Page images
PDF
EPUB

Under such circumstances, the question becomes narrowed, as he himself very judiciously has narrowed it to a single point :

WHETHER ANY OF THE ANIMAL SACRIFICES, APPROBATIVELY OFFERED UP DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PATRIARCHAL DISPENSATION, WERE, OR WERE NOT, PIACULAR.

If any of them were piacular; then, by the very terms of the argument, those piacular sacrifices must have been instituted of God: if none of them were piacular; then the primitive sacrifices, being universally either eucharistic or homologetic or deprecatory, can never be demonstrated, through the medium of any absolutelyinherent necessity, to have been of divine institution.

III. Thus fully aware, as a reasoning mind

favourite theory. This, however, is certain, that Grotius, like the ancients, found himself unable to account for the existence of uncommanded ANIMAL SACRIFICE on any conceivable or satisfactory principles of right reason.

III. As a simple matter of fact, it is my own belief, that not only piacular sacrifice, but likewise eucharistic sacrifice and homologetic sacrifice, was ordained of God from the beginning. The grossness of mere deprecatory sacrifice, in which it is wildly hoped to buy off the wrath of the Deity through the medium of a bribe or gift, exactly on the same principle as a wealthy offender may avert punishment by bribing a corrupt judge, is alone, as the very internal necessity of the case requires, of purely human institution. See below, sect. iii. chap. 4.

like that of Mr. Davison could not but be aware, that to ADMIT the divinely-approved existence of piacular sacrifice before the promulgation of the Law, was virtually to ADMIT also the divine institution of piacular sacrifice under the antecedent Dispensation of Patriarchism, he adopts, I had almost said instinctively, the ONLY foundation, upon which his superstructure can rest with any measure of security. The foundation is this.

DENYING the divine institution of primitive sacrifice, he DENIES also its piacularity.

In other

words, DENYING the divine institution of primitive sacrifice, he DENIES, altogether, even the BARE existence, and, therefore, of course, the DIVINELYAPPROVED existence, of piacular sacrifice anterior to the promulgation of the Law of Moses.

IV. His leading arguments, to this effect, may, I believe, 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 by the hand of Moses; that doctrine, when for the first time promulgated under the Law, being an ENTIRELY NEW doctrine.

Whence it will obviously follow, that, if God did NOT reveal to the patriarchal religionists the

doctrine of an atonement, they could not, with the divine sanction and approbation, have had the rite of piacular sacrifice.

[ocr errors]

2. And he further contends, that, as we have no evidence of the existence of the doctrine of an atonement anterior to the delivery of the Law; so, with strict consistency, we have no evidence that primitive patriarchal sacrifice was a divine institution.

For, since primitive patriarchal sacrifice was NOT piacular, and since therefore it might well have been instituted by man himself; Scripture is wholly and remarkably silent, as to its fancied, but utterly superfluous, institution by God.

V. On these grounds he denies, altogether, both the BARE existence, and the DIVINELY-APPROVED existence, of piacular sacrifice anterior to the delivery of the Law and on these same grounds, the sole obstacle being now removed, he finally concludes, that the origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice was

PURELY HUMAN.

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.

RESPECTING Mr. Davison's two grand objectory arguments, as specified above, I shall say nothing at present in the way of direct controversy * Hereafter, in their proper places, they shall each be fully noticed and discussed †. Meanwhile, for the purpose of making certain remarks upon it, and of drawing certain conclusions from it, I shall here preparatively give at large his own statement of a concession, not less judicious in point of reasoning, than important in regard to the general question.

I. Mr. Davison's statement of this concession is couched in the terms following:

"Instead of attempting to deduce the doctrine "of expiation and atonement by animal sacrifice. "from the light of nature or the principles of reason, I confess myself unable to comprehend,

[ocr errors]

* See above, sect. i. chap. 4. § IV. 1, 2.

† See below, sect. ii, and iii.

"with the most ignorant, how it can ever be "grounded on any such principles, or justified by "them. There exists no discernible connection "between the one and the other. On the con

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

trary, nature has nothing to say for such an expiatory power; and reason, every thing to say against it. For, that the life of a brute 66 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

66

pardon, or be able to restore him with God: "these are things, repugnant to the sense of rea

66

son, incapable of being brought into the scale "of the first ideas of nature, and contradictory to "all genuine religion natural and revealed. For,

66

66

[ocr errors]

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 sanc❝tion, the possession and the security of it, can

spring only from his appointment. Reason "teaches repentance, as a preliminary condition "to the hope of pardon; but reason can do no

more. External rites merely human, whether

« PreviousContinue »