Thus, upon the whole, it appears to me, that the reference of the mystical sacrifice of the Phenicians, to the intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, is natural* and striking. Nor perhaps, after

*This application of the history of Sanchoniatho, (as reported by Eusebius,) to the circumstances of the birth and intended sacrifice of Isaac recorded by Moses, will appear yet more satisfactory to him who will take the trouble of consulting either Stilling fleet, or Bochart, on the whole of the Phenician Theogony, as derived from Sanchoniatho. Those writers abundantly prove, that the particulars of that Theogony are borrowed from the facts referred to in the Mosaic history, and its various fables founded upon the mistake or perversion of the language of the Hebrew records. -Stilling. Orig. Sacr. p. 368–372. Boch. Phal. Opera tom. i. p. 704-712. See also Banier's Myth. vol. i. p. 88-101, and Goguet's Origin of Laws, &c. vol. i. p. 370-384. President Kirwan likewise, in a learned paper On the Origin of Polytheism, &c. (in the xith. volume of the Trans. of the Royal Irish Acad.) has treated of this subject. Some of these writers indeed, particularly Goguet, have doubted whether Sanchoniatho was acquainted with the sacred books. But to the main point with which we are concerned, it seems to be of little consequence, whether the facts as they are reported by Moses, or the general tradition of those facts, formed the ground-work of the Phenician mythology.

It should be noted, that Bishop Cumberland, in his Sanchoniatho p. 134-150, maintains an opinion, directly repugnant to that which has been advanced in this Number, on the subject of the Pheniciun sacrifice. But it must be observed, that the learned Bishop's arguments are founded on the want of a perfect agreement between the particulars of Abraham's history, and those of Kronus as detailed by Sanchoniatho: whereas nothing more ought to be expected in

all, do I, in holding this opinion, differ very substantially from the learned Mr. Bryant: inas much as that intended sacrifice is acknowledged to have been typical of a great sacrifice to come; and it may reasonably be supposed, that a tradi

such a case, than that vague and general resemblance, which commonly obtains between truth and the fabulous representation of it. Of such resemblance, the features will be found, in the instance before us, to be marked with peculiar strength. But the fear of tracing the idolatrous practices of the Phenicians, especially that most horrid practice of human sacrifice, to the origin of a divine command, rendered this excellent prelate the less quick-sighted in discovering such similitude. Indeed, the professed object for which he entered upon his Review of Sanchoniatho's history, must in a great degree detract from the value of his researches upon that subject. The account given by his biographer and panegyrist Mr. Payne, states of him, that "he detested nothing so much as Popery, was affected with the apprehensions of it to the last degree, and was jealous almost to an excess of every thing that he suspected to favour it: that this depravation of Christianity ran much in this thoughts, and the enquiry how religion came at first to degenerate into idolatry, put him upon the searches that produced the work in question; inasmuch as the oldest account of idolatry he believed was to be found in Sanchoniatho's fragment; and as leading to the discovery of the original of Idolatry he accordingly made it the subject of his study." Preface to Cumb. Sanch. pp. x. xxviii. With a pre-conceived system, and a predominant terror, even the mind of Cumberland was not likely to pursue a steady and unbiassed course. The melancholy prospect of affairs in the reign of James the 2nd, his biographer remarks, had inspired him with extraordinary horrors.

tion* of its mystical nature would pass down through the branches of the Abrahamic family, and so by the line of Esau descend to the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. And thus eventually, the Phenician sacrifice, founded upon the typical sacrifice of Isaac, would derive from that, a relation to the great offering of which it was the model; and from its correspondence with the type, acquire that correspondence with the thing typified, for which Mr. Bryant contends, but in a form more direct.

Thus then in this mystical sacrifice of the Phenicians which, taken in all its parts, is cer

* Were we to accept of Bishop Warburton's idea of the scenical nature of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, representing by action instead of words the future sacrifice of Christ, (whose day, as that writer urges, Abraham was by this enabled to see,) we might here positively pronounce, that a precise notion of that future sacrifice did actually exist in the time of Abraham: and that a foundation for the tradition was thus laid in an anticipated view of that great event. But without going so far as this ingenious writer would lead us, may it not fairly be presumed, that, in some manner or other, that patriarch, who enjoyed frequent communication with the deity, was favoured with the knowledge of the general import of this mysterious transaction, and that from him there passed to his immediate descendants the notion of a mysterious reference at least, if not of the exact nature, of its object. On this subject see Warb. Div. Leg. ii. p. 589– 614; and Stebbing's Examination of Warburton, p. 137149; and his History of Abraham.

tainly the most remarkable that history records amongst the heathen nations, we find, notwithstanding the numerous fictions and corruptions that disturb the resemblance, marked and obvious traces of a rite originating in the divine command, (as the intended sacrifice of Isaac indisputably was,) and terminating in that one grand and comprehensive offering, which was the primary object and the final consummation of the sacrificial institution,

NO. XLII.-ON THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A TRUE PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE FOR THE SINS OF

MANKIND,

PAGE 35. (t)—Not only are the sacrificial terms of the law applied to the death of Christ, as has been shewn in Numbers XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX; but others, which open up more fully the true nature of atonement, are superadded in the description of that great sacrifice, as possessing in truth and reality, that expiatory virtue, which the sacrifices of the law but relatively enjoyed, and but imperfectly reflected. Reasonable as this seems, and arising out of the very nature of the case, yet has it not failed to furnish matter of cavil to disputatious criticism: the very want of those expressions, which in strictness could belong only to the true

propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, being made a ground of objection against the propitiatory nature of the Mosaic atonement. Of this we have already seen an instance in page 356, with respect to the words* λυτρον, and αντίλυτρον. The expressi on, BEARING SIN, furnishes another: the author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices, (p. 146.) urging the omission of this phrase in the case of the legal sacrifices, as an argument against the vicarious nature of the Levitical atonement.

Such arguments, however, only recoil upon the objectors, inasmuch as they supply a reluctant testimony, in favour of the received sense of these expressions, when applied to that sacrifice, to which they properly appertained. But from this these critics seem to entertain no apprehension and their mode of reasoning is certainly a bold exercise of logic. From the want of such expressions, as being of vicarious import, they conclude against the vicarious nature of the Mosaic sacrifices: and, this point gained, they return, and triumphantly conclude against the vicarious import of these expressions, in that

* In addition to what has been already offered upon the meaning of these words, I beg to refer the reader to the judicious observations, in Mr. Nares's Remarks on the Version of the New Testament by the Unitarians, p. 125– 130: and to those of Danzius, in his treatise De ATTP Meusch. Nov. Test. ex Tulm. pp. 869, 870.