much better advantage, and in a way much more to the glory of the divine character without, than by the death of Christ: Because that way of bringing about any good which is least expensive or attended with the least evil and suffering; is both most advantageous to the creature, and honorable to the Creator.

THAT the great end of the coming and death of Christ was to revive the knowledge of natural religion among men, is a supposition which, however it may connect the glory of God and the good of the creature, yet evidently throws the greater weight into the scale of human happiness: and is therefore inconsistent with what hath been shown to be the End of God in the creation of the world. For it represents the recovery of sinners as being in itself an object of greater importance, than a vindication of the injured honor of God: and implies, that, to support the dignity of the divine character as the supreme Ruler of the Universe, was a matter of inferior consideration.

THAT the government of God may appear respectable, and worthy the high dignity of his character, it is not only necessary that the great laws of his kingdom be perfectly equitable and just; but that the disposition, the spirit, of the supreme Governor appear perfectly to harmonize with them. Otherwise the

government of God can no more be either honorable and glorious to himself, or safe and happy to his creatures, than the best civil laws and constitution can, to a community, when they are neglected and overlooked by the executive authority.

In order, therefore, to support the dignity of the divine character as the supreme Governor of the world, it is exceedingly necessary that plenary evidence be exhibited to the universe, of a perfect conformity of the divine Mind to the whole of the moral law,

the

penal as well as the preceptive parts of it. This, however, could not be done, nor this disposition be delineated in the divine government, were mercy exercised toward sinners; unless some peculiar methods had been adopted in divine providence, whereby God might sensibly exhibit his infinite hatred of iniquity: And that too as a necssary step toward the exercise of pardoning mercy.

CHAP. III.

An inquiry into the design and import of the bloody saerifices required under the Mosaic dispensation.

IT is evident that sacrifices were of much earlier date than the Mosaic law. There is great reason to suppose that they were instituted by God himself, immediately after the fall, on his giving the gracious promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. These several things concur to lead us to suppose that they were originally of divine institution, viz.

THAT sacrifices were in actual use, from the earli est ages after the fall. We read that God made coats of skins, and clothed Adam and Eve,* who had made themselves naked by their sin. Now there is great reason to suppose that these skins were skins of beasts which were offered in sacrifice to God: And that as God intimated designs of mercy through Christ, to the seed of the woman, he also instituted sacrifices as a type of the great sacrifice which was, once for all, offered up to God by Christ; and by which sinners have access to God. Accordingly we find that, very scon, Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and

* Genesis iii. 21.

of the fat thereof, and offered unto God. As early also as the times of Noah we find that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, of such as might and such as might not be offered to God in sacrifice, was known; which could not be without a divine revelation. For when Noah entered into the Ark, he was commanded of every clean beast to take to himself by sevens. (a) And when he came out of the Ark, he builded a an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar: And the Lord smelled a sweet savor.(b) On these several accounts the few following things may be observed, viz.

A

1. THAT though it be not certain that those beasts, the skins of which were taken to clothe our first parents, were offered in sacrifice to God; it is yet clear that Abel offered the firstlings of his flock in sacrifice; because the fat thereof, which was afterward, by divine appointment, peculiarly dedicated to God, was offered up. And we find that in after ages not only the fat of the beast that was offered, was particularly set apart for God, (c) but every firstling of clean beasts was to be offered in sacrifice to the Lord. Thus it was enjoined on the children of Israel respecting the firstlings of cattle and sheep, that they should remain seven days with the dam, and on the eighth day should be given to God.(d) God claimed a peculiar right in all the first-born: And the firstlings of unclean beasts might be redeemed; but the firstlings of a cow, or a sheep, or a goat, might not on any consideration be redeemed; but must be offered upon the altar, in sacrifice to God. (e) The sacrifice itself and the conformity of so many of its circumstances to the rites which were afterward expressly required" by the leviti

Genesis iv. 4. (a) Genesis vii. 2. (b) Genesis viii. 20, 21. (c) Levit. iii, 16. ='(d) Exod. xxii. 80.`(e) Nomb. xviü. 174

cal law, give great reason to suppose that Abel had the authority of a divine institution for the offering which he made to God. For,

2. THERE is not the least reason to suppose that sacrificing of beasts could have been acceptable to God, unless it had been authorized by a divine appointment. It was not until after the flood, that mankind had any right to make use of the flesh of beasts for common food. Before this God had given to man only the trees that bore fruit, and the green herb, for meat. (f) But after the flood, he enlarged the grant to Noah who was eminently a type of Christ; and said, " Ev"ery moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all "things."(g) Whence it appears that man's right of dominion over the beasts, particularly to make use of them for meat, is derived to him through the covenant of grace.

AND, when it is evident, from the holy scriptures, that it is only by Christ that sinners have access to God;(h) and that all those modes of worship, and means of access to him, which are only the fruits of human invention, are abominable in the sight of God:(i) there is not the least reason to suppose that it would ever have entered into the mind of Abel to offer up a beast in sacrifice to God; or that he could have thought that such an offering would be accepted, had he been without the authority of divine institution. And much less may we suppose, that had this bodily exercise been a piece of will worship, the mere fruit of his own invention, it would ever have found acceptance with God. But,

(f) Genes. i. 29, 30. (g) Genes. ix. 3. (h) See Rom. v. 2, Ephesians ii. 18. Acts iv. 12. (i) Isaiah xxix. 13. Mark. vii. 7.

3. As a further evidence that Abel had divine authority for the sacrifice which he offered to God, we are expressly told that he made his offering by faith, and thereby obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.(k) His making his offering by faith, implies that he believed that he might approach his Maker in this way: For as the apostle presently asserts, "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them "that diligently seek him." But it is manifest that he could not have the least reason from any consideration whatever, for this belief, but what was derived from some divine intimation. Wherefore Abel's faith by which he made his offering, and God's acceptance of it, and witness that he was righteous, are a sufficient stamp of divine authority for his offering. Abel made his offering by faith, just in the same sense as Moses "kept the passover by faith, and the sprinkling of blood;"() which had the express authority of a divine institution.

But be this as it may, it is sufficiently clear from the New Testament, that the sacrifices of the Mosaic Institution were designed to prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, that Lamb of God which taketh away the sins. of the world. This is fully proved by the Apostle, particularly in the 9th chapter of his epistle to the Hebrews. We may rationally expect, therefore, to find the design and import of sacrifices more fully explained, under that dispensation which was particularly intended to prepare the way for the coming and work of Christ.

IT appears that the sacrifices of the levitical institution were of two sorts; and generally of a double import: One was as an atonement for sin, or a figura(1) Hebrews xi. 23.

(*) Hebrews xi. 4.