CHAPTER III.

Respecting the Objection founded upon the alleged Circumstance, that there is no express Mention of the atoning Virtue of Sacrifice under the Patri archal Dispensation.

As a kind of buttress to the last objection, Mr. Davison additionally contends for the fact, that There is NO EXPRESS MENTION of the atoning virtue of sacrifice under the Patriarchal Dispen

sation.

66

"Let the Scripture History," says he, "be

explored. It will be found, that, in the pri"mitive religion, we have actually no evidence "extant, no one positive example, of any expi

66

66

atory atoning virtue ascribed to the sacrifice. "This is a material point, which I state. But I appeal to the Scripture History. That History, I believe, will fully sustain the state"ment made*.”

66

I. Lest, through a conscious weakness, any thing of importance might seem to have been designedly pretermitted, I have chosen, in its

* Inquiry, p. 29.

proper place, specifically to notice the present objection: but, in effect, it has already been incidentally answered in the course of an earlier discussion.

The answer to it is contained in my adduction of direct scriptural testimony, that Cain was commanded or reminded of God to bring and devote A SIN-OFFERING *.

An eucharistic sacrifice of vegetables the fratricide had already brought. But this was not sufficient. He was charged or reminded yet additionally to bring A SIN-OFFERING OF A

PROFESSEDLY EXPIATORY SACRIFICE.

Now, in the very notion of AN EXPIATORY SACRIFICE, the doctrine of AN ATONEMENT is, by plain necessity, involved. For, if Cain were commanded to bring A SIN-OFFERING, he was commanded to bring a sacrifice, to which AN EXPIATORY ATONING VIRTUE is, even professedly, ascribed.

Therefore, through a diligent exploration of the Scripture History, it has been found, that, in the primitive religion, we have both evidence extant, and moreover a positive example, of AN EXPIATORY ATONING VIRTUE being ascribed to animal sacrifice.

* See above, sect. iii. chap. 1. part 2. See also the whole of sect. ii.

II. In the present advanced stage of the discussion, I perceive not what reply can be given to this statement, save a denial, that the Hebrew word Chattath, expressed in English by the term sin-offering, unavoidably involves the notion of

AN ATONEMENT.

It may be said, that, although Cain was commanded to devote a sin-offering, we are not therefore bound to conclude that he was commanded to bring an EXPIATORY sacrifice: because, for any thing that we know to the contrary, the prescribed sin-offering might have been homologetically devoted, on the mere account of the acknowledged sin of the worshipper, without any specific reference to the idea of A VICARIOUS

EXPIATION.

Lest this reply should peradventure be hazarded, I shall notice it by anticipation.

1. Its whole stress plainly lies in the sacrificial signification of the Hebrew word Chattath.

For the question is not, how we may please, with arbitrary variety, to employ the English term sin-offering: but the question is, what we must receive, as the STRICT and ONLY sense of the Hebrew word Chattath, when used to express an animal sacrifice.

Now, I will venture to say, that, throughout

the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, whenever the word Chattath is used to express an animal sacrifice, it is INVARIABLY used to denote an EXPIATORY sacrifice, or a sacrifice offered up under the precise notion of EFFECTING an atonement.

There is a passage, in which we have what may well be styled the definition of the present word: and, so far as I know, from this strict definition, the sacred Hebrew writers, in their sacrificial use of the word, NEVER depart.

Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of the altar, once in a year, with the blood of THE SIN-OFFERING OF ATONEMENTS: once in the year, shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the Lord*.

Here, the word Chattath, in its sacrificial use, is strictly defined to signify such an offering as should be presented under the precise notion of MAKING AN ATONEMENT FOR SIN BY BLOOD. If the word be ever sacrificially employed in any other sense; in the sense, for instance, of a mere homologetic oblation, from which the distinct notion of A VICARIOUS ATONEMENT BY BLOOD is altogether excluded; that passage has hitherto escaped my notice †.

*Exod. xxx. 10. See also Exod. xxix. 36.

t It is true indeed, that, in the devotement of the ex

How, then, stands our positive scriptural example of AN EXPIATORY ATONING VIRTUE being ascribed to animal sacrifice in the primitive patriarchal religion? It stands, I apprehend, in manner following.

Cain is commanded to bring a Chattath; for let it not be forgotten, that this is the precise word selected, rather than any other sacrificial term, by the sacred historian: Cain, I say, is commanded to bring a Chattath. But the word Chattath, in its sacrificial use, INVARIABLY denotes a sin-offering of ATONEMENT. Therefore a sin-offering of ATONEMENT is the specific sacrifice which Cain is commanded to bring.

2. This statement is very materially strengthened, when we consider by whom the book of Genesis was written.

piatory sin-offering, confession of sins was enjoined to be made on the part of the worshipper: but, by such an ordinance, confession was only superadded to atonement; the practice did not exclude the original and proper notion of the sacrifice itself. See Levit. v. 5-13. xvi. 7-10, 20-22.

In strict accordance with the precept, confession of sin, as we learn from the Rabbins, was always associated with sacrifice for sin, insomuch that the latter was deemed inefficacious without the former. Still, however, in point of ideality, it was a mere adjunct to the real sacrifice for sin : it did not constitute its palmary notion and object.

Docuerunt laudatæ memoriæ sapientes, in codice Zebachim, omni sacrificio pro peccato culpæ admissæ confessionem necessario addi debuisse. Abraben. ad Levit xvi. See Outram, de Sacrif, lib. i. c. 15. § 1x.