248

O, how

And

scarcely knew when they committed this sin. | low from the thought, that by them si
The consciences of others were so completely
lulled asleep, that although they knew what
they said was false, and all who heard it were
aware that it was false, yet no cheek reddened,
neither were any of the company ashamed.
The recollection of these things fills me with
horror, and did I not know that the blood of
Jesus cleanseth from all sin, I could never lift
up my head with joy; and the prevalence of
this sin, together with the punishment annexed
to it, will ever make me anxious to urge every
man to flee from the sin of Cain, and to adopt
as his motto that saying of the Psalmist, "I
said I will take heed unto my ways, that I sin
not with my tongue."

IX. Cain was the first man who built a city.
When God remonstrated with him respect-
ing his conduct, he evinced a false, sullen, and
impenitent heart; and when the sentence of
punishment was passed, he did not cry for mer-
cy, but in a kind of hopeless despair exclaimed,
"My punishment is greater than I can bear."
No doubt but it was; for what can impenitent
sinners expect, but unbearable punishment:
and if they do not turn and seek mercy, they
will gnaw their tongues for pain, and blas-
pheme the God of heaven, and continue impe-
nitent for ever. A true penitent has every en-
couragement, and a true believer is sure of
eternal life; but the stout-hearted, unhumbled
sinner cuts off the last hope of mercy, and shuts
the door of the bottomless pit upon himself.

When the Lord left off speaking with this guilty man, he seems to have separated himself from the servants of God, and, retiring with his family to a distance, commenced building a city; by which means he could incessantly occupy his time and his thoughts, and keep himself, in a great degree, from reflection: and it is very probable that in this state he died, for we hear little of him afterwards.

It is a striking feature in the character of
ungodly men, that they do not like to be alone,
or to be unoccupied. Their conduct will not
bear a retrospect. Their consciences will not
bear to be probed. Shut them up in a closet,
with only a Bible, and they will become fran-
tic. Do you think that places of pleasure, and
games of pastime, and works of utility, are re-
sorted to by these men, because of their intrin-
sic value? No! but to dissipate the mind, and
to keep the thoughts from turning in upon
themselves. Oh! what a pitiable object is that
man, who cannot find more pleasure in secret
with God, than all the world can yield. O!
how miserable are those men, who are forced
to ransack the creation, in order to divert them
from their own bosoms. Alas! that Cain should
have any imitators! but there have been some,
in every age, who, like him, remove themselves
from the means of grace; lade themselves with
thick clay; and keep their hands and hearts so
completely occupied in earthly things, as to
have neither time nor inclination to think of
God, or heaven, or hell.

REFLECTIONS.

I. The history of Cain affords a striking lesson to parents.

How distressing must it have been to Adam and Eve, to see their oldest son so exceedingly wicked and what additional misery would fol

into the world, and that, consequent
transgressions were the produce of
seed which they had sown.
must have been affected at this!
not many parents now living, who
rished those things in their sons and
which have since proved their ruin?
there not other parents who are doin
can to lead their children to scenes
and folly, which are every way cal
lead them to destruction? O, what
will there be between such parents
children, when Christ shall come to
world? My dear friends, how are
with respect to your children?
cious jewels, but they bring with the
zing responsibility. I feel it this mo
let us use the rod, the pruning kni
hoe, and endeavour to root up and
every evil propensity: such a proc
painful to us, and to them; but in
shall rejoice. Are the fond expecta
rents often disappointed in those ch
grow up? Then let us, who have
darling infants to the grave, learn t
our grief. We know not how m
Our babe
there is in the cup of wo.

The

from the evil to come, and their sp
ever with the Lord. Our graci
knew that our chief desire was to
up for him; but how much more do
now than the wisest, and how muc
they serve than the best on earth
this, ye whose tears are not yet d
your children are not.

Are the hearts of many parents
the undutiful conduct of their child
how grateful ought you to be, who
daughters are become the sons and
of the Lord Almighty. Watch ove
peculiar solicitude, and fan the fire
it may burn with intense ardour.
Eternal Spirit, incline every young
may read these lines, to seek first
of God, then all will be well.

II. The history of Cain is a poi
to all formal worshippers.

Who is a formal worshipper? Ev
does not worship God in spirit a
Cain was the first formalist, and m
dered the patron and leader of all
not charged with a disregard to
vices. He was not like those who
of worship once or twice a year.
like those who absent themselves
ordinances during a whole sumn
this he would put many a professi
to the blush. Cain was a regul
self-righteous formalist, who thoug
be pleased with his devotions, a
fired with rage at an intimation t
ry.

Reader! will you imitate s
Will you do that which must inc
Are you not aware
your ruin?
hors all such services? Has no
to tell you that Christ is the wa
and the life, and that no man c
Father but by him? Has no p
you not to attempt to climb u
way? O, if you do, you will b
thief and a robber. Beware, I

how you trifle with Christ, for it is the greatest sin you can commit. He who despised Moses' law, died without mercy; but this sin was nothing when compared with trampling under foot the Son of God. Open your arms, open your heart, to receive the unspeakable gift of God. Embrace him as your complete Saviour, then he will not condemn you when he comes to be your judge.

III. The conduct of Cain ought to be viewed as an awful warning to all those who indulge unkind and revengeful feelings.

rents, obedient to rulers, and loving to all. Indeed, if the Gospel prevailed, Paradise would be restored.

Behold what a Saviour the Gospel reveals! He can pity, pardon, sanctify, and save, those guilty rebels whom human laws are compelled to condemn. The voice of Abel's blood cried for vengeance to follow wicked Cain; but the blood of Jesus speaketh better things than that of Abel;--it pleads for mercy for all who trust in its merits. O, how precions is the name of Jesus to those who believe! What consolations do his words impart to the fainting soul! How did the dying thief rejoice to hear him say, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise!" and how must the Publican have rejoiced, when he said, "To-day is salvation come to this house!" and who can describe the feelings of the weeping Mary, when she heard those words "Daughter, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven thee!" Beloved reader, have you ever heard the Saviour speak in such accents to you? Are you one of the happy number, who can testify of his love and power? Is your heart, though once rebellious, now humbled and penitent? Though you once offered a cold and formal service, do you worship God in spirit and in truth? Though you once in

The murder of Abel commenced with a bad feeling. Cain did not check it, but brooded over it-meditated revenge-worked up his mind to desperation-sought for a favourable moment-and at last executed the fatal deed. Remember, my friends, that he who hateth his brother is a murderer; and no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. What is the state of your mind at this moment? Are you not afraid of every thing which would lead to such an end? Evil actions are performed in the heart first, and, sometimes, long before they are perpetrated with the hands; therefore keep thy heart with all diligence, and be persuaded to consider attentively the words of the Lord Jesus-"Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judg-dulged sinful passions, and haughty tempers, ment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

IV. What are we to think of persecutors? are they not followers of Cain?

Yea, doubtless. He was the great protopersecutor. He hated and murdered his pious brother, because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous. We have this from the best authority, and it is a fair specimen of all persecutors. I have read a good deal on the subject, and I have seen a little of it; and, as far as my observation extends, the persecuted are characters so excellent, as ought not to be named the same day with their oppressors. Perhaps some of you may have persecuted a neighbour or relative, because he did not worship at the same place, or after the same mode, as yourselves. Remember Cain, and shun the appearance of evil.

V. I will say nothing of duelling; every reasonable man sets his face against it: but what think ye of war?

Is it not Cainish? I think so. That it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Gospel, none can doubt; yet it is astonishing how pious men can introduce their sons into the field of Mars. Thank God, I belong neither to the army nor navy; and as for my sons, I would rather that they should be teachers of a village school, or preach the Gospel to some rustic congregation, than be extolled in the annals of

are you now striving and praying to live in the
fear of God all the day long? Ask your heart
these plain questions. Do not rest day nor
night, until your soul is given up to the Lord,
and your life devoted to him. Thousands who
once neglected these things, are now eminent
disciples. They could not do this in their own
strength, but they sought it from the Lord,
and he gave it. Adopt the same plan-ask
him, and he will give it to you. Amen.
St. Petersburgh, Oct. 1827.

From the British Critic.

R. K.

A TREATISE ON THE ORIGIN OF EXPIATORY SACRIFICE. By George Stanley Faber, B.D. Rector of Long-Newton, London. Murray, 1827. 8vo. 9s. 6d.

THOUGH last in the field, not least, Mr. Faber has joined the ranks of those who have undertaken to vindicate the divine origin of Sacrifice from the objections of Warburton, Spencer, and of their more recent and not less strenuous

ally Mr. Davison. The question has been already well sifted; and, as the controversy itself is merely a renewed one, it cannot be expected that Mr. Faber should bring much additional matter to bear upon it. However the character of this gentleman for general learning, the di

It is with pleasure that we greet the advance of such a man, to aid in the elucidation of this interesting subject. For, while we admit not only the right, but even the usefulness of temperate investigation, and think that Mr. Davison has, by his acuteness and ability, excited a discussion likely to conduce much to the determination of the true state of the question; we cannot altogether subscribe to his opinion, that it is a matter of no importance and unconnected with the evidences of our faith, whether the point at issue be decided in the negative, or in the affirmative.

Mr. Faber in his preface, observes— "Had Mr. Davison's work treated only of some curious literary speculation, which led not to any theological result of material consequence, however I might possibly have differed from him, I should not have felt it in any wise necessary to controvert his hypothesis. But such, I apprehend, is by no means the case: his hypothesis respects not some mere indifferent question. Even to say nothing of its denying all knowledge of the doctrine of an atonement to the Patriarchal worshippers, it respects a matter of most deep and most grave importance, a matter which vitally touches the entire system of typical Prophecy, through the medium of sacrifice In saying, the ENTIRE system of typical prophecy, I speak not unadvisedly: on the contrary, I speak with full deliberation and conviction.

of Jeremiah, to which he alludes. W hend that both Kimchi and Mr. Fab greatly mistaken the sense of the passag it is well known that, though, as Spe serves, some of the Fathers have thus e ed it, yet the decision is far from una and, even if it were, the whole context to us strongly to militate against their tion. The chapter is generally occu enforcing repentance and obedience, have no hesitation in pronouncing that apprehension, Lowth's views of it a harmonize, not less with the obvious the whole chapter, than with the geniu Hebrew language, and with the metho spired teachers. He considers it as declaration of the superior* obligation dience over sacrifice, and of the greate which God from the first existence of as a nation laid upon the former. It is supposed to refer immediately to that annunciation of the results of obedien after their deliverance, which is given dus, xvi. 26. Such an announcement for which Mr. Faber contends, wou quite irrelevant to the subject in hand. midst of a persuasive to obedience and ance, the declaration that God did no particular period of his dispensation sacrifice, but did institute it at some oth which Mr. Faber must maintain, if h the divine origin of Sacrifice; such a tion, we say, appears to present itself ther without any visible connexion argument. But take it as one of those tions of the intrinsic inefficacy of the sacrifices, or of their inferiority to o and repentance, which are so common ture; then the connexion is simple and Glassius is convinced that this is sense, and deems it so clear, that he not to cite it as one of his examples of braistic use of the negative adverb, to comparison. A reference to this wi furnish the reader with many parallel ||

"Such being the case, if the rite of sacrifice were NOT instituted of God, either under the Patriarchal dispensation, or under the Levitical dispensation, that rite from first to last must henceforth altogether cease to be esteemed a DIVINE institution: and thus the inevitable result from Mr. Davison's hypothesis according to his own very just remark, will be that the rite of sacrifice, whether under the Patriarchal dispensation or under the Levitical, however it might express the piety of the worship-liminary remarks, tending to exhibit per, cannot be reckoned among the typical sig on which he conceives the question a natures of Christianity."—pp. vi. vii. hinge.

That the theory of the human origin of Sacrifice would give rise to difficulties and discrepancies which it would be by no means easy to reconcile with the general tenor and spirit of God's dispensations, that it would exhibit in the scheme of Divine mercy and justice, concerned in the work of Man's redemption, an hiatus, for which it would be difficult to account, we certainly do think. But we cannot go to the full extent of Mr. Faber's affirmation, that this theory vitally touches the ENTIRE System of typical prophecy through the medium of sacrifice; and we cannot but feel some surprise, that he should place his full" conviction" upon a basis so very disputable as that of the words

* Tavamiah vii 90

We shall now proceed to the "tre Mr. Faber, following, as closely as we own arrangement, and endeavouring our readers as complete an outline of and arguments as our limits will perm He introduces the discussion with s

The substance of these remarks i system of religion revealed by God adapted to the necessities of those to is revealed. That no religion can be to the condition of a fallen creature, u which holds forth the possibility o ciliation with God. "A religion pr suitable to the condition of fallen man the subject of the present discussion.' that I brought them out of the land o concerning burnt-offerings and sa "But," proceeds the prophet in the 2 "this thing I commanded them, sayi my voice," &c.

As in the parallel place, Hosea, v

desired rey and not sacrifice and

"That accordingly, under all its three dispensations, the religion which God is known to have communicated to sinful man, holds forth the possibility of a reconciliation with himself. But in holding forth the possibility, a question arises, whether it also propounds the principle on which that reconciliation is to

be effected."

sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually."

"It was so, that, after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now That in two of the dispensations the princiseven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my ple is propounded and reduced to practice in servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burntsacrifice-but all the three dispensations are offering; and my servant Job shall pray for characterized by the rite of sacrifice; conse- you; for him will I accept: lest I deal with you quently there is, at least, an affinity of the out-after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of ward act; and under the two dispensations, the me the thing which is right, like my servant Christian and the Levitical, the inward purpose Job. So Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the is atonement, and the connexion between the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, went, and two is studied and intentional. As the Patri- did according as the Lord commanded them; archal dispensation is distinguished by sacri- the Lord also accepted Job." fices, (the same outward act that characterizes the others,) the same inward purpose, and the same intentional and studied connexion is presumed to exist in all the three.

The question, according to these views, and indeed by the concession of Mr. Davison, hinges chiefly on the point, "Whether any of the animal sacrifices approbatirely offered up under Patriarchism, were or were not piacular?"

To this Mr. Faber directs his principal attention, and with great ability and success.

In the two first chapters of his second section, he demonstrates that the Israelites found the Canaanites addicted to the practice of human sacrifices, in which horrid custom they imitated their enemies; that, according to the direct testimony of Micah,* these sacrifices had unquestionably atonement for the object. Consequently, that the doctrine of piacular sacrifice was not, as Mr. Davison affirms, a new doctrine. He endeavours also to prove, from the universality of the doctrine of atonement among the heathens, that it must have been derived from some common source-and that source was Noah-from, whose character it could not be held, that he offered sacrifices either derived from the workings of superstition or not approved by God; and, therefore, divinely approved piacular sacrifice was no new doctrine antecedently to the law. But we cannot dwell on these points. We proceed to the more direct evidences; the first of which noticed by Mr. Faber are those recorded in the Book of

Job.

This is by no means new ground, but Mr. Faber has reasoned upon it with great force and ability. As the antiquity of the book, so far, at least, as is necessary for Mr. Faber's argument, is conceded by Mr. Davison; the discussion is confined simply to the sense which the passagest in question may be considered to bear.

The texts referred to are as follow:

"His sons went and feasted in their houses every one his day: and sent and called for their three sisters, to eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting

It must be seen at a glance, that these passages have a most important reference to the point at issue; and, in fact, if Mr. Faber reasons upon them correctly, as we think he does, they at once, and beyond all question, decide, the former, in the practice of Job himself, the recognition of piacular sacrifice, and the latter, in the case of his three friends, its being dirinely commanded, antecedently to the law of Moses.

The question whether it were merely deprecatory, or complexly piacular, is determined in favour of the latter, by the manifest incongruity which the former hypothesis would present in supposing that God would command that mode of appeasing him, which conveyed the notion of as it were "driving a bargain" with him. The remarks of Mr. Faber upon what he terms Mr. Davison's "management" of the sacrifice of the three friends are very satisfactory.

"From the circumstance of the intercessory prayer of Job being mentioned in conjunction with the burnt-offering of his friends, Mr. Davison takes occasion to deny altogether the expiatory power of the sacrifice. I am at a loss to perceive how such a conclusion results legitimately from such premises. If the friends of Job were to be reconciled with God exclusively through the holy man's intercession, it will be difficult to specify wherein consisted the utility of the sacrifice. Clearly the sacrifice was to be offered up because they had sinned, and lest God should deal with them after their folly; and clearly it was altogether useless, unless it operated in some mode or another to procure the remission of their offence. So differently do different persons view the same matter, each probably more or less under the influence of their respective previously adopted opinions, that Mr. Davison's premises would have conducted myself to a precisely opposite conclusion. By the command of God, the friends of Job offer up a burnt-offering, because they have offended, and lest God should deal with them after their folly; and, by the command also of God, Job himself intercedes on their behalf, for the same reason and with the same purpose.