CHAPTER II.

Respecting the objection founded upon the alleged circumstance,

that, while the Primitive Divine Institution of Expiatory

Sacrifice is no where expressly mentioned, the Primitive

Divine Institution of the Sabbath is carefully and specifi-

cally recorded, p. 192.

Mr. Davison objects, that, while the primeval divine institution of

expiatory sacrifice is no where mentioned, the primeval divine

institution of the sabbath is expressly recorded, p. 192.

I. The objection is founded upon a palpable error: for the pri-

meval divine institution of the sabbath, though it may be

gathered by induction, is yet no where expressly recorded

throughout the entire book of Genesis, p. 194.

II. This matter is so obvious, that Justin and the earlier Fa-

thers maintain, that the sabbath was first divinely instituted

under Moses; and that, as it was not a primitive institu-

tion, so the patriarchs did not observe it, p. 199.

III. With them agree the more ancient Rabbins of the Jewish

church, p. 203.

CHAPTER III.

Respecting the Objection founded upon the alleged circumstance,

that there is no express mention of the atoning Virtue of

Sacrifice under the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 211.

Mr. Davison objects, that there is no express mention of the

atoning virtue of sacrifice under the Patriarchal Dispensation,

p.

211.

I. To the present objection an answer has already been given

by the adduction of direct scriptural testimony, that Cain

was commanded of God to bring A SIN-OFFERING, p. 211.

II. It may peradventure be said, that the term sin-offering does

not necessarily involve the idea of atonement by vicarious

suffering. Such a possible objection shall be answered by

anticipation, p. 213.

1. The word Chattath, as defined by Moses himself, IN-

VARIABLY denotes a sin-offering of atonement,

p. 213.

2. Moses, to whom the word was specially familiar, em-

ploys this precise word to describe the sacrifice

which Cain was commanded to devote, p. 215.

CHAPTER IV.

Respecting the moral Objection to the rendering, A Sin-offering

coucheth at the Door, p. 217.

Mr. Davison objects, that the rendering, A sin-offering coucheth

at the door, is morally discordant with the general spirit of

scripture, p. 217.

I. His objection is wholly built upon an unproved and an un-

proveable assumption, that Cain, anterior to his sacrifice,

had been a grievous moral offender, p. 218.

II. He has totally misconceived the general drift and purpose of

the whole history, p. 219.

CHAPTER V.

Respecting the Objection founded upon a supposed Retrogradation

of the Levitical Dispensation, as viewed in reference to the

Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 222.

Mr. Davison objects, that the maintenance of the primitive divine

institution of expiatory sacrifice involves a retrogradation of

the Levitical Dispensation, as viewed in reference to the Pa-

triarchal Dispensation, p. 222.

I. Piacular sacrifice, under each of the two earlier Dispensa-

tions, was the same in dignity and purpose. Hence, where

there is no inequality, there can be no retrogradation,

p. 225.

II. But Mr. Davison argues, that, under the Law, expiation

was made only for ceremonial offences; while, under Patri-

archism, if expiation were made for any thing, it must have

been made for moral offences. Hence, on such an hypo-

thesis, the retrogradation still continues, p. 227.

1. Mr. Davison departs from his own principle, p. 227.

2. The principle itself is false: for Mr. Davison has con-

founded together two matters, which ought to have

been carefully separated, p. 228.

3. Mr. Davison's inconclusive reasoning from the lan-

guage of David and Paul, p. 230.

4. St. Paul expressly teaches us, that, so far as typical

sacrifice could make expiation, the sacrifices under

the Law made expiation for moral, no less than for

ceremonial, offences, p. 235.

5. The same doctrine is maintained by the Jews, p. 238.

CHAPTER VI.

Respecting the Objection founded on the Declaration, that the

System of the Gospel is a Mystery, which was hidden of

old time, but which now is made manifest, p. 241.

Mr. Davison objects, that the system, which he opposes, is incon-

sistent with the declaration, that the Dispensation of the

Gospel is a mystery, which was hidden of old time, but which

now is made manifest, p. 241.

I. The true question respects, not the patriarchal extent of the

knowledge of an atonement, but the patriarchal existence

of the doctrine, p. 243.

II. Remarks on written, as opposed to unwritten, communica-

tions, p. 245.

CHAPTER VII.

Respecting the Objection, that the Idea of an Animal Couching

at the Door of Cain is inconsistent with the recorded pro-

fesssion of Cain, p. 250.

Mr. Davison objects, that the idea of a sin-offering couching at

the door of the agriculturist Cain is inconsistent with his

recorded profession, p. 250.

I. Mr. Davison assumes, what he ought to have proved, that the

door was really the door of Cain, p. 252.

II. We have an equal right to say, that it was the door of a con-

secrated tent or tabernacle. Each is a mere conjecture:

and to found an express objection upon an unproved con-

jecture can scarcely be deemed legitimate criticism, p. 255.

CHAPTER VIII.

Respecting the Objection founded on the alleged Novelty of the

Opinion, that Piacular Sacrifice was, from the first, di-

vinely instituted under the Patriarchal Dispensation, p. 257.

Mr. Davison objects, that the hypothesis of the primitive divine

institution of sacrifice is a mere modern figment first struck

out in the age of Puritanism, and that the early Fathers

universally taught its primitive human institution. In

each member of his objection, Mr. Davison is mistaken, p.257.

I. Mr. Davison builds his large assertion respecting the early

Fathers on no more than FOUR adduced witnesses, p. 262.

1. Remarks on the citations and references of Spencer

and Outram, on which Mr. Davison professes to

build his much too large assertion, p. 264.

2. A conjecture, that sacrifice was introduced into the

Law from the Paganism of Egypt, is no proof,

that the conjecturer maintained the PRIMITIVE

human institution of sacrifice, p. 267.

3. Out of fifteen or sixteen of the Fathers, that have

been examined by the author of the present Treatise,

about one half never enter upon the subject of sacri-

fice: and, as for the other half, though they certainly

enter upon the subject; yet, with three exceptions,

they are totally silent as to the primitive origin of

sacrifice, whether it was human or divine, p. 271.

II. Mr. Davison's assertion, that the hypothesis of the primitive

divine institution of sacrifice is not older than the age of

Puritanism, is distinctly contradicted by the three excep-

tions, which have already been noticed, p. 275.

1. Among the Latin Fathers, Augustine, in the fourth

century, maintained the primitive divine institution

and the prophetic typical import of the patriarchal

sacrifices beginning with the first-recorded sacrifice

of Abel, p. 276.

(1.) Proof from the necessity of his language, p. 280.

(2.) Proof from his own explicit declaration, p. 281.

2. Among the Greek Fathers, Athanasius, also in the

fourth century, maintained the same doctrine as that

which was held and taught by Augustine, p. 283.

(1.) Proof from the general drift of his argument,

p. 284.

(2.) Proof from the peculiarity of his language,

p. 286.

3. Among the Greek Fathers, Eusebius of Cesarèa, still

in the fourth century, no less strenuously main-

tained the very same doctrine relative to the origin

of sacrifice, p. 288.

III. Conclusion, p. 295.