On this important point, the language of the prophet Micah permits us not to entertain a doubt. In a passage, plainly allusive to the human sacrifices of Canaan and Phoenicia, sacrifices too often imitated by the apostate Israelites, he distinctly teaches us, that an atoning virtue was ascribed to such oblations.

Shall I give my first-born, an offering for my transgression: the fruit of my body, a sin-offering for my soul * ?

* Micah vi. 7. I have given what I deem a somewhat more exact translation of the original, than that which occurs in our common English version: but, in either case, the sense is the same.

Micah, with an abundantly clear allusion (as Abp. Newcome justly remarks) to the bloody rites of ancient Palestine, distinctly specifies, that, among the Canaanites and Phoenicians, and thence also among their depraved copyists the Israelites, the notion, attached to human sacrifice, was, that A man's first-born might be devoted as a sin-offering for his soul that is to say, soul for soul, life for life, body for body. Accordingly, with a singular correspondence to the words of Micah, the idea is precisely thus explained by Porphyry. Πρῶτον ιἱρεῖον θύσαι μυθεύονται, ψυχὴν ἀντὶ YvXŷs uiτovμÉvovs. Porphyr, de Abstin. lib. iv. § 15. The testimony of Sanchoniathon, as to the immemorial doctrine and practice of the old Phoenicians, is the same as that of the Hebrew prophet. Pursuant to a very ancient custom, which required kings and rulers, in the event of great public calamities, to devote, as a ransom to the avenging demons (λύτρον τοῖς τιμωροῖς δαίμοσι), the best-beloved of their children, in the place of the destruction of the whole community (ȧVTi TŶs Távтwv ploрâs); Cronus, he relates, a

The doctrine of an atonement had, indeed, by these corrupt religionists, been most lamentably abused in symbolic practice: but still the doc

primitive king and god of the country, in the course of a disastrous war, sacrificed, on this identical principle, his only son Jeud. He adds very remarkably, that persons, thus devoted, were sacrificed mystically. See Sanchon. apud Euseb. Præp. Evan. lib. i. c. 10.

To enter into this subject, after Dr. Outram and Abp. Magee, were plainly superfluous: yet there is a curious particular, mentioned by Plutarch from Castor, relative to the expiatory sacrifice of the Egyptians, which has been left unnoticed by both those writers, and which therefore I shall take this opportunity of adducing.

Herodotus had stated, that the Egyptians, in the devotement of their expiatory sacrifice, were wont to imprecate upon the head of the vicarious victim the several evils which might otherwise fall either upon the sacrificers themselves or upon all Egypt: and he had moreover remarked, that the bulls, destined for such oblations, were, after a careful examination, sealed upon the horns by sacerdotal officers set apart for that precise purpose. Herod. Hist. lib. ii. § 38, 39.

Both these matters are confirmed by Plutarch: but he adds, what Herodotus had omitted to specify, an account of the exact impression made by the sacred signet.

Those of the priesthood, says he, who are called sealers, mark the bull, destined for the expiatory sacrifice, with a seal, which (as Castor tells us) bears the device of a man in a kneeling attitude, with his arms bound behind him, and with a sword pointed to his throat. Plutarch. de Isid. et Osir. § 31.

Now, when the professed object of the sacrifice is considered, there can be little doubt, I think, as to the import of the device upon the signet. It set forth, that the penalty or deadly calamity, impending over the head of the sacrificer, was transferred to the head of the victim: it exhibited the fate of the sacrificer, when not secured by the mysterious efficacy of the vicarious sacrifice.

trine itself, exemplified in the bloody rite of human piacular sacrifice, had existed in the land of Canaan long anterior to the promulgation of the Law of Moses.

I

may add, that the very abuse of the doctrine, in regard to practice, does itself serve to establish the high antiquity of the doctrine. In the common course of things, abuse cannot but be always posterior to use: for that, which is abused, must have existed prior to its abuse. The very abuse, therefore, of the doctrine of an atonement, through the practice of piacular human sacrifice, proves indisputably, not only its bare existence, but its high antiquity (previous to its abuse) under a pure and innocent modification.

2. Enough, however, has been said, as to the simple matter of fact, that the doctrine of an atonement, to be effected through the vicarious medium of a bloody piacular sacrifice, existed PRIOR to the delivery of the Law of Moses: I proceed to Mr. Davison's own abatements and allowances.

That Paganism inculcated the doctrine of an atonement, he denies not on the contrary, he himself states and confesses the well-known circumstance, that Paganism taught and maintained the expiatory power of animal sacrifice *.

*Inquiry, pp. 143, 144.

Nor does he merely confess that Paganism, SUBSEQUENT to the promulgation of the Mosaic Law, inculcated the doctrine of an atonement: unless I wholly misunderstand him, his language of necessity imports, that Paganism taught the expiatory power of animal sacrifice even BEFORE the law was promulgated. He contends, indeed, that Paganism reached the doctrine of an atonement through the alone medium of a superstition, equally abhorrent from the light of nature, and from the principles of reason*: but then he also remarks, that "God, who had ordained the aton"ing sacrifice of the Gospel from the foundation of "the world, owed no change of his purpose, or of "the typical representation of it, to the vanity of "human corruptions t." Now, if God were not to be changed from the typical representation of his purpose by the circumstance that superstition had already struck out the doctrine of an atonement, and if (as Mr. Davison teaches) this typical representation by expiatory sacrifice commenced with the promulgation of the law it is clear, that the doctrine of an atonement must confessedly have been held ANTERIOR to the promulgation of the law; and, consequently, it is clear,

* Compare Inquiry, p. 27, with pp. 143, 144. Inquiry, p. 144.

:

that the bare doctrine itself could not have been an ALTOGETHER NEW doctrine when the law was first promulgated.

III. The soundness of the speculation, that Paganism reached the doctrine of an atonement through the sole medium of an unnatural and irrational superstition, I shall presently consider*: but I must first revert to Mr. Davison's own statement, which I have described as not characterized with perfect caution and accuracy.

In opposition, both to facts, and (if I mistake not) to his own allowance also, Mr. Davison asserts, that the very notion of an atonement, as connected with animal sacrifice, was utterly unknown during the patriarchal ages: and, in strict accordance with this assertion, he distinctly intimates, that the HITHERTO UNKNOWN doctrine of an atonement was FIRST set forth in the Law of Moses under the precise aspect of a NEW doctrine.

Now this statement, I apprehend, is very far from being strictly accurate.

In the consistent developement of his own hypothesis, Mr. Davison, I take it, would have expressed himself more correctly, had he said, not that The doctrine of an atonement was TOTALLY

* See below, sect. ii. chap. 2.