considering it in connexion with the rite of sacrifice.

The same truth with regard to the character of God and the condition of man, which is so fully developed in the New Testament, is exhibited also in the Old through an obscurer medium,a medium of types and shadows and prophecy. When the Messiah was promised to our First Parents, the memory and the principle of the promise were embodied in the institution of sacrifice. Sensible objects were necessary, in order to recal to the thoughts, and to explain to the understanding of man, the spiritual declarations of God. Under the Jewish economy, this institution was enlarged and diversified; but still it pointed to the same fact, and illustrated the same principle. The fact was, the death of Christ for the sins of the world; the principle was, that God is at once just and merciful, and that these attributes of his nature are in joint and harmonious operation. Multitudes, probably both of the Jews and of those who lived before the Mosaic system, recognized in their sacrifices that future salvation which was to be wrought

out by the promised seed; but a far greater number must be supposed to have stopped short at the rite, through want of spiritual discernment. When the prefigured fact was thus forgotten, let us consider whether the moral principle exhibited in the ceremony might not still in some measure be understood, and affect the character of the devout worshipper. The full vindication of God's holiness, and of the truth of his denunciations against sin, could indeed rest only on the sacrifice of the Divine Saviour; but although those who saw this great thing through the types which partially obscured whilst they represented it, could alone receive the full benefits of the institution, shall we think that those who did not enter into the spirit of prophecy, were entirely excluded from the operation of its principle, and saw nothing of the Divine character manifested in it? As the prosecution of this inquiry may tend to throw greater light on some views which have been already given, I shall here consider the subject of sacrifice apart altogether from its prophetic import. This view of the matter simply regards those particulars

which rendered the rite of sacrifice a fit emblem of the atonement of Christ. When God teaches by emblems, he chuses such emblems as are naturally calculated to impress the principle of the antitype upon our minds. There is then a suitableness in animal sacrifices, to give some idea of that great truth which was so gloriously developed in the work of the Saviour, when the fulness of time had arrived. Let us consider, then, wherein consists this suitableness. What is the meaning of a sacrifice? What is the purpose of killing a poor animal, because a man has sinned? Can it be supposed that a wise and good God will in reality make a transference of the guilt of the man to the head of the beast?Impossible: and it is equally impossible to I conceive that God should command his creatures to do a thing which they could not understand, and by which therefore their characters could not be benefited. The institution contained a great truth, exhibiting God's character, and affecting man's. The suppliant who came with his sacrifice before God, virtually said, "Thou hast appointed this rite as the form through

which thy mercy is declared to sinners; and it is indeed in thy mercy alone that I. can hope, for I have deserved this death which I now inflict, as the just reward of my transgressions." Thus the mercy and the holiness of God were both kept in view by this rite; and gratitude and penitence would be impressed to a certain degree on the characters of those whose hearts accompanied their hands in the service. This is just an exhibition of the principle in natural religion, that God is gracious, and worthy of our highest love; and that sin deserves punishment, and is connected with misery. Our gratitude, however, for forgiveness would be just in proportion to our apprehensions of the demerit of sin and the danger connected with it, and also to our idea of the interest which God took in our welfare. The death of an animal was the only measure of the guilt and danger of sin, which these sacrifices exhibited; and forgiveness, which seems an easy thing where there is nothing to fear from the power of the offender, was the only measure of the interest which God had taken in our welfare. Thus, these sacrifices rather in

culcated on the worshippers the danger and demerit of sin, (and this in no very high degree), than the goodness of God. The animal which was slain was the property of the suppliant; and he might feel the loss of it to be a species of atoning penalty, as well as a typical representation of the guilt of sin, which would very much diminish his idea both of God's free mercy, and of the guilt of sin which could be so easily atoned. The sacrifice of a man would have furnished a greater measure of guilt; but it could not have impressed on the mind any stronger conviction of the graciousness of God. If we ascend the scale of being, and suppose an incarnate angel to become the victim, the measure by which we may estimate the guilt of sin encreases, to be sure, in a very high degree; but still, there is nothing in such a sacrifice which speaks in unequivocal language of the exceeding goodness of God. Although the sufferings of the angel were considered to be perfectly voluntary, it would not alter the view of God's character: Our gratitude would indeed be called forth by the goodness of the angel; but forgiveness still would