*

terious particulars of the scheme of the Redemption, I am not prepared to contend:-but that they did believe in the promise of a Redeemer, and by faith in that promise, were justified, cannot I think be disproved so long as the New Testament is received as the word of God. Moses is expressly stated to have preferred the reproach of Christ to the pleasures and honours of Egypt. "Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day; and he saw it, and was glad." The Gospel was preached before unto Abraham; and many prophets, and righteous men desired to see and hear the things which those in Christ's day saw, and heard. These men then had explicit revelatious of an eternal heavenly state; and something more, than a bare belief that God is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

This belief, (Heb. xi. 6.) Mr. Davison has called "memorable exposition of Enoch's faith," and has said, that if it be not this memorable exposition, the introduction of it is unnecessary. "It must," he says, " be convicted of being an irrelevant, and inapplicable truth." As I deny his postulate, I shall not examine the reasonings he has built upon it. It is not an exposition of Enoch's faith. Of Enoch no act of faith is recorded, as in the case of the other worthies. The Apostle, therefore, instead of pointing out the blessing obtained by his faith, infers his faith from his translation. His argument is, there

Mr. D. has said that there is " a confessed abstinence from all allusion" to atonement in this "Review of the primitive faith." "For it is not only at the last, and when the long deduction of ancient faith is brought to a close, that the transition is made to Jesus the author, and finisher of our faith." But it may be observed, that the "deduction" not only closes, but is preceded by directing them to Christ as the one object of faith, and the one completion of typical sacrifice. (see Heb. cap. viii. ix. and x.) And I may also remark that in this "close of the deduction, that the word our is not in the original, but it is "looking unto Jesus the author, and finisher of the faith;" or the beginning and the end, (the first leader, and the perfecter αρχηγον και τελειωτην) of the faith.

is no particular act of faith recorded of Enoch, but we must presume his faith to have been great, on account of his distinguished reward. For without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God (that is, first approaches God or enters his service,) must have some faith; he must "believe, that God is, and is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek him." A fortiori, Enoch, who had obtained the most distinguished mark of God's favour, must have had faith, and could not otherwise have received this blessing. This, which is the rudiments, the mere incipiency of faith, by no means limits Enoch's faith to that definition, neither is it an exposition of his faith. The nature and objects of his faith are not recorded. But, as we know but one meritorious cause of salvation, one promised Redeemer; it appears a large requisition upon this text, to draw from it an authority to exclude this Redeemer from Enoch's faith.

"Which words," says Law, speaking of the text in question, "contain neither more nor less than if it had been said, He that cometh to God must believe, that he is a fulfiller of his promises to all those, that truly believe in him, and them. For God cannot be considered as a rewarder of mankind in any other sense, than as he is a fulfiller of his promises made to mankind in the covenant of the Messiah. For God could not give nor man receive any rewards or blessings, but in and through one Mediator, Christ Jesus." Law's Confutation of Warburton, &c. p. 52.

"Fides, nititur testimonio revelantis, mandantis, et promittentis," says Heidegger, Hist. Pat. Exercit. vol. i. Exercit. iii. Faith must repose upon some promise, and it is the scope of the Apostle to shew, that faith so reposing is never ultimately disappointed in its expectation of the promised blessing, of whatsoever kind, which is its object. But eternal life was the blessing obtained by Enoch, and therefore eternal life was the object of his faith. But as regards the promise of eternal life there is but one ground of faith, the

PROMISED SEED.

CHAPTER XV.,

References to Abel's sacrifice in Heb. xi. and xii.

IN Gen. iv. this event is incidentally mentioned, and the brief narrative simply states, that God "had respect unto Abel's offering." The Apostle has supplied, by the authority of the same Spirit, who instructed Moses, those parts of the case, which were not necessary to the former history, but were now requisite for the edification of his converts. He declares the disposition, which led Abel to offer, and inclined God to accept the sacrifice, and also describes the immediate consequence of its acceptance.

Mr. Davison, (if I correctly interpret him, and I subjoin his own statements, copying accurately his typography *) maintains that the ostensible cause of the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice was his "personal

"By which," (Sacrifice,) "he obtained witness, he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts,' εμaprupnen eivai dikaios." "In like manner the rest of Scripture speaks to Abel's personal righteousness. Thus in in St. John's distinction between Cain and Abel; "Wherefore slew he him? because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."-Thus in the remonstrance of God with Cain. "That remonstrance with Cain's envy for the acceptance of Abel's offering, is directed, not to the mode of their Sacrifice, but to the good and evil doings of their respective lives." "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest evil, sin lieth at the door." Thus also our Saviour directs us to "the blood of the righteous Abel." All these collateral illustrations confirm the obvious sense of the text of St. Paul. He affirms that Abel, by the acceptance of his Sacrifice, gained the testimony of God, that he was a righteous man. He affirms, therefore, that it was his personal habit of righteousness, to which God vouchsafed the testimony of his approbation, by that acceptance of his offering. The antecedent faith in God which produced that habit of a religious life, commended his Sacrifice; and the divine testimony was not to the specific form of his oblations, but to his actual righteousness." Davison on Sacrifice, p. 127.

6

righteousness." It is true that he qualifies this by saying that the antecedent faith in God, which produced "that habit of a religious life, commended his sacrifice," &c. But then Mr. D. has adopted, as a full definition of primeval faith, the text (Heb. xi. 6.) that a belief that God is, and is a rewarder of them, that diligently seek him. Therefore he excludes entirely from the direct, or indirect cause of Abel's acceptance, a faith in a REDEEMER, and a SACRIFICE, as the only meritorious cause of man's acceptance :-and holds that God both accepted him solely from his PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS; and thus sanctioned a faith, that this personal righteousness, or in other words, that man's DILIGENTLY SEEKING GOD was the sole and meritorious cause of acceptance, without reference to a price given for his ransom, or blood shed for his pardon. I know not how Mr. D. reconciles this system, with the general doctrine of St. Paul upon the object of that faith, by which man's pardon is procured, and particularly with that awful representation contained in his epistle to the Romans, of the utter inadequacy of man's "personal righteousness," to effect that stupendous work, the reconciliation of man to his offended and holy God; but to me it appears at direct variance with the plain, and fundamental truths laid down by the Apostle. I can see no alternative, but the abandonment of the one, or the other. For Mr. D. seems to claim a period subsequent to the Fall, when man was taught, that he needed no Redeemer, but wrought out his acceptance with God by his own "personal righteousness *.

My views of the subject lead me to reverse this proposition. Instead of holding, that the sacrifice was

*"There is none other name" (saith St. Paul,)" under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Acts iv. 12. Were the faithful men of old, taught a different doctrine? Was this "name" not given to them-were they to believe-was it their faith -that they or their offerings were accepted through their "personal righteousness."

14

accepted on account of Abel's personal righteousness; I understand that Abel's imperfect goodness was accepted, through faith in the promises connected with the Sacrifice; that the sacramental and typical Sacrifice being offered by faith; not only the object of his faith was granted, but a visible token of its being granted was vouchsafed. God himself testified "upon (ET) his gifts" that he was JUSTIFIED. Let us examine the passage, and see what confirmation it affords to my views of its sense.

The Apostle, as I have already observed, describes various acts or manifestations of faith; and shews, to the encouragement of his converts, that these acts of faith invariably secured the object of the particular promise, to which they respectively aspired. Abel's act of faith was the offering of an animal sacrifice, and, therefore, I contend, according to the scope of the apostle's argument, the object of Abel's faith was some promise annexed to sacrifice; which promise the apostle wanted to shew was fulfilled to him. What, then, was the only fulfilment we can here find? Why that Abel was JUSTIFIED. This conclusion is supported by not only the scope of the argument, and the scriptural doctrine respecting man's righteousness; but also by the just and legitimate sense of dikaios* as generally used in the δικαιος

ཚ

See Parkhurst upon this word. How our works are called righteous in the Gospel is well known, and the difference between dikalos, as applied to Abel's works and to Abel himself is obvious. Mr. Davison cannot build any thing upon these phrases; neither do I consider the " remonstrance," which Mr. Davison urges, as having any weight against the powerful testimony adduced in favour of the meaning of this text. As I have declined entering upon the controversy between him and the Archbishop of Dublin on that text, I shall not offer any solution of the supposed difficulty contained in it. I shall only at present regard it as a difficult text, on which nothing can be built, and from which nothing can be maintained to shake the mass of evidence supporting the conclusion, that Abel's Sacrifice was a sacramental memorial of the Sacrifice of a Redeemer. Without, however, entering into any discussion of this particular text, I transcribe the following interpretation of it by a