with the history of the Jewish religion, is the singular prominence given to the shedding of the blood of victims. To the mind of a devout Jew, therefore, the idea of religion must constantly have been associated with that of pain and death. The necessary result must have been, that his conceptions of the divine character would be of a very mixed order. Many things around him would suggest the notion of God's goodness; but the whole of the sacrificial system would tend to impress upon his mind, that there must be attributes in the divine nature widely different from the tender and endearing exhibitions of it, which the mind usually delights to contemplate. Independent of any supernatural communication on the subject, this, I think, would be likely to be his first impression.

A second impression which the sacrificial system would be likely to produce is, that, in one way or other, the shedding of blood was essential to a perfect system of religion. He would remark, that the nations around him, idolatrous as they were, still retained this rite; and, in fact, he could hardly have formed a conception of any sort of religion apart from

it. It would not be difficult for him to combine these two conceptions, and to arrive at a third, namely, that the necessity for the effusion of blood arose from something in the nature of man, as contemplated by the sterner attributes of the divine character. He would have no difficulty in perceiving this to be sin. Nothing else in human nature could demand the operation of such attributes.

Apart from the distinct testimony of the Mosaic law, therefore, a pious Israelite, possessed of ordinary reflective powers, would be able to conclude, that it was the sin of man which rendered necessary the shedding of animal blood. The idea of substitution would unavoidably follow. He could not fail to perceive that God had ordained that, though it was right that man should be punished as a sinner, He, nevertheless, would accept the life of an animal instead of the actual destruction of the offender; and though perhaps he might have been at a loss to understand the grounds of this arrangement, yet, if he were duly impressed with the wisdom and righteousness of God, he would not fail to acquiesce in it as an arrangement at once justifiable and gracious.

I think, too, that such an individual could scarcely fail to have, occasionally at least, some suspicion of the imperfection of such vicarious sacrifices their frequent repetition, their want of equivalency, either single or in the aggregate, the absence of every thing like abstract fitness, would be very likely to suggest to him, independent of all immediately divine instruction, the probability of some more perfect institution of a sacrificial kind, which should possess the character of ample fitness, equivalency, and permanence. And if his mind had been enlightened as to the glory of "the world to come," he would have no difficulty in a specific allusion to it in all his speculations upon the subject.

It is highly probable, therefore, that a person under the Mosaic dispensation, even if he were without any distinct divine testimony, would, by a pious meditation upon the sacrificial system, arrive at the conclusion, that it was at once vicarious and analogical; or, to employ a more apposite word, typical. But, beyond all this, the direct testimony of the law itself, combined with all the forms employed in its sacrifices, wouid allow him to

entertain no doubt as to their vicarious character. The statements of Scripture upon this subject I shall more immediately consider in my next letter.

LETTER VI.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

THE first sacrifice of which the Scriptures give us any account is that of Abel. The history of it is but cursory, and the exposition of it by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is short. Yet this latter, I believe, will be found sufficiently ample for our purpose. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts and by it he being dead yet speaketh." Heb. xi. 4. Upon the first glance at this passage, it is easy to perceive that in the sacrifice of Abel, its principle, and its result, is to be found a doctrine of universal and permanent importance: "by it he, being dead, yet speaketh." This, of course, would not have been announced, had the fact with which it

stands connected been one of trivial or of transient interest. There is, indeed, a peculiar vividness in the phrase; and it appears to have been employed to arrest especial attention. But if the sacrifice of Abel be explained as merely eucharistic, or as the simple act of a virtuous man, without any further or emphatic meaning, the statement becomes in the last degree vapid and trifling. It involves nothing but the very commonest truth, and displays no more than we naturally expect from every well-disposed mind. It is impossible, therefore, to avoid the conclusion, that more, much more, is intended, than any such exposition of the passage would involve.

Abel's sacrifice was that of an animal victim, and it was offered by faith; not, observe, by gratitude, nor by the mere exercise of his rational powers, but by faith. Now, faith is explained, in the first verse of the same chapter, and in close connexion with this passage, as "the evidence of things not seen," &c. Of course, faith must, in all cases, have respect to some divine communication. He, however, would possess a very partial and incorrect view of faith in general, who should attri