THE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE, AND ITS CONNEXION WITH THE COUNSEL OF GOD.

The next circumstance in which God's counsel of redemption unfolds itself is, the early institution of sacrifice. Much argument has been employed and talent displayed in order to shew that sacrifice was not originally a Divine appointment; and consequently that Abel's sacrificing of the firstlings of his flock was either an invention of his own, or an act performed after the example of his father the author and introducer of this religious rite. With this opinion, however, few are satisfied. It has neither support to rest upon, nor warrant to give it strength; and it would overturn in one very material point the faith of ages. The silence of Moses as to any command of God in this respect does not prove that no such command was given, nor does it in the least weaken the general conviction that oblations and sacrifices were instituted by God oblations, as an immediately after the fall acknowledgment of pious gratitude for benefits received - and sacrifices, as an evidence of faith in a vast blessing to come according to promise, even the expiation of sins through the shedding of vicarious blood. The Apostle testifies that

.

Ꭰ

Abel offered his sacrifice by faith; * and as the faith was entertained in consequence of God's word, it is surely reasonable to conclude that sacrifice originated in his express command.

Moses does not say that Adam offered any bloody sacrifice unto the Lord, nor that he made any offering at all; but it should be remembered that he records nothing concerning Adam after his expulsion from Paradise, except that children were born to him, and that he died at the age of 930. He informs us, indeed, that the Lord God made unto Adam and Eve coats of skin; and hence it has been thought that these skins were the skins of beasts slain in sacrifice, as they certainly were not slain for food; but without laying any stress upon this opinion, which, however, seems a very reasonable one, may it not fairly be supposed that Abel offered up a bloody sacrifice, because his father had done so before him? for there is no ground for concluding that this offering of Abel's was the first of the kind that had been made; and if Adam offered up such a sacrifice, we cannot but think that he must have received the instruction and authority of God

*Heb. xi. 4.

for the performance of an act which upon any other ground appears so unaccountable.

Admitting that the Lord might vouchsafe to accept an offering of the fruit of the ground, or of any substance that a man possessed, when such offering was made with a pious heart and a grateful intent, though without a Divine command; yet it is hard to conceive that he would be pleased, how good soever the motive, with a bloody sacrifice, unless such sacrifice had been ordained by himself. Nay, is it not reasonable to think, from the very circumstance of the motive being good, that if the sacrificial act by which blood was spilt and pain inflicted on a harmless animal, especially when animals were not allowed to be killed for food, had been a human invention, God would have forbidden it, and not have shewn, as he did, his approbation of it?

When Noah came out of the ark, " he took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings upon the altar”* that he had built. Hence it is evident that such sacrifices were usual before the flood; for Noah would not surely at such an hour and under such circumstances have done this, had he not

* Gen. viii. 20.

known that the offering of such sacrifices was an ancient act acceptable unto the Lord, and acceptable unto him as originating in his express command. And again, is it not reasonable to think that God, when he saw Noah about to shed the blood of animals, would at once have put a stop to such a practice, that it might cease in the new world, and not have sanctioned it, as he did, by his approbation, had it not been pleasing in his sight as a pious act of obedience to his known will, and as the renewal or continuance of a rite so intimately connected with his counsel of mercy in the redemption of the world?

Again, when Abraham was about to slay his son according to the Divine command, by whom was the ram provided? Not by Abraham, but by the Almighty. It was, therefore, the Divine pleasure that the blood of the ram should be shed, and Abraham did shed it in compliance with the evident will of God. Now we cannot conceive that the Lord would have provided a ram purposely for the slaughter, unless there had been in the act of sacrificing and of shedding blood something of an approved religious nature, a rite in fact arising out of the Divine institution. We cannot think that he would have done this, had sacrifice been a mere human invention.

We know that sacrifices formed part of the Mosaic law, not being ordained by that law as a new thing, but sanctioned by it as ancient rites to be continued and observed with more frequency and formality than before, and under certain and defined regulations. This circumstance furnishes us with a very strong presumption in favour of the Divine appointment of those sacrifices which were offered up by holy men before the law from the beginning; for surely God would not have permitted sacrifices to be a part of his new law, had they been used before the giving of that law without an express authority from himself-and considering the manner in which sacrifices had been abused, would he not have abolished them altogether as occasions of offence, had they not been an original institution of his own, and connected with that event of grace and mercy which, according to his counsel, was one day to take place in the world?

God, we know, considers before all things the intents of the heart; and we admit that he might overlook, and even favourably receive an external offering, if not absurd, or unbecoming, or having a tendency to injurious effects, because of the sincerity by which it was dictated, and the devotion with which it was accompanied.