and in all ancient nations religion was concerned in the choice of food. Thus the Egyptians would not eat the flesh of a cow. It was commonly faid of them, they would as foon eat that of a man. Their priests, and the Pythagoreans, who followed them in it, abftained from beans. The priests in Syria ate no fish; the Phoenicians no pigeons; and the ancient Arabians abftained from eating a variety of things, because they thought them particularly confecrated to fome of the hea venly bodies, which were the objects of their worship, and because they made use of them in their divinations. Mofes, therefore, or rather God by him, in order to counteract and prevent this fuperftition (for it cannot be called any thing else, as the things refrained from cannot be denied to be wholesome food), eftablished a diftinction of meats on a quite different, and perfectly rational, principle.

The article that will perhaps be most objected to is the prohibition to eat fwine's flesh, which we find not to be unwholesome. But the Egyptians, Arabians, and all the eastern nations from Ethiopia to India, detest fwine's flesh, and fo do the Mahometans univerfally. As to blood, I believe it is generally allowed

to

they were both forbidden, but they were always to use falt. The heathens bowed towards the Eaft, as an act of homage to the rifing fun; and therefore their temples were made to front the Weft, that when they entered them, which they always did bowing, it might be towards the Eaft. For this reafon the tabernacle and temple of the Ifraelites were made to look to the Eaft, that on entering them the worshippers might bow towards the West, turning their backs on the place of fun-rifing.

The ancient idolaters held heifers in peculiar veneration; and for this reason, perhaps, it was ordered (Deut. xxi. 3), that if any perfon was found murdered, and the murderer could not be discovered, a heifer which had not been used to the yoke fhould be flain in his place. It was not facrificed, but its head was to be ftruck off. The Egyptians held in peculiar abhorrence animals that had red hair, which they supposed to have been that of Typhon. In oppofition, perhaps, to this, the Ifraelites were commanded to prepare their water of purification with the ashes of a red heifer, without fpot, or perfectly red. Numb. xix.

15. Many

15. Many unbelievers think that wherever there are priests there must be prieftcraft, and of course the intereft of the people facrificed to their emolument, it being always, as they think, in the power of that order of men to impose upon the reft. But there were feveral circumstances in the fituation of the Hebrew priests which fhew that they could have had no fuch power. In the first place, the Hebrew priests had no fecrets. Every thing that they knew or that they did, was as well known to the whole nation as to themselves. It was all detailed in the books of the law, which were not confined to themselves, as the facred books of the Hindoos are to the bramins, but directed to be read in the hearing of all the people. To these books they always had access, and the Levites were difperfed all over the country, that they might with the more advantage instruct the people in them.

So far was Mofes from wishing that the priests should have any advantage over the people by their fuperior knowledge, that his exhortations to all the people to make themfelves accurately acquainted with the law are peculiarly emphatical (Deut. vi. 6), These words,

8

parate from theirs. Their chief dependance was upon the tythes which they received from the people, who by this means had them completely in their power. By this means, however, it was wifely provided that it should be their intereft to inftruct the people in the law, and keep them to the observance of it. But when the priests and Levites did their duty in this refpect, and received all the advantages they could from it, it does not appear that the tribe of Levi, which comprehended the family of the priests, the defcendants of Aaron, was upon the whole fo well provided for as any of the other tribes. The Levites in general must have been poor; for when mention is made of charity, the case of the Levite is generally recommended together with that of the ftranger, the fatherless, and the widow. Indeed fome part of the tythes, as you have seen, were given to all these without distinction. Jacob, who foretold the future condition of all his fons, fpeaks of the Levites, as well as the Simeonites, as under a kind of curfe. For he fays of them, Gen. xlix. 7, Curfed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel. I will divide them in Jacob, and Separate them in Ifrael.

This was a punishment for their treachery, and cruelty with refpect to the inhabitants of Sichem.

Whatever advantage the Hebrew priests were poffeffed of, it must have depended upon their keeping the people to the strict observance of their religion. But in this they notoriously failed (which is an abundant proof that their influence was not great) through the ftrong predilection of the Ifraelites in favour of the religions of the neighbouring nations; and many times, but more especially during the reign of Ahab, the priests of Baal had far more influence than the priests, or prophets, of Jehovah. Elijah was then the only prophet who made his appearance, while the priests of Baal, including those of the groves, or rather of Aftaroth or Astarte, were eight hundred and fifty (fee 1 Kings xviii. 19), and there were not more than feven thousand perfons in all the country who were not worshippers of Baal (1 Kings xix. 18). At the fame time the influence of the court, and of the nobles, was in favour of that foreign religion. As to the priests of Jehovah, there is no mention made of them in any tranfactions of thofe times, fo that they could

་