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 by his one sacrifice of himself he might fully atone for all our offences; and our Lord also, as we learn from Holy Writ, ever liveth to make intercession for us. Intercessory prayer and piacular sacrifice are here, we see, avowedly united; and we are certain that the prayer of the Great Intercessor, no less than the prayer of Job, will be heard and accepted of the Lord. Yet, notwithstanding this undoubted circumstance, it were most unsatisfactory reasoning thence to infer, that, because the prayer was efficacious, therefore the sacrifice possessed no expiatory power."p. 69-70. We are compelled to pass over in haste, the sacrifice of Noah, and we the less scruple to do so, as, though not unimportant, it is not one of the strongest grounds of the argument, and is more open to conjecture. The use of the phrase "sweet savour," or "savour of rest," as applicable by the Jews to their piacular offerings, is familiar to every student of the Bible. And it is impossible to overlook St. Paul's well-known and remarkable adaptation of this peculiar phrase to our great and allsufficient sacrifice. "As Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering, and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour." Altingius and Witsius have some very striking remarks upon these words, which were used by Moses in describing Noah's sacrifice. But we must pass on to the important and much-litigated text, of which Lightfoot first elicited the sense applicable to this controversy, and which has since been placed in a more vivid light by the learning of Magee and others. Upon this, we think, Mr. Faber's remarks highly valuable and important, and the more so as Mr. Molesworth, who preceded him on the same side, did not venture to arbitrate between the acute and learned disputants upon the sense .חטאת of the word The point at issue is, whether the words of the seventh verse of Gen. iv. are to be interpreted a sin-offering, or the punishment of sin coucheth at the door. Mr. Davison contends for the latter, as more congenial with the tenor of the context; and, to show that the Hebrew admits of this interpretation, he adduces arguments to show that Chattah, "if it is there to be understood in its secondary sense, may as well be the punishment of sin, as an atonement for it."* Mr. Faber admits, that "We might, in the abstract, fairly conjecture the grammatical possibility of the words bearing the yet additional sense of punishment on the account of sin." But Mr. Davison has not proved that it does so. "The point," observes Mr. Faber, "I take it, is not, what, on the acknowledged principle of Hebraic ideality, the word abstractedly may be thought CAPABLE of meaning; but the point 11 ---4-imed usage it actually And he contends that "The only mode in which this matter can be accomplished, is by tion of a passage, in which the wo MUST denote punishment for sin, a denote either sin or sin-offering." He then adduces several passage Chattah can denote nothing else tha ing, and is utterly INCAPABLE of translation. Indeed there could be in doing this, for it has been alrea various lexicographers, and such in abundant. Even in Levit. iv., from takes one of his examples, four or proofs might have been adduced, an various parts of both the historical a tical books of the Old Testament. mentions the frequency of its oco this sense in Leviticus and also c Mr. Davison does not dispute the s word. Mr. Faber then calls upon him not any thing like the body of evid establishes the sense of sin-offerin one single text in which it MUST den ment for sin; and also proceeds those passages from which the sens ment is attempted to be deduced. tainly fall far short of the proof red However, we are compelled by tiality to which our inclination lea which our office requires of us, to Mr. Faber is less successful in pa point of that passage (Lamentatio which, with a candour very honoura self, he puts into the hand of his op The scope of the chapter, and t the context, we think, are very str vour of that sense of the word whi vison desires to establish, in order 1 admissibility of its being interpret condary sense, punishment for sin. is not a decisive instance-and sta does, solitary, we cannot recognise of relying upon it against the cl questioned examples opposed to it. The attempt to support the sense ment for sin" has been made by lex and critics; but, after some exan have seen no case in which any suff has been adduced. Pagninus offers as instances of the word Chattah the passage of Z adduced by Mr. Davison, and al viii. 16, and Psalm cix. 14. But a very slight examination that they are quite insufficient for Glassius also mentions the notion ment being by some attached to C preted simply as sin, but he neit any passage to support it, nor doe consider it as a construction whic firmed with any degree of certaint On the anachronism which Mr. tributed to Lightfoot, Mr. Faber following observations: "The eminently-learned Light cannot but think to have been re too disdainfully by Mr. Davison, marred, by a sort of ill-advised Lord as speaking of a sin-offering lying at the door, in proleptic allusion to the circumstance, that under the Law the victims for sacrifice were always brought to the door of the tabernacle; but I should greatly hesitate to censure the opinion that the victims for sacrifice, during the primitive ages, were brought to the door of the consecrated sacellum, and that the ordinance was thence DERIVED into the Levitical dispensation."-p. 254. However complacently Mr. Faber might be disposed to treat this opinion, we much question whether it would meet with the same respect on the part of his acute opponent, who, we shrewdly suspect, would note down some hint against "the consecrated sacellum," as having an affinity with a certain process called petitio principii. But, be this as it may, we see neither the necessity of Mr. Faber's defence, nor the justice of Mr. Davison's censure. Lightfoot has been guilty of no anachronism, nor does he appear to us to contemplate the prolepsis which startles Mr. Faber's faith. No one contends that inspiration dictates every word and expression, but simply the subject matter; and if Moses were informing the Israelites, that God told Cain that a sin-offering was at hand, or easy to be had, we see nothing extraordinary in his using the phrase, a sinoffering lieth at the door, inasmuch as that phrase must easily convey his meaning to persons accustomed, as the Israelites were, to bring their victims to the door of the tabernacle, and perhaps as familiar with the import of the phrase as with the custom itself. And what more has Lightfoot said? His words are, "Et mos erat, cui ut notissimo Moses sermonem accommodavit, collocare sacrificia ante fores sanctuarii." We cannot quit this part of our subject without transcribing one valuable remark of Mr. Faber's, which well exhibits the danger of giving the reins to mere "etymological specuIation," and shows the student the necessity of bringing his inferences to the test of actual usage. "The extreme danger of practically building upon the system of etymological speculation, which has been advocated by Mr. Davison, is strikingly exemplified in the different fates of the two Hebrew words חטאת and .עון "In its primary sense on denotes sin; in its secondary ideal sense, something for sin; while y in its primary sense denotes iniquity; and analogously, in its secondary ideal sense, something for iniquity. nishment; yet, in despite of system, plain mat- denotes a "On Mr. Davison's principle of settling the tality of etymological conjecture, I have as sense of Hebrew words through the instrumengood a right to maintain, that sacrifice for iniquity, as he can have to maintain that N denotes punishment for sin.”p. 111, 112. עון. The remarks with which our author endeavours to establish the greater congruity of the advocated by Mr. Davison, we cannot well sense for which he contends, than of the sense condense; and, after the arguments already used, and considering the inconclusiveness of reasonings upon the propriety of this or that conjecture, we pass them with the less regret. The peculiar difficulties which beset the reconcilement of the version of the Seventy with the Hebrew text, and which, while they have given rise to a variety of solutions, after all may be said, as Eugubinus observes, "Sibylla indigere;"-the little information we have upon the antecedent character of the two brothers, and the debateable nature of conclusions brew parallelisms, these united considerations drawn from the presumed requisitions of He induce us to hold Mr. Faber's remarks on this part, however ingenious and able, as less important to the main point. On the Faith of Abel, his observations, though just, have nothing of novelty, and the subject, as well as the peculiar line of argument adopted by Mr. Davison with respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews, has been very fully examined by his predecessor Mr. Molesworth. And after all, there will not perhaps be found in the work of either of these writers any one remark more acute or more to the purpose than this of Witsius. "Præterea observandum est, Paulum dicere, non quod Abel tali fide vixerit, aut justus fuerit, cipium fuerit. Quum autem fides Paulo desed tali fide OBTULERIT, ut fides oblationis prinscripto mandato et promissione Dei nitatur, consequens est ut ex mandato Dei obtulerit, expectaveritque tale sacrificium gratum futurum esse Deo secundum promissionem."* In the chaptert devoted to the consideration of the evidence of the divine institution of saof the rite, as one whose nature and import was crifice from the language of Moses in speaking well known to those to whom it was addressed, Mr. Faber does not, that we perceive, bring forward any fresh materials or any thing requiring particular notice. And his observations in the next chapter, though tending to prove that sacrifice offered by human sugges "The word on in the development of its tion was not likely to be acceptable to God, still are no direct reply to Hammond's intersecondary ideal sense, NEVER denotes punish-pretation of aux and Mr. Davison's ment for sin; ALWAYS denotes an offering for views of the same. sin. But the word y, in the development of "Yet mark the singular difference, or divergence of meaning, when, in the development of their common secondary ideal sense, they are each brought into practical employ. its striotix id. In the fourth section Mr. Faber turns to the consi His remarks upon the want of express mention of the institution of piacular sacrifice in the history of the Patriarchal dispensation, and particularly his views of the supposed distinction between the mode in which sacrifice | and the sanctification of the Sabbath are recorded, entirely harmonize with those of Mr. Molesworth, but in this last particular are op. posed to those of Mr. Holden, in his work upon the "Christian Sabbath." We cannot now arbitrate between these opinions. For Mr. Faber's reasonings on the detached objections to the institution of sacrifice, we must refer the reader to the work itself, as we find that we are now encroaching upon the limits allotted to us, and perhaps on the reader's patience. There is only one chapter to which we shall request particular attention. In this Mr. Faber has proved beyond all question, that the unanimous judgment of the early ecclesiastical writers, in favour of the human invention of sacrifice, has been assumed by Spenser and Outram upon but very slight evidence adduced; and that Mr. Davison, taking their authority only as his ground, has affirmed without sufficient examination, that the doctrine of the Divine Origin of Sacrifice, is a "modern and puritan doctrine." The testimonies contributed by Spenser and Outram, Mr. Faber reduces to those of four early writers; whether more than four may be found he does not pretend to determine, but only four have been adduced. The bold assumption, which Mr. Davison founds on these, relative to the unanimous consent of the Fathers upon the human origin of sacrifice, and the determination of the rise of the opposite opinion to the age of Puritanism, is, by a very simple process, demonstrated to be altogether untenable, and, indeed, to savour of a want of caution and investigation, which must greatly shake the authority of the learned writer of the "Inquiry" upon the question of sacrifice. Mr. Faber brings forward the testimony of four early writers, in opposition to the four, which have been adduced as examples of the unanimity claimed by Mr. Davison upon his views of the question. 1st. Philo the Jew says, "Abel brought neither the same oblation as Cain, nor in the same manner: but instead of things inanimate, he brought things animate; and, instead of later and secondary products, he brought the older and the first: for he offered up sacrifice from the firstlings of his flock, and from their fat, ACCORDING TO THE MOST HOLY COMMAND." 2d. His next example is that of Augustine, whose declaration, and distinct reference of the earliest sacrifice to the prophetic intentions of God are clear and indisputable. As the citation is long we cannot give the whole, but we think the words here adduced, will be sufficient to show the opinion of that learned Father. "For the prophetic immolation of Blood, testifying from the very commencement of the human race, the future passion of the Mediator, is FIRST WHO OFFERED UP THIS PROPHET "Hence it is no marvel if the falle of whom the two special vices are p falsehood, flitting through the air, exac their worshippers, by whom they wis esteemed Gods, that service which th was justly due to the true God alone fice, therefore, sufficiently shows to w duc, not only When The True Go Commands it, but even when a fa proudly exacts it. 3dly. St. Athanasius. "The Saints," he remarks, "those ralds of the truth, agree with one ano vary not among themselves. For, the were born at different times, yet being phets of the one true God and the ha Evangelists of the one same Word, tually tend to one and the same "What Moses taught, those things h cessor Abraham had preserved; a Abraham had preserved, with thos Noah and Enoch were well acquain THEY MADE A DISTINCTION BETWI CLEAN AND THE UNCLEAN, and wer able to the Deity. "Thus also, in like manner, Abel b mony. For he knew what he had lear Adam; and ADAM HIMSELF TAUGE WHAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY LEARN THE LORD. “Accordingly, the same Lord, at t the ages, having come into the worl Abolition of sin, declared: I give you commandment, but an ancient comm which ye have heard from the beginni We subjoin to this passage Mr. Fal did admission, that it does not mention itself, but we concur with him in his c respecting its being the object of At remarks. "In this passage," he says, "I read there is no precise mention of sacrific but both the general drift of the argu the peculiarity of the language employ pel us, I think, to admit that Athana specially in his eye the TYPICAL or P CAL rite of expiatory sacrifice."* we do not transcribe, both on accoun 4thly. He cites Eusebius, whose t length of the passage and because Ou disputed whether the judgment of the can be proved from the expressions us Faber offers some very strong argu show that the passage does indicate t of Eusebius in the divine origin of sacr to those arguments we must refer the The Fathers, as Mr. Faber justly may be right or wrong, in their opinio this part of his work he is " producing not to the truth of a tenet, but to its tical antiquity." And with respect to above citations, like the rain, and th and the wind, descending upon the ho on sand, at once swept away the wh 004 dation of Mr. Davison's assertion that the Fa- | thers were unanimous in their judgment upon the human origin of sacrifice, and that the notion of its divine institution is the modern doctrine of the Puritanical times. Independently of the direct testimonies adduced by Mr. Faber, his researches, he states, tend to the inference which, a priori, we should have drawn from our knowledge of the principal points which claimed the inquiries of the Fathers, and excited their controversies. We should have expected to find them generally, "so far as a direct expression of sentiment is concerned," neutral on the subject here at issue. They were not likely to have been led to any minute and accurate investigation of it. In this point of view, and as the subjectmatter does not belong to their times, but to those respecting which they had probably no more materials than we have to form a judgment, we never have considered their authority as of any great weight in the controversy. Many, however, with that just veneration which is due to the authority of the Fathers upon certain points, are apt insensibly to mingle an indiscriminate submission to their decisions in matters wherein their judgment cannot be better informed than that of other Christians. On such persons the bold assertion of Mr. Davison, backed by the authority of Spenser and Outram, might have considerable influence; and Mr. Faber has rendered good service in exposing the error. The candour and liberality with which Mr. Davison discusses the subject, independently of his general character, are ample pledges to us that he was not aware that his position was groundless, but was misled by relying too implicitly upon the research and industry of the two above-mentioned learned writers. But we are the more surprised that an Inquirer so well acquainted with books should have fallen into this mistake; because Fabricius has expressly denied the accuracy of Outram and Spenser, and has quoted the very passage selected by Mr. Faber from Athanasius, in proof of the fallacy of their assumption that the sense of the Fathers was unanimous on the subject. And besides those cited by Mr. Faber, there are other passages. We quote, for instance, two from Augustine. Speaking of sacrifices he says, "Nobis prodest colere Deum-non ipsi Deo. Cum ergo inspirat, et docet, quomodo colendus sit, non solum sua nulla indigentia facit, sed nostra maxima utilitate." And again. "Cum aliud oblatum est ab antiquis sanctis, aliud ab iis qui nunc sunt offertur, NON HUMANA PRESUMPTIONE SED AUCTORITATE DIVINA, temporibus congrua sacra mysteria celebrantur, non Deus aut religio commutatur."-August. Quæst. cont. Pagan, lib. vi. qu. 3. expressions, and the general tenor of their allusions to this subject, is opposed by Mr. Faber. They seem to speak of it as a permitted rite, and the Romanist theologians are generally disposed to deny the divine origin of sacrifice. As neither Mr. Davison nor Mr. Faber appear to have taken the reasons of this into consideration, we think it may not be unprofitable to lay before the reader some circumstances which may tend to show with what abatements their judgment upon this point ought to be received. The mention of sacrifice by the Fathers will be generally found to occur in the controversies with the Heathens, or with the Jews, when the object of their arguments was to dissuade them from the continuance of the rite, and to show the Heathen, who alleged the use of sacrifice by the people of God, that it was a temporary rite adapted to the temporary circumstances of the Jewish nation, and that its necessity had now passed away. It is obvious, therefore, that it was no part of their argument, to show the high antiquity or the divine origin of sacrifice. They dwell principally upon those texts of Scripture which show that sacrifice was to be done away, and was inferior to obedience and purity of heart; and that the distinction between the sacrifices of the Jews and those of the Heathens, was in the persons to whom they were respectively offered-the one to the true God, the other to demons. Nothing in this controversy led them to examine closely the evidences of the divine origin of sacrifice. It was their object rather to disparage than to exalt the rite. The Romanists, on the other hand, had another object, but one not conformable to the divine institution of sacrifice. The commanded and typical sacrifices they knew were all fulfilled and abrogated when Christ had exclaimed, "It is finished;" but they wanted to show that sacrifice was still obligatory, in order to support their monstrous doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass. How do they effect this? By contending that though the legal sacrifices were annulled, yet sacrifice itself was originally "de jure naturali;" that it was the suggestion of human reason, and being accepted by God, was the suggestion of right reason, and therefore always obligatory and acceptable. These considerations will, we think, to a great degree, account for their opinions in favour of the human institution of sacrifice, and serve to assist the student in appreciating the authority of the parties referred to in this controversy; and notwithstanding this, neither the Fathers nor the Romanists have been unanimous in their suffrages. To conclude with a few words on the general character of the work before us, we would observe, that it is a very valuable treatise on the subject of sacrifice, containing a body of reasoning and evidence entfcient played less power than elsewhere, we should point to his remarks upon the intent and range of the Mosaic atonements, which, we think, constitute the peculiar and the original features of Mr. Davison's arguments. There are some of these, indeed, some conclusions connected with the reasonings built upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also with Mr. Davison's views of the case of Isaac, which Mr. Faber has altogether overlooked, or held undeserving of particular notice. lently removed; nor can we cast our any individual, or individuals, who can to us the void which his departure h sioned. We know that the same po goodness, and grace, that formed h that enriched his heart, and that con his talents and his influence to the despised by the "wise and the nob even advance the triumph of the G apparent and signal reverses; but it i the purpose, as well as conviction of th of the Almighty, that can alone con support the heart under so great a di ment. his The position occupied by our dear society, his property, his name, his habits, his virtues, rendered his to the ranks of those who have been in the promotion of Religion and P The style of the book is, suitably to the subject, plain and grave, but with a formality sometimes almost amounting to pedantry. The reasoning is clear, the data candidly set forth, and the conclusions in general fairly and logically drawn. Every where, we observe with pleasure, is to be traced that temperate and liberal spirit which ought to prevail in Christian discussions; which, without injuring theism, an advantage most fervently des cause by affected and undue concessions, can make allowance for human infirmities, and feel humbly conscious of human fallibility; which alike shuns the insulting dogmatism of arrogance, and despises the paltry triumphs of sophistry. from the very first indication of the co ment of those efforts, he associate with the friends of those beneficent in which have proved such blessings to dom. He was one of the Secretari Protestant Bible Society, an active the Paris Missionary Society, Treas Tract Society, and of the Committ Encouragement of Sunday Schools, the Editors of the Archives du Chr He was also President of the Société rale Chrêtienne, Vice-President of t Society formed among the poorer P of Paris, and Member of the Soci Encouragement of Schools on the B tem-of the Institution of Saving E to his exertions we owe most of t that has crowned the efforts that made against the Slave Trade, and of the Greeks. When first this grea young man espoused the interests he felt, himself, but little of its inf observation, his investigation, his with Christians of this and of othe From the Evangelical Magazine. soon, however, brought conviction t DEATH OF THE BARON DE STAEL. and his heart, always tender, and WE have been surprised by a most terrible and humble, soon received with a and affecting calamity:-the Baron Auguste evidences of truth. His progress in de Staël, of whom you had no doubt heard in experience, in zeal, and in the much, has been snatched from the embraces profession of Christianity, has be of his family, and called from the vast and manifest, and satisfactory. Such w important sphere which he blessed and adorn-nity and the diffidence of his charac ed, only in his thirty-seventh year; married profession was always rather below but a few months-expecting in a few weeks the measure of his piety; and thos the birth of a desired child-enjoying as much him most intimately, admired the health, and more ease and happiness, than falls loved him most. After his marriag ordinarily to the lot of man, full of energy-oc- Vernet, of Geneva, he spent som cupied with plans for the improvement of his Nice; and in the course of the sur estate, and the condition of the country of his through Paris, on his way to Copp illustrious ancestors-devoted to all the insti- ed, for the last time, the scenes o tutions of benevolence and piety that have been and valued exertions. How little formed in these late years, both in France and imagine that he was never again t Switzerland-identified with all our past efforts circle with his presence and his some months before his illness, he h and success, and with all our future hopes and calculations,-it never once occurred to us that himself so strong a presentiment he was soon and suddenly to be lost to his fami- ture, that he made several prospec ly, his friends, and the great cause which was ments, indicative of his conviction this conviction left his mind und so near his heart. It is impossible to conceive the consternation and distress that this solemn undepressed, it gave a peculiar s ardour to his religious exercises a We think the author sometimes, as it were, spreads out his argument to too great an extent, minutely expressing every petty and obvious link of his logical chain. The effect of this is to exhaust the patience of the readers "of these degenerate days," who demand condensation and point. His treatise displays rather the indications of theological research, general learning, and good sense, than originality of thought, or peculiar polemical acuteness. Yet it is a book of which we should expect that few would rise from the perusal without concurring with the author in the doctrine he proposes to vindicate. has prodreed. The instrument that ap |