Isaac, but it was declined, and a ram substituted in his place. Also, when the Divine Being claimed the first-born of all the Israelites in the place of those of the Egyptians which were destroyed, none of them were sacrificed, but the service of the Levites was accepted instead of them: and whereas there were not Levites enow for that purpose, the rest were redeemed by the sacrifice of brute animals, which evinced the determination of the Divine Being, in no case to accept of that of men."

He finishes the entire disquisition by saying, "It may now, surely, be concluded from this general view of the subject, that the two systems, viz. that of Moses, and that of the heathens, were not derived from each other: and the superiority of that of Moses is so great, that considering his circumstances and those of his nation at the time, we cannot err in pronouncing, that THEY COULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY HUMAN, BUT MUST HAVE HAD A DIVINE ORIGIN. Nor can

any thing be said of Mr. Langles and others, who assert that the books of Moses were copied, or in any other way derived from the works of other eastern nations, more favourable than that they had never read them."*

Such is Dr. Priestley's opinion upon the subject, on which Dr. Geddes comforts himself with having the unanimous suffrage of the learned in his favour. In truth the absurdity of Dr. Geddes's notions on this subject, exposed as they have so frequently been when advanced by other infidel writers, (for with such I must beg leave to class this Catholic translator of the "BOOKS HELD SACRED,") I should not have deemed entitled to any specific refutation, but I could not resist the opportunity of confronting him with a brother critic, equally removed from the trammels of received opinions, and equally intrepid in exercising the right of free inquiry in the face of whatever consequences might result.When Greek meets Greek

There is another writer also, for the purpose of confronting whose opinions, with those of Dr. Priestley, I have been the more desirous of making the foregoing extracts from this author's Dissertation: and that is no other than Dr. Priestley himself. Whoever will be at the trouble of perusing his positions relative to sacrifices contained in Number V. of this

* A Dissertation in which are demonstrated the Originality and superior Excellence of the MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS, contained in Dr. Priestley's Notes on all the Books of Scripture, vol. i. p. 373-400. See also the preface, p. xii. in which Dr. P. uses these words: "The divine mission of Moses and that of Jesus are inseparably connected; and the religion of the Hebrews and that of the Christians are parts of the same scheme; so that the separation of them is impossible. That Dr. Geddes, and some others, should have been of a different opinion, appears to me most extraordinary.”

work; and also his observations on their origin alluded to in the Number which follows this, will have no small reason tó be surprised at the orthodox complexion of the arguments which have just been cited. For the striking inconsistency which will present itself upon such a comparison, it may not perhaps be difficult to account. I am willing (and with much satisfaction in the reflection) to believe, that, as Dr. Priestley approached the close of life, and was enabled by being withdrawn from the fermentation of controversy and party tó view these awful subjects with the calmness, deliberation, and seriousness which they demand, his religious opinions might have undergone some change, and made some approach to that soberer interpretation of scripture which at an earlier period he had with almost unaccountable pertinacity resisted. I think I discover strong signs of this in the comparative mo deration of his last work, Notes on all the books of Scripture; but especially in the Dissertation on the Originality and superior excellence of the Mosaic Institutions, from which I shave made the foregoing quotations; and which, (although I cannot concur in the entire of its contents,) I would strongly recommend, as containing a judicious summary of the internal evidence of the divine origin of the Mosaic institutions.

No. XLVIII.SACRIFICES EXPLAINED AS GIFTS BY VARIOUS WRITERS.

PAGE 40. (a) Spencer maintains this theory of sacri fice: De Leg. Hebr. lib. iii. diss. ii. cap. 3. sect. 1, 2. pp. 762, 763. Mr. Coventry, in the 5th discourse of his Philem. and Hydasp. pp. 91, 92. 108, 109. adopts the same idea, clothing it, in his manner, with circumstances tending to disparage and vilify the entire rite. The author of the Scripture Account of Sacrifices proposes, what he deems a different theory; but which is distinguished from this by a line so faint, as scarcely to be discerned. Religious gifts, he says, should be kept carefully distinct from gifts weakly presented to God, as men would offer gifts to one another: and he explains sacrifices to be "sacred gifts of things received first from God, and presented back to him for an external expression of gratitude, acknowledgment, faith, and every pious sentiment." (p. 78–82. and Postsc. p. 21.) This notion, however, seems to have no just connexion with any species of sacrifice, but the eucharistic. And however the sentiment of gratitude might have led to an offering of things inanimate, it could not have suggested the idea of the slaying of an animal, as was done by Abel at the beginning. Besides, this notion of sacrifice includes the idea of property, and is con

sequently not conceivable, without admitting an actual experience of the gratifying effect produced by gifts upon men: and thus it falls under the objection urged in Number LI. against the idea of gifts in general.

Dr. Priestley has adopted a similar theory, asserting that sacrifices arose from anthropomorphitical notions of God, and are to be considered originally as gifts of gratitude. Like the last named author, he endeavours to support his notion, from the practice of gifts of homage to great persons in early times; and like him, he considers of course an offering for sin, as differing in no respect from any other sort of oblation. The progress of the rite of sacrifice, as growing out of the notion of gifts, he has traced in a circumstantial and elaborate detail, (Th. Rep. vol. i. p. 195-201.) which, whoever wishes to be convinced of the utter improbability of the theory in its most plausible colouring, may take the trouble to consult.

H. Taylor, (B. Mord. p. 799-804.) in like manner, deduces sacrifices from the notion of gifts; pronouncing them to have been nothing but free-will offerings of the first-fruits of the earth, or fold: and he expressly defines sacrifice to be

a sacred gift, set apart to God, whereby the sacrificer showed his readiness to part with his property to religious uses, and thereby openly and publicly manifested his worship of God." He thus totally excludes the received notion of atonement: and agreeably to this, he subjoins, that “atonement and propitiation had no other meaning or design, than to purify or sanctify, or set apart, any person or thing to the service of God, by separating them from common use.'

It is evident, that every explication here given of the theory of gifts, carries with it the idea of a bribe to God, to procure his favour. In some, it is disguised under the appearance of an expression of gratitude, or homage: but this is evidently the essential ingredient, especially in all such sacrifices as were of a deprecatory nature. But, that, such a notion was neither likely to obtain in the days of the first recorded sacrifice, nor has any connexion with the ideas known to be universally attached in later days to animal piacular sacrifice, it will not require much thought to disco

ver.

No. XLIX.-SACRIFICES CONSIDERED AS FEDERAL

RITES.

PAGE 40. (b)-Sykes, in his Essay on Sac. p. 59. explains sacrifices, as "federal rites;" and represents them as "implying, the entering into friendship with God, or the re

newal of that friendship, when broken by the violation of former stipulations:" and in p. 73. he says, that the origin of sacrifices may be accounted for on the supposition, “that eating and drinking together, were the known ordinary symbols of friendship, and were the usual rites of engaging in covenants and leagues;" this mode of entering into friendship, and forming leagues with each other, being transferred by the ancients to their gods: and in confirmation of this, he adduces instances from Homer, Virgil, Max. Tyr. and others, to show, that they imagined that their gods did actually eat with them, as they ate with their gods. Thus, according to Sykes, Cain and Abel must both have eaten of the offerings which they brought: and this indeed, he positively asserts, p. 179. But not only have we no authority from scripture to presume this, but, as we shall see in Number LII, there is good reason to suppose directly the contrary.

It should follow also from this theory, that all those who offered sacrifices, antecedent to the Mosaic institution, must in completion of the ceremony have feasted upon the offering. Of this, however, no intimation whatever is given in scripture. Jacob, indeed, is said to have called his brethren to eat bread; but it by no means follows, that this was part of the sacrificial ceremony. That he should invite his friends to partake in the solemnity of the sacrifice, and afterwards entertain them, is perfectly natural, and conveys no notion whatever of feasting with God at his table." But, besides, the holocaust, or burnt-offering, was such as rendered. it impossible that the sacrificer could feast upon it; the whole of the animal being consumed upon the altar: and that animal sacrifices, both before, and a long time after the flood, were of this kind, is generally acknowledged, (Scrip. Acc. of Sac. Postsc. p. 32.) This difficulty, indeed, Sykes endeavours to evade, by saying, that the holocaust being deprecatory, and offered on account of sins, it was to be entirely consumed by the offerer, and no part reserved for his own use, in confession that he did not think himself worthy to be admitted to eat of what was offered to God. (Essay, p. 232.) But now, if holocausts were the first sacrifices, it will scarcely be admitted, that an institution which for many ages after its commencement, absolutely precluded the possibility of feasting upon what was offered, should yet have taken its rise from that very idea. And besides, if the renewal of friendship, to be expressed by the symbol of eating with God, were the true signification of the sacrifice, to what species of sacrifice could it more properly apply, than to that whose precise object was reconciliation?

It deserves to be remarked, that almost all the instances by which Sykes supports his theory, are drawn from early heathen practices. Now, it is notorious, that animals unfit for food, were sacrificed in several parts of the heathen world. Thus, horses were sacrificed to the sun; wolves to Mars; asses to Priapus; and dogs to Hecate. Besides, it is not easy to conceive, had eating and drinking with God been at any time the prevalent idea of sacrifice, how a custom so abhorrent from this notion, as that of human sacrifice, could ever have had birth. Nor will it suffice to say, that this was a gross abuse of later days, when the original idea of sacrifice had been obscured and perverted. (Essay, p. 347.) The sacrifice of Isaac, commanded by God himself, was surely not of this description: and it will not be asserted, that this was a sacrifice intended to be eaten; nor does it appear, that Abraham had prepared any meat or drink-offering to accompany it B. Mord. p. 814.

Upon the whole of Dr. Sykes's reasoning in support of this theory, it may be said, that he has transposed cause and effect, and inverted the order and series of the events. For whilst, from the custom of contracting leagues and friendships by eating and drinking at the same table, he deduces the practice of feasting upon the sacrifice, and thence concludes this to be the very essence and origin of the rite, he seems to have taken a course directly opposite to the true one; inasmuch as, in the first sacrifices, no part being reserved, it was not until long after the establishment of the rite, when many were invited to partake in the sacrifice, that feasting became connected with the ceremony; and having thus acquired a sacred import by association, it was probably transferred to compacts and covenants amongst men, to bestow solemnity upon the act. See Scrip. Acc. of Sacr. Postsc. p. 83.-Whoever wishes to see a full and perfect refutation of this theory of Dr. Sykes, may consult the 2d appendix of Dr. Richie's Criticism upon Modern Notions of Sacrifice.

It must indeed be confessed, that names of still higher authority are to be found on the side of the opinion which Sykes has adopted. Mede and Cudworth, in the course of their respective arguments to establish the Eucharist as a federal rite, had, long before the age of this writer, maintained the doctrine which he contends for: and in this they were followed, and their reasonings repeated by Dr. Waterland, in his Nature, Obligation, and Efficacy of the Christian Sacrament considered. The main strength of the argument is marshalled by Mede in the four following reasons, which