general object, that "God is the rewarder of such as diligently seek him." For, though this is supposed as the ground of every act of faith, yet the special acts recorded have each their special object. Even if it were not so, this general principle itself is not to be so generally and indefinitely interpreted as Mr. Davison would have it, who tells us that the first creed was "that God is a rewarder," and that the other articles were given by successive and distant revelations. This is a partial and delusive statement; for, from this very text, which surely Mr. Davison had no right to curtail, another article is to be assigned to the first creed, namely, that God is not merely a rewarder, but a rewarder of those "that diligently seek him." Even with respect to the first, as Mr. Law justly observes, "God cannot be considered as a rewarder of mankind in any other sense than as he is a fulfiller of his promises made to mankind in the covenant of Messiah. For God could not give, nor man receive, any rewards or blessings but in and through one Mediator, Christ Jesus."(3) But we may add, that the rewarding mentioned by the apostle is connected with "seeking" him. Only to such he was or is a reward "who dilisupposes some appointed instituted method of approaching him, and which, therefore, must be regarded by an acceptable faith, and recognised by its external acts. This is not mere inference, for both Cain and Abel believed that "God is, and that he is a rewarder," and they both sought him; but they sought him differently, and to Abel only and to his offering, that is, to his mode Interpreted, then, by itself, there is much more in this of "seeking" God, his Maker had respect. But farpromise than Mr. Davison has discovered in it. It ther, the whole chapter shows that, besides this geneexhibited to man the means of his salvation; this was ral principle, the acts of faith there recorded reposed on to be effected by the interposition of a being of a supe- antecedent revelations, either general or specific, which rior nature, made "the seed of the woman;" his office accorded with them. Noah's faith respected the prowas to destroy the works of the devil; he exposed him-mise of his preservation in the ark; Abraham's, that self to voluntary sufferings for this end; these suffer- he should have a son, that his seed should possess the ings had a direct efficacy and connexion with man's de- earthly Canaan, and he himself the heavenly Canaan; liverance from the power of Satan, and, therefore, we Moses's faith, in the first instance recorded of it, remay add, with the justice of GOD, since Satan could spected the promises of spiritual and eternal blessings have no power over man but by God's permission, to those who should renounce the "pleasures of sin for which permission was a part of man's righteous pu- a season," and in the second, the promise of God to denishment. This last consideration is of great import- liver Israel, and to fulfil the promise made to Abraham; ance. For as the patriarchs, with their lofty and clear and so also in the other instances given, the faith connotions of the majesty of the Divine Being, could not stantly respected some particular revelation from God. suppose that Satan had obtained any victory over him, From all this, it will follow, that the apostle, in this or that the conflict between the Redeemer and him was chapter, did not intend to say that the object of faith in to be one of power merely, since they must have known any age whatever, was exclusively, that God is a rethat he might at any time have been expelled from his warder of them who seek him, but that the elders who usurped dominion by the fiat of the Almighty; so the obtained the "good report" had faith in the word and dominion of Satan must have been regarded by them promises of God, and for that had been honoured and rein the light of a judicial permission for the punishment warded. He lays down two principles, it is true, which of sin, and exhibiting the awful justice and sanctity of must be assumed before any special act of faith can be the law of God. It would, therefore, necessarily fol- exercised-"That God is," or there could be no object low, in their reasonings on this subject, that the suffer- of trust; and that he rewards them that "diligently ings of the seed of the woman, expressed by the bruis- seek him," or there could be no motive to prayer, or to ing of his heel, as they were demonstrated to be volun- ask his interposition in any case; but these principles tary on his part by the superior greatness of his na- being admitted, then every word and promise of God ture, and were expressly appointed on the part of God, becomes an object of faith to good men, who derive as appears from the very terms of the first promise, from this habit of trusting in God on the anthority of were connected with this exercise of punitive justice, his own engagements, that courage and constancy by and were designed to remove it. Here, then, the no- which they are distinguished, and are crowned with tion of satisfaction and atonement breaks in, and a those rewards which he has always attached to faith. basis was laid for the rite of expiatory sacrifice, and And here, also, we may observe, that the notion the conformity of that rite to the doctrine of the first stated above, that the mere belief by these ancient papromise is at once seen; it thus became a visible ex-triarchs that God is, and "that he is a rewarder," could pression of the faith of the fathers in this appointed method of man's deliverance. There is nothing in this exposition of the import of the first promise which is so suggested by what we now know on these important subjects, as to be supposed out of the reach of the spiritually-minded and T not be at all apposite to the purpose for which this recital of the faith of the elders was addressed to the Hebrews. The object of it was clearly to induce the Jews, who believed, not "to cast away their confidence," (3) Confutation of WARBURTON. their faith in Christ. But what adaptation to this end can we discern in the dry statement that Abel and Enoch believed that God is, and that he is a "rewarder ?" Had the Hebrews renounced Christ, and turned Jews again, they would still have believed these two points of doctrine. There are but two views of this recital of the instances of ancient faith which can harmonize it with the apostle's argument and design. The first is to consider him as adducing this list of worthies as examples of a steady faith in all that God had then revealed to man, and of the happy effects which followed. The connexion of this with his argument will then be obvious; for, by these examples he urges the Hebrews to persevere in believing all that God had, "in these last days," revealed of his Son Jesus Christ, in disregard of the dangers and persecutions to which they were exposed on that account; because thus they would share in the "good report" and in the rewards of the "elders" of their own church, and imitate the honourable piety of their ancestry. This is enough for our argument. But there is a second view, not to be slightly passed over, which is, that these instances of ancient faith are adduced by the apostle to prove that all the "elders" of the patriarchal and Jewish churches had faith in THE CHRIST TO COME, and that, therefore, the Hebrews would be the imitators of their faith and the partakers of its rewards in "holding fast their confidence," their faith in the same Christ who had already come, and whom they had received as such. Nor is even this stronger view difficult to be made out; for, though the different acts and exercises of faith ascribed to them have respect to different promises and revelations, some spiritual, some temporal, and some mixed, yet may we trace in all of them a respect, more or less immediate to the leading object of all faith, the Messiah himself. We have seen that Abel's faith had respect to the method of man's justification, through the sufferings of the seed of the woman. As that seed was appointed to remedy the evils brought into the world by the serpent, it is clear that eternal life could only be expected with reference to him, and Enoch's lofty faith in a future heavenly state consequently looked to him then, like ours now, as "the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him,"-a conclusion as to this patriarch which is rendered stronger by his prophecy of Christ's coming to judgment "with ten thousand of his saints." Noal's faith had immediate respect to the promise of God to preserve him in the ark; but it cannot be disconnected from his faith in the first promise, and other revelations of the bruising of the head of the serpent by Messiah, a promise which had not been accomplished, and which, if he believed God to be faithful, he must have concluded could not fall to the ground, and that his preservation, in order to prevent the human race from extinction, and to bring in the seed of the woman, in the fulness of time, was connected with it. His faith in God, as his deliverer, was bound up, therefore, we may almost say necessarily, with his faith in the Redeemer, and the one was the evidence of the other; for which reason, principally, it probably was, that the apostle says "that he became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." All the acts of Abraham's faith had respect, immediately or ultimately, to the promised seed. The possession of Canaan by his posterity, from whom the Messiah was to spring, the enjoyment of eternal life for himself, which was the final effect of his justification by faith in the seed in whom all nations were to be blessed,the transaction as to Isaac, when he believed that God would raise him from the dead, because he believed that the promise could not fail which had declared that the Messiah should spring from Isaac,-" In Isaac shall thy seed be called." The faith of Isaac in blessing, or prophesying of the condition of Jacob and Esau, had still reference to the Messiah, who was to descend from Jacob, not Esau, and the lot of whose posterity was regulated accordingly. The same observation may be made as to Jacob blessing the sons of Joseph, and Joseph's making mention of the departure of the children of Israel, and giving commandment concerning his bones; both related to the settlement of the tribes in Canaan, and both were complicated with the relation of that event to, and the peculiarity stamped upon Israel, by the expected coming of Messias. When Moses, by faith, full of the hopes of immortality, renounced the temptations of the Egyptian court. the reproach he endured is called "the reproach of Christ," the apostle thus plainly intimating, that it was through the expected Messiah that he looked for the hope of eternal life, "the recompense of the reward." His faith, as leader of the hosts of Israel, was connected with the promises of God to give them possession of the land of Canaan as their patrimony, as that was with the advent of the Messiah among them "in the fulness of time." The faith of Rahab may appear more remotely connected with the promise of Messiah; but the connexion may still be traced. She believed in the God of Israel as the true God; but by entertaining and preserving the spies, she also intimated her faith in the promise of God to give the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan for their inheritance, which design she could only know from the promises made to Abraham, either traditionally from him, who had himself long resided in Canaan, or by information from the spies; and if she had this knowledge in either way, it is not difficult to suppose her informed, also, as to the seed promised to Abraham, in which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. I incline to think, that the faith of Rahab had respect not so much to any information she received from the spies, as to traditions derived from Abraham. Whether she stood, by her descent, in any near relation to those with whom Abraham had more immediately conversed, or whether Abraham had very publicly testified in Canaan God's design to establish his posterity there, and to raise up from among them the holy seed, the Messiah, I will not pretend to determine; but there are two reasons which at least make it probable that Abraham gave a public testimony to religious truth during his residence in Canaan. The first is, his residence in tents; thereby "declaring plainly," says the Apostle Paul, "that he sought a better country, even a heavenly;" that is, declaring it to the Canaanites, or the action would have had no meaning, declaring this doctrine to the people of his own age. The second is, that the same apostle gives it as a reason for the preservation of Rahab, that she believed, while those "that believed not," perished, meaning plainly the rest of the Canaanites. Now, what were they to believe, and why were they guilty for not believing? The only rational answer to be given is, that they had had the means of knowing the designs of God as to Abraham and his posterity, from whom the promised Messiah was to spring, and that, not crediting the testimony given first by Abraham, and which was afterward confirmed by the wonders of Egypt, but setting themselves against the designs of God, they "perished" judicially, while Rahab, on account of her faith in these revelations, was preserved. With respect to "Gideon, and Barak, and Samson, and Jephthah, and Daniel, and Samuel," they were judges, kings, and conquerors. They had a lofty faith in the special promises of success, which God was pleased to make to them; but that faith also sprung from, and was supported by, the special relation in which their nation stood to Jehovah; they were the seed of Abraham; they held their land by the grant of the Most High; they were all taught to look for the rising of the mighty prince Messiah among them; and their faith in special promises of success could not but have respect to all these covenant engagements of God with their people, and may be considered as in no small degree grounded upon them, and, in its special acts, as an evidence that they had this faith in the deeper and more comprehensive promises. Certain it is, that one of them mentioned in this list of warriors, David, does in the very songs in which he celebrates his victories, almost constantly blend them with the conquests of Messiah; which is itself a marked and eminent proof of the connexion which was constantly kept up in the minds of the pious governors of Israel, between the political fortunes of their nation and the promises which respected the seed of Abraham. As to the prophets, also mentioned by the apostle, they were constantly made the channels of new revelations as to the Messiah, and their faith, therefore, had an immediate reference to him; and for the sufferers in the cause of religious truth, so honourably recorded, the martyrs of the Old Testament, who had "trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, were stoned, sawn asunder," &c., they are all represented as supported by their hope of immortality and a resurrection; blessings which, from the first, were acknowledged to come to man only through the appointed Redeemer. Thus the faith of all had respect to Christ, either more directly or remotely; and if farther proof were necessary, all that has been said is crowned by the concluding sentence of the apostle"And these all having obtained a good report, through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect;" which "better thing," whether it mean the personal appearance of the Messiah, or their reception into heaven by a resurrection, which God determined should not take place as to the church separately, but in a body, proves that not only did their faith look back to special promises of succour, deliverance, and other blessings; but was constantly looking forward to Christ, and to the blessings of a resurrection and eternal life which he was to bestow. This, he affirms too, was the case with ALL whom he had mentioned-"these ALL died in the faith;" but in what faith did they die? Not the faith they had in the promises of the various deliverances mentioned in the chapter; those special acts of faith were past, and the special promises to which they were directed were obtained long before death: they died in the faith of unaccomplished promises-the appearance of Messiah, and the obtaining of eternal life through him. but a few additional remarks on this subject may not be useless. The human invention of primitive animal sacrifice is a point given up by Mr. Davison, and other writers on the same side, if such sacrifices can be proved expiatory. The human invention of eucharistic offerings they can conceive; and Mr. Davison thinks he can find a natural explanation of the practice of offering animal sacrifice, if considered as a confession of guilt; but for "that condition of animal sacrifice, its expiatory atoning power," he observes, "I confess myself unable to comprehend how it can ever be grounded on the principles of reason, or deduced from the light of nature. There exists no discernible connexion between the one and the other. On the contrary, nature has nothing to say for such an expiatory power, and reason every thing against it. For that the life of a brute creature should ransom the life of a man; that its blood should have any virtue to wash away his sin or purify his conscience, or redeem his penalty; or that the involuntary sufferings of a being, itself unconscious and irrational, should have a moral efficacy to his benefit or pardon, or be able to restore him with GOD,-these are things repugnant to the sense of reason, incapable of being brought into the scale of the first ideas of nature, and contradictory to all genuine religion, natural and revealed. For as to the remission of sin, it is plainly altogether within the prerogative of God, an act of his mere mercy; and since it is so, every thing relating to the conveyance and the sanction, the profession and the security of it, can spring only froin his appoint ment." Enough has been said to prove that the sacrifice of Abel was expiatory, and that it conformed, as an act of faith, to some anterior revelation. If that revelation were only that which is recorded in the first promise, on which some remarks have been offered, Abel's faith accorded with its general indication of the doctrine of vicarious suffering; but his visibly representing his faith in these doctrines, by an animal sacrifice, is not to be resolved into the invention and device of Abel, though he himself should be assumed to have been the first to adopt this rite, unless we suppose him to have been under special direction. It is very true, and a point not to be at any time lost sight of, that the opening pardon, must be allowed to have had Divine instiand marked acceptance of Abel's sacrifice was a Divine confirmation of the mode of approaching him by animal sacrifice; and seems to have been intended as instructive and admonitory to the world, and to have invested this mode of worship with a renewed and more signal stamp of the Divine appointment than heretofore. That in this light it was considered by the apostle, appears plainly deducible from his words, "and by it (his sacrifice), he being dead, yet speaketh." By words more emphatic he could not have marked the importance of that act as an act of public and sanctioned instruction. Abel "spoke" to all succeeding ages, and continues to speak, not by his personal righteousness, not by any other circumstance whatever, but by his sacrifice (for with Ovotas understood, must avrns agree); and in no way could he, except by his sacrifice as distinct from that of Cain, speak to future ages, and as that sacrifice taught how sinful guilty men were to approach God, and was a declaration of the necessity of atonement for their sins. We should think this a sufficient answer to all who complain of the want of an express indication of the Divine appointment of animal expiatory sacrifice in the first family. The indication called for is here express, since this kind of sacrifice was accepted, and an offering, not animal and not expiatory, was as publicly rejected; and since, also, Abel, as we may conclude from the apostle's emphatic words, did not act in this affair merely as a private man; but as one who was by his acts to instruct and influence others" by it, he being dead, yet," even to this day, "speaketh." Decidedly, however, as this circumstance marked out a sanctioned method of approaching GOD, we think that Abel rather conformed to a previously appointed sacrificial institution, than then, for the first time, offered an animal and expiatory sacrifice, though it should be supposed to be under a Divine direction. For Cain could not have been so blameable, had he not violated some rule, some instituted practice, as to the mode of worship; and after all that has been said, the clothing of our first parents with the skins of beasts cannot so well, be accounted for as by supposing those skins to have been taken from animals offered in sacrifice. But whether this typical method of representing the future atonement first took place with Abel, or previously with Adam, a Divine origin must be assigned to it. The proof of this has been greatly anticipated in the above observations, which have been designed to establish the expiatory character of Abel's offering; But, this being allowed, and nothing can be more obvious, then it follows, that the patriarchal sacrifices, if proved to be expiatory, as the means of removing wrath from offenders, and of conveying and sanctiontution; and the notion of their being of human device must, in consequence, be given up. In proof of this, we have seen that Abel's justification was the result of his faith, and that this faith was connected with that in his sacrifice, which distinguished it from the offering of Cain; and thus its expiatory character is established by its having been the means to him of the remission of sin; and the appointed medium of the "conveyance" and "security" of the benefit. We have also seen, that Noah's burnt offering was connected with the averting of the wrath of God from the future world, so that not even its wickedness should lead him again "to destroy all flesh" by a universal flood; that the sacrifices of the fries of Job(4) were of the same expiatory character; and that the reason for the prohibition of blood was, under both dispensations, the patriarchal and the Mosaic, the same. To these may be added two passages in Exodus, which show that animal sacrifices among the patriarchs were offered for averting the Divine displeasure, and that this notion of sacrifice was entertained by the Israelites previous to the giving of the law. "Let us go, I pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the Lord our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword," Exodus v. 3. "Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God," Exodus x. 25, 26. The remark of Dr. Richie(5) is here pertinent. "In these two passages, Moses and Aaron speak of sacrificing, not as a new and uncommon thing, but as a usual mode of worship, with which Pharaoh was as well acquainted as themselves, consequently a thing that was not a late or new invention." And in pursuance (4) Mr. DAVISON, in pursuance of his theory, that the patriarchal sacrifices were not expiatory, has strangely averred, that this transaction is" a proof of the efficacy of Job's prayer, not of the expiatory power of the sacrifice of his friends." Why, then, was not the prayer efficacious, without the sacrifice? And how could the "burnt-offering" of his friends give efficacy to his prayer, unless by way of expiation? What is the office of expiatory sacrifice, but to avert the anger of God from the offerer? This was precisely the effect of the burnt-offering of Eliphaz and his friends: that it was connected with the prayer of Job, no more alters the expiatory character of that offering, than the prayers which accompanied such offerings under the law. (5) Pec. Doc. of the same argument, it may be noted, that Moses, even in the law, nowhere speaks of expiatory sacrifice as a new institution, a rite which was henceforward to be considered as bearing a higher character than formerly, but as a thing familiar to the people. Now such an intimation would doubtless have been necessary, on the very ground just stated, the repugnancy of animal sacrifices, considered as expiatory, to nature and reason; but to prepare them for such a change, for an institution so repugnant to the former class and order of their notions on this subject, there is nothing said by Moses, no intimation of an alteration in the character of sacrifice is given; but a practice manifestly familiar is brought under new and special rules, assigned to certain persons as the sacrificers, and to certain places, and appropriated to the national religion, and the system of a theocratical government. Whence, then, did this familiarity with the notion of expiatory sacrifice arise among the Israelites? If the book of Genesis were written previously to the law, and they collected the notion from that, then this is proof that they understood the patriarchal sacrifices to be expiatory; and if, as others think, that book was not written the first in the series of the Pentateuch, but the last, they had the notion from tradition and custom. Though we think that the evidence of Scripture is of sufficient clearness to establish the Divine origin of the antediluvian sacrifices; and, with Hallet,(6) regard the public Divine acceptance of Abel's sacrifice as amounting to a demonstration of their institution by the authority of God, the argument drawn from the natural incongruity of sacrificial rites, on which so many writers have forcibly dwelt, ought not to be overlooked. It comes in to confirm the above deductions from Scripture, and though it has been sometimes attacked with great ingenuity, it has never been solidly refuted. "It is evident," says Delany,(7) "that unprejudiced reason never could antecedently dictate, that destroying the best of our fruits and creatures could be an office acceptable to God, but quite the contrary. Also, that it did not prevail from any demand of nature is undeniable, for I believe that no man will say that we have any natural instinct or appetite to gratify in spilling the blood of an innocent, inoffensive creature upon the earth, or burning his body upon an altar. Nor could there be any temptation from appetite to do this in those ages, when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire, or when, if it were not, yet men wholly abstained from flesh." of God were elevated and spiritual; and whenever such a Being is acknowledged, it is clear that the notion of giving back any thing to him, can only be a rational one, when he has appointed something to be done in return for his gifts, or to be appropriated to his service; which leads us at once to the doctrine of a Divine institution. The only rational notion of a return to God as an acknowledgment for his favours, when notions of his spirituality and independence are entertained, is that of gratitude, and thanksgiving, and obedience. These form a "reasonable service;" but when we go beyond these, we may well be at a loss to know, "what we can give unto him." If he requires more than these, as acknowledgments of our dependence and his goodness, how should we know that he requires more, unless we had some revelation on the subject? And if we had a general revelation, importing that something more would be acceptable, how should we be able to fix upon one particular thing as the subject of such an oblation, more than another? A divine institution would invest such offerings with a symbolical or a typical character, or both; and then they would have a manifest reason; but, assuredly, independent of that, they would rest upon no rational ground whatever; there could be no discernible connexion between the act and the end, in any case where the majesty and spirituality of God were recognised. Mr. Davison assumes that though "the prayer or the oblation cannot purchase the favour of God, it may make us fitter objects of his favour." But, we ask, even if we should allow that prayer makes us fitter objects of his favour, how we could know even this without revelation; or, if we could place this effect to the account of prayer by something like a rational deduction, how we could get the idea, that to approach a spiritual being, with a few handsful of fruit gathered from the earth, and to present them in addition to our prayers, should render us the "fitter objects" of the Divine beneficence? There is no rational connexion between the act and the end, on which to establish the conclusion. Reason failing here, recourse is had to sentiment. "In the first dawn of the world, and the beginnings of religion, it is reasonable to think that the direction of feeling and duty was more exclusively towards God. The recent creation of the world, the revelations in Paradise, and the great transactions of his providence, may well be thought to have wrought a powerful impression on the first race, and to have given them, though not a purer knowledge, yet a more intimate and a more intense perception, of his being and presence. The continued miracle of the actual manifestations of God would enforce the same impressions upon them. These having less scope of action in communion with their fellow-creatures, in the solitude of life around them, in the great simplicity of the social state, and the consequent destitution of the objects of the social duties; their religion would make the acts of devotion its chief monuments of moral obligation. Works of justice and charity could have little place. Works of adoration must fill the void. And it is real action, not unimbodied sentiment, which the Creator has made to be the master principle of our moral constitution. From these causes some boldness in the form of a representative character, some ritual clothed with the imagery of a symbolical expression, would more readily pass into the first liturgy of nature. Not simple adoration, not the naked and unadorned oblations of the tongue, but adoration invested in some striking and significative form, and conveyed by the instrumentality of material tokens, would be most in accordance with the strong energies of feeling, and the insulated condition of the primitive race."(8) The practice cannot be resolved into priestcraft, for no order of priests was then instituted; and if men resolve it into superstition, they must not only suppose that the first family were superstitious, but, also, that God, by his acceptance of Abel's sacrifice, gave his sanction to a superstitious and irrational practice; and if none will be so bold as this, there remains no other resource than to contend for its reasonableness, in opposition to the argument just quoted from Delany; and to aid the case by assuming, also, that it was the dictate of a delicate and enlightened sentimentalism. This is the course taken by Mr. Davison, who has placed what others have urged with the same intent, in the most forcible light, so that, in refuting him, we refute all. To begin with "the more simple forms of oblation," those offerings of the fruits of the earth, which have been termed eucharistical, "reason," se s Mr. Davison, "seems to recognise them at once; aey are the tokens of a commemorative piety, rendering to the Creator and Supreme Giver a portion of his gifts, in confession of his original dominion in them, and of his continued favour and beneficence." But this is very far from being a rational account of even simple thankofferings of fruits; supposing such offerings to have Two or three observations will be sufficient to dissibeen really made in those primitive times. Of this, in pate all these fancy pictures. 1. It is not true, that the fact, we have no evidence, for we read only of one obla-"recent creation of the world, the revelations in Paration of this kind, that of Cain, and it was not accepted by GoD. But, waiving that objection, and supposing such offerings to have formed a part of the primitive worship, from whence, we may ask, did men obtain the notion, that in such acts they gave back to the Supreme Giver some portion of his gifts? It is not, surely, assumed by the advocates of this theory, that the first men were like those stupid idolaters of following ages, who thought that the deities themselves feasted upon the oblations brought to their temples. On the contrary, their views (7) Revelation Examined. (6) In Hebrews xi. 4. dise," &c., made that great moral impression upon the first men which is here described. That impression did not keep our first parents from sin; much less did it produce this effect upon Cain and his descendants; nor upon "the sons of God," the race of Seth, who soon became corrupt; and so wickedness rapidly increased, until the measure of the sin of the world was filled up. 2. It is equally unfounded, that in that state of society "works of justice and charity could have little place, and that works of adoration must fill the void," for (8) Primitive Sac. |