IV. An inquiry into the reason, why God accepted the one offering,

and rejected the other, p. 123.

1. The spirit of Cain was that of a proud rejection of the

principle of an atonement, p. 125.

2. The spirit of Abel was that of a humble admission of

the principle, p. 127.

V. Summary of the argument in favour of the translation, A

sin-offering coucheth at the door, p. 128.

VI. This translation is required, not only by the necessity of

common sense, but likewise by the very phraseology of the

passage, p. 129.

VII. Its strict propriety is contextually corroborated by the last

clause of God's expostulation with Cain, p. 131.

VIII. A statement of the general result of the discussion, p. 134.

IX. God's expostulation with Cain justly translated and metri-

cally arranged, p. 137.

CHAPTER II.

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Expiatory Sacri-

fice, from the Attestation of the Inspired Author of the

Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 138.

With the necessary tenor of the history of the first recorded sacri-

fice, agrees the expository attestation in the Epistle to the

Hebrews, p. 138.

I. Respecting the true definition of the word Faith, as em-

ployed throughout the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the

Hebrews, p. 139.

II. Application of the definition to that faith, by which Abel

offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, p. 143.

III. Remarks on Mr. Davison's definition of the word Faith,

p. 145.

IV. Remarks on Dr. Spencer's definition of the faith of Abel,

p. 149.

V. Statement of the consequences, which result from Heb. xi.

4. p. 150.

1. The text is fatal to the unauthorised speculation, that

the antecedent moral conduct of Cain and Abel

furnishes the true cause of the different fate of their

respective sacrifices, p. 150.

2. The text demonstrates, that the sin of Cain was infi-

delity, p. 151.

3. The text establishes the view which has been taken of

the Mosaic history of the transaction, p. 152.

(1.) Speculation, that Abel brought the best of his

flock, while Cain brought only the refuse of his

produce, p. 152.

(2.) Speculation, that Abel believed his sacrifice

would be accepted, while Cain disbelieved,

p. 153.

(3.) True statement of the nature of the superiority

of Abel's faith, p. 154.

CHAPTER III.

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Sacrifice, and of

the Primeval Revelation of the Doctrine of an Atonement,

from the peculiarity of the language employed under the

Law of Moses, p. 155.

The language of the Law itself imports the primeval divine insti-

tution of sacrifice and the primeval revelation of the doctrine

of an atonement, p. 155.

I. In the Law, the observance of the naked rite of sacrifice itself

is never once enjoined: but every commandment under the

Law respects exclusively the mode and occasion of sacrifice,

p. 155.

1. This position is fully exemplified by the exordium of

the book of Leviticus, p. 156.

2. Throughout the Law, the previous existence of sacri-

fice, as a divine institution, is always assumed as a

substratum, p. 158.

3. That the rite of sacrifice itself was not commanded

under the Law, is expressly asserted by God through

the mouth of Jeremiah, p. 160.

4. Statement of the extraordinary result from Mr. Da-

vison's system when combined with the text from

Jeremiah, p. 161.

II. A similar train of argument will equally apply to the question,

which respects the revelation of the doctrine of an atone-

ment, p. 165.

1. Under the Law, that doctrine is no where revealed as

a new doctrine, but is merely approbatively recog-

nised as an old doctrine, p. 167.

2. The text, adduced by Mr. Davison as containing a

formal revelation of the doctrine, in no wise an-

swers to the character which he would ascribe to it,

p. 170.

CHAPTER IV.

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Sacrifice, from the

moral Argument, that a divinely-uncommanded supersti-

tious Observance cannot be acceptable or well-pleasing to

God, p. 172.

A strong moral argument, in favour of the divine institution of

primitive sacrifice, may be deduced from the position, that a

superstitious observance, uncommanded of God, cannot be

acceptable or well-pleasing to God, p. 172.

I. This argument is, by Hallet, stated defectively, p. 172.

II. Hence, in its defective, and therefore inconclusive, form, the

argument is easily confuted by Mr. Davison, p. 173.

III. His confutation, however, affects the argument, only when

stated defectively. Let the defective statement be cor-

rected: and the confutation is rendered harmless, p. 174

1. The precept of St. Paul, Let all things be done de-

cently and in order, confers upon the Church an

authority to regulate the mode of God's worship.

Hence, as a mere commandment of men may, under

certain circumstances, be well pleasing to God; so

the bare circumstance of primitive sacrifice having

been accepted of God is insufficient to establish its

divine institution, p. 174.

2. According to the Apostle's account of Will-worship,

primitive sacrifice, if, when viewed as a human insti-
tution, it bears a character essentially superstitious,
could not have been well pleasing to God, p. 176.

3. Primitive sacrifice, viewed as a human institution, can

only, on the principle of St. Paul, be viewed as an

act of essentially superstitious will-worship, p. 177.

(1.) Case of expiatory sacrifice, p. 177.

(2.) Case of deprecatory sacrifice, p. 178.

(3.) Case of homologetic sacrifice, p. 178.

(4.) Case of eucharistic sacrifice, p. 179.

4. That sacrifice, when not ordained of God, is no better

than an act of mere superstitious will-worship, ap-

pears further from the circumstance, that no person

now ever thinks of sacrificing, because no person

now imagines that he can please God by the act of

sacrifice. But, if sacrifice be now superstition, be-

cause it is not now commanded of God; it must

equally have been superstition during the patriarchal

ages, if, during those ages, it were a mere human

institution, p. 180.

5. The answer, that sacrifice is now abrogated, because

Christ, the end of sacrifice, has come, is wholly in-

sufficient: for, in the first place, such an answer

would account only for the cessation of expiatory

sacrifice; and, in the second place, it travels quite

wide of the hypothesis upon which the whole of the

present discussion avowedly reposes, for, in the very

nature of things, no uncommanded sacrifice, if such

were the sacrifice of the patriarchal ages, can have

been a prophetic type of the sacrifice of Christ.

Hence, if uncommanded sacrifice were pleasing to

God during the patriarchal ages, no reason can be

assigned why it should not be equally pleasing to

God in the present day: and the question will then

still recur, Why do not we sacrifice, as well as the

early patriarchs? p. 181.

6. The sum, therefore, of the matter is, that sacrifice of

whatsoever description, if not commanded of God,

can only have been an act of that precise gratuitous

superstition, which the Apostle censures under the

name of Will-worship, and which evidently is repre-

sented as unpleasing to God, p. 182.

IV. Hence, finally the moral argument from the position, that a

superstitious observance, uncommanded of God, cannot

be acceptable or well-pleasing to God, when stated fully

and correctly, demonstrates the divine origin of primitive

sacrifice, and is itself altogether unaffected by the alleged

confutation of Mr. Davison, p. 183.

SECTION IV.

NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS TO, THE OPINION, THAT EXPIATORY SA-

CRIFICE WAS DIVINELY INSTITUTED AT THE COMMENCEMENT

OF THE PATRIARCHAL DISPENSATION, p. 185.

CHAPTER I.

Respecting the objection founded upon the alleged circumstance,

that there is no express mention of the Primeval Divine

Institution of Expiatory Sacrifice, p. 185.

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

meval divine institution of expiatory sacrifice, p. 185.

I. On the neutrality of the scriptural history of Cain and Abel,

Mr. Davison says more than will be conceded, p. 188.

II. A truth may be conveyed in other modes, than that of a

regular scholastic enunciation, p. 188.

1. Instance from the Socinian objection respecting the

two-fold nature of Christ, p. 188.

2. Instance from the Socinian objection respecting the

doctrine of the Trinity, p. 189.

3. Parallel instance from Mr. Davison's objection respect-

ing the primitive divine institution of expiatory sacri-

fice, p. 190.

III. The brief reply to the objection is, that God commanded

Cain to devote a sin-offering, p. 191.