THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL.

of God. This account of faith, combined with the numerous examples exhibited in the xith ch. of Hebrews, in illustration of its nature, can leave us at no loss to pronounce, that Abel's offering was in obedience to a divine revelation. For it must be remarked, that in the several instances adduced in this chapter, of persons actuated by this exalted principle, the belief of something declared, and a mode of action conformable to that belief, are uniformly exhibited. In like manner, then, as Noah, Abraham, and the rest, are represented 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 as God had ordered. Indeed, as Heidegger remarks, the divine revelation was in his case even more necessary, than in any other of those mentioned.

The sacred writer again informs us, at the 13th verse of the same chapter, that Abel and all the others whom he had named, died in faith, (i. e. as Hallet paraphrases it," retain-. ed their faith until their death, or the time of their leaving the world," not having received the promises, (not having received the completion of them: that being reserved for later times, as is intimated in the concluding part of the chapter, and is clearly expressed in Acts xiii. 32, 33. We declare unto you glad tidings, how that THE PROMISE which was made unto the FATHERS, God hath FULFILLED the same UNTO US THEIR CHILDREN)-but having seen them afar off; and were persuaded of them, and embraced them.

Now, that these promises included the promise of the Mes siah, Kennicot says, is plain: "first, because this is THE PROMISE, peculiarly and emphatically so called throughout scripture and secondly, because that the temporal promises, respecting the land of Canaan, cannot alone, if at all, be meant here, as the apostle speaks of all the patriarchs, whom he had mentioned in the beginning of the chapter: and Abraham, who is one of those mentioned, is expressly said to have sojourned in the land of Promise; whilst, on the other hand, Abel, Enoch, and Noah, (three of the patriarchs included in the word ALL,) had not received the promise of entering the land of Canaan. So that some other promise, made in the first ages, and frequently repeated, must be that to which the apostle here alludes. And what promise can that be, but the promise of a future Redeemer made to Adam?"—the promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head: a promise, which was to be commemorated in the patriarchal and all succeeding sacrifices, until the seed should come. Agreeably to this the Homily on Faith applies

this xith ch. of Hebrews, stating that holy men of old, although they were not named Christian, yet exercised a Christian faith; seeking, as we do, all the benefits of God the Father, through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ; and differing from us only in this, that whereas "they looked when Christ should come, we be in the time when he is come."

To the fulfilment of this promise then, was the faith of Abel directed; and the enjoined manifestation of this faith, the apostle justifies us in pronouncing to have been the kind of sacrifice which he offered; and which, as being of the true nature of the sacrifice required of the faithful, procured from God that acceptance and witnessing of his offerings which was refused to Cain. See Heideg. Hist. Patr. Exerc. iii. § 52. tom. i.-Shuckf. Connex. vol. i. pp. 86, 87.-Kennic. Two Dissert. p. 212–215. and Edwards's Survey of the Various Methods, pp. 99, 100. See also Witsius, (Misc. Sac. Lib. II. Diss. ii. § 7-10.) who removes the objections brought by Spencer against the application of this chapter, of Hebrews, here contended for; and Jenn. Jew. Ant. vol. i. p. 57-59. where some excellent remarks are to be found, on the difficulty which the mention of Jephthah, in the catalogue of distinguished believers, might appear to create.

It must be confessed that certain commentators, among whom are to be reckoned Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, Rosenmuller, and Primate Newcome also, if I rightly understand bim, interpret the promises alluded to in this chapter as temporal; and are consequently reduced to the necessity of confining the expression, 870 Tes, ALL these in the 13th verse, to some of those that had been named; or of referring it to ALL the descendants of Abraham, of whom mention had been made in the sentence immediately preceding. Now, it is obvious, as Whitby remarks, that all the descendants of Abra ham did not die in faith; and how, on the other hand, any particular individuals of those before named, can be selected by an expression, which comprehends ALL, it is not easy to discover. And if all, who had been before named, are referred to, (as is unavoidable,) then, as we have already seen, the promises cannot have been temporal, there being some to whom no temporal promises were made, as Abel and Enoch. As to the difficulty arising from the declaration, that the persons enumerated had DIED in faith, when it is known that Enoch did not die, but was translated; this is easily removed by considering, that the stress in this clause is not laid upon the death of those believers, but upon their having relained their faith through life, as is well marked in Hallet's paraphrase, quoted in p. 379 of this work, and in the common use of languge would naturally be conveyed in the words here

used by the apostle. See Drusius, in loc. who supplies several instances of a similar latitude of expression in scripture. Hallet, Doddridge, and Whitby, deserve to be consulted upon this entire chapter. They furnish a complete answer to the arguments of those who contend for a temporal promise.

I shall only add here an observation of Elsner, on the extravagant eagerness, shown by two of these commentators, Grotius and Le Clerc, in defence of the temporal solution. Having remarked, that Le Clerc condemns Hammond for his mystical interpretation of the city which has foundations, as implying an everlasting mansion in the Heavens; and that he approves of the idea of Grotius, that Jerusalem was the city here intended: he exclaims, "Mira est viri illius în vπobeσes JAVOVTOG imprudentia: quomodo quæso exspectasse illam urbem Abrahamus dicetur, quam post multa demum sæcula posteris suis cessuram noverat a Deo edoctus?-quomodo deinde Deus conditor vocabitur Hierosolymæ terrestris?— denique infra, v. 16. cœlum esse illam urbem apparet, nam patria cœlestis vocatur. Simplicius quoque ad Epictetum, cap. xii. p. 77. in morte reperiri nv aλndıvnv wargıda dixit, de beatis sedibus. Observat Sacr. tom. ii. p. 367.

No. LXIV. -ON THE PROBABLE TIME AND OCCASION OF THE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE.

PAGE 44. (8)-The event, which, according to the principle of sacrifice maintained in the page here referred to, gave birth to the establishment of the rite, seems obviously to determine the time of its institution. The commission of sin, and the promise of a Redeemer, being the grand objects of its reference, no period seems more fit for its appointment, than that, at which sin first entered, and the promise was first defivered: that is, the period immediately succeeding the fall. And indeed, the manner in which the first sacrifice recorded in scripture is introduced in the narrative, strongly indicates the pre-existence of the rite; the words '' rp, intimating (as Kennicot has shown in the 2d of his Two Dissertations, p. 177-183.) a stated time for the performance of this duty: and the whole turn of phrase marking a previous and familiar observance. See Richie's Peculiar Doctrines, Part II. § 42. vol. i. p. 138.

If, then, sacrifice be admitted to have been coeval with the fall, every argument, which has been adduced to prove that Abel offered sacrifices in obedience to the divine injunction, will apply with increased force to show, that Adam must have done the same. Scripture also supplies additional confirmation, by the fact, which it relates, of the first pair having been,

by the express command of God, clothed with the skins of beasts. Much as some have endeavoured to depreciate the value of this fact, it will be found, when more closely examined, to supply a strong evidence on this head. That the beasts, whose skins were allotted for covering to our first parents, had been slain, is natural to suppose; as it is not reasonable to think that any animals had died of themselves, so soon after their creation, and without having yet experienced any severities of climate or situation. Now, there were no purposes for which they could have been slain, unless those of food, sacrifice, or covering. That they were not slain for food, has been, it is hoped, sufficiently established in Number LII. Neither can it be admitted, that they were slain merely for covering; since it cannot be supposed, that Adam would, immediately after the sentence of the divine displeasure, have dared to kill God's creatures without his permission; nor is it likely, that God should order them to be slain solely for their skins, when man could have been supplied with sufficient covering from the hair and wool; and when, the flesh of the animal not being permitted for food, there must have been an unnecessary waste of the creatures. It follows, then, that they had been slain with a view to sacrifice. This alone supplies an adequate reason. The whole of the animal (if the offering be supposed an holocaust, as there is good reason to conclade all to have been, * until the Mosaic institution) would here be devoted to the uses of religion, except the skin, which would be employed for the purpose of clothing. And even this might not be without its moral and religious end, as it might serve to our first parents for a constant memorial of their transgression; of the death which it merited; and of the divine mercy by which that death was withheld. It seems also not unlikely, that from this institution was derived the appointment in Lev. vii. 8. that the priest should have the skin of the burnt-offering. See particularly, on the subject of this Number, Kennic. Two Diss. pp. 67-70. 227, 228. and Wits. Misc. Sacr. Lib. II. Diss. ii. § 12.-also Heideg. Histor. Patr. Exercit. v. § 16. Delan. Rev. Exam. vol. i. diss. viii. p. 99-103. Barringt. Miscell. Sacr. vol. iii. pp. 17. 67. Shuckf. Connex. vol. i. b. 2. pp. 80, 81. and Patr. and Ainsw. on Gen. iii. 21.

A translation, indeed, has been given of the passage in Gen. iii. 9. which subverts the entire of the argument derived from the skins given to the first pair for clothing, by referring the word to the skin of Adam and his wife, and reading it in this sense," that God made for them coats, or

* See pp. 277. 370, 371. of this work-also Number LXVIÐ

coverings of their skin." Cloppenburg remarks, (Sacrif. Patriarch. Sch. p. 13.) that the word my is never to be found in Scripture, in any other signification, than that of the hide of an animal. Kennicot also concurs in this criticism, with one slight and conjectural exception. But the truth is, there are many exceptions, which these distinguished scholars must have hastily overlooked. Exod. xxxiv. 30. Job x. 11. xix. 20, 26. with others which may be seen in Cocceius, Schindler, and Calasio, and need not be enumerated, supply examples as strong as that which has been noticed by Kennicot, from Exod. xxii. 26. But, although the word is in these several instances applied to the human skin, yet the form and construction of the passage before us will not admit it here. It is here introduced absolutely, and without any of those connecting parts of speech which might mark its relation to the persons spoken of, whilst in the passages above referred to, the relation is always so pointed out. On the supposition that the human skin is here meant, the last-named passage, viz. Exod. xxii. 26. exactly corresponds to this, the raiment for his skin, in the one, agreeing precisely with the covering for their skin, in the other. But there the word has the preposition, and the pronoun suffixed to it, y: in like manner, both of these, or at least the suffixed pronoun (ny) would undoubtedly have been used here, had the skin of the persons covered been intended; whereas the word is introduced absolute and unconnected. See Kennic. Two Dissert. pp. 68, 69. Accordingly the LXX, and all the ancient versions, except the Chaldee, have uniformly rendered the sentence in its present received acceptation.

So little deserving of serious attention, did the translation, which has been here discussed, appear to Dr. Lardner, that in his Essay on the Mosaic account, &c. (Kippis's edit. vol. xi. pp. 239, 249.) when engaged in a direct examination of the subject, he does not condescend to notice it, at the same time that he observes upon Le Clerc's interpretation, which is scarcely less extraordinary: viz. that the word, man, does not signify coats, but tents: so that the covering provided for Adam and his wife, were not coats, but tents, of skins, In this, however, Le Clerc has nothing to support him but his own ingenuity of invention. The word in, which is exactly the Greek yra, being never used to signify any thing but a garment. And even if it were, it seems rather extraordinary, as Kennicot remarks, that God should take care to make a tent or habitation for the first pair in Paradise, when, in the very next words we read of God's turning them out of Paradise. This, however, is not the only instance, in which