by fuch compliances, while the counfels of the Deity are diftinguished no less by their purity than their wisdom, we contend, that this diftinction in the cafe of these two religions is, in proportion to the degree and cireumftances of its exiftence, an important prefumption, or perhaps a certain argument of their truth. I do not mean, however, unreservedly to pronounce, that the internal evidence of a religion is folely to be determined by the abfence or the admiffion of idolatry. It has been obferved on a former occafion, that there are fome exceffes of fuperftition, of which it may fafely be afferted, that, though they be not absolutely idolatrous, they are too grofs to have received the fanction of the divinity. Such exceffes, wherever they can be proved to exist, must destroy, equally with idolatry itself, the credit of the religion by which they are avowed. If they are to be found in Chriftianity, Christianity muft be incapable of defence. This admiffion, however, of arguments from the extreme inftances of fuperftition extends not to thofe particular accommodations to particular circumstances, the inconfiftency of which with the divine attributes is merely doubtful. Though we cannot conclude, that, because because the nature of fuperftition is incapable of a precife definition, its exiftence can no where be afferted with certainty; yet we ftill conclude from the fame premises, that ufages may exift, of which it is impoffible to determine precisely, whether or no they be superftitious. While it is neceffary, therefore, to defend both Judaifm and Christianity from the charge even of the slightest deviation into idolatry, it is not effential to the evidence of their truth, that every difficulty should be furmounted, with which their defence against the charge of fuperftition may poffibly be attended. Superftition, when exceffive, is a decifive argument against the truth of any religion by which it is fanctioned; but we are ignorant of its exact nature; and not certain, perhaps, that all degrees of it are profcribed by God, even in those dispensations of which he is himself the author. Thefe obfervations, I truft, prove, that some compliances with particular circumstances may, even in a teacher of religion, be compatible with truth. They prove, also, the irrelevancy of those invectives against superstition in general, which are frequently, though most unphilofophically, indulged, without any precife conception of the object against which they they are directed. I now proceed to show, first, that the Jewish, and, fecondly, that the Christian systems are not liable to the charge of any idolatrous or objectionable compliances; that they cannot be proved to have facrificed the truth of natural religion for any purposes of prefent utility; that they have not abandoned the policy of wisdom for that of craft. By fome perfons of learning it has been fuppofed, that the Jewish religion, though of divine authority, was partly founded on Egyp tian rites and ceremonies; that Egyptian fuperstitions were to a certain degree permitted by Mofes to the Ifraelites, because of the hardness of their hearts; and that, probably, without this accommodation to their previous habits, it might have been impoffible to fecure their attachment to the new religion d. d Burnet. Arch. pp. 46, 47. Middleton's Letter to Dr. Waterland, Tracts, p. 156, 157. Beaufobre, Introd. to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, Part I. §. 1. and Spencer de Leg. Hebr. paffim. The arguments of the very learned writer last mentioned, for the propriety of tolerating and adopting Egyptian fuperftitions in the Mofaic ritual, are some of them of a fingular nature. He cites in one place the political axiom, Το κακον εν κείμενον xx, p. 627, 628. ed. Cant. 1685. and declares, p. 631. In eo enim eluxit fapientia divina, quod antidotum e veneno faceret, et illis ipfis cæremoniis ad populi fui As it would feem, however, to be improbable that God, in separating to himself a peculiar people, who should preferve the purity of his worship amid the grofs idolatry of furrounding Gentiles, fhould adopt from the idolatry of those very Gentiles the positive inftitutions of his own religion; fo it has been shown, by those who have been most converfant in the history of oriental ceremonies, that the Jewish ritual was in fact inftituted, not in conformity with, but in direct opposition to the idolatries of Egypt e. Should it seem to us that the adoption of a ceremonial for the purpose of counteracting idolatry; that the oppofition of rite to rite, and of cuftom to cuftom, was a policy of lefs refinement than the Deity might have been expected to pursue; we may recur to what has been before advanced, that the conduct, which may be obferved in the divine difpenfations, is wifely adapted not only to the purity of God, but also to the infirmity of man. God fpeaks to man through the medium of the fenfes religion is intended to operate not fui utilitatem, quibus olim Diabolus ad hominum perniciem uteretur. • See Appendix V. only only on the understanding, but also on the heart. No man, probably, however pure, however unprejudiced his reafon, is fuperior to the feeling of devotion. Those perfons who, by the theories of scepticism, may think themselves fortified against fuperftition; and thofe alfo who may have weaned themselves from popular grofsnefs of conception by long and rational meditation on the God of truth, continue always, in fome degree, fubject to the influence of that religious sentiment, which certain impreffions on the fenfes tend manifeftly to create or ftrengthen. The powers of intellect alone are infufficient for the neceffities of man. Religion, to confole him in adverfity, to preserve him in temptation, and to correct the infolence of prosperity, must influence the heart through the senses, as well as the judgment through the understanding. It is not, therefore, the introduction of ritual observances into religion that is objectionable. "Why should weak minds be deprived of a "refource which is found neceffary to the strongest f?" Obfervances of this kind are expedient, or, perhaps, indispensable, though they have their bounds, which they ought not f Burke. |