cessive levity, and especially to use noisy and riotous diverfions on that day; though a chearful, rather than an austere manner of spending it, is favourable to its proper use. Our Saviour was far from approving of the rigorous and superstitious manner in which the Pharisees spent their sabbath, and we cannot think that more gloom and rigour becomes the christian than the Jewish institutions. Since all positive ordinances are in their own nature subordinate to duties of moral obligation, it is evident, that the rest of the fabbath should give place to labour, when acts of justice, benevolence, and mercy, must otherwise be neglected.

B

§2. Of facrifices.

EFORE I proceed any farther in my account of those scripture precepts, which are not properly of a moral nature, but are subservient to moral purposes, I shall treat briefly of facrifices. Of the origin of sacrifices, consisting either of the presentation of fruits, or the killing and burning of animals, we have no account; but we find that they were permitted, and even expressly appointed by God, on a great variety of occafions.

If, as it is possible, facrifices were not originally of divine appointment, we may suppose, that the natural foundation, or original of them, was the fame,

M 2

fame, in general, with that of prayer, viz. a method which mankind thought of, to express the sense they had of their gratitude and obligation to God for the gifts and protection of his providence, and to procure farther favours from him; and no kind of action was so proper for this purpose as the devoting to him some part of their substance, and especially such articles as contributed to their daily support.

It is to this day a custom throughout the eaft, never to approach any superior, or patron without a present. And, in this cafe, the value of the present is not so much confidered, as its being a token of respect and homage. Thus we read, that when a Persian peasant was surprised by the approach of his prince, so that he had nothing at hand to present him with, he ran and fetched a handful of water from a neighbouring brook, rather than accost him without any offering. It is probable, that, in conformity to these general ideas, which are still prevalent in the East, the Israelites were forbidden to appear before the Lord empty.

When mankind thought of giving any thing to God, they would, probably, at first, only leave it in some open place, and abstain from making any farther use of it themselves; but afterwards, observing many things wasted away, or confumed by the heat of the fun, which is the great visible agent of God in this world, and other things fuddenly confumed confumed by lightning, which was always confidered as more immediately sent by God; they might naturally enough fall into the notion, that confumption by fire, was the manner in which God took things. They might, therefore, imagine, that burning things, at the fame time that it most effectually alienated them from the use of man, would likewise be the most proper, and the most decent method of devoting them to God; especially, as nothing was left to putrify, and become offensive after burning; and in fome cases, as in the burning of incenfe, little or nothing would remain afterwards.

Confidering the very low conceptions which mankind in early ages had of God, we do not wonder to find that they consider him as, in some manner, partaking with them of their sacrifices; and, therefore, that they confidered them more especially as an expression of reconciliation and friendship; which idea is naturally, and especially in the Eaft, connected with that of eating and drinking together, and particularly eating the same sfalt. In this view it is obfervable, that no facrifice among the Jews was to be made without this ingredient.

This account of sacrifices is, in some meafure, illustrated and confirmed by the history of the Greeks and Romans, whose sacrifices, originally, confifted of such things only as were their

M 3

their customary food. Thus, it is acknowledged, that all their facrifices were at first bloodless, confifting of vegetables only; and that this practice continued till they themselves procured a fufficiency of animal food, upon which they began to facrifice animals. The Greeks also expressly speak of temples as the houses of their Gods, of altars as their tables, and of priests as their servants.

The fame general ideas we find among the Jews, and the divine being plainly alludes to them when he is represented as saying, Pf. 1. "Shall I eat "the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" Which reproof was not intended to censure or change the general idea which they had annexed to sacrifices (as a transferring of their substance from themselves to God) but to restrain the very gross ideas which some of them might have entertained in pursuance of it, to prevent their laying too much stress upon these ceremonies, and to remind them of the greater importance of things of a moral nature, as being infinitely more plea. fing to God.

There was not, originally, any particular order of men employed in the business of facrifices, but every man facrificed, as well as prayed, in person, being priest as well as king in his own family; and in those primitive patriarchal times, it does not appear that any part of a facrifice was eaten by the offerer, but that the whole was devoted to God,

and

and entirely confumed with fire. But when, un-. der the Mosaic dispensation, a particular order of men were appointed for the purpose, they were confidered as the more immediate fervants of God; and there being a manifest propriety, that servants fnould be fed from their master's table, these priests were allowed a certain share in most sacrifices. Such, at least, is the opinion of the Jewish Rabbi's with respect to the custom of sacrificing before and under the law.

Sacrifices, being of the nature of a gift, presented as a token of respect or homage, they naturally accompanied every folemn address to the divine being, as the most decent and proper ceremonial in approaching him; and being likewise considered as a convivial entertainment, at which the divine being himself was present, there was a peculiar propriety in their accompanying petitions for the pardon of fin, as expressive of reconciliation and friendship. At the same time, the sacrifices being provided at the expence of the offending party, they indirectly answer the purpose of mulets, or fines for offences.

Though I have said, that it is possible that mankind might of themselves have had recourse to facrifices, as a method of expressing their dependence upon God, &c. yet, when we confider how improbable it is, that mankind should even have attained to any tolerable and useful knowledge of God

M 4