nations of antiquity, or among such as have practised sacrifice in later times. This idea Dr. Priestley considers too absurd for Heathens. Christians alone, excepting that description who have proved themselves on this head as enlightened as Heathens, could have swallowed such monstrous absurdities. If, however, the fact appears to be against Dr. Priestley, what follows from his reasoning? A cruel, expensive, and unnatural practice has been adopted, and uniformly pursued by the unaided reason of mankind for above 4000 years. It remains then for him, and the other advocates for the strength and sufficiency of human reason, to consider whether it be that sort of guide, on which implicit reliance is to be placed; and whether it be wise to entrust to its sole direction our everlasting concerns.

No. LVII.-ON THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SUPPO

SITION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE.

PAGE 42. (The principal objections to this opinion are derived from the two following considerations: 1. The silence of the sacred historian on this head; which, in a matter of so great importance, it is said, is irreconcileable with the supposition of a divine command; 2. Those passages in the Old Testament, in which God seems openly to disown the institution of sacrifice.

I. The former is thus urged by Bishop Warburton. "The two capital observances in the Jewish ritual, were the SABBATH, AND SACRIFICES. To impress the highest reverence and veneration on the sabbath, the sacred historian is careful to record its divine original: and can we suppose that, had sacrifices had the same original, he would have neglected to establish this truth at the time that he recorded the other, since it is of equal use, and of equal importance: I should have said, indeed, of much greater?" (Div. Leg. B. ix. ch. ii. vol. 4. pp. 661, 662. ed. Hurd.)

To this it may be answered, that though the distinction of weeks was well known over all the eastern world, it is highly probable, that the Hebrews, during their residence in Egypt, were negligent in their observance of the sabbath: and that to enforce a religious observance of it, it had become necessary to give them particular information of the time and occasion of its first institution: but that, in a country like Egypt, the people being in little danger of losing their veneration for sacrifices, the same necessity for directing their attention explicitly to their institution did not exist. The observation of Dr. Delaney also deserves to be noticed: namely, that as the rite of sacrifice was loaded with many

additional ceremonies, at its second institution, under Moses; in order to guard the Jews from the infections of the Heathen, it might have been wisely designed by their lawgiver, not to recall their attention to its original simplicity, lest they should be tempted to murmur and rebel against their own multifarious ritual. Rev. Exum. Diss. viii. vol. i. p. 94.

But, perhaps, an answer yet more satisfactory may be derived from considering the manner in which the history of the first ages of the world has been sketched by the sacred penman. The rapid view he takes of the antediluvian world, (having devoted but a few chapters to the important and interesting concerns of the creation, the fall, and the transactions of all those years that preceded the flood,) necessarily precluded a circumstantial detail. Accordingly, we find several matters of no small moment, connected with that early period, and also with the ages immediately succeeding, entirely omitted, which are related by other sacred writers. Thus Peter and Jude inform us of the angels that fell from their first estate, and are reserved in everlasting chains; also of a prophecy delivered by Enoch to those of his days; of the preaching of righteousness by Noah; and of the vexation which the righteous soul of Lot daily experienced from the unlawful deeds of those with whom he lived. (2 Peter ii. 4, 5, 7, 8. and Jude 6, 14, 15.) None of these things are mentioned by Moses: and even such matters as he has deem ed of sufficient consequence to notice, he introduces only as they may be connected with the direct historic line which he holds in view; and whilst hastening on to those nearer events on which it was necessary for him to enlarge, he touches on other affairs, however important, but as they incidently arise. In this way, the first mention of sacrifice is evidently introduced; not for the purpose of giving a formal history of the rite of explaining how or when it was instituted, in which case a formal account of its origin might have been expected; but merely as an occasional relation in the history of the transfer of the seniority, or right of primogeniture, and so the parentage of the Messiah, from Cain into a younger line, which, according to Kennicot, was a thing absolutely necessary to be known; and also probably, of the ruinous effects of the fall, in the effervescence of that wicked and malicious spirit which made its first baleful display in the murder of Abel. The silence, then, of the historian, as to the divine institution of sacrifice, furnishes no argument against it. See Kenn. Two Diss. p. 211. Wits. Misc. Sac. Lib. ii. Diss. ii. § 2. also Richie's Pecul. Doct. vol. i. p. 136.

But then, according to the Bishop's reasoning, the relation given by Moses, of the institution of the sabbath, justifies the

expectation that, had sacrifice arisen from the divine come mand, its origin would likewise have been recorded. But in what way is the divine appointment of the sabbath recorded? Is it any where asserted by Moses, that God had ordered Adam and his posterity to dedicate every seventh day to holy uses, and to the worship of his name; or that they ever did so in observance of any such command? No such thing. It is merely said, that having rested from the work of creation, God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. Now, so far is this passage from being universally admitted to imply a command for the sacred observance of the sabbath, that some have altogether denied the sabbath to have been instituted by divine appointment: and the fathers in general, and especially Justin Martyr, have been considered as totally rejecting the notion of a patriarchal sabbath. But although, especially after the very able and learned investigation of this subject by Dr. Kennicot, in the second of his Two Dissertations, no doubt can reasonably be entertained of the import of this passage, as relating to the divine institution of the sabbath, yet still the rapidity of the historian has left this rather as matter of inference: and it is certain that he has no where made express mention of the observance of a sabbath until the time of Moses.

Indeed it may be a question, whether, considering accurately the passage which describes the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and the circumstances attending them, it does not, in itself, furnish sufficiently strong ground to infer the divine appointment of sacrifice. The familiar manner in which the mention of this sacrifice is introduced, joined to the peculiar force of the words rp, (which Kennicot, supported by Fagius, shows ought not to be translated generally, in process of time, but at the close of the appointed season,) seems to indicate a prior and stated observance of this rite; and the manifest acceptance of Abel's sacrifice by God, evinces an approbation of that pre-existing practice, which can leave little doubt respecting the source of its institution. And this advantage the case of sacrifice clearly possesses over that of the sabbath; namely, that in the patriarchal history we have repeated and explicit accounts of the continuance of the former, whilst the notices of the sabbatical observance antecedent to the Mosaic dispensation, are obscure and infrequent. Now, were we to argue rigidly against the continued observance of the sabbath, from its not having been ex-, pressly recorded, we might contend, as has been already hinted, for the necessity of a more explicit statement of its divine origin in the time of Moses; whilst the unbroken tra. dition and uninterrupted practice of sacrifice, (a thing con

troverted by none that I know of, except Lord Barrington in his Miscellanea Sacra. vol. iii. Diss. ii. cor. 3. and by him upon grounds rather fanciful and refined,) might render it less necessary for Moses to be particular on this head.

But, in truth, the silence of the historian respecting either the sabbatical or sacrificial observance is but of little weight, when there are circumstances in the history, from which the practice may be collected. The very notoriety of a custom may be a reason, why the historian may omit the mention of its continuance. Of this Dr. Kennicot states a striking circumstance in the case of circumcision, which, though constantly observed by the Israelites, is yet never once mentioned in the sacred history, as having been practised in a single instance, from the settling of the Israelites in Canaan, down to the circumcision of our blessed Saviour; that is, for a space of one thousand four hundred and fifty years. And even of the observance of the sabbath itself, we find not one instance recorded in any of the six books that follow the Mosaic code. What is thus applied to the continuance, will equally hold for the origin of a custom.

II. The second objection, derived from passages in the Old Testament, in which God seems to disown the institution of sacrifice, is to be replied to by an examination of those passages. In the lth Ps. God is described as saying, I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, or thy burnt-offerings-I will take no bullock, &c.—Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?-And again in Ps. li. Thou desirest not sacrifice-thou delightest not in burnt-offeringsAnd again in Ps. xl. Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings hast thou not required. Sacrifices here, it is said, are spoken of as not pleasing to God. But it is manifest, on inspection of the context, that this is only intended in a comparative sense, and as abstracting from those concomitants, without which sacrifice never could have been acceptable to a holy and righteous God. This is farther confirmed by the manner in which similar declarations are introduced, in Isai. i. 11, 12. lxvi. 3. Prov. xv. 8. and Amos v. 21, 22. If the argument be carried farther, it will prove too much; it will prove, in direct contradiction to the testimony of Moses, that the Jewish sacrifices had not been ordained by God. These passa~ ges then from the Psalms, must go for nothing in the present argument.

But then it is said, that the prophet Jeremiah (vii. 22.) furnishes a decisive proof in these words, For I spake not unto your fathers, neither commanded them, in the day that 1 brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burntofferings or sacrifices. This, it is urged, as referring exi

pressly to a time prior to the giving of the law of Mount Sinai, clearly proves, that God did not institute sacrifices before the promulgation of the law by Moses. But this, like the former passages, is manifestly to be understood in a comparative sense only, as may easily be collected from what immediately follows: But this thing I commanded them, saying, obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; that is, the mere sacrifice was not that which I commanded, so much as that which was to give the sacrifice its true virtue and efficacy, a sincere and pious submission to my will; to obey being BETTER THAN sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams: (1 Sam, xv. 22.) In like manner,—I will have mercy, and NOT sacrifice. (Hos. vi. 6.) Rend your hearts, and Nor your garments. (Joel ii. 13.) Your mur murings are NOT against us, but against the Lord. (Ex. xvi. 8.) Labour NOT for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat which endureth to everlasting life. (Joh. vi. 27.) The Scripture abounds with similar instances, in which the negative form supplies the want of the comparative degree in the Hebrew idiom: not excluding the thing denied, but only implying a preference of the thing set in opposition to it.*

Dr. Blayney, indeed, thinks it not necessary to consider the words of Jeremiah in a comparative sense. The word hy, he says, admitting the sense of propter, the passage should be read, I spake not with your fathers, nor commanded them, FOR THE SAKE OF burnt-offerings, &c. that is, God did not command these purely on their own account, but as a means to some other valuable end. The sense is substantially the same, Now, if the passage be not taken in this sense, but be supposed to imply, that God had not instituted sacrifices at the time of the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt, then a direct contradiction is given to the Mosaic history, which expressly declares that God himself had ordaired the slaying of the paschal lamb, not only before the giving of the law at Sinai, but before the migration of the Israelites from Egypt, And that this was really a sacrifice, and is repeatedly called by Moses by the very same term n, which is here applied to denote sacrifice by the prophet, has been already fully shown in Number XXXV. of this work.

Or again, if we concur in the interpretation of this passage, as given by the Jewish doctors Jarchi and Maimonides, and adopted by Dr. Kennicot, we may consider it as a declaration on the part of God, that he had not first commanded

See Walt. Polyglot. Proleg. Idiotism. 6. Lowth on Hos. vi. 6. Mede, p. 352, Ken. Two Diss. pp. 208, 209. and Jenn. Jew. Ant. vol. i. p. 313.