when divine favour was invoked for either purpose. The strange illusion gave way, as reason and civilization advanced." -Observations on the Foundation of Morals; by Eugenius: London, 1838, pp. 37, 38.

A usage so widely spread, so revolting to human feeling, and so plainly not called for by sordid interest, could not have come into existence without some very extensive and powerful cause. If this acute author rejects the solution proposed in the page to which this note refers, can he find another equally rational? I fear that, in his just abhorrence of impostures, he confounds them with something which is no imposture; that, exploding the imitative and corrupt pretension, he renounces also any belief of a miraculous communication of truth from the Supreme Being to mankind, in the earliest ages, or in any subsequent period of time. Were but this unhappy prejudice removed, he would perhaps think that no origin of those terrible practices can be assigned, so satisfactory as that which attributes them to the perverted idea of a propitiation for sin revealed by divine authority. In a following page, he ranks the practice of sacrificing among "customs" which "may extend throughout vast tracts of country, and may last through long ages, without being ordained by any original principle of our nature.” P. 40. Then they must have proceeded from an external source. To this author I am indebted for another passage.

"I do not believe that any nation was known, before the introduction of Christianity, who did not entertain a high respect for sacrifice. Barbarous and civilized people, whose customs differed in almost all other things, concurred in imagining that the favour of heaven was to be propitiated by shortening the lives of animals without profiting by their death." P. 39.

Note III.-page 5.

SOCINIAN VIEWS OF THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST.

"This way of representing the death of Christ was adapted to conciliate the prejudices of the Hebrew Christians." Impr.

"Did the Jews pride

Vers. of N. T. Note on Heb. vii. 27. themselves in their temple, their altar, their sacrifices, and their high-priest, the writer of this epistle finds in the Christian system a temple, an altar, a sacrifice, and an high-priest, superior to theirs, so that the former were only types of what followed. But as I have frequently observed, though arguments of this kind were calculated to make an impression upon Jews, they are not only of no use to us, who have no Jewish prejudices to remove, but if we be not upon our guard, they may mislead us, by teaching us to look for something more than a figurative resemblance in them." Dr. Priestley's Notes: Heb. iv. 13. No wonder that Dr. P. should have felt himself compelled to premise, that this "part of the epistle is not particularly edifying to us." The sequel of the note only shows that the writer conceived of the sentiment which he labours to explode, in a manner to which, I believe, most consistent Calvinists strongly object. May I hope that the preceding pages have shown our doctrine of redemption and satisfaction to be very different from that which is commonly imputed to us, by our theological adversaries? At the same time, it must be confessed, that some of our writers and preachers, whether ignorantly, or inadvertently, or indulging a poetical fancy, have given too much occasion for those misconceptions. It is one advantage resulting from the unpleasing toils of religious controversy, that it leads us to examine our principles more carefully, and to state them more correctly.

NOTE IV.-page 10.

ORIGIN OF SACRIFICES.

It is acknowledged that we have only circumstantial, and therefore indirect, evidence for ascribing to sacrifices the origin of a divine institution; but that this evidence amounts to a very high degree of probability, and even to a moral certainty, may, I conceive, be argued upon the following grounds.

i. The improbability of an origin in human judgment or feeling. We admit that the conceptions of the earliest tribes of mankind concerning THE DIVINE BEING, were tinctured with anthropomorphism ;* and that, therefore, the idea of a present to the Author of good, as an acknowledgment of his bounty, was not unlikely to arise in the minds of men who, though in a condition of intellect and divinely communicated knowledge, widely different from the degenerate state of savage life, yet could not but be far from those purely spiritual conceptions which Christianity has diffused. But the occurrence of such an idea would naturally confine itself to the presentation of fruits and flowers. The violent death of an innocent and interesting animal, its cries, its agonies, its blood and mangled remains, could not but form a repulsive object, most distressing to the feelings, and altogether alien from the grateful ideas supposed. Nor does there appear any natural transition from the former to the latter kind of offering, but obvious sentiments of reason and feeling are opposed to such a transition.

Some have supposed that sacrifices originated in the idea of a friendly meal, and that the Deity was considered as, by this means, sitting down at table with his worshippers, and feasting with them. That this notion obtained a footing in the opinions of heathenism, is sufficiently probable; but we have no authority for attaching it to the sacrifices recorded in the earliest scriptures; and it is opposed by the fact, that the principal sacrifice of expiation was the holocaust, "or whole burnt offering," of which no part was eaten, but the whole consumed by the fire upon the altar.

ii. There are rational arguments in favour of attributing the origin of sacrifices to divine authority and injunction. I cannot set this position in a clearer light than by quoting

* Evidence of this is contained in those primitive documents of history and inspiration, Noachic or possibly even antediluvian, which Moses has either incorporated into his own narrative or prefixed to it. For example; Gen. i. 8, 12, &c. the language of satisfaction at the result of an experiment, and importing a previous_uncertainty ;-ii. 2. repose from labour; v. 8.-vi 5.-viii. 1, 21.

from Dr. Patrick Delany. "A plain truth, which no candid reader will, I believe, contest, is this; that whatever practice obtains universally in the world, for any considerable number of years, must obtain in it either from some dictate of REASON, or some demand of NATURE, or some principle of INTEREST, or some powerful influence or INJUNCTION of some Being of universal authority. Now, that Sacrifices obtained universally, for many ages, over all the regions of the known world, will not be denied by any man who makes the least pretence to the knowledge of antiquity. That the practice did not obtain from any dictate of Reason, the adversaries of revelation will, I believe, readily own; it being evident that unprejudiced reason never could antecedently dictate, that destroying the best of our fruits and creatures could be an office acceptable to God; but quite the contrary. That it did not prevail from any demand of Nature is undeniable; for, I believe, no man will say that we have any natural instinct or appetite to gratify, in spilling the blood of an innocent inoffensive creature upon the earth, or burning his body upon an altar. Nor could there be any temptation from appetite to do this, in those ages when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire ;* or when, if it were not, yet men wholly abstained from flesh : -consequently, this practice did not owe its origin to any principle of Interest, and so there could be no priestcraft in the case. In after ages, the duty of sacrificing belonged to the father of the family, who was more interested in the wellbeing of it than any other person whatsoever, and consequently could have no interest in creating an unnecessary expense. When fathers grew up into princes,-sacrifices were then also at the sacrificer's own expense.-Libations, and offerings of several kinds, were the constant practice of private men in their own families; and priests had no perquisites from them." [The author goes on to show the groundlessness of the pretence, that sacrificing was a rite invented by any order of men, to serve their own cupidity at the expense of

* All the accounts of sacrifices which we have in the Scriptures, prior to the institution of the Mosaic Law, confirm the opinion that no sacrifices were practised but holocausts.

others.] "Since then sacrifices are demonstrably not the invention of priestcraft, nor the dictate of reason, nor the demand of nature; I should be glad that infidels would so much as attempt to tell us, with any colour of reason and proof, how they prevailed so universally in the world, otherwise than from DIVINE APPOINTMENT.-How any practice could obtain in the world, to which mankind were neither urged by the interest and subtlety of any particular set of men, nor by any dictate of reason, nor by any instinct or demand of nature, nor by any interest of any kind; but quite the contrary, in direct contradiction to every principle of reason and nature and interest (for the destruction of innocent and useful creatures is so-); I say, how such a practice could prevail, and prevail universally, is impossible to be accounted for but from some powerful and irresistible influence of example, or injunction of AUTHORITY. And what example could have such influence except that of Adam, or what authority could have such power except that of God, is to me utterly inconceivable." Revelation examined with Candour; vol. i. p. 127-132. London, 1735.

iii. We argue from the scripture account of the first sacrifice. Having briefly urged this in the Discourse, I shall here adduce the corroborating statements of writers, whose acute sagacity, extensive knowledge, and likelihood of being free from what some call orthodox prejudices, entitle them to peculiar regard. I begin with the sensible author just cited though it is worth observation that Calvin, in his comment on Gen. iv. 2, had brought forwards the same argu, ments.

6

"Heb. xi. 4. Gen. iv. 3-7. In these words it is plainly implied that Abel acted 'well,' i. e. righteously, in the business of his sacrifice; and that Cain acted 'not well,' i. e. unrighteously, in the business of his sacrifice; and that, in consequence of this defect, sin lay at his door.' Now this righteousness in Abel, by which he obtained the preference to his brother, the apostle ascribes to his 'faith.'-Here we see that, according to the Scripture account, the first act of worship which God accepted with open marks of approbation,