Merit of that Sacrifice, of which fo many Millions were only the Shadows and Reprefentations. And in this View the Heathens themselves are to this Day, tho' without their Knowledge, pointing out and paving the Way for the Reception of the bleffed Jefus, in their inhuman Sacrifices even of their Brethren. And in this Sense our Evangelift Saint John might justly call him the Lamb flain (fymbolically) from the Foundation of the World (Rev. xiii. 8.)

And as the Law was in all things a Schoolmafter, or Guide, to lead the Jews to Chrift; fo it was the particular Intention of the Pafchal Lamb to point out all the Circumstances of his Sufferings. The Month, the Day, the Hour, and the Place of his Death, and many other Particulars, were fhewn by it. In all these things it was a Type of what should be hereafter; and the Antitype was exactly correfpondent to it. But, confider'd barely as a Sacrifice, it had the fame Defect in itself that all others had, and could not answer the Expectation of thofe that offer'd it. Which leads me to fhew,

IIdly, That none of these Sacrifices were fufficient of themfelves to anfwer the Defign of those that offer'd them. Their Defign, as has been obferved, was to take away the Punishment, if not the Guilt, of Sin; which, fays the Apostle to the Hebrews, it was impof

fible for the Blood of Bulls and of Calves to do. The almighty and infinitely good Creator of all things, can, ftrictly speaking, delight only in the Happiness of his Creatures. And what then could make the Destruction of them acceptable to him? The offering them to him as a free Gift could not endear the pretended Donor, because they were already his own; nor could he like what was already his own. the better for being killed. To do this, as fome pretend, as an Act of Gratitude to God, were both needlefs and highly abfurd. That End might furely be much more rationally answered by offering him the Fruits of the Earth, as Cain did, without doing any Violence to any Part of his Creation; and it seems mighty strange, how it could ever enter into the Heart of Men to conceive, that to kill God's Creatures was a proper and acceptable Way to return him Thanks for having made them. Nor could this Cuftom be a proper Method, as is likewife pretended, of acknowledging the Dominion of God over his Creatures, and his Right to their Lives, if he required them. For this only fhewed the Power of him that flew the Beasts, and not of him to whom they were offered; and could only imply on the part of the latter, that he enabled fome of his Creatures to destroy the rest, and frustrate his good Designs, if he had any, in making them. Nor, laftly, could the killing of Beasts be acceptable to God as an

Act

Act of Refignation and Mortification, by offering him what was dear and valuable to Men; because Pain and Misery, as fuch, can never be pleafing to a pure and good Being, nor can he delight in tormenting and grieving the Children of Men. The Acts of Mortification which he now requires of us are only fo far agreeable to him, as they tend to purify the Mind, and improve the Heart: whereas the former Principle, if true, would hold equally ftrong, and indeed ftronger, for those horrible Acts of Inhumanity and Barbarity, Men's offering up their Sons and their Daughters on the Altar. How then could he be pleased with a Principle fo repugnant to his Nature, and fo terrible in its Confequences? To imagine this, were to think as grossly and unworthily of him, as to believe that he literally eat the Flesh of Bulls, and drank the Blood of Goats.

Befides, if bloody Sacrifices could be proved to be acceptable to God in any Light (which the Wit of Man will find it difficult to very do, unless they are confider'd as Symbols of that of his Son ;) yet what have they to do with blotting out Sin? What manner of Relation can there be between the Blood of a Beaft and the Sin of a Man? There is a wide Difference between being acceptable and being meritorious; and if there were not, by what Power or Efficacy can it poffibly be imagined, that the Death of an innocent

Beast,

Beast, or Child, fhould purify and cleanse a corrupted Mind? Is not then fuch a Subftitution rather adding Sin to Sin, and endeavouring to wash away one Crime with a greater? Befides, if it were allowed that one Creature might fuffer for another, yet common Justice makes it neceffary, that the Creature fuffering should confent to the Subftitution; which in the Cafe of facrificing Animals can never be had, and in that of human ones is never afked.

Again; If the Criminal be allowed the Privilege of escaping by the Punishinent of another, it cannot be the part of the Perfon offending, but of the Perfon offended, to appoint that Sufferer, whofe Pains he will accept for those of the other; and in this Cafe God has never appointed Beasts to take away Sin, but declares his Abhorrence of the Practice, when it looks no farther than to them; and commands the Jews by his Prophet (Ifai.i. 13.) to bring him no more fuch vain Oblations, as what he cannot away with.

And lastly; If the Sufferer could and did confent, and this might have been the Cafe in human Sacrifices, (which on this account must be allow'd to be a more rational Practice than that of flaying Beafts) what can mortal Man do to make Satisfaction for his Brother? Has not every Man enough to do to bear his own Burden? Can he do more than his Duty? Or can he make Atonement for his own Of

fences?

fences? If not, how can he pretend to merit for another, and redeem his Soul from Death? Surely he must let that alone for ever.

So that upon the whole it is difficult, not to fay impoffible, to prove that Sacrifices of Expiation could on their own Account be in any Light acceptable to God. If acceptable, they could not answer the End of a vicarious Punishment, because both the Confent of the Sufferer, and the Appointment of the offended Perfon, are wanting. And if the Sufferer could and did confent, as in the Cafe of Man, he has enough to do to fatisfy for himself, and not another. The Doctrine of Merit has been but of late Years introduced into the World, and that by a very corrupt and idolatrous Church, to authorize a very impious, as well as gainful Practice.

Wherewith then, as fays the Prophet (Micab vi. 6.) fhall a Man come before the Lord, and bow before the high God? Shall be come with Calves of a Year old? or fhall be give his Firft-born for his Tranfgreffion, the Fruit of his Body for the Sin of his Soul? To which the Apostle anfwers, that all this is vain; and that there is but one Name under Heaven by which we may be faved, the Lord Chrift Jefus. Which leads me to fhew,

IIIdly, That what was wanting in other Sacrifices, was fupplied by him to whom they alluded and owed all their Efficacy, and who