It would be difficult to find a more distinct and precise doctrinal statement, than that which is exhibited in the present very remarkable passage.

Eusebius begins with those worshippers under the Patriarchal Dispensation, whom he calls the ancient lovers of God. These, from the very beginning, were accustomed to devote animal sacrifices, not through accident, not as a matter of mere human invention; but in consequence of a certain divine contrivance, which rendered the

ἑώρων, ἅτε τὸν τρόπον εὐσεβεῖς καὶ Θεῷ προσῳκειωμένοι θείῳ τε Πνεύματι τὰς ψυχὰς πεφωτισμένοι, μεγάλης αὐτοῖς θεραπείας δεῖν εἰς ἀποκάθαρσιν τῶν θνητῶν πλημμεληματῶν, λύτρον τῆς αὐτῶν σωτηρίας τῷ καὶ ζωῆς καὶ ψυχῆς χορηγῷ προσοφείλεσθαι ἡγοῦντο. Ἔπειτα μηδὲν κρεῖττον καὶ τιμιώ τερον τῆς οἰκείας ψυχῆς καθιεροῦν ἔχοντες, ἀντὶ ταύτης τέως τὴν διὰ τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων προσήγον θυσίαν, τῆς σφῶν ψυχῆς ἀντίψυχα προσκομίζοντες-Τοῦτο δὲ αὐτὸ Μωσῆς λευκὸτατα που διασαφεί, λέγων· Ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐστιν· καὶ ἐγὼ δὲδωκα ὑμῖν τὸ αἷμα ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ἐξιλά σκεσθαι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν-Σαφῶς γὰρ ἀντὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς τὸ τῶν σφαγιαζομένων ζώων αἷμα φησιν ἐξιλάσκεσθαι—Ἕως μὲν οὖν οὐδέπω τὸ κρεῖττον οὐδὲ τὸ μέγα καὶ τίμιον καὶ θεοπρεπές σφάγιον παρῆν ἀνθρώποις, ταῖς διὰ ζώων θυσίαις λύτρα τῆς ἑαυτῶν ζωῆς καὶ ἀντίψυχα της οἰκείας φύσεως προσηκόντως ἀποδιδόναι ΧΡΗΝ τῷ Θεῷ. Ὡς καὶ ἔπραττον ΟΙ ΠΑΛΑΙ ΘΕΟΦΙΛΕΙΣ, σεμνὸν τι και θεοφιλὲς καὶ μέγα ἱερεῖον ήξειν ποτὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπους ΤΩ ΘΕΙΩ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙ ΠΡΟΕΙΛΗΦΟΤΕΣ, τὸ τοῦ παντὸς καθάρσιον κόσμου, οὗ καὶ τὰ σύμβολα τέως ἐπιτελλεῖν αὐτοὺς προφήτας ὄντας καὶ τὸ μέλλον ἔσεσθαι προτυπουμένους —Ουτος δ ̓ ἦν ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἄνωθεν ἐκ παλαιῶν χρόνων ἥξειν εἰς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ προβάτου δίκην ὑπὲρ παντὸς τοῦ των ανθρώπων γένους σφαγήσεσθαι, προαγορευόμενος. Euseb. Caesariens. Demonst. Evan. lib. i. c. S. p. 24, 25. Lutet. Rob. Stephan. 1545.

sacrificer of animals more acceptable to God than the sacrificer of vegetable productions. As for the notion with which they devoted their primitive animal sacrifices, it was precisely the same as that which afterward so eminently characterised the Law of Moses. Their sacrifices were strictly piacular: and it was their duty, their duty evidently, because a divine commandment had made it their duty; it was their duty to offer such sacrifices, until that better sacrifice, which all other sacrifices of an expiatory nature typically represented, should in the fulness of time. come into the world. Whatever, in short, was done ideally under the Law in the matter of piacular sacrifice; thus also, according to Eusebius, did those ancient lovers of God under the Patriarchal Dispensation. For they had previouly learned through the divine Spirit, that a really acceptable victim would hereafter be devoted: and, in consequence of this revealed knowledge, they, being prophets, rightly appointed animal victims to be types or symbols. of that future efficacious and God-befitting victim, who, on behalf of the whole human race, should, make a full and sufficient and satisfactory atonement *.

* The present singularly strong passage is noticed by Dr.

Such are the sentiments of Eusebius of Cesarèa, relative to the origin and ideality of primitive animal sacrifice. In his bare opinion, he may be very right, as I think; or he may be very wrong, as Mr. Davison thinks: but such. at all events, is his opinion: and it will be recollected, that I am now producing evidence, not to the truth of a tenet, but to its ecclesiastical antiquity. The rise of this tenet Mr. Davison

Outram but he is unwilling to allow, that in it Eusebius indicates any persuasion that patriarchal expiatory sacrifice ́ was of divine institution.

I regret the necessity of complaining, that this able writer has in no wise acted with perfect fairness.

Of the entire passage, which is much longer than even as I have given it, he quotes only a few lines, omitting what I deem some of its very strongest points: and, with respect to what he has quoted, he makes an assertion, for which it may be doubted whether the words of Eusebius give him any sufficient warrant.

The assertion is, that The knowledge of THE DIVINE CONTRIVANCE, in consequence of which animal victims were piacularly devoted by the early patriarchs, was not common to all, but was limited to those who were the best. See Outram. de Sacrif. lib. i. c. 1. § VI. p. 10, 11.

This, so far as I can see, is a virtual acknowledgment, however cramped, that Eusebius held the DIVINE institution of primitive sacrifice.

Accordingly, in another part of his work, Dr. Outram confesses, that, in the judgment of Eusebius, the sacrifices of Abel and Noah and Abraham were, in their nature, all piacular, and, in their import, all prophetically typical of the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. Outram. de Sacrif. lib. 1. c. 22. § II. p. 249, 250,

ascribes to the age of modern Puritanism; by which I understand him to mean, chronologically, the seventeenth century: yet, as a simple matter of fact, we find it advocated, in the fourth century, by three of the most eminent among both the Greek and the Latin Fathers.

On the whole, I think we may gather, that, so far as the question was agitated in the primitive Church, the same diversity of opinion prevailed as that which still prevails in our own days. The witnesses, produced by Mr. Davison, maintain the human institution of patriarchal sacrifice: the witnesses, produced by myself, maintain its divine institution: while a considerable body of the Fathers, whose writings I have been led to examine, preserve, at least so far as a direct expression of sentiment is concerned, a complete neutrality *. Under these circumstances, the authority of the Fathers must, I apprehend, be thrown out of the question: and the matter must be debated and settled upon its own intrinsic

* It will perhaps be recollected, that Epiphanius and Cyril of Alexandria employ language, which certainly seems to import that they held the divine institution of primitive sacrifice. I do not, however, directly adduce them in evidence, because I appear to gather their sentiments only in the way of induction. See above, sect, iv. chap. 8. $ I. 2.

merits. Had any one of those ancient writers left us a direct argumentative treatise on the subject, it would certainly have been a deeply interesting production: but no such treatise has come within the narrow limits of my own ecclesiastical reading. I will not, indeed, take upon myself to deny the existence of such a treatise : for the very insignificant fact of my not having met with it is doubtless no proof of its nonexistence. Yet I cannot refrain from suspecting, that no such treatise has descended to us: for, had this been the case, it would, most probably, long ere now have been brought to light by the learning and the industry of a Lightfoot or an Outram, a Spencer or a Warburton, a Magee or a Kennicott.

III. In taking leave of my exemplary and able opponent, I beg to apologise for any unguarded expression which unwittingly may have hurt his feelings. For the simple statement either of facts or of arguments, which may have a tendency to establish my own opinion and to subvert that which he has been led to adopt, he himself, I am assured, would not wish me to apologise.

We have each alike been influenced by an honest love of truth, the search after which has