Page images
PDF
EPUB

the existence of a divine command for such offerings so soon after the fall.

2.

If the preceding argument be destitute of all strength, that which we are next to consider is so full of uncertainty and doubt as to be equally useless and inapplicable. "In process of time," we read in our English Bibles, "it came to pass that Cain brought an offering unto the Lord." But this we are told is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew expression, which ought not to have been rendered" In process of time," but At the close of the appointed season. Admit the truth of this remark in its fullest extent, and still it will be found incapable of establishing the point it is intended to prove. It will still be a matter of doubt for what purpose this season had been appointed; and those who assert that it was the season which had been already appointed by God himself for the celebration of sacrifices as an act of worship and propitiation for sin, assume the divine institution of that very rite whose divine institution is the subject of debate. The real truth however is, that this is not the proper mode of translating the original words, but only the interpretation which is put upon that translation by those who defend the divine origin of sacrifices. The true rendering is universally admitted to be that which is found

in the margin of our own authorised Version. After days, or "at the end of days, it came to pass that" Cain and Abel brought their offerings to the Lord and so general is this phrase, 'so indefinite in its meaning, and so capable of being moulded into any form which the prejudices and pre-conceived opinions of the expositor may require, that both the divine and human institution of animal offerings have been alike attempted to be supported by a reference to its authority. Warburton believed that human reason alone had dictated the slaughter of victims as an act of piety at God's altar, and considering that the phrase at the end of days was equivalent to the words in process of time, maintained that Moses himself must have intended us to infer the human origin of sacrifices from his narrative". Others, as we have seen, have conceived the historian to speak of some appointed season at the close of which the two brothers appeared with their sacrifices, and hence would infer that the rite of sacrifice had been previously commanded by God. Nor is this all. There are still others who, with Kennicott maintain that the expression was intended to imply the end of a certain and determinate number of days, and consequently

a Div. Leg. lib. ix. chap. ii. Vol. III. p. 661. 4to.

b Two Dissertations, p. 178.

insinuate that it was the conclusion of the week, and in the solemn and appointed day of holiness and rest, that these acts of worship occurred. Thus, as each man's sentiments have been previously formed, has he contrived to force a confirmation of their truth out of the mouth of Moses, and to prove, by an adaptation of Scripture to his pre-determined notions, that the sacred writers themselves have given authority to his views. Strong indeed must be the faith, or weak the arguments of those who, amidst such a variety of contending interpretations, can be induced to rest much upon the looseness of such an indefinite and perhaps casual expression.

3. The consuming of Abel's sacrifice by fire from Heaven, has been insisted upon, in the third place, as affording not only a strong, but a decisive proof of the primitive and divine institution of animal sacrifices. But we have already seen that the question, whether the respect shewn to the offering of Abel was shewn by fire, or by some other demonstration of the Almighty's approbation, is a question as much controverted, and as dubious, as the divine institution of sacrifices itself. This dubious fact can never, therefore, be brought forward with the force of a conclusion deduced from undeniable premises. But even were the fact completely established,

it must be still evident to every impartial mind, that the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice by fire, can prove no more than its acceptance by any other mode; and it is equally clear, that the approbation of an act of piety after it has been performed, has no necessary or essential connection with the previous existence of a positive command for its performance. The acceptance, therefore, of Abel's sacrifice, however displayed, marks only the fact of its having been grateful to the Being it was intended to please.

4. I feel the dryness and the dulness of these details. I lament every moment and every line, which, in this sacred place, is not calculated to influence the devotional principles of the soul, or directed to the moral and religious edification of man. I turn, therefore, with pleasure from arguments which are founded only upon critical considerations, to one which, in some slight degree at least, is connected with the nature and obligation of those duties which we owe to our Creator. "Nadab and Abihu," we are told, "offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not. And there went out a fire from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord"." The ark of God shook as it was carried by oxen from Gibeah, "and

[blocks in formation]

Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God"." Uzzah was smitten because without authority, he presumed to stay up the tabernacle of God's dwelling by his fleshly arm. Nadab and Abihu were devoured, because they appeared to perform their services unto the Lord with fire, which he commanded them not. These were awful visitations, and impress upon us as strongly as it is possible for the language of fact and example to speak, the sinfulness and the hatefulness of every species of will-worship in the eyes of the Almighty, when offered under similar circumstances. Is it then possible to suppose that God would have deviated from his established plan, and have accepted the offering of Abel, had it really been the dictate of his own unassisted will? Had the firstlings of Abel's flock been slaughtered at God's altar, without a direct and positive command for such a sacrifice, would not Abel's arm, like that of Uzzah, have been stretched forth to slaughter them without authority? And would not Abel, like Nadab and Abihu, have offered that before the Lord which the Lord commanded him not? And would not then his act of will-worship, like

[ocr errors]

a 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7.

« PreviousContinue »