And then, in the following part of the chapter, you proceed to shew us, chiefly from the writings of the apostles and prophets, that sacrifices had a respect to God, and

efit upon another for his sake (and it is equally true, as will be observed hereafter, that they cannot of themselves, properly and directly, render another an object of the divine favour) but the connexion must be entirely owing to the good pleasure of God, who, for wise ends, appoints the former to be the ground or reason of his conferring the latter. And if God has appointed the sacrifice of Christ (for to him, you will suppose, I refer) to be the ground of his bestowing some benefits, even upon those who have never been influenced by it, or acquainted with it; I do not see, for my own part, why he might not also appoint the legal sacrifices, to be the grounds of his bestowing some less important benefits at least upon the Israelites; though those sacrifices should not be attended with proper sentiments or affections in the offerers. So far as I can perceive, whatever may be offered to prove the former, will equally serve to vindicate the latter ; even allowing the difference between the sacrifice of Christ, and the other sacrifices, as to their value, and the importance of their effects, to be as great as you please.

But after all, you will say, how then comes it to pass (to use nearly your own words, No. 119,) that the prophets so unanimously agree, that it was not any thing in 'the most numerous, expensive, or pompous sacrifices, 'that had any effect with God, but only doing justly, loving

mercy, and walking humbly with God?" I answer, that sacrifices not accompanied with justice, mercy, and piety, might have no such effect with God, as to render the offerers of them objects of his moral approbation; not only because nothing, but what is morally good, can, in that sense, be pleasing to him; but also, because the legal

recommended the offerers of them to his favour, in such a manner as it is done (22, and 25.) by prayers, thanksgivings, labours, and sufferings in the cause of religion, almsgiving, or, in a word, what' ever is expressive of a pious and virtuous 'disposition:' because such pious or virtuous actions or sufferings are in those writings represented to us, under the notion of sacrifices pleasing and acceptable to God for from their being so represented, though figuratively, you conclude, that the sacred writers' understood proper sacri'fices to be acceptable to God in the same manner, viz. as attended with a pious and

sacrifices, so circumstanced, did not answer their moral purposes and intentions; that is, because they were not attended with that pious, thankful, or penitent disposition of mind, which, as offered to a good but offended God, they were suited, as well as designed, to excite in the offerers for I make no question, but that they were appointed as means of holiness; but not being (in many instances referred to by the prophets) productive of that important end; they were, in that respect, rather offensive than pleasing to a holy God. But yet, notwithstanding this, they might, in some sense, have their effect with him in like manner as the sacrifice of Christ is, in some respects, available to many, who, not being suitably influenced by the consideration of what he has done and suffered for them, are, notwithstanding, objects of the divine displeasure, and likely for ever to be so.

'well disposed mind." No. 22. But, that all the levitical sacrifices had their effect with God in the same manner as prayers, thanksgiving, &c. cannot, I should think, be justly inferred from those actions, &c. being called figuratively by subsequent writers, sacrifices, well pleasing, acceptable to God for this obvious reason; because, allowing (what I hope, for argument sake at least, may be allowed) that the expiatory sacrifices actually made atonement for sin, by being offered in the sacrificer's stead; such actions, &c. might notwithstanding, by subsequent writers, have been very properly compared to, or represented under the notion of, sacrifices well pleasing to God; that is, the word, sacrifice, as expressing, in the general notion of it, religious homage, might have been transferred from what was originally, and more particularly intended by it, and applied to whatever was expressive of such homage. And this indeed seems to me to have been the case : nor is it an uncommon thing, for a word, which originally signified one particular thing, to be applied in time to several other things; by reason of their being capable, in some respect or other, of being

considered under one general notion, or of being viewed in one common light. Thus, for instance, the word cross, which originally stood for a particular instrument of punishment or suffering, has come to signify, whatever is the occasion or source of uneasiness or trouble to any person: because they both agree in the general notion of their being the causes or occasions of suffering and so in other instances, which might be easily suggested. And this general observation, if we carry it along with us, will, if I mistake not, help us to answer whatever you have advanced, in favour of your hypothesis, from those texts of scripture, which you have quoted in your twentieth and some following paragraphs: which therefore I need not, I would hope at present at least, take a more particular notice of.

However, before I leave this chapter I am now considering, it may not be amiss to take some notice of another passage, in your 19th No. It is that which immediately follows the passage I have already quoted and considered. Having then observed, that the levitical law supplies no answer to the question so often referred to е

already; and that we must seek for it, in other parts of scripture; you go on and say (in order to illustrate what you had just observed) that in the institution of cir'cumcision, Gen. xvii. no account is given of the meaning of that religious rite,

any further than as it was a token of the 'covenant God then made with Abraham. 'But if we look into the prophetic and apostolic writings (Deut. x. 16.-xxx. 6.

6

Jer. iv. 4. Rom. ii. 29. Col. ii. 11.) we 'shall find it had relation to the heart; ' and signified the retrenching inordinate 'affections, or the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, in order to dispose 'the mind to the sincere love and obedi'ence of God.' I readily own, that the rite of circumcision might, for ought I know, be originally intended to put Abraham and his descendants in mind of their obligations to put off the body of the sins of the flesh, &c. (which it certainly had, from the nature of it, a tendency to do); and that it might be of use, and probably was of use to them, considered in this light. you mean by what you here say, had no effect, or was of no use, any otherwise than as it put them in mind of those

But if

that it