appear from a citation of the author's words. "Why,” says he," should the primeval race of men endea"vour by the oblation of gifts to conciliate the Di"vine grace and favour? Why, but because they "estimated God by the disposition of man, and thought that gifts would have no less influence with "him than with their fellow-creatures"." Another

66

66

66

passage from the same author will supply a fuller developement of the ideas expressed in the former citation. According to the rude conceptions of primitive times, God was estimated as a being "who would dispense all his bounties by the induce"ment of gifts; as if, like men, he could be in"fluenced by presents, or feel himself obliged by any liberality which was shewn him, to make an equal "return. Thus it was that the ancients carried on a "kind of traffic with their Maker, and conducted "themselves towards him as an usurer, who gave, only in order that he might receive *."

66

66

Against that profane irreverence of sentiment which is here expressed in regard to the best and holiest of beings, piety may well exclaim. If such reasoning be justly entitled to any thing further than a strong expression of abhorrence and disgust,

u "Quid enim homines primævi muneribus oblatis gratiam et "favorem divinum sibi conciliare studerent, nisi quod Deum ex ingenio humano æstimantes, munera non minus apud eum quam homines valere judicarent?" De Legg. p. 772.

"Evi prisci ruditas opinata est, Deum omnia muneribus "concessurum; quasi more humano, donis permulceri posset, "aut largitione quavis, ut paria cum iis faceret, obstringeretur. "Adeo ut nundinationem quandam cum Deo exercerent veteres, "et ita cum illo agerent, quasi fœnerator esset, daretque tantum "ut acciperet." Ibid. p. 764.

the confutation of it may be readily supplied. That God had respect to Abel's offering, is a plain proof that such offering was not presented under the influence of those considerations to which it is thus ascribed for these very considerations are, in the sacred word, and in relation to the subject of sacrifice, unequivocally condemned as most offensive to the Divine purity. In order to evince the truth of this assertion, we will adduce a quotation from the fiftieth Psalm. Here the displeasure of God against sacrifice is strongly declared. For what reason, can we imagine, is this done? God often declares himself, in other parts of his revealed word, pleased with such observances. The text itself will supply the explanation we want. "Hear, O my people, " and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will "not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me. I "will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats "out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is "mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I

66

66

know all the fowls of the mountains: and the "wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is "mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the

66

66

flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” Sacrifice, which at other times is spoken of as an acceptable service, is here described as an abomination: and that, only by reason of its connexion with the very sentiments, by which, according to Spen

y Psalm 1. 7—13.

cer, the sacrifice of Abel was suggested. For the offensive quality of such oblations is plainly declared to consist, first, in the notion of presenting a gift to the owner; and secondly, in the profane absurdity of supposing, that the taste and smell of slaughtered victims could in themselves be pleasing to a holy and spiritual being".

Part of the above cited passage may appear, perhaps, rather at variance with our general views. “I " will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats "out of thy folds." But these words can on no account be understood to convey an unqualified and unconditional condemnation of sacrifice, considered in the abstract: for this construction of them would be followed by consequences, which even those against whom we contend would be unwilling to admit, or at least unable to maintain. On this view, the words can be understood to signify nothing less than an abrogation of the sacrificial ordinance: a supposition which, in regard to the date of this Psalm, is notoriously remote from the fact, and contrary to the declared purposes of the Divine will. This interpretation being therefore plainly inadmissible, the true import of the sentence may be stated with greater probability, if we suppose it to express a declaration, that God would accept no sacrifices offered under the influence of those profane and gross conceptions, which, in the following verses, are marked with such strong reprobation. Or, they may be regarded as pointing to the fulness of future time, when sacrifice was to be done away, after the

z Horne on the Psalms.

consummation of its mysterious import by the priesthood of the Messiah. Or, thirdly, they may be intended to signify an instruction, that nothing further was exacted in the way of ritual observance beyond the actual performances of the people who are thus addressed; together with an intimation, that it was the spiritual, and not the ceremonial, part of a religious service, in the omission of which their deficiency consisted a. This last exposition appears indeed the most probable, by reason of the countenance it derives from the following verses, in which the defects of their worship are specifically denoted. Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows "unto the most High: and call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me."

66

66

When the furious and malignant passions of Cain were roused by the rejection of his unhallowed service, we find that God condescended to expostulate with him on the indulgence of such unreasonable feelings. The words in which this remonstrance is expressed are very remarkable: they claim our most especial attention, because they cannot, on principles of sound interpretation, be easily reconciled to any supposition, which excludes from sacrifice the characters of both a divine appointment and an expiatory design. Such is the concurrent opinion of some

⚫ The general design of the passage appears correctly stated in the following interpretation of the 8th verse: Q. d. "Quantum "ad externa sacrificia, satis estis occupati: verum interna et præ

cipua (de quibus ver. 14.) negligitis. Sacrificia in V. T impro"bantur tantum secundum quid, ratione scil. deficientis fidei, " pœnitentiæ," &c. Poli Synopsis in Psal. 1. ver. 8.

66

66

66

of the most learned and able expositors of the original text. "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at "the door." Of the expositors to whom I refer, it is the decided judgment, that the word which is here rendered sin, ought properly to have been translated by the term sin-offering, agreeably to the actual version of it in other parts of scripture. I will subjoin the words with the adoption of the proposed alteration: to which I will annex the paraphrase and remark of a distinguished critic. "" Why "art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted, and if thou doest not well, a sin-offering "lieth even at thy door. As if he had said-Why "art thou so angry at the preference shewn to thy "brother, as if it were an instance of partiality in "me; whereas it is only the effect of laws which I "had before declared: for knowest thou not, that if "thou dischargest thy duty fully, thou shalt be ac"cepted; and that if thou failest therein, I have ap"pointed an atonement for sin, by the sacrifice of an “animal that is entirely in thy power, near at hand, "and that coucheth or lieth down even before thy "door?-Here then we have God himself enforcing "the observation of animal sacrifice; and command"ing it, as the known remedy then provided for "the lapses of mankind"." It would be improper to dismiss the subject without observing, that the proposed substitution of the term sin-offering for sin, appears to convey the only admissible interpre

b Gen. iv. 7.

< Kennicott's Two Dissertations, p. 217.