must have been made antecedent to the dispersion at Babel, when all mankind, being but one nation, and living together in the form of one large family, were of one language, and governed by the same laws and customs." (Two Dissert. p. 161.) For, as Sir Isaac Newton observes, all mankind lived together in Chaldæa under the government of Noah and his sons, until the days of Peleg. So long they were of one language, one society, and one religion. And then they divided the earth, being forced to leave off building the tower of Babel. And from thence they spread themselves into the several countries which fell to their shares, carrying along with them the laws, customs, and religion, under which they had till those days been educated and governed. (Chronol. p. 186.)

And again, as Kennicot observes from Delaney, whatever practice has obtained universally in the world, must have obtained from some dictate of reason, or some demand of nature, or some principle of interest, or else from some powerful influence or injunction of some Being of universal authority. Now, the practice of animal sacrifice did not obtain from reason; for no reasonable notions of God could teach men, that he could delight in blood, or in the fat of slain beasts. Nor will any man say, that we have any natural instinct to gratify, in spilling the blood of an innocent creature. Nor could there be any temptation from appetite to do this in those ages, when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire; or when, if it was not, yet men wholly abstained from flesh; and consequently this practice did not owe its origin to any principle of interest. Nay, so far from any thing of this, that the destruction of innocent and useful creatures is evidently against nature, against reason, and against interest: and therefore must be founded in an authority, whose VOL. I.

-56

influence was as powerful, as the practice was universal: and that could be none, but the authority of God the sovereign of the world: or of Adam the founder of the human race. If it be said of Adam, the question still remains, what motive determined him to the practice? It could not be nature, reason, or interest, as has been already shewn; it must therefore have been the authority of his sovereign: and had Adam enjoined it to his posterity, it is not to be imagined, that they would have obeyed him in so extraordinary and expensive a right, from any other motive than the command of God. If it be urged, that superstitions prevail unaccountably in the world; it may be answered, that all superstition has its origin in true religion: all superstition is an abuse and all abuse supposes a right and proper And if this be the case in superstitious practices that are of lesser moment and extent, what shall be said of a practice existing through all ages, and pervading every nation? See Kennic. Two Diss. pp. 210, 211, and Rev. Exam. Diss. 8. p. 85-89.

use.

It is to no purpose, that theorists endeavour to explain the practice as of gradual growth; the first offerings being merely of fruits, and a transition afterwards made from this to animal sacrifice. Not to urge the sacrifice of Abel, and all the early sacrifices recorded in Scripture, the transition is itself inconceivable. The two things are toto cœlo different: the one being an act of innocence; the other a cruel and unnatural rite. Dr. Ritchie's remarks on the subject of this Number are particularly worthy of attention. Essay on the rectitude of divine moral government under the Patriarchal dispensation. §. 53, 54.

NO. LVI.-ON THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE NOTION OF THE EXPIATORY VIRTUE OF SACRIFICE.

PAGE 36. (i)-It is notorious, as we have already seen in Numbers V. and XXXIII. that all nations, Jews and Heathens, before the time of Christ, entertained the notion, that the displeasure of the offended Deity was to be averted by the sacrifice of an animal; and that, to the shedding of its blood, they imputed their pardon* and reconciliation. In the explication of so strange a notion, and of the universality of its extent, unassisted reason must confess itself totally confounded. And accordingly we find Pythagoras, Plato, Porphyry, and other reflecting heathens, express their wonder, how† an institution so dismal, and big with absurdity, could have spread through the world.

So powerful is the inference, which this fact consequently supplies, against the human invention of sacrifice, that Dr. Priestley, labouring to support that doctrine, and at the same time, pressed by the force of the argument, has been obliged boldly to face about, and resolutely deny the fact; contending, in defiance, as we have already shewn, of all historical evidence, that the notion of expiating guilt by the death of the victim, was not the design of sacrifice, either among the 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

* See on this also Stanhope, Serm. xiii. Boyle Lect. vol. i. pp. 790. 794.

† See Kennic. Two Dissert. p. 202, and number LIV. of this work.

to be against Dr. Priestley, what follows from his reasoning? A cruel, expensive, and unnatural prac tice 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 SUPPOSITION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE.

PAGE 38. (1) 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 irreconcilable 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.

ton.

I. The former is thus urged by Bishop Warbur"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 law-giver, not to recall their attention to its original simplicity, lest they should be tempted to murmur and rebel against their own multifarious ritual. Rev. Exam. 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 everJasting 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