ignorant, erring, liable to prejudices, beset with difficulties in the way to truth, and how much might they help each other, by quitting the banded ranks of party, and mingling together in a respectful and confiding intercourse, by visiting at each other's houses, and sitting down in each other's churches, and listening to each other's arguments and explanations, and witnessing the spirit of prayer which, I doubt not, would be found in both. Can any reasonable man help feeling that this is the proper attitude for those to take, who differ in the solemn concerns of a salvation alike precious, eternally precious to all? Could any good man help delighting to see them meeting and mingling, on terms like these? Behold, how good and pleasant a thing is it for brethrenand we are all brethren, in frailty, in affliction, in anxiety and in the great hope of salvation-Behold, how good and pleasant a thing is it for brethren to agree! Agreed, we should be in spirit, in desire, in prayer, and we might soon agree in faith. Would we thus help each other, we might all soon come in the unity of the faith, and in the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, and to the measure of the statue of the fulness of Christ.

ON SACRIFICES.

A SACRIFICE is something offered in a religious form to God. The word has, however, great latitude of meaning in the sacred Scriptures. All virtue is sometimes thus designated. "I will offer," says David, "the sacrifices of righteousness and call upon the name of the Lord." Again, the word represents some particular acts of reli

gious duty, as we read of "the sacrifice of thanksgiving." The renunciation of a strongly desired gratification is familiarly called a sacrifice. And generous devotedness to a self-denying beneficence is known by the same name. We are carefully to bear in mind this variety of signification, else we shall unwarrantably contract the term in some of its uses, and decide that it must mean in these what it is acknowledged to imply in other instances. This has been the error of many in interpreting the Scriptures.

We have defined a Sacrifice, in the proper application of the word, to be something offered in a religious manner to God. As there are many things which human beings in different states of mind or moral character may thus present to their Creator, sacrifices are of several sorts. The fruits of the earth, oil, wine, fine wheat, animals of several kinds, have each and all been applied to this purpose. Two questions arise upon the subject of sacrifices generally; how came they to be offered ?— what do they import?

How came sacrifices into use? What has led mankind so almost universally to present to Him who needed not anything, who is invisible and spiritual, these gifts? How shall we account for the mind's expressing its own emotions or character by these material forms? Above all, how happens it that guilt and the sacrifices of blood have been so conjoined ?

The first instance of sacrifice with which we are made acquainted is that of Cain and Abel, sons of the original pair. "It came to pass," says the historian, "that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord; and Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his 23*

VOL. II-NO. VI.

flock, and of the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door."-It came to pass, but how? Were these men commanded to sacrifice the fruits of the ground and the firstlings of the flock? The Bible does not say they were. It is not hinted that this was not an act of their own devising. And it is not difficult to account for their choosing such a mode of expressing what was passing of a religious nature in their minds, without any positive precept enjoining it. For that the sacrifice itself was regarded and intended by them as an emblematic representation of inward feelings and spiritual relations is evident. They did not of course expect these fruits or that fat to be consumed by the being to whom they were presented. They could not imagine that the things themselves were of any special value to the God they adored. Or, that they were applicable to any sort of use on his part. There is no intimation in the history that so blind and stupid a conception existed in their minds. Nor can we gather from that the idea that God had respect to Abel's offering for any reason but its being symbolical of the virtuous purpose of the offerer, or that he rejected Cain for any other reason than because he "did not well." His evil temper is instantly manifested after his sacrifice was refused. We are left in no doubt that he came to the altar with no suitable feelings. And equally assured are we of Abel's better disposition. Had it not been declared in the Epistle to

A

the Hebrews so long after, that he "by faith offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts," we should have concluded it was so.

At this early period, in the infancy of the world and of the human mind, reason teaches us that such a mode of worship as is here related must have been natural and obvious, and likely to be adopted as the proper way of expressing that which the religious principle leads man to express. It is perfectly consistent with a state in which language was almost wholly occupied with sensations and outward objects, and when the thoughts were simple and required not the aid of any language more refined than a symbol could aptly supply. Here are two men of the first race, engaged in the occupations of cultivating the soil and feeding the flocks. Is it not natural that each should bring what he had of most value to himself in his daily needs, and present it before God as a token of that sense of dependence and that grateful regard which their innocent and simple mode of life would tend to produce? The religious principle could not but seek some outward manifestation, and why not prompt to this as readily as to any possible method of representing its emotions? We are not informed that Cain and Abel came now for the first time to sacrifice. They may have often sacrificed before, and been alike accepted. It is most probable they had often worshipped together after the same manner. At any rate it is not declared that Abel's sacrifice was better than his brother's because it was meat and not fruit or vegetable, but because his own moral character was better. He was righteous. Cain "did not well." The one had a proper disposition

toward God, that is, as the writer to the Hebrews says,

he had "faith." The other had not. jected because he did not well.

And he was re

"If thou doest well

shalt thou not be accepted?" It is not hinted that his offering itself was a bad one. It is not said that he had no sense of his need of an atonement or vicarious bloodshedding. The only reason given is that he did not well. Nor is it intimated that Abel's was an offering for sin. On the contrary "he was righteous." His was not a sacrifice of atonement. It was rather a sacrifice of praise, like the free-will offerings of a later age. We gather this from the account much more easily than any other views of the subject. Nothing is related of the blood of the animal, which alone was the atoning part in the atoning sacrifices of the Jewish ritual; but it is said that he brought of the fat. Certainly if Abel intended his offering as an act of atonement, or if the sacred writer considered it as a prefiguration of an atoning sacrifice, the blood would not have been forgotten in the narrative, while the fat was spoken of. We should infer from the mention of this last circumstance that the whole was eucharistical, for praise and not for remorse, for gratitude and not for guilt. The "blood of sprinkling" speaketh better things than that of Abel,-it is not said than that of Abel's sacrifice. It is hard to see any designed prefiguration in the case. The historian speaks of none. And it is gratuitous in any one to suppose it.

The sacrifice of Noah is next recorded, and it is so represented that we can regard it in no other light than a symbolical expression of dependence and of gratitude for his preservation from the deluge. In the succeeding narrative we find numerous instances of the erection of