This his offering was sweet savour, and be

for a making of a covenant with the Lord. graciously accepted: The Lord smelled a stowed upon him, and those who were with him, a covenant promise, not to curse the ground any more for man's sake. The reason given for this is singular: for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. If God had dealt with man according to law and justice, this should have been a reason for destroying, rather than sparing him; and was the reason why the flood was brought upon the earth. But here he is represented as dealing with him through a substitute; (for the promise follows the acceptance of the burnt-offering ;) and in this view the wickedness of man, however offensive, should not determine his conduct. He would, as it were, look off from him, and rest his future conduct towards him on another ground. He would, in short, knowing what he was, deal with him on a footing of mercy and forbear

ance.

Surely I need not say, that this sacrifice of Noah was one of those which bore a peculiar aspect to the offering of the body of Jesus once for all. It is not improbable that the Apostle has a direct allusion to it when he says, Christ hath loved us, and given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling savour.

In reviewing the destruction of the world by a flood, and the preservation of Noah and his family, we are furnished with three important reflections:

"We

1. It is a solid proof of the truth of divine revelation. are acquainted," says a late perspicuous and forcible writer, "with no ancient people who were without traditions of this great event. From Josephus, we learn that Berosus, a Chaldean historian whose works are now lost, related the same things as Moses of the deluge, and the preservation of Noah in an ark. Eusebius informs us that the history of the flood was contained in the works of Abydenus, an Assyrian writer. Lucian, the Greek writer, says, that the present is not the original race of men; but is descended from Deucalion, who was preserved in an ark from the universal deluge which destroyed men for their wickedness. Varro, the Roman writer, divided time into three periods, the first from the

origin of men to the deluge. The Hindoo puranas contain the history of the deluge, and of Noah under the name of Satyavrata. They relate that Satyavrata was miraculously preserved in an ark from a deluge which destroyed all mankind.”* The same writer

adds, "That the whole of our globe has been submerged by the ocean, is proved, not by tradition only, but by its mineralogical and fossil history. On the summits of high mountains, and in the centres of continents, vast beds of shells and other marine productions are to be found. Petrified fishes and sea weed exist in the heart of quarries. The vegetable and animal productions of the torrid zone have been dug up in the coldest regions, as Siberia; and, vice versa, the productions of the polar regions have been found in warm climates. These facts are unanswerable proofs of a deluge."

2. It is intimated by the apostle Peter, that the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark, was a figure of our salvation by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was for a time buried, as it were in the floods of divine wrath from above and from beneath. It rose however, and weathered the storm, safely landing those on dry ground who had been committed to its care. I need not make the application. A like figure of the same thing is Christian baptism, in which believers are said to be baptized into the death of Christ: Buried with him into death, that like as he was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so they also should walk in newness of life.

3. We are directed to consider the destruction of the world by water as a presage and premonition of its being destroyed in the end by fire. The heavens and the earth, which now are, are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men.

*Letters on the Evidence of the Christian Religion: by an Enquirer. First printed in the Oriental Star, at Calcutta ; reprinted at Serampore in 1802 ; and since reprinted in England, with additions and corrections by the Author.

DISCOURSE XIV.

GOD'S COVENANT WITH NOAH.

Gen. ix.

VER. 1,2. We have now the beginning of a new world, and various directions given to those who are to people it. In several respects it resembles its first beginning: particularly in the command to be fruitful and multiply, and in the subjection of the creatures to man. But there is one great difference; all must now rest upon a gracious covenant. Man by sin had forfeited, not his existence indeed, (for that was giving him to hold on no conditional tenure,) but the blessing of God, and his dominion over his creatures. Nevertheless, he shall be reinstated in it. God will, as it were, make a covenant for him with the beasts of the field, and they shall be at peace with him, or at least shall be awed by his authority. All this is out of respect to the mediation of Christ, and for the accomplishing of the designs of mercy through him.

Ver. 3, 4. Here is also a special grant, which does not appear to have been given before: not only the herbs of the field, but the animals are given to man for food. It is however accompanied with a special exception with regard to blood, which is the life. This being forbidden to Noah, appears also to have been forbidden to all mankind: nor ought this prohibition to be treated as belonging to the ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation. It was not only enjoined before that dispensation existed, but was enforced upon the Gentile Christians, by the decrees of the apostles.* To allege, as some do, our Lord's words, that It is not that which goeth

* Acts xv. 20.

into the mouth defileth a man, would equally justify the practice of cannibals in e ting human flesh. The reason of this prohibition might be in part the prevention of cruelty; for the eating of blood implies and cherishes a ferocious disposition. None but the most ferocious of animals will eat it in any another; and one would think none but the most ferocious of mankind can endure it. But there may be a higher reason. Blood is the life, and God seems to claim it as sacred to himself. Hence in all the sacrifices the blood was poured out before the Lord: and in the sacrifice of Christ, he shed his blood, or poured out his soul unto death.

Ver. 5, 6. As God was tender of animal blood, in not suffering man to eat it, so on the other hand, he would be especially tender of human blood. If any animal slew a man, let him be slain on that account or if any man slew himself, God would require it: or if any man slew another man, he should be put to death by man. This also appears to be a new law, as we read of no executions for murder among the antediluvians. The reason for this law is not taken from the well being of man, but man's being made in the image of God. The image of God is of two kinds, natural and moral. The latter was lost by sin; but the former continues with man in every state, and renders it peculiarly criminal to abuse him. To deface the king's image is a sort of treason among men, implying a hatred against him, and that if he himself were within reach, he would be served in the same manner: how much more treasonable must it be to destroy, curse, oppress, or in any way abuse the image of the King of kings! James iii. 9.*

* In defending the principles of civil and religious liberty against persecution for conscience sake, it has often been alleged, that civil government has no right to restrain or punish men, but on account of their injuring their fellow men. That whatever is punishable by man is injurious to man, is true : because all sin in some way or other is so; but to make this the sole ground or reason of punishment, is selfish and atheistical. It is making ourselves the chief end; whereas this is what God claims to himself at the hand of every man and body of men. The cognizance of the civil magistrate ought indeed to be confined to what is civil and moral; but in punishing men for immorality, he ought not merely to regard his own safety, nor even that of the community, but the honour of God: and if he be a good man he will do so. If he regard merely his own safety, punishing crimes only in so far as they endan