A Treatise on the Origin of Expiatory Sacrifice - George Stanley Faber - Google Books

Books

delivery of the Law; because, on this point, there can be

no reasonable doubt: but the true question will henceforth

be, Whether the doctrine of an atonement existed anterior

to the delivery of the Law wIth the divine SANCTION

AND APPROBATION, p. 46.

Evidence of the divinely-approved existence of the Doctrine of an

Atonement during the Patriarchal Ages, from its universal

prevalence throughout the Gentile World, p. 47.

Expiatory sacrifice prevailed universally throughout the gentile

world. Whence did it originate? p. 47.

I. According to Mr. Davison, it originated from the workings

of unauthorised superstition, p. 48.

II. This theory might account for the existence of the practice in

some one SINGLE nation: but it will not account for its

UNIVERSALITY, p. 49.

III. An inquiry into the common origin, from which the doctrine

of an atonement and the practice of expiatory sacrifice alike

originated, p. 50.

1. This common origin could not have been the Law of

2. It must have been the patriarch Noah, p. 51.

3. But Noah could not communicate what he did not

possess. Therefore the doctrine of an atonement

and the practice of expiatory sacrifice must have

been familiar to Noah. But the just man could not

have derived them from a blind superstition. There-

fore, mediately or immediately, Noah must have de-

rived them from God, p. 52.

Evidence of the divinely-approved Existence of the Doctrine of

an Atonement during the Patriarchal Ages, from the Cha-

racter of the Sacrifices recorded in the Book of Job, p. 53.

As a recorded matter of fact, Job and his friends offered up cer-

tain sacrifices for sin, p. 53.

I. Scriptural statement of their respective sacrifices for sin, p. 55.

1. Sacrifices of Job anterior to his trials, p. 55.

2. Sacrifice of his three friends after his trials, p. 55.

II. The question is: Under what aspect, and with what prevail-

ing idea, were the respective sacrifices of Job and his

three friends offered up? p. 56.

1. This question resolves itself into an inquiry: Whether

the sacrifices for sin, recorded in the Book of Job,

were real expiatory sacrifices; or whether they

simply and nakedly expressed a mere act of depre-

2. The mere phraseology of the history, in its original

Hebrew, leaves the question undetermined, p. 57.

3. But much light is thrown on the subject by the cir-

cumstance, that the sacrifice of the three friends was

COMMANDED BY GOD: because it thence follows,

that God must have approved of the attendant prin-

ciple, whatever that principle was. Now that prin-

ciple must have been, either simple deprecation, or

complex expiation, p. 59.

(1.) From the nature of the divine attributes, the

principle could not have been the principle of

simple deprecatory sacrifice, p. 60.

(2.) Therefore it must have been the principle of

complex expiatory sacrifice, p. 64.

4. The only mode, in which this argument can be re-

butted, is by the assertion, that the sacrifices in

question were homologetic. But this assertion can-

not be maintained: because the sacrifices were

clearly sacrifices for sin; and, therefore, must have

been either deprecatory or expiatory, p. 66.

III. Remarks on Mr. Davison's management of the sacrifice of the

three friends, p. 68.

Evidence of the divinely-approved Existence of the Doctrine of

an Atonement during the Patriarchal Ages, from the Cha-

racter of the Sacrifice of Noah, p. 71.

The preceding remarks may throw some light on the true nature

and notional intent of Noah's sacrifice, p. 71.

I. Scriptural account of the sacrifice of Noah, p. 72.

II. In the bare narrative, we learn nothing direct, as to the cha-

racter of the sacrifice, p. 73.

III. But we learn much from the narrative, as to the intention

of the sacrificer, p. 74.

1. The mode, in which God accepted the sacrifice, proves

it to have been deprecatory, p. 74.

2. The recorded answer of God also proves it to have

been deprecatory, p. 76.

IV. Hence we are certain, that the sacrifice was deprecatory in

its nature and intent, p. 77.

V. But here a question arises: Whether it was simply depre-

catory; or whether it was complexly deprecatory, that is

to say, deprecatory with the superadded idea of an atone-

1. The argument, which proved the sacrifice of Job's

three friends to have been expiatory, will equally

prove the piacularity of Noah's sacrifice, p. 79.

2. This result corresponds with the conclusion, to which

we have already been brought by the UNIVERSALITY

of expiatory sacrifice among the Pagans, p. SO.

VI, Sentiments of the early Church on the subject, p. 81.

1. Statement of Cyril of Alexandria, p. 82.

2. Statement of Eusebius of Cesarèa, p. 82.

3. Conclusion drawn from their statements, p. 83.

EVIDENCE OF THE PRIMEVAL DIVINE INSTITUTION OF EXPIATORY

SACRIFICE, p. 85.

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Expiatory Sacri-

fice, from the History of the Offerings of Cain and Abel, p. 85.

Respecting the Import of the Hebrew Word Chattath, p. 85.

Those persons, who maintain the primeval divine institution of

piacular sacrifice, consider the scriptural history of the

offerings of Cain and Abel as speaking decidedly in their

favour. But to this opinion Mr. Davison objects, on the

score that the history, being really neutral, cannot be legi-

timately adduced in the way of argument. For he contends,

that the Hebrew word Chattath, which primarily denotes sin,

may denote, in its secondary sense, a punishment for sin as

well as an offering for sin, p. 85.

I. In regard to the alleged sense of punishment for sin, Mr.

Davison, instead of solid proof, resorts to mere etymolo-

gical conjecture, p. 90.

II. That the word Chattath denotes an offering for sin, has been

PROVED: we have a right, therefore, to expect the same

PROOF that it denotes also a punishment for sin, before we

adopt any such speculation, p. 91.

III. Mr. Davison has NOT proved, that, in actual use, the word

Chattath ever denotes punishment for sin: though he

appeals to the Septuagint; and though he produces what he

requires us to admit as actual examples, p. 94.

1. His appeal to the authority of the Septuagint totally

fails of establishing his point, p. 94.

2. Nor is his appeal to the alleged actual force of the

word, as employed by certain of the sacred writers,

IV. Mr. Davison, in short, cannot prove his point, by the adduc-

tion of any one definite text from the whole Hebrew Scrip-

V. Of this, it might seem, he is conscious: for he finally lowers

his demand so far as only to ask, that the word Chattath

should be allowed to denote sin with its penal consequences

implied. His demand shall be granted, whensoever his

allegation shall have been PROVED, p. 105.

1. His allegation is not proved by the use of the word

Chattath, in Numb. xxxii. 23. p. 107.

2. Neither is it proved by the use of the word, in Numb.

xviii. 22, and in other parallel texts, p. 108.

Respecting the true Purport of the Scriptural History of the

Offerings of Cain and Abel, p. 112.

Mr. Davison's unauthorised gloss on the word Chattath being now

set aside, it only remains to shew, from the history of the

offerings of Cain and Abel, that the rite of expiatory sacrifice

must have been divinely instituted at the very commencement

of the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 112.

1. Statement of the narrative, according to our common English

version, p. 112.

II. Unsatisfactoriness of the rendering, sin lieth at the door,

1. It conveys no distinct explanation of the difference,

which God made between the respective offerings of

Cain and Abel, p. 114.

2. It describes not the Almighty, as speaking in a manner

suitable to his own wisdom and dignity, p. 118.

III. Now the word Chattath can only be rendered sin and sin-

offering. In the present place, the rendering sin is inad-

missible. Therefore the rendering sin-offering must ine-

vitably be adopted: for, as to Mr. Davison's third proposed

rendering punishment for sin, the word is incapable of

bearing any such sense, p. 120.

« Previous Continue »