unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.* The words here translated, a more excellent sacrifice, are in an early version rendered a much more sacrifice," which phrase, though uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original. The meaning then is, that by faith Abel offered that, which was much more of the true nature of sacrifice, than what had been offered by Cain. Abel, consequently, was directed by faith; and this faith was manifested in the nature of his offering. What then are we to infer?-Without some revelation' granted, some assurance held out as the object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue and without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he could not have exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made, we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consider whether this could have a connexion with any divine assurance, communicated at that early day.

It is obvious, that the promise made to our first parents, conveyed an intimation of some future deliverer, who should overcome the tempter that had drawn man from his innocence, and remove those evils which had been occasioned by the fall, This assurance, without which, or some other ground of hope, it seems difficult to conceive how the principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our first parents the grand object of faith. To perpetuate this fundamental article of religious belief among the descendants of Adam, some striking memorial of the fall of man, and of the promised deliverance, would naturally be appointed. And, if we admit, that the scheme of Re

* Hebr. xi. 4. 4 No. XLII. r No. LXIII. • No. LXIV.

demption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was determined from the beginning; that is, if we admit, that when God had ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means: if we admit, that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; what memorial could be devised more apposite, than that of animal sacrifice?-exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the death which had been denounced against man's disobedience:-thus exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin, and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be undergone by the Redeemer of mankind and hereby connecting in one view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL and the RECOVERY: the death denounced against sin, and the death appointed for that Holy One, who was to lay down his life to deliver man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice seems, then, to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the elements of religious knowledge: and the adoption of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply a humble sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death, which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which had arisen from man's transgression; and a full reliance upon the promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means appointed for its accomplishment.

If this view of the matter be just, there is nothing improbable even in the supposition, that that part of the signification of the rite, which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some degree made known from the beginning. But, not to contend for this, (scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assumption,) room for the exerVOL. I.

8

cise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea, that animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of faith in the promise of Redemption, without any intimation of the way in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these principles, we shall find but little difficulty in determining, on what ground it was, that Abel's offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his command, offered that sacrifice, which had been enjoined as the religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain, disregarding the gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing to his reason to possess any efficacy or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty, in acknowledging the general superintendance of God, and expressing his gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good things, which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the first born of the fall, exhibits the first fruits of his Parent's disobedience, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of Revelation, because they fell not within its apperhension of right. He takes the first place in the annals of Deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit, which, in later days, has actuated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of Christ.

This view of the subject receives strength, from the terms of expostulation, in which God addresses Cain, on his expressing resentment at the rejection of his offering, and the acceptance of Abel's. The words in the present version are, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?-and if thou doest not

well, sin lieth at the door*-which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply no very satisfactory meaning, and have long served to exercise the ingenuity of Commentators to but little purpose. But, if the word, which is here translated SIN, be rendered, as we find it in a great variety of passages in the Old Testament, a SIN OFFERING, the reading of the passage then becomes, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the door. The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain, for not conforming to that species of sacrifice, which had been offered by Abel. He refers to it, as a matter of known injunction; and hereby points out the ground of distinction, in his treatment of him and his brother: and thus, in direct terms, enforces the observance of animal sacrifice.

As that part of my general position, which pronounces sacrifice to have been of divine institution, receives support from the passage just recited; so, to that part of it, which maintains, that this rite bore an aspect to the sacrifice of Christ, additional evidence may be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inasmuch as he places the blood of Abel's sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he stiles pre-eminently the blood of sprinkling;† and represents both, as speaking good things, in different degrees. What then is the result of the foregoing reflections? The sacrifice of Abel, was an animal sacrifice. This sacrifice was accepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith, in which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith, but the promise of a Redeemer: and of this faith,

the offering of an animal in sacrifice, appears to have been the legitimate, and consequently the instituted, expression. The institution of animal sacrifice, then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the sacrifice of our redemption. But, as it had also an immediate, and most apposite, application to that important event in the condition of man, which, as being the occasion of, was essentially connected with, the work of redemption; that likewise, we have reason to think, was included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE appears to have been ordained, as a standing memorial of the death introduced by sin, and of that death which was to be suffered by the Redeemer.

We, accordingly, find this institution of animal sacrifice continue, until the giving of the law: no other offering than that of an animal being recorded in Scripture down to this period," except in the case of Cain; and, that, we have seen, was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-offerings. Of the same kind also were the sin-offerings presented by Job, he being said to have offered burnt-offerings according to the number of his sons, lest some of them might have sinned in their hearts.* But, when we come to the promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal sacrifice and atonement, or reconciliation with God, clearly and distinctly announced. It is here declared, that sacrifices for sin should, on conforming to certain prescribed modes of oblation, be accepted as the means of deliverance from the penal consequences of transgression. And, with respect to the peculiar efficacy of animal sacrifice, we find this remarkable declaration, the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have