Eliphaz and his two friends, cannot have been a simple deprecatory sacrifice. Now sacrifices FOR sin must be, either simply deprecatory, or complexly expiatory: and, assuredly, the sacrifice, commanded by God in the present case, was a sacrifice FOR sin. But the sacrifice, commanded in the present case by God, could not have been a simple deprecatory sacrifice: because the idea, of necessity attendant upon such a sacrifice, could not, consistently with his immutable moral attributes, have been sanctioned by the Deity. Therefore, finally, the sacrifice of Job's three friends, enjoined by God himself, must have been an expiatory sacrifice*.

4. The only mode, in which this argument

* Dr. Spencer, who denies the divine institution of primitive sacrifice, and who yet allows that expiatory oblations were offered up even by the pious, anterior to the promulgation of the Law, endeavours to account for the uncommanded existence of the latter, on the ground that they were a sort of gifts presented for the purpose of buying back the favour of the offended Deity. Spencer. de Leg. Heb. Rit. lib. iii. dissert. 2. cap. 4. sect. 2. vol. ii. p. 149.

Agreeably to this speculation, he elsewhere describes them as constituting a kind of traffic between God and man: man presenting them to God, under the aspect of bribes; and God remitting to man his offences, on the mercantile principle of value paid and received. Ibid. cap.3. sect. 2. vol. ii. p. 144.

The notion of driving a bargain with God (nundinationem quandam cum Deo, as the learned author speaks) has doubtless been ever familiar to the genius of gross superstition: but the true question, at present before us, is, not Whether

can be rebutted with any show of equity, is by the assertion, that the sacrifices, recorded in the book of Job, were of the class denominated homologetic.

Certainly such an assertion may be made: but, no less certainly, it stands directly and immediately contradicted by the very exact and specific account of the sacrifice offered up by such a notion might not have existed anterior to the Law; but Whether it could ever have been entertained by the really pious, and, above all, WHETHER IT COULD EVER HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED AS A RELIGIOUS VERITY BY GOD HIMSELF. Now God clearly must have thus sanctioned it, if he ever approbatively received sacrifices offered up to him on this avowed principle.

It may not be improper to add, that, according to the present mode of accounting for the human origin of expiatory sacrifice, Dr. Spencer by no means states with accuracy the real idea attendant upon such oblation. The principle of expiatory sacrifice is not a project to buy off the wrath of God with a bribe: but its true principle is the imputative transfer of sin and punishment from the sacrificer to the victim. Dr. Spencer, in short, has ascribed to complex expiatory sacrifice the idea, which exclusively belongs to simple deprecatory sacrifice: and this idea, I contend, cannot possibly, in the very nature of things, have ever been sanctioned by God.

Much more just and correct is Mr. Davison's estimate of the question, than that of Dr. Spencer. Mr. Davison, instead of attempting to deduce the doctrine of expiation and atonement from the light of nature or the principles of reason, very wisely declares, as every thinking man must declare when the question is accurately stated, his inability to comprehend, how that doctrine can ever be grounded on any such principles or justified by them. Inquiry, p. 27.

Eliphaz and his two friends at the express com-. mand of the Deity.

We are distinctly told, that the sacrifice was to be offered up, not merely under the idea of a confession of sin, but LEST God should deal with the offerers after their folly.

Clearly, therefore, the sacrifice was deprecatory,, not homologetic and the sole question remains. as before; Whether it was simply deprecatory, or whether it was complexly deprecatory by the introduction of the additional idea of an atonement.

Now, if I have at all succeeded in establishing the latter part of this alternative, the general conclusion will plainly be this: that The doctrine of an atonement by piacular sacrifice, as it existed pure and unperverted to the abomination of human devotements anterior to the promulgation of the Law, sprang, not from the workings of superstition, but from a specific divine revelation.

III. The mode, in which Mr. Davison would deal with the narrative of the sacrifice offered up by Eliphaz and his two friends, is not a little unsatisfactory.

"The instances of sacrifice recorded in the

"book of Job," says he, "are cited in proof "of early expiatory sacrifice for sin. I do not

dispute the high antiquity, which is assigned

66

to this book by the Primitive Christian Church;

an authority, the most entitled to our attention. "in the question of its age and origin. Let

66

"it be supposed as ancient as the time of "Moses. The account, which it gives of sacri"fice, does not denote an expiatory institution. "The burnt-offering of Eliphaz and his companions is joined with the intercession of Job. The burnt-offering of the three friends was "presented; and the Lord also accepted Job: "a proof this, of the efficacy of Job's prayer, "not of the expiatory power of the sacrifice of " his friends *".

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 * Inquiry, p. 190.

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 of fended, 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.

These, I apprehend, are the premises common to Mr. Davison and myself: and, from them, I should certainly conclude, not that the intercession of Job was exclusively efficacious, and that the sacrifice of his friends possessed no expiatory power; but that Job's intercession would be wholly inefficacious, if the prescribed expiatory sacrifice were omitted.

In drawing such a conclusion, I am not a little influenced by the apparently analogical case of the great Christian sacrifice.

Our Lord was offered up on our behalf, that