would naturally be appointed. And if we admit, that the scheme of Redemption 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 thé elements of religious knowledge: and the adop tion of this rite, with sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an 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 $ See No. LXIV.

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 exercise 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 Su

preme 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 Parents' disobedience, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids of Revelation, because they fell not within its apprehension 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 read. ing of the passage then becomes, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou

Gen. iv. 7,

doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the doort. 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 reflexions?-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, ext See No. LXV. + Hebr. xii. 24. ▾ See No. LXVI.

pression. 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 suf fered 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 dis tinctly announced. It is here declared, that sacri fices for sin should, on conforming to certain pre "See No. LXVII. * Job, i. 5.