"different scene of things instantly meets our "view; and how prominent the difference.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I "have given it to you, upon the altar, to make an "atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that "maketh an atonement, for the soul*.

"This is the doctrine of the Mosaic sacri"fice: and the whole body of the Mosaic Law "is sprinkled with the atoning power of blood. “But this, I say, is A NEW DOCTRINE: a doctrine of which we find no positive information, nor any probable vestige in the primeval religion.

σε

66

66

And, though the transference has been very. confidently made, it is most evident, that we "have no right to transfer this doctrine of the subsequent law to the elder history. In the "Mosaic Economy, the expiatory sacrifice is

66

pre-eminent: the atoning application of blood "is perpetually enforced: the need and the use "of that atonement are constantly inculcated. "But all this is by a confessed institution. The "divine sanction, promulged in this subsequent "religion, is the proper, the unambiguous, the "sole principle of it.

66

"Here then, in the Mosaic Law, the declared expiatory power of sacrifice, of a certainty, BEGINS. Levit, xvii. 11,

"Here also commences the typical character "of sacrifice, as a rite of atonement, on the stock "of an acknowledged institution.

66

"From this stock, sacrifice bears its evidence, on solid grounds, and with unqualified force, "to that which is the one conspicuous and une"quivocal object of its typical character, the grace of the Christian atonement.

"And, as the human principle of expiatory "sacrifice can never be vindicated at all, so the "divine principle of it, in the Mosaic Law, "will never be explained to any purpose, with "satisfaction to our reason, or with honour to "the divine economy, except by its reference,

66

as a preparatory rite, and as a prophetic sign, "directed to its pre-ordained prototype in the "Evangelical Dispensation *."

* Inquiry, pp. 29, 31-33. It may be proper here briefly to observe, that the whole of Mr. Davison's argument is avowedly built upon the ground, that The doctrine of an atonement was, FOR THE FIRST TIME, revealed under the Law of Moses.

With this position I have no immediate concern: for my present business is with his other position, that The doctrine of an atonement was UNKNOWN and UNSANCTIONED anterior to the promulgation of the Mosaic Law.

Yet, even here, lest I should be thought to make a concession which I in no wise make, it must be permitted me to put the following not unimportant question to Mr. Davison.

In

I. In discussing with Mr. Davison a very important topic of theology, I should be sorry to appear unhandsomely captious; but I certainly think that, in the preceding passage, he has by no means expressed himself with sufficient caution and accuracy.

His words import, that The very notion of an atonement, as connected with the rite of animal sacrifice, was UTTERLY UNKNOWN during the patriarchal ages: and they furthermore distinctly intimate that, As the doctrine of an atonement was, FOR THE FIRST TIME, revealed in the Law of Moses, so the doctrine in question was, at the era of this its earliest revelation, AN ALTOGETHER NEW DOCTRINE; a doctrine of which we find no positive information, nor any probable vestige, in the primeval religion.

II. Language of this kind, so far as I can judge, is much too large and comprehensive. It neither corresponds with matter of fact, nor does

In what part of the entire Law of Moses, from its first ordinance to its last enactment, does he find ANY EXPLICIT AND AVOWED REVELATION of the doctrine of an atonement, under the specific aspect of A NEW AND HITHERTO UNHEARD-OF DOCTRINE?

Throughout the whole code of the Mosaic Law, I myself, after a long search, have been able to discover nothing more, than THE RECOGNITION AND MODIFICATION of a principle, ALREADY existing, and ALREADY quite familiar to the Israelites. This subject will, in its proper place, be resumed hereafter. See below, sect. iii. chap. 3. § II.

it fully agree even with Mr. Davison's own abatements and allowances.

1. In regard to simple matter of fact, the doctrine of an atonement to be effected through the vicarious medium of a bloody piacular sacrifice, most assuredly existed prior to the delivery of the Law of Moses.

Hence Mr. Davison is inaccurate in his assertion, that, When that doctrine was made a constituent part of the Levitical Dispensation, it was a

NEW DOCTRINE.

For, even on the testimony of that identical Scripture History, to which he himself appeals, it was not A NEW DOCTRINE: unless, indeed, we can justly call that A NEW DOCTRINE, which, however it originated, was at least already in existence anterior to the authoritative promulgation of the law.

(1.) When the Israelites entered the land of Canaan, they found the inhabitants addicted to the practice of human sacrifice: and, notwithstanding the solemn warning which they had received, they also themselves sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demon-gods of the country *.

*Deut. xviii. 9, 10. 2 Kings iii. 27. xvi. 3. Psalm cvi. 35-38.

This was the practice of the natives, at the time when the Israelites invaded Palestine. But the practice itself was no novelty. It had existed, not only anterior to the invasion of Palestine, but anterior likewise to the yet more early promulgation of the law. This is evident from the recorded denunciations against the practice.

Israel quitted Egypt in the year before Christ 1491: and, in the following year, or in the year 1490, the whole of the ceremonial law, contained in the book of Leviticus and in the latter part of the book of Exodus, was delivered *.

Now, in the ceremonial law then delivered, we find it expressly stated, that the people of the land, hereafter to be possessed by the Israelites, were, even at that time, ALREADY addicted to the practice of human sacrifice: and the language of the inspired writer is such as plainly to import, that they had long been addicted to this horrid abomination †. The rite, therefore, of human sacrifice most indisputably existed anterior to the promulgation of the law.

(2.) Such is the recorded fact: and the notion, associated with these offerings, was strictly piacular.

*Usser. Annal. Vet. Test. in A. A. C. 1490. p. 25-27. ↑ Levit. xviii. 21, 24, 25, 27, 28. xx. 1-5.