Hence, he argues, that "this silence of the Scripture history, neutral in the narrative, is far from neutral in its import. For had sacrifice been instituted of God; had it been the solemn rite and character with which religion from the beginning was invested by a special revelation, most reasonable is it to think, that some notice of such an authoritative institution of it would have been preserved, and transmitted to memory, for the instruction of after times."

That this silence of Holy Writ is not neutral in its import we both agree, but with respect to its real import we most decidedly differ; as will be hereafter seen. I apprehend also, that Mr. Davison will not entirely coincide with me in the immediate inference, which I deduce from the very silence* of the narrative. The public must judge between us.

Sacrifice, whether originally revealed by God, or invented by the primeval worshippers, was to the Jews the most important and prominent of all their religious rites. And, as Moses wrote for the information of the Jews, it can scarcely be supposed, that he would leave them in ignorance of the origin of this interesting rite, whether that origin were divine or human. The prima facie consideration of this narrative brings us immediately to one, or to both of these conclusions. 1. The origin of the rite was already notorious to those to whom the narrative was addressed. Or, 2dly, Moses did not consider the history of the primitive or the patriarchal age as the place, in which the information required was to be given.

By a particular investigation of other portions of *Davison on Sac. pp. 9, 10.

+ Mr. Davison has, I think, greatly overstated the silence when he affirms that, antecedently to the Law, "there is not the most distant disclosure made, directing us to infer how it (sacrifice) was originally introduced." That he has so overstated it, will appear as we proceed in our examination of the historical evidence.

8

1

the Mosaic history, bearing upon these two positions, we shall, I trust, be able to determine satisfactorily the true import of this silence of Holy Writ. In the course of this investigation I shall shew, that Moses, antecedently to the promulgation of the law, and under it spoke of sacrifice in terms denoting the notoriety of its divine origin; that he must have been sensible, that his countrymen would necessarily presume its divine origin, unless he should expressly caution them to the contrary; and that the scope of his history of the primitive and patriarchal times by no means required any positive declaration of it. These propositions, if they can be substantiated, will, I conceive, establish the divine institution of sacrifice, upon that species of evidence, which from the naturè of the case we might reasonably expect to find.

"Though Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy stood as separate books in the private copies used by the Jews in the time of Josephus, they were written by their author Moses in one continued work and still remain in that form, in the public copies read in the Jewish Synagogues *."

This fact, though well known, has not been sufficiently considered in the discussion of our present subject t. An erroneous impression seems to pre

Bishop of Winchester's Elem. Christ. Theol. P. 5. Vol. i. + Mr. Davison appears to me to have entirely lost sight of the fact that the book of Genesis is part of one continued work, and that it was a record intended for the instruction of persons to whom the Law had been previously delivered, and who had formed determinate notions upon the origin and intent of sacrifice. He says, "Men have looked through the law of Moses, to the antecedent religion. They have made the one the image of the other. Of this identity we possess no evidence."-Dav. on Sac. p. 33.

To the former part of the charge I plead guilty; I do look, and think men ought to look, through the Law of Moses to the antecedent religion. And, though I have not made the one the image of the other, I maintain that the latter is a part, and a principal part of the former. Instead of the primitive sacrifice being adopted and exalted by the Law, I contend, and, I have the authority of St. Paul, that

vail, that Genesis is to be looked upon as a separate book, and as published before the oral delivery of the law. The reverse is the truth. There is abundant evidence, that the completion of this" one continued work" the Pentateuch, was long subsequent to the oral promulgation of the law. Michaelis conjectures that each event of the Exodus, &c., was recorded as it happened.

Faber argues that the Pentateuch was written "synchronically" with the Exodus. The history appears to contain internal evidence, that it was not completed, or at least not produced as a public document, till a short time before the decease of Moses, when he commanded it to be deposited in the Ark *. I do not mean to contend, that the facts

the Law was ADDED to the patriarchal dispensation. Hence I infer that sacrifice had the same general intent under the Law, as under the patriarchs. The general intent of animal sacrifice was always the same; viz. atonement or restoration to God's favour. Its peculiarity under the Law was its various application to the purposes of maintaining the theocracy of preserving the people from idolatry, and of setting forth under different forms typical descriptions of the Great Atonement to be made "in the fulness of time." Hence I do hold, that we are "to look through the law to the antecedent religion" and to judge of the light in which sacrifice must have appeared to the Jews.

*

Deut. xxxi. 9-xi. 24-26. comp. 2 Kings xxii. and xxiii. Fab. Hor. Mos. vol. i. 321.

The nature of the narrative is opposed to the fanciful opinion of Eusebius and others, that Moses wrote the book of Genesis, while keeping the flocks of Jethro, his father-in-law, in the wilderness of Midian. "But," says Mr. Hartwell Horne, "the more probable opinion is that of Theodoret, which has been adopted by Moldenhawer, and most modern critics, viz. that Moses wrote this book after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and the promulgation of the Law from mount Sinai : for previously to his receiving the divine call, related in Exodus iii. he was only a private individual, and was not endued with the Spirit of Prophecy. Without that Spirit he could not have recorded with so much accuracy the history of the creation, &c." Horne's Introduc. vol. iv. 4.

All that portion of the work previous to the call of Moses, was a rapid sketch of the history of the world, and particularly the ancestors of the chosen people. It is merely the introductory part of

contained in the book of Genesis might not have been orally communicated to the Jews at the time of, or even previously to, the promulgation of the law; but the written narrative, which we have, was posterior to that promulgation. Moses, therefore, must have known, that the Jews would take their opinions of the origin of sacrifice either from their own previous notions upon the subject, or from the character in which it was set forth to them under the law. The former of these would be at least as likely; indeed (as the fact of Gentile opinions upon the rise of their sacrifices will prove) much more likely, to lead them to attribute it to divine than to human institution. And the latter would decidedly cause them to regard it as of divine origin.'

The view then, with which Moses might be expected to mention the institution of Sacrifice would be, to correct an erroneous prepossession. The prepossession of the Jews would be in favour of the Divine institution; consequently, if this were the true state of the case, he would have no occasion to inform them upon the point; the narrative would probably be silent. But that silence would lead us to the inference, that the divine institution was presupposed, and notorious. But, if it were of human invention, it would then and then only be necessary, that Moses should expressly declare it, to correct the previous opinion of its divine origin, which the law would almost unavoidably lead the Jews to adopt.

These points will be farther discussed in the answers to the three following questions:

the work, and not a separate history. But the time, at which the book of Genesis was composed is not material to the strength of my position; it was unquestionably promulgated as a national document, after the giving of the Law; and Moses must have been capable of judging, whether the Law would predispose the Jews to attribute sacrifice to divine or human institution, when he expressly mentioned neither.

I. In what light does Moses appear to speak of Sacrifices previously to the giving of the law, and also under it?

II. In what sense would the general tenor of the law pre-dispose the Jews to interpret those passages, in which no mention was made of the origin of Sacrifice?

III. Is there any thing in the nature and scope of his history of the primitive times, which should call for an express declaration of the origin of Sacrifice, if it were instituted by God?

CHAPTER V.

I. In what light does Moses appear to speak of Sacrifice previously to the giving of the law, and also under it?

1. I deny, that there is any one period either before, or under the law, which can be pointed out as fixing the first declaration of the divine sanction, as a NEW, AND HERETOFORE UNKNOWN attribute of Sacrifice. It cannot be said of any one passage, Moses here distinctly establishes a new sanction to Sacrifice, -he here discovers to the Israelites the divine sanction, as given to that, which before rested upon human authority. The passage of Levit. xvii. 11. adduced by Mr. Davison for this purpose, has not the slightest claim to such a character; Sacrifice, before that, had been spoken of again and again, both as a commanded, and an atoning rite. And I shall presently shew, that, far from assisting Mr. Davison's cause, it establishes a point, which, if established, he admits to be fatal to his theory.

2. No instance has been adduced, in which Moses even hints at Sacrifice being a human invention.