signed to obtain the forgiveness of sins of which the offerer acknowledged himself guilty. But even those which have been allowed to have a respect to the removal of sin, have not been understood by all to involve the idea of atone. ment or vicarious suffering. Other theories have been contrived with a view to explain their nature. They have been considered by some in the light of gifts, or as of the nature of a voluntary fine or bribe, offered by the culprit with a view to buy him off from punishment and purchase the favour of God.* By others they have been represent. ed in the light of federal rites, expressive of the renewal of that friendship with God which had been broken off by the violation of his law, as eating and drinking together were the known and ordinary symbols of reconciliation.† Another theory is, that they are to be regarded as a sort of symbolical language, denoting either gratitude or contrition, according as they are eucharistical or expiatory.‡ These theories, though supported by such names as those of Spencer, and Sykes, and Warburton, are manifestly defective, and come far short of explaining the ancient sacri. fices either of the heathen or of the patriarchs.

That the ancient heathen sacrifices were of an atoning nature that they involved the idea, not merely of contri. tion for sin, but of satisfaction to God by substitutionary suffering, appears from the language in which they are spoken of by the writers of antiquity. This language clearly denotes that the guilty were spared on account of the punishment borne by the guiltless. Homer, Hesiod, and Plutarch, among the Greeks; and Virgil, Horace, Juvenal, Cesar, Ovid, Livy, &c., among the Latins, have all been adduced as witnesses on this particular point.§ The testimonies are indeed innumerable, as those conversant with the ancient authors are aware. And the earlier the

times from which they are collected, they are always the more numerous and striking. The very name given to the second month in our year, originated in what itself affords strong confirmation of the fact; that being the last month in the ancient Roman calendar, when it was customary

* See Magee, v. ii. p. 18.

See Magee, v. ii. p. 18.

+ See Magee, v. ii. p. 21.

§ See Magee, v. i. p. 124..128; Hill's Lec., v. ii. p. 465; Smith on Sac., p. 234.

to make atonement for the sins of the soul by sacrifices which were called Februa or expiations.* 'Thus,' as has been well observed, strongly and universally did men recognise that their crimes insured the vengeance of superior powers, except its course was stayed by the atonement of sacrifices, often in a high degree difficult, costly, and terrific. As, amidst the errors of idolatry, it is easy to perceive the indelible effects of the primitive belief and worship of the only God; so, under this mass of corrup tion, we obviously see the foundation of original truth.'

Of the vicarious nature of the ancient patriarchal sacrifices, the evidence is not less decisive. The learned theories, before mentioned, cannot explain the early sacri fices of scripture. The sacrifices of our first parents and of Abel, for example, cannot be looked upon as mere gifts, for this palpable reason, that the distinction of private property, which is supposed in a gift, had not then an existence. Neither can they be regarded as federal rites merely, inasmuch as there is no evidence that the practice of partaking of the sacrifice was introduced till a much later period; and, even supposing its existence, it is an unwarrantable presumption to maintain that this participation constituted the whole essence of the sacrifice, instead of being a mere adventitious circumstance connected with it. With as little propriety can they be reckoned as only a species of symbolical language, there being no good ground for supposing that the language given to man at first was so defective as to require such a supplement. That they were, indeed, vicarious in their nature, best accords with their substance being animal. All other purposes but that of substitutionary suffering, might have been equally well served, if not better, by vegetable productions. The preference given to the offering of Abel over that of Cain, corroborates this view, the fruit of the ground being as suitable as a gift or as an expression of gratitude as a firstling of the flock. The ground of preference may be supposed to have been the state of Abel's mind, he being said to have acted in faith; and this is no doubt true; but we have reason to believe that the state of his mind directed him in the choice

*This circumstance is referred to by Cicero, by Ovid, and by Pliny. The passages are quoted by Dr. Pye Smith in one of his supplementary notes. Disc. on Sac., p. 236.

of the kind of offering that would be acceptable to God, and that had Cain also been in a right frame of soul he would never have thought an inanimate substance to be a suitable offering to an offended Deity.

With regard to the sacrifice of Noah, several things concur to show that it was of an atoning nature. The term 'burnt-offering,' which is employed with reference to it, is the term which is commonly used, in other parts of scripture, to denote an expiatory sacrifice. Besides, with respect to the acceptance of the offering, Jehovah is said to have smelled a sweet savour,' or a savour of rest, as it is given in the margin of our Bible--or an odour of placability, as the Syriac version has it ;--a phrase which implies the appeasing of one who is offended. And then, the answer which God is said to have given to Noah, supposes that the sacrifice was of such a nature as to procure the withdraw. ment of divine wrath: I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.**

The same thing may be said of the sacrifices mentioned in the book of Job. It is clear that they were sacrifices FOR sin. Job assigned this reason for offering those which he presented on behalf of his children :--'It may be that my sons have sinned and have cursed God in their hearts.' The reason given by the Almighty for requiring sacrifices of Job's friends, turns on the same thing:-' Lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right.' And, unless we can regard the animals sacrificed, in the light of a fine, or bribe, or gift, in consideration of which the Almighty, like a corrupt judge, agrees to remit the sin, we must look upon them as real propitiatory offerings. But this we cannot do, for God expressly disclaims any gift presumptuously offered him for the mere purpose of deprecating his displeasure. There is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor TAKING OF GIFTS.†

IV. We have now seen that sacrificing existed from the most remote antiquity; that the practice was universally

* Gen. viii. 21.

+2 Chron xix. 7. For a full and learned view of the sacrifices of Noah and Job, the reader is referred to a Treatise on the Origin of Expiatory Sacrifice, by Mr. Faber. London, 1827.

prevalent; and that these ancient and universal sacrifices were of a strictly piacular or vicarious nature. And the point next to be considered respects THE ORIGIN of these ancient and universal sacrifices.

They must have had some adequate origin, and that origin must be either human or divine. To account for the practice, on the principle of a human origination, many theories have been formed, and much discussion has been expended; but the only satisfactory explanation of the singular fact is to be found, we presume, in the principle that sacrifice was originally instituted by God with reference to the atonement of Christ; the heathen sacrifices being so many imitations of the primitive practice, a knowledge of which was obtained by tradition, though greatly corrupted by cruel and frivolous inventions of man. view of the subject admits of being extensively argued.

This

1. The divine origin of primitive sacrifice may be argued from its being impossible otherwise to account for its existence.

It cannot be regarded as a dictate of reason; for reason can discover nothing either acceptable to God or fitted to remove the guilt of sin, in the destruction of an innocent creature; but rather the contrary, as such an act of cruelty seems more calculated to increase than to take away guilt, and an injury done to one of God's works seems fitter to incur than to appease his displeasure. It cannot have originated in natural instinct; for there is no appetite in man which can be supposed to be gratified by shedding the blood and burning the flesh of an unoffending animal. As little can it be supposed to have originated in priestcraft. In primitive times, no distinct order of priesthood existed; the sacred functions were performed by the head of the family, who could have no pecuniary inducement to introduce expensive religious rites; and, even in later times, the sacrifices were provided at the expense of the offerers, and were no source of emolument whatever to any order of men. There is just one other supposition, and this is not less unsatisfactory than those to which we have already referred, namely, that the practice originated in supersti tion. But superstition is the corruption of true religion, and supposes something similar in the latter, on which it is based, and from which it takes its rise. Without true religion there could be no superstition, just as without sin.

cerity there could be no hypocrisy; without a genuine currency there could be no counterfeit coin; without truth there could be no falsehood; without a proper use there could be no abuse. Superstition can never, thus, of itself account for the existence of sacrifice. Besides, superstition is apt to be endlessly diversified in its forms, while the practice in question is uniform throughout the whole range of its existence, which we have seen to be universal. Admitting that superstition might have accounted for its existence among a single people, it could not, without a miracle, be supposed to have given rise to the same uniform practice in every nation of the world.

6

It thus appears, that no mere human principle can ac. count for the origin of primitive sacrifice. But the practice existed from the greatest antiquity, and prevailed over the whole earth. There is no disputing this fact. And as no effect can exist without an adequate cause, the fact in question must have originated in something sufficient to give it existence: and if this is not reason, nor natural in. stinct, nor priestcraft, nor superstition, what, pray, can it be but the sovereign authority of God? How any prac. tice,' says Dr. Patrick Delany, in his admirable dissertation on this subject, how any practice could obtain in the world, to which mankind were neither urged by the inte rest and subtilty of any set of men, nor by any dictate of reason, nor by any instinct or demand of nature, nor by any interest of any kind; but quite the contrary, in direct contradiction to every principle of reason, and nature, and in. terest; (for the destruction of innocent creatures is against reason, against nature, and against interest :) I say, how such a practice could prevail, and prevail universally, is im possible to be accounted for, but from some powerful and irresistible influence of example, or injunction of authority. And, what example could have such influence, except that of Adam, or what authority could have such power, except that of God, is to me, I own, utterly inconceivable.... Where any practice is universal, it must demonstrably have some universal cause.

And that can be no other in the case before us, but either God, the founder of the world, or Adam, the founder of the human race; from whom it was derived to all his posterity..... But sacrifice was such a practice, as, unless enjoined by the authority of God, must of necessity be detrimental; without any prospect of pleasure,