The first sacrifices are pretended to have been gifts presented by men to God, as demonstrations of gratitude, expressions of penitence, or means of conciliating favour. But that by any conceivable appropriation or disposal of animals or vegetables, those animals or vegetables should be considered as given to an invisible and spiritual being, without some previous appointment associating the ideas, and establishing a connection between the act and the purpose, is a conjecture which derives no probability from experience, an imaginary case to which the history of man furnishes no parallel. The absurdity of supposing such an association of actions and ideas, independent of some previous appointment by which they were connected, renders it also equally improbable that such an appointment should have been the mere creature of human device. The want of connection founded in nature or discoverable by reason, between any action performed upon animals or vegetables, and the idea of a gift to an invisible and spiritual being, is a consideration which I do not remember to have seen introduced into any discussion of this subject; but it appears to me sufficient, of itself, to invalidate the hypothesis of human invention, and to evince its entire incredibility.

'The improbability of sacrifices having sprung from human invention, applies to sacrificial oblations of every kind; but presses with peculiar force on those which involve the destruction of animal life. That the Creator would be honoured or appeased by the slaughter of his creatures without his command or permission, is one of the most unnatural of all suppositions. It is evident, from the language of Scripture, that animal food formed no part of human sustenance till after the deluge, when, for the first time, God granted it to Noah and his posterity, Gen. i. 29, 30, ix. 3. And if the slaughter of animals in sacrifice was not a Divine institution, and killing them for food had not yet been permitted, what reason can be assigned for believing, that before the flood men bad any more right to take away the lives of brutes than of each other? Unacquainted with the true origin of a rite which had been practised from time immemorial, the more intelligent and philosophical heathens, Pythagoras, Plato, and others, wondered how an institution so dismal and abhorrent from the Divine nature, as it appeared to them, could enter into the minds of men, and diffuse itself through the world. Kennicott's 1 wo Dissertations, p. 203. This difficulty, inexpliTwo cable as it is, on principles of reason, completely disappears in the light of revelation.

Neither the narrative of Moses, nor any other part of the Scripture, countenances the ascription of sacrifice to human invention, and the general tenour of the inspired volume is altogether at variance with such a supposition. Though the dispensations of revealed religion have exhibited many varieties in successive periods, the principles of the Divine administration

appear to be the same under different economies. The language of the gospel is in perfect harmony with the law and the prophets: "In vain do they worship God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. xv. 9, Mark vii. 7, Isaiah xxix. 13. And is it reasonable to believe that "will-worship,' which is altogether rejected by God under the New Testament, (Col. ii. 23,) was acceptable to him in the days of the Patriarchs? But so it must have been, if sacrifice was a human invention." (p. 18, 19.)

This reasoning, in our apprehension, fully proves that sacrifices had their origin in Divine appointment. The contrary opinion was in Dr. OUTRAM's day, maintained by several learned and orthordox divines, who, in order to make Christianity appear conformable to the dictates of "natural reason," wrote upon the most sublime doctrines of revelation with as much phlegm as they would have written upon the science of chymistry. In order to keep at the utmost distance from Calvinism and enthu siasm, both of which they seemed to dread as the worst of evils, they adopted such a cold, dry, and argumentative method of maintaining evangelical truth, as rendered it, coming out of their hands, a very unfit instrument to promote the blessed effects designed by its Divine Author in commanding it to be preached to every creature.

In his third chapter, the author gives an account of the "proper nature and design of the tabernacle and temple." The fol lowing is an extract from that chapter:

"The design of the tabernacle and temple was evidently one and the same. Both were equally sacred, and equally, in succession, the sanctuary of God. Not to involve a plain subject in perplexities, we observe that each was designed to be a sacred mansion for the residence of God, as the King of the Hebrews, in the midst of his subjects. Between that edifice and the synagogues erected in succeeding times, there was this important difference in the synagogues God was worshipped, whereas in the temple he was not only worshipped, but resided in a remarkable manner, as we shall proceed to shew.

"This is evident from the command given for the construction of the tabernacle. For his language to Moses, on this occasion, was,Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them : (1) which is the same as if he had said, I will dwell in that sanctuary which shall be made, in the midst of the camp of the people.' It was on this account that all unclean persons were to be removed out of the Israelitish camp; that they might not defile that camp in the midst of which God resided. (2) Nor was there any other reason why God is said to have walked in the midst of the camp, (3) than because he conspicuously resided in that tabernacle, which was carried about (1) Exod. xxv. 8. (2) Num. v. 3. (3) Lev. xxvi, II, 12. VOL. XLI. JANUARY, 1818.

E*

from place to place with the camp itself, during the travels of the people in the wilderness.

"As the tabernacle was constructed, so the temple was built, for the express purpose of being the residence of God. Hence, Solomon's address to God. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place to abide for ever.' (1) To the same purpose is the song of Moses; Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.' (2) From these passages it may be concluded that the temple was designed to be a sacred habitation, chosen by God for his own residence in the midst of his people, and, as we are about to observe, illustrated by his special presence.

"The same conclusion also follows from the sanctity of the temple, so celebrated on all occasions; the only foundation of which was its possession of such a presence of God as was not common to it with other places, but was peculiarly its own. There is a two-fold sanctity which is applicable to a place; the one circumstantial, the other local. If you consider it in a circumstantial view, a place is consecrated by a dedication to the worship of God; but a place, as a place, is consecrated by any remarkable presence of God, or symbol of his presence. For though there is no place within which God can be circumscribed, or from which he can be excluded; yet every one must perceive the possibility of some places being distinguished by his presence, or some symbol of his presence different from what is common to others. "What more illustrious manifestation of the Divine presence then, was there in the tabernacle and temple, than in other places? Certainly that bright and sacred cloud which the Scriptures denominate Glory,'(3) and the Jews call Shechinah; which, for a long time, accompanied the tabernacle, and afterwards removed into the temple. (4) Nor is it usual in the Scriptures for the appellation of Holy' to be given to any places, but such as were illustrated by that preternatural cloud, or by some other remarkable symbol of the Divine presence. Thus the place in the neighbourhood of the bush from which the Lord addressed Moses, was called 'Holy ground,' (5) on account of the glory of God displayed in that bush. Thus also Sinai and Sion were called 'Holy(6) mountains, because they were both illustrated with the splendid symbol of the Divine presence. The same remark may be applied to that which the apostle Peter called The holy mount;' which, like the others already mentioned, had been consecrated by the same glory. (7) The same character also belongs to The sanctuary of the Lord' (8) at Shechem; which was (1) 1 Kings viii. 13. (2) Exod. xv. 17. (3) Exod. xvi. 10, xxiv. 16. (4) 1 Kings vii. 11. (5) Exod. iii. 5. (6) Psal. lxviii. 17, ii. 6. (7) 2 Pet. i. 18, Matt, xvii. 2, 5. (8) Josh. xxiv. 26.

distinguished by that appellation, because God had formerly appeared there to Abraham. (1) The sanctity of the place was the sole reason of the command given to Joshua near Jericho, to put off his shoes from his feet; and the only cause of that sanctity was the presence of the angel who was the captain of the Lord's host,' the representative, as it were, of God himself; of whom Kimchi says, 'His dignity and sanctity consecrated the place where he appeared to Joshua. (2)

"It is of no importance that this splendour, denominated 'The glory of the Lord,' did not at all times display its radiance in the sanctuary in a manner visible to the corporeal eye. For the Deity, whose presence that splendour represented, having once entered into his sanctuary, would have it thenceforward considered as his permanent habitation. He said, I have hallowed this house, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.'(3) And there he continued his residence till he removed and fixed it in a far more illustrious manner in his spiritual temple, the Christian Church.' (p. 41-44.

66

We cannot agree with the author, that the angel who, in his reply to Joshua, styled himself "The captain of the Lord's host," was any other than the Son of God. And that he was such, appears, 1. By his acceptance of adoration, which a created angel would not have dared to admit of, Rev. xxii. 8, 9. 2. Because the place was made holy by his presence, ver. 15, which to do was God's prerogative, Exod. iii. 5. 3. Because he is called the Lord, Heb. Jehovah, Josh. vi. 2."

(To be concluded in the next.}

WARBURTON'S LETTERS.

Is one of the ponderous volumes lately published by Mr. Nichols, entitled, "Illustrations of the literary history of the eighteenth century," we have a collection of the scum of Bishop Warburton's pride and passion, in various letters, which we believe have never before been published. These letters display such sentiments and feelings, as claim our pity, and plainly prove. that Warburton was not a bishop who was gentle towards all men, or who patiently or meekly instructed those that opposed themselves.

We are sorry that Mr. Nichols, or any other person should think it necessary to publish letters which are so great a stain on the bishop's memory, and which it may be expected will not pass unnoticed by the descendants of the persons who are reviled and traduced in them; and we think that Mr. Nichols would have acted more consistently with the honourable and benevolent character which he has long sustained, if he had swept these letters into the fire, as soon as they reached his shop.

(1) Gen. xii. 6, 7.

Josh. v. 15. (3) 1 Kings ix. 3.

It was not necessary to publish to the world that Warburton, in contempt of common sense, had said that "A woman that knows how to manage a batch of goslings may be capable of administering a diocese ;" and we cannot but hope, that even in his most infuriated paroxysms, he would have been ashamed to publish the letters, in which he says of the Rev. F. Peck, the Antiquary, "Nature, all-wise in her operations, formed him with the guts and brains of an Alderman :" and, "He will still have this in common with that great type of Nature's unsophisticated offspring, the woodcock, to have his guts better than his brains," &c.

Of the late Rev. W. Romaine, he says, "You are in the right, this is the scoundrel I wrote to from your hands, but the poor devil has done bis own business," &c.

.

In another letter (the 26th, to Dr. Stukeley) in which he again speaks of Mr. Peck, his language is too filthy to repeat,—and we should have thought-for Mr. Nichols to print; and the irreligious levity with which he speaks of the sin and death of a miserable woman, a bedmaker, in Trinity College, Cambridge, who, he says, had communicated her disorder to eighteen students, deserves the severest condemnation.

If, as Roscommon says, the want of decency, be want of sense, there is a great want of both in this letter, which can only be equalled by the most feculent compositions of Swift. Lord Orrery said of Swift, that he was become one of his own Yahoos ; and in reading the letter which we have referred to, we were ready to conclude that Warburton had experienced a similar transformation.

But we are principally induced to take notice of the slanders on the dead, which are contained in these letters, from a wish to shew that what Warburton says of Mr. Wesley, among many others, is altogether fictitious and undeserving of the least attention.

When writing to the Rev. Mr. Birch, concerning the Methodists, he says, "A couple of these Methodists, of which Wesley was one, travelling into this neighbourhood on foot, took up their lodging with a clergyman of their acquaintance. The master of the house going into their chamber in the morning, to salute them, perceived their chamber-pot full of blood; and on asking the occasion, was told it was their method, when the blood grew rebellious, to draw it off by breathing a vein in this manner,—that they had been heated with travel, and thought it proper to cool themselves." He then adds a filthy allusion to Hickes and Collier, with which we will not defile our pages, or disgust our readers, as we have already quoted too much language of that sort.

Of Mr. Whitefield he says, "The poor man is quite mad;" and after this coup de grace, we suppose that he did not think it necessary to give a further description of him.