It is generally agreed, that not only the institution of _sacrifices_, but also the _coats_ of skin, (Gen. iii. 21.) were _emblematic_ of covenant blessings; and not only so, in common with mere types, but _seals_ of the covenant, as earnests and pledges of exhibited favour. “Who will deny,” says Witsius, “that God’s cloathing our first parents was a _symbolical_ act? Do not Christ’s own words (Rev. iii. 18.) very clearly allude to this?” As for _sacrifices_, they were slain at God’s command after the promulgation of the covenant. For, if Abel _offered by faith_, (Heb xi. 4.) it presupposes the divine _institution_ of them. And this institution, most probably, took place when God—taking occasion from the insufficiency of the aprons of fig-leaves, which the fallen pair sewed together, to cover the shame of their nakedness—himself cloathed them with coats of skins. And most divines agree, that it is very probable, these were the skins of those beasts which were slain for _sacrifices_. However, God gave testimony to these oblations of the ancient patriarchs, that they were _acceptable_ to him; but this cannot be supposed without admitting them to be _divinely instituted_. Besides, a distinction of _clean_ and _unclean_ animals was observed before the deluge; which was not from _nature_, but the mere divine pleasure; and may we not add, with a particular respect to _sacrifices_? Now, If, according to Witsius and others, these _skins of beasts_, and _sacrifices_, were appointed _seals of the righteousness of faith_; I would ask—Was the _covenant_ directed for the use of their _seed in common_ with the parents, and not the _seal_ in like manner? For, if the seals be affixed to the covenant for _confirmation_ of its contents, as well as, in another view, for signification; I would fain know, by what rule of construction we can infer, that the covenant _itself_ belongs to the parents and their seed _in common_, while the _confirmation_ of it belongs _exclusively_ to the former? Is it not contrary to _custom_ and _unreasonable_ to conclude, that a charter of privileges, or a testamentary instrument, (which by the way express the nature of the covenant) belongs to a man and his heirs _alike_, but the confirming seal respects the former _only_; while on the supposition, the sovereign, or the testator, has given _no ground_ for such partiality? Besides, If the covenant itself be a benefit to the persons to whom it is directed, as it certainly is in _every_ dispensation of it, it follows that the _confirmation_ of it is so; for parents, therefore, to _deny_ their offspring all the share in such common benefits they are capable of, without a divine warrant, is _unnatural_, and an act of _injustice_. We may therefore conclude—that from Adam to Noah, the _covenant_ and its _seals_ appertained to _infants_ in common with their parents.