1. One recent writer on the subject (Davison, In- quiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitiee Sacrifice, 1825) adduces (on the authority of Spencer and Ou- tram) the consent of the fathers in favor of the human origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice, and alleges that the notion of its divine origin is "a mere modern fig- ment, excogitated in the presumptively speculative age of innovating Puritanism." This assertion has, in part, been met by Faber (Treatise on the Origin of Expiato- ry Sacrifice, 1827), who shows that the only authorities adduced by Outram {Be Sacrificiig) and Spencer {De Leg. llebr.) are Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, the author of the work called Apostolical Constitutions, and the au- thor of the Questions and Answeis to the Orthodox, com- monly printed with the works of .Justin Martvr. Of the early theologians thus adduced, the last three are positive and explicit in their assertion, while the senti- ments of Justin Martyr are gathered rather by impli- cation than in consequence of any direct avowal. He says, "As circumcision commenced from Abraham, so the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and oblations, and festivals commenced from Moses;" which clearly intimates that he considered prinutive sacrifi<'t' as a hinnan invention until made by the law a matter of religious obligation. The great body of the fathers are silent as to the origin of sacrifice; but a considerable number of them, cited by Spencer (De Leg. Hebr. p. G4() sq.), held that sacri- fice was admitted into the law through condescension to the weakness of the people, who had been familiar-
ized with it in Egypt, and, if not allowed to sacrifice to God, would have been tempted to sacrifice to the idols of their heathen neighbors. The ancient writers who held this opinion are Justin Martyr, Origen, TertuUian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Irenreus, Jerome, Procopias, Eucherius,Anas- tatius, and the author of the Apostolical Constitutions. But out of the entire number, only the four already men- tioned allege incidentally the human origin of primitive sacrifice: the rest are silent on this point. Outram, in- deed (De Sucrif. lib. i, cap. 1, § 6, p. 8, 9), thinks that in giving this opinion they virtually deny the divine ori- gin of sacrifice. But it is fairly answered that the as- sertion, be it right or be it wrong, that sacrifice was in- troduced into the law from condescension to the Eg}'p- tianizing weakness of the people, furnishes no legitimate proof that the persons entertaining this opinion held the mere human origin of primitive patriarchal sacri- fice, and affords no ground for alleging the consent of Christian antiquity in favor of that opiinon. Such per- sons could not but have known that the rite of sacrifice existed anterior to the rise of pagan idolatry: and hence the notion which thej' entertained leaves the question as to the primitive origin of sacrifice entirely open, so far as they are concerned. Paganism, whether in Egypt or elsewlur '. merely borrowed the rite from pure patri- archism, which already possessed it; and unless a writ- er expressly declares such to be his opinion, we are not warranted in concluding that he held the human origin of primitive patriarchal sacrifice, simply because he con- ceives that a system of sacrificial service had been im- mediately adopted into the law from paganism out of condescension to the weakness of the people. Besides, some of these very fathers held language with respect to primitive sacrifice not much in favor of the interpre- tation which has, on this groimd, been given to their sentiments. Thus, according to Cyril, " God accepted the sacrifice of Abel and rejected the sacrifice of Cain, because it was fitting that posterity should learn from thence how they might blamelessly offer unto God his meet and due honor." If, then, these authorities be taken as neutral on the question, with the four excep- tions aire a iy indicated, we shall find whatever authori- ty we ascribe to these more than counterbalanced by the testimony of other ancient witnesses in favor of the divine origin of primitive sacrifice. Philo-Jud;\3us says, "Abel brought neither the same oblation as Cain, nor in the sa ne 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 in sacrifice from the firstlings of his fiock, and from their fat, according to the most holy command" (De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini in 0pp. p. 145). Augustine, after expressly referring the origin of sacrifice to the divine command, more distinctly evolves his meaning by saying, "The prophetic immolation of blood, testifv- ing, from the very commencement of the human race, the future passion of the Mediator, is a matter of deep anti(iuity; inasmuch as Abel is found in Holy Script- ure to have been the first who offered up this prophet- ic iminolation" (Cont. Faust. Manich. in Opp. vi, 145), Next we come to Athanasius, who, speaking of the consent of the Old Testament to the fundamental doc- trines of the New, says: "What Moses taught, these things his predecessor Abraham had preserved ; and what Al>raham had preserved, with those things Enoch and Noah were well acquainted ; for they made a distinc- tion between the clean and the unclean, and were accepta- ble to God. Thus, also, in like manner, Ai)el bore tes- timony ; for he knew what he had learned from Adam, and Adam himself taught only what he hud previously learned from the Lord" (Synod. Nicen. contra Hcer. Ari- an. decret. in Opp. i, 403). Eusebius of CiBsarea, in a passage too long for quotation, alleges that animal sac- rifice was first of all practiced bj' the ancient lovers of <iod (the patriarchs), and that not by accident, but through a certain divine contrivance, under which, as