succeeding age, and in which the sanction of Heaven to the practice of sacrifices of blood, was distinctly and solemnly displayed, we have at once done all that is necessary to account for the universality of that religious ordinance without resorting to any assumed command, from God. Now such a transaction may easily be found in the proceedings of Noah when he came forth from the ark. Impressed with the wonders of his salvation from the flood, and conscious of his unworthiness of the least of the mercies he had received, Noah removed the covering of the ark and went forth, and "builded 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 savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake. While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. God blessed Noah and his sons"." Of the solemnity of this rite, and the solemnity of its acceptance by Jehovah, it was impossible that the sons of Noah could have been either ignorant or unmindful. The blessing, and the sacrifice which called down the blessing, would naturally be fixed in their own thoughts, and communicated to

a Gen. viii. 20, 21, 22, and ix. 1.

And

their posterity, and in every future exigence mankind would naturally recur to the same means of obtaining favour with the God of all power and goodness. In this course, therefore, we find the Patriarchs persevering, and this course was also pursued by each of the other families by whom the whole earth was divided after the flood. In the sanction then by which these burnt-offerings of Noah were so pre-eminently honoured, and in the force and authority of his example, we find an easy and satisfactory account of the origin of a similar custom in every nation of the world; and why, with this plain and simple explanation of their prevalence before our view, we should unnecessarily presume that they were founded upon the tradition of a positive command for the practice, when no such command can be found, seems difficult to conceive. The tradition of this fact is fully sufficient for the purpose, and cannot be denied. The supposition of a divine command is at least doubtful, and consequently can never be urged to the satisfaction of a sceptical mind. The universality, therefore, of the practice of sacrifices, affords no additional argument for their original institution by God after the fall. The prevalence of the rite, the sameness of the manner, and the merit attributed to their use, may be referred with equal justice, and still greater propriety to another and undoubted

source, to the sacrifice of the second universal father of mankind and to the signal blessing and approbation which that sacrifice obtained.

a

2. But of all the arguments independent of the book of Genesis, which have been produced for the original institution of animal sacrifices by God, that which is deduced from the words of St. Paul, appears to be possessed of by far the most plausibility and force. For does not that Apostle say that "by faith Abel offered a more excellent and acceptable sacrifice than Cain?” "In like manner then as Noah, Abraham, and the rest are represented by the same Apostle as acting in consequence of a divine command, placing an entire reliance in the promise of him who commanded; so Abel, in the sacrifice which he offered, must be supposed to have acted under the same impression, believing what God had promised, and therefore sacrificing what God had ordered." Here it is assumed that every individual who is praised for his faith in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, demonstrated their faith by an obedience to some positive command. Now if this could be fully proved; if it could ever be clearly shewn that all those individuals whom the Apostle describes "as actuated by the divine principle of faith, Magee on Atonement, Vol. II. p. 224.

a

rendered themselves thus renowned by a belief of something declared, and in consequence of such belief the performance of some action enjoined them by God," I know not how we could resist the inference which has been drawn. But such is very far indeed from being a true representation of the case. Noah, no doubt, "being warned of God prepared the ark" which God had commanded him to prepare. Abraham, no doubt, when called to go into a strange land,

by faith obeyed the call," and went into the land into which God had commanded him to go. But of the rest of the faithful who are praised, it is certain that many acted without any command having been specially given to direct their proceedings. Thus "by faith Moses, when he was come to years,” and had time and understanding to reflect upon the duties which belonged to his station, "refused" any longer "to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;" though we know of no divine command that he should refuse to be so called. Thus by faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not when," without any special injunction from God, "she received the spies in peace." Jepthah too is accounted amongst those who were distinguished by their faith; though most assuredly his rash vow was uttered without any direct or divine 'Kennicott's Two Dissertations, p. 213.

command. At any rate, therefore, the assertion that faith was the ground of the acceptance of Abel's offering, does not necessarily imply any pre-existing divine institution of sacrifice.

But not only is this assertion of St. Paul an inconclusive argument for the existence of a previous command from God for the practice of sacrifices of blood. If we consider carefully the manner in which he has reasoned with regard to Enoch, we shall perceive that the faith of Abel may more naturally be inferred from the mere respect which was shewn to his offering, than from his obedience to a pre-existing institution. For of Enoch the Apostle observes, that "by faith he was translated that he should not see death; and was not found because God had translated him for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him." In other words; since Enoch was translated because he pleased God; and since without faith it is impossible to please him, it necessarily follows, that Enoch was translated because of his faith. His faith, therefore, is to be deduced from the fact of his translation. Such is the argument with regard to Enoch, and from the manner in which the same writer has just before spoken of Abel, it does

Heb. xi. 5, 6