with a divine command? Now, what Abel did was offer.

ing a sacrifice. Sacrifice must, therefore, have been a divine institution. This crowns the whole with regard to the sacrifice of Abel. Commentators have differed with respect to the point on which the preference given to Abel's sacrifice turned; some fixing on the matter, others on the quality of the respective offerings, others on the previous moral character of the offerers, and others again on the state of mind in which they were presented. But all these fail to account for the fact apart from that faith of which we have been speaking, and which, indeed, itself gives rise to all the other distinctions. The offerings of Cain and Abel were different, to be sure, in substance, in quality, in the previous character and immediate state of mind of the offerers. But whence arose those differences, but from the one being a believer and the other not? Had Cain possessed Abel's faith, he would have presented Abel's sacrifice; his moral character must necessarily have been different from what it was; and his state of mind at the time, instead of being that of a self-righteous infidel, who trusted to his own merit for acceptance, should have been characterized by an humble reliance on that all-sufficient atonement, of which the very act he was performing was prefigurative.

4. The expostulation of God with Cain gives additional confirmation to the argument in favour of the divine origin of primitive sacrifice.

According to the common version, that expostulation runs in the following terms:- If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.' To this translation it may fairly be objected that it conveys no very satisfactory meaning; that it fails to explain the distinction that was made between the offer. ings of the two brothers; and that it represents the Almighty as speaking in a manner unsuited to infinite wisdom and dignity. Sin lying, or couching like an animal, at the door, is, at the best, but uncouth phraseology. this is not the worst of it; for by retaining this translation the sense of the passage is rendered grossly tautological. Sin's lying at a person's door, we understand to express that the person is a sinner. According to this, all that the clause in question expresses is this miserable trusim, If thou dost not well, thou art a sinner, i. e. If thou art a sin

But

ner, thou art a sinner. But the word translated sin (N) is that which is commonly rendered elsewhere sin-offering, and accordingly the passage may, with manifest propriety, be translated thus:-" If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, a SIN-OFFERING COUCHETH BEFORE THE DOOR.' In support of this rendering much might be said; but to enter into the subject at large would require more critical discussion than it accords with the plan of the present undertaking to introduce. It may be observed, however, that it was long ago proposed by Lightfoot, and has since been adopted by Kennicot, Faber, and other learned writers on the subject of sacrifice. The principal term, we have just said, is that which is employed in other parts of scripture, and particularly in the writings of Moses, to denote an expiatory sacrifice. Examples to this effect are numerous. * And, in support of the propriety of this rendering in the case in question, there is a peculiarity of grammatical construction which every scholar will admit to have great weight. Nor is this translation liable to any objection of a formidable nature, especially if the final clause of the expostulation be so rendered as to mark its reference to the sin-offering and not to Abel. Instead of Unto thee shall be нIs desire and thou shalt rule over HIM,' read, Unto thee is ITs desire, and thou shalt rule over IT,' as expressive of Cain's having full power over the animal which he was to use as a burnt

* Exod. xxix. 14.-xxx. 10. Lev. iv. 3, 21, 24, 29.-iv. 25. 2 Kings xii. 16. Ezek. xlv. 23. Hos. iv. 8.

There is yet another circumstance of some weight which is remarked by Parkhurst, and is also noticed by Castalio, Dathe, and Rosenmuller, although they have not drawn from it the natural inference; namely, that, which is feminine, is here connected with a word of the masculine gender, which, as Parkhurst judiciously observes, is perfectly consistent,' on the supposition that denotes a sin-offering for then, according to a construction common in Hebrew, which refers the adjective not to the word but to the thing understood by it, the masculine is here combined with the animal (a male), which was to be the sin-offering. In conformity with this reasoning it will be found, that, in other parts of scripture where it is used for a sin-offering, is, though feminine itself, connected with a masculine adjunct. See Exod. xxix. 14. Lev. iv. 21, 24.-v. 9, and other places of Leviticus, where the masculine pronoun is used But in Gen. xviii. 20.-xx. 9. Exod. xxxii. 21, 30, and other places, where the word occurs in its original signification of sin, it has constantly the adjective connected in the feminine.'-Magee, v. ii. pp. 236, 237. See also Faber, p. 129.

.היא instead of the feminine

offering. Viewed in this light, the passage amounts to a command addressed by the Almighty himself to Cain, directing him, in case of sin, to take the necessary step of presenting a sin-offering. The command, too, from the manner in which it is introduced, supposes the rite of sacrifice to have been previously appointed; as what he is commanded to perform seems plainly to have been an antecedent duty, and to have been known to him as such. But as an offering for sin could not have been appointed before the existence of sin, it follows that the appointment must have taken place some time between the fall of Adam and the offerings of Cain and Abel. And, as it is reasonable to conclude that God, with whom the appointment origi nated, would introduce it just when it became necessary, we are thus led to trace the divine origin of sacrifice to the very period of the fall.*

There are two objections commonly urged against the di. vine institution of sacrifice, which it becomes us, in candour, to weigh.

The first is, the alleged silence of the sacred writers on the subject. They are not silent with regard to the fact; instances of sacrifice are recorded; but whether these occurred in virtue of an existing divine institution, or in consequence of a mere spontaneous impulse on the part of the offerer, is not stated. Now, in reply to this, it might be deemed sufficient to say, that for such silence it is possible to account without supposing the non-existence of that of which we are speaking. The very commonness and notoriety of the observance at the time when the Pentateuch was written might account for the omission of the original command. The succinct brevity of the sacred narrative rendered it impossible that every minute circumstance could find a place in it. Nor is the divine institu. tion of sacrifices the only thing that has been omitted. There are other things, belonging to the same period, of which no mention is made in the narrative, but of which we read in other parts of scripture. It may be sufficient to remind the reader, as instances, of the fall of angels, the prophecy of Enoch, and the preaching of Noah, of which we read in the New Testament, but of none of which have

* See the subject of this paragraph most conclusively argued in the able Treatise of Mr. Faber, so often referred to, pp. 85-138. Also Magee, v. ii. p. 229.

we the slightest intimation in the narrative of the period when they occurred. An example still more in point, is that of the institution of the Sabbath. Indeed, it has been supposed by those who advocate the human origin of primitive sacrifice, to be a circumstance greatly in their favour, that the sacred historian is careful to record the divine original of a day of sabbatical rest, while of the rite of sacrifice he makes no similar record. But how stands the fact? There is mention made, in the narrative, of the fact that God rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made, and that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. But there is nothing said of the institution of a seventh day of rest in so many words: we have no express command enjoining the observance of such a day. We legitimately infer from the recorded facts, that there must have been such a command. And this is just what we do in the case of sacrifice. There are facts stated of the early observance of the rite, with manifest marks of divine approbation; there is no explicit intimation of its having been originally enjoined by God; but, without an express intimation to this effect, we are enabled, from what is recorded, to infer that there must have existed such an institution. The two instances are in these respects on a level, and if the silence of scripture on the subject of sacrifice is to be held as a valid argument against its divine original, so also must the silence of scripture on the subject of the Sabbath be held as a valid argument against its divine original. But we are not to dictate to God, as to the method in which he shall make known any part of his will to man. There are other ways of conveying a truth besides that of a formal scholastic enunciation. Many of the most important truths of our holy religion want this formality; and, by those who admit these truths, it ought to be reckoned no objection to the divine origin of sacrifice that the scriptures contain no precise intimation of the fact.

Another objection to the divine origin of primitive sacrifice has been founded on those passages of scripture in which sacrifices seem to be disowned by God. Such are those passages in the Psalms in which He is said not to desire sacrifice, nor to delight in burnt-offering; and a parallel passage in the prophecies of Jeremiah. In reply to

* Psalm xl. 6.--1. 9.--li. 16. Jer. vii. 22, 23.

this objection it is easy to see that the expressions in question cannot be taken literally, as in this case they would contradict the whole of what is contained in Leviti. cus and Deuteronomy respecting the appointment of sacrifices. They must therefore be understood, like similar expressions in other parts of scripture, in a comparative sense; and then their meaning will be that God desires not sacrifices, unless they be accompanied with those inward principles and that outward behaviour without which they cannot be acceptable to Him. It is thus that God, by the prophet Isaiah, addresses the people of Israel, on account of their wickedness :- To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices?--Bring no more vain oblations, incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away withYour hands are full of blood."* In this light the language under consideration is in accordance with that of the wise man: The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.' Or the meaning may be, that other things are preferred to sacrifices, although the latter are not excluded. The language of exclusion is often employed when only the preference of one thing to another is meant. 'I will have mercy and NOT sacrifice,' means, I prefer mercy to sacrifice. 'Labour NOT for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat which endureth to everlasting life,' cannot be understood as condemning a diligent attention to business, but as commending attention to spiritual things in preference to those which perish with the using. On the same principle must we explain the words of the apostle, ‘Adam was Nor deceived but the woman,' as meaning that the man was not first in transgression. The whole, then, that can be legitimately inferred from those passages on which the objection in question is founded, is that Jehovah prefers the dutiful obedience of his creatures to the mere performance of ritual services; not that the latter is not acceptable to him, but that the former is more acceptable; in short, that 'to obey is BETTER than sacrifice, to hearken than the fat of rams.'

V. Having now seen the divine origin of sacrifice established, we hope, beyond all reasonable doubt, it remains to complete our argument in behalf of the atonement of

* Isaiah i. 11, 15. See also Isaiah lxvi. 3. Amos. v. 21, 22.