This paffage of Virgil, wherein he speaks of Wine offered to Ceres, has long ago been objected to, as contrary to Religious Rites. And there have not been wanting those who justified this charge against Virgil by producing this Paffage from Plautus.

ST. Cererine, Strobile, has facturi Nuptias?

STR. Qui? ST, Quia Temeti nihil alla

tum intelligo.

Aulul. Act. ii. Sc. 6.

"the Sa

But Servius affures us, that "cred Books no where forbid the Offer

*Superfluum eft, quod quidam dicunt, contra religionem dixiffe Virgilium, licere de Vino Sacrificare. Pontificales namque hoc non vetant libri. Quod autem Plautus in Aulularia, cujus ipfi utuntur exemplo-Cererine nuptias facturi effes? Qui? Quia temeti nihil allatum intelligo.Non eft huic loco contrarium. Nam aliud eft Sacrificium, aliud Nuptias Cereri celebrare: In quibus revera Vinum adhiberi nefas erat, quæ Orci Nuptiæ dicebantur, quas præfentia fui Pontifices ingenti folennitate celebrabant. Servius in Virgil. Georg. 1. i. v. 344.

That the Romans and Arcadians too did in fome cafes not offer Wine to Ceres, is plain from a Passage in Dionyfius Halicarnafenfis : Ιδρύσαντο δε καὶ Δήμητρος ἱερὸν, καὶ τὰς θυσίας ἀὐτῇ διὰ γυναικῶν τε καὶ ΝΗΦΑΛΙΟΥΣ έθυσαν, ὡς Ἕλλησι Kéos. Lib. i. p. 26. Edit. Francof. 1636.

ing

ing Wine to Ceres." He adds, "It is

one thing to celebrate a Sacrifice to "Ceres; it is another to celebrate Nup"tials to her. That in the one it was "lawful to ufe Wine; in the Other, not." And he tells us of another conftruction of this Verse likewife that naturally gets rid of the difficulty,- Cui, et miti Baccho favos lacte dilue; To whom and to Bacchus, offer Honey and Milk. But I must observe, that when Cato fo particularly defcribes the fame Sacrifice (and we shall have occafion to mention it particularly hereafter) He names only Janus, Jupiter, and Ceres, and does not name Bacchus : and He orders Wine to be given to Ceres. And it is right to add, what may confirm Servius's conftruction, That when Tibullus fo elegantly described the fame Sacrifice, He mentions Both Bacchus and Ceres; and speaks of Wine offered, without any Exception of it to Ceres.

It may feem fomewhat ftrange, that fince the Heathen were wont to offer Honey, and Cakes made with Honey, and Wine and Honey mixed together, to their Gods, that this Practice fhould be fo ex

prefely

- prefsly forbidden by God. No Meat Òffering fhall be made with Leaven, for yè fball burn no Leaven, nor Honey in any Offering of the Lord made by Fire, Lev. ii. II. Honey was certainly a common eatable, and used by the Great as well as by meaner People; and was deemed a great prolonger of life to them that used it. It was fet upon the Table by Hecamede to treat Neftor with, in Homer, Il. x. and it was brought forth among the Eleganter things, as most agreeable to all. Whence comes it then that a common eatable, a thing fo common at Entertainments, and in courfe a thing fo fitted to the End of Sacrifices, fhould be fo exprefsly forbidden in the Jewish Law.

It is not, I think, to be doubted, but that when Worship by way of Sacrifice was inftituted by God, and the Law given by Mofes was ordained, .the great Reafon of the Rites enjoined was not to recede from a Mode of Service which then prevailed all over the world: a Service which the Children of Ifrael had been educated in, and which could not have been broke off, without the utmoft Confufion. The Peo

ple had been always used to this kind of Worship; and they knew that their Fathers and Ancestors, quite from the days of Noah, had practifed the Same : And what inveterate Practice had rooted in their minds, and all their Neighbours round about them daily used, was not instantly to be relinquished; nor were the people, so habituated, to be at once removed to a pure Spiritual Worship. The most rational method of proceeding was to institute and appoint things in fuch a manner as would best preserve the Jews from falling into the ways of the Idolaters round about them; and ftill to preserve the Worship of the One God and Father of all, by keeping up in the customary manner a Friendship with him, and thus to carry on the great Scenes of Providence in the world. Now whereas their Neighbours made ufe of Honey and Leaven in their Sacrifices, God prohibited fuch in his Service, as unneceffary; and only retain'd what was neceflary to carry on the great End defign'd by Sacrifice, viz. the Furniture of an Ordinary Table, with which the Pooreft might eafily comply.

Maimonides

Maimonides affigns this reafon, (and it seems a very natural one,) * "Because,

fays he, Idolaters made ufe in their "Oblations of only leavened Bread, and "chose fiweet things for thofe purposes, " and were wont to anoint or smear them

over with Honey, therefore God pro"hibited us [Jews] to offer Leaven or Honey." Nor does it follow that because God forbad the Ufe of Honey in his Sacrifices, only for this reafon because it was used by the Idolaters in their Sacrifices, that therefore He should have forbidden Salt or Wine, or every thing else which they offered, Since his Defign was to retain whatever was neceffary to the keeping up of Friendship, Symbolically intimated in the use of fuch things as were the ordinary Signs of Friendship, at the fame time that he rejected what was fu perfluous, or Superftitious, from his Infti-.

tutions.

* Quia Idololatræ panem fermentatum folum offerebant. ac res dulces ad oblationes fuas eligebant, eafque melle inungere confueverantideo prohibuit Deus Nobis panem fermentatum, vel Mel offerre. Maimon. More Nevoc. lib. iii. c. 46.