Page images
PDF
EPUB

could not have received the divine approbation without the authority of a divine institution*, may be to transgress the limits of our knowledge, yet does not such approbation highly favour the notion of their divine institution? We do not mean to say how far, or whether in any degree, this confirms the sacred original of sacrifice; but we conceive it to be the true jet of the argument, which has been overlooked or evaded by Mr. Davison.

A very important passage, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, comes next under consideration: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he, being dead, yet speaketh." xi. 4. Here, it is argued, the Apostle declares "faith" to be the reason why Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain: now faith has always relation to some revealed communication of God without some revelation granted, some assurance as to the object of faith. Abel could not have exercised this virtue. The object of this faith cannot be conceived to be any other than the great Deliverer promised in the seed of the woman; and therefore the offering of Abel was the ordained manifestation of his faith in the promise of a Messiah. It is at least beyond the reach of controversy, that Abel's offering was "by faith;" and as this virtue cannot be exercised without something revealed as the object of it, his offering must have testified his belief in that object, and therefore must have been in obedience to a divine appointment: hence it is inferred, that sacrifice had its origin in divine institution.

99

Such is the mode of argument pursued by those who ascribe sacrifice to a sacred original; and without presuming to decide, whether it be successfully combated by Mr. Davison, we put it to his candour, whether he has not made some admissions which his opponents will convert into arguments against himself. Thus, in saying, "I make no question whether Abel, and every good man, from the earliest times, had a faith in the Messiah,' (p. 118.); will they not reply, that, if such be the fact, the most probable ground of the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice is, that it testified his " faith in the Messiah," which it could not do except it were the instituted means of testifying a belief in the promised Deliverer. Cain must have had a general belief, that his sacrifice would be approved by the Almighty, or he would not have offered it at all; consequently this general faith could not be

* Diśc. on Atonement, No. 47. See Faber's Origin of Pag. Idol. vol. i. p. 482, et seq.

that which rendered Abel's sacrifice acceptable. It must then have been a distinctive faith; and if the promise of mercy in the Messiah was revealed to the first pair, it seems the natural conclusion that Abel's offering was approved, because it was in obedience to that revelation. Again, in admitting that the phrase λelova Jusiav may be rendered a more abundant, or simπλείονα θυσίαν ply a better sacrifice, (p. 128.) does he not afford room for his adversaries to retort, that as it cannot be shewn from the history that Abel's was a more abundant sacrifice, it must be rendered a better sacrifice; but how could it be a better, otherwise than by being the appointed ordinance for testifying faith in the promised seed? We merely throw out these hints for the author's consideration.

So much for the First Part of Mr. Davison's publication:the Second Part commences with the defence of his second position," that the human origin of sacrifice infringes neither upon the rites of the law, nor the doctrine of the Gospel." (p. 132.) This proposition forms no uninteresting enquiry, when viewed in connexion with the preceding; for if the human origin of sacrifice be the more probable account, it becomes an object of moment to ascertain, whether the admission of it entails any dishonour upon the constitution of the Mosaic law, or disturbs the proper doctrine of atonement.

With respect to the Mosaic law, he argues, that the human beginnings of sacrificial worship could not disqualify it for a place in the ordinances of the Levitical law, unless the rite itself was founded in some error of belief, or obliquity of practice; that to suppose God would proscribe sacrifices merely on account of their human reason, would be equivalent to the supposition that he must proscribe the essential duties of thankfulness and penitence from which they proceeded; that if superstition had corrupted sacrifice before the institution of the law, that previous corruption would not of necessity bring a stigma upon the whole use of a rite which the wisdom of God might adapt to his purposes; that if sacrifice had degenerated from its simplicity, the first institution of it could make no difference in the propriety of its subsequent adoption; that as the Mosaic religion was preparatory to Christianity, many things would for that reason acquire a fitness and use, which they would not otherwise have; and that the typical and symbolical purport of sacrifice renders it a fit instrument of God's worship "beyond the power of all human abuse to disable and discredit its adoption into his Law."

With respect to the essential doctrine of the Gospel, Mr. Davison argues, that those who have resisted the human origin of

sacrifice, in the fear lest they should forfeit the proper doctrine of Christianity connected with this Rite, have not sufficiently distinguished its two-fold character; that God's revelation was in the Atonement, and man's discovery in the guilt; that the coincidence which obtains between the act of sacrifice on the part of man, and the method of redemption on the part of God, is not the consequence of God's adaptation of his method to man's worship, nor of man's previous knowledge of God's design, but of his own constitution of things; that the real Atonement of the Gospel is rescued from dishonour by a just consideration of the defective nature of sacrifice, so long as it remains the mere creation of human reason; and therefore the legal atonements, inasmuch as they are the sign of the Christian one, and that is their true specific character, are as far above any collision with the mere human rites, as the Christian sacrifice itself is above all competition with them.

The subtlety which pervades this part, and renders it very imposing, will create a doubt in the minds of many, whether it should be designated as solid reasoning or metaphysical refinement, ingenious but unsubstantial. The position the author labours to establish, that the human origin of sacrifice infringes neither upon the rites of the Law nor the atonement of the Gospel, will not be easily reconciled with his sentiments in an early part of the work.

"If its divine institution (i. e. of sacrifice) be taken away, the rite thereby forfeits its prophetic character. It becomes simply a branch of the primitive religion. In which reduced idea of it, however it might express the piety of the worshipper, it cannot be reckoned among the typical signatures of Christianity; for though the action of sacrifice was in either case the same, not so the force of it. What God had not ordained, could not, under its institution, merely human, serve afterwards to attest the design or confirm the truth, or explicate the sense of any of his special appointments, so far removed from the reach of all human cognizance as that of the evangelical atonement." P. 3.

We come now to the third and last position of our author, that

"There exists no tenable ground for maintaining that any disclosure was made, in the primitive times, of a connection between the rite of sacrifice, if that rite be still assumed to have been divinely appointed, and the future expiatory sacrifice of the Gospel." P. 149.

To this the supporters of the divine institution of sacrifice will not be inclined to make much opposition; for there may be a connection between this rite and the expiatory Sacrifice of the Gospel,

without any disclosure having been made in the primitive times. It could be no less real though it only became apparent by the reflected light of Christianity. It is, moreover, not necessary to their theory to contend that the particular relation of that rite to the sacrifice of Christ was made known in the patriarchal ages. It is enough if the typical and representative character of sacrifice was then so far understood as to be generally an exercise of faith in the promise of redemption. "There is nothing improbable (says Archbishop Magee) even in the supposition that that part of the signification of the rite, which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been, in some degree, made known from the beginning. But not to contend for this, (Scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assumption) room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea that animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of faith in the promise of redemption, without any intimation of the way in which it became a sign *."

For these reasons, had the time permitted, we should abstain from any further comment upon this last portion of the work, than to remark, that it is replete with valuable matter, well deserving of an attentive perusal.

From the short and imperfect review which we have already given of Mr. Davison's argument, our readers will perceive that his volume is no ordinary performance. It is the production of a vigorous and excursive mind, a mind imbued with a respectable, though not a profound literature, accustomed to patient thought, and borne along by a confidence in its own powers, which is the parent of views sometimes original, sometimes enlarged, but sometimes also strange and uncommon. It abounds with traces of deep thinking, with acute remark, and nice discrimination, though occasionally the author's keenness of intellectual vision serves only to point out to him a way devious and eccentric. The faults from which the work is not exempt, are those into which writers of the highest order are apt to fall; and they may well be forgiven for the sake of that abundant matter which cannot be read without pleasure and improvement. It is to be regretted that a performance of so much merit should be encumbered with a style laboured and perplexed, with a diction often incorrect, often involved and obscure, and sometimes scarcely intelligible.

That Mr. Davison has supported his system with all the resources of a powerful understanding, will not be denied;

* Disc. on Atonement, vol. i. p. 52.

and whatever may be the ultimate decision as to the result of his learned labours on the subject of the Primitive Sacrifice, we rejoice that he has submitted them to the public. The only way to the advancement of scriptural knowledge is by proposing our opinions, together with the grounds upon which they are founded, to free and liberal discussion. Mr. Benson, in his Hulsean Lectures, has preceded in attacking the theory which maintains the divine institution of sacrifice; but Mr. Davison is not a less formidable assailant; and the advocates of that theory, it is reasonable to suppose, will not suffer it to be crushed by these vigorous enemies without lifting a hand in its defence. The cares and duties of the episcopal office are but little favourable to literary research; but it would much rejoice us should the present publication rouse the Prelate alluded to, the ablest champion of the opposite party, to take the field, convinced as we are that this keen intellectual contention, conducted as it would be by rare abilities aided by profound erudition, and with a bold and manly candour, must finally contribute to the interests of Eternal Truth.

An extensive Inquiry into the important Questions, What it is to preach Christ? and What is the best mode of preaching him? By RICHARD LLOYD, M. A., Rector of St. Dunstan's in the West, London, and of Midhurst, Sussex. 8vo. pp. 380. 9s. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

WHAT is Christianity-what are its peculiar doctrines-or, more specifically, what is the main design-the final object of the Christian Revelation? Ascertain this matter, and the question, What it is to preach Christ, has its reply. The Gospel was proclaimed orally by its divine Author; and has been transmitted to us by authentic memoirs of his actions, and by original letters and communications of his immediate and delegated disciples. From these sources of information alone must our knowledge of the nature and objects of Christianity be gathered. But it may be fairly asked, is this a subject, at this time of day, a new and "extensive inquiry?" After centuries upon centuries have elapsed in the belief and practice of the Gospel, is the very principle and purport of the Christian Revelation still undetermined? The question is one of intense interest, and has been so often, and so elaborately discussed, that if we be still unagreed upon it, agreement may seem a matter to be

for

VOL. II. NO. IV.

X

« PreviousContinue »