blame of it upon others, even when there is little profpect of hiding their own guilt. "But "the people," fays Saul, ver. 21. " took of "the fpoil, fheep and oxen, the chief of the " "things which fhould have been utterly deftroy"ed." Whereas, though no doubt they were alfo in the fault, he was much more guilty than they. He had received the particular command from God: he was king and leader of the people, and ought to have reftrained them from acting contrary to the divine purpose. This, how. ever, he was so far from fo much as attempting, that he is fpoken of as confenting to, and a chief actor in the offence, ver. 9. "But Saul and the "people spared Agag, and the best of the fheep, "and of the oxen." This difpofition feems to be as old as fin itself; for we fee it in the cafe of Adam, after eating the forbidden fruit: Gen. iii. 11. 12. "Haft thou eaten of the tree "whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldft "not eat? And the man faid, The woman "whom thou gaveft to be with me, fhe gave me of the tree, and I did eat." We ought to be humbled for it, as a part of the corrup. tion of our nature, which is not only prone to the commiffion of fin, but backward to repentance or confeffion. 3. We may fee it is no unufual thing for men to imagine they have been obedient to God even in that very action by which they have in a remarkable manner shown their difobedience. This was plainly the cafe with Saul, whom we find maintaining maintaining and infifting upon his innocence, ver. 20. "And Saul faid unto Samuel, Yea, I "have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord fent me, and "have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and "have utterly destroyed the Amalekites." Where-ever any duty, in its fubftance, in its circumstances, or even in its principle, varies from the rules laid down for it in the word of God, it is effentially defective; and where the fault is capital, it becometh a fin. This, I believe, will be always found to be the cafe where merit is pleaded from human performances. True obedience is always humble, and fenfible of the imperfections attending it. Oftentatious obe dience, if it were for no other reason, is an abomination in the fight of God. 4. How often does it happen, that the excufes for fin are the aggravations of it! It feemed to Saul, that he had fully juftified his conduct by faying, that he fpared of the best of the spoil, to facrifice unto the Lord. If there was no fuch thing in his or the people's mind, when they departed from their commission, then it was a fearful aggravation of his fin, to add to it the guilt of falsehood and hypocrify; nor did it feem to want impiety, to pretend to offer sacrifices from the accurfed fubftance of that devozed race. If, on the other hand, they really from the beginning intended to prefent a part of the fpoil as a facrifice to God, it shows the great deceitfulness of fin, which fuggested this. unholy compofition, and made them think, that Dd 3 their their disobedience might be atoned for by a gift at the altar. Many like inftances might be gi ven, in which the excufes for fin are an addition to the guilt. There are not wanting fome who, either in a doubtful or explicit manner, would lay the blame of their fins upon their maker, and impute to the influence of his providence what belongs to the freedom of their own wills. At the fame time, it is very remarkable, though melancholy to reflect upon, that thofe excufes for fin which carry in them the most daring profanity, are commonly moft ftupifying to the confcience. Such is the ftate of all those who fortify themselves in an evil practice, by embracing loofe principles, who, having first given way to unbridled inclination in the breach of God's laws, fteel themfelves against conviction and repentance, by a denial of his truth. 5. How great is the folly of men who hope to atone for their difobedience by any compen. fation, but particularly by religious rites! Saul and his people, whatever were their views at firft, feem to have hoped that they might escape the punishment of disobedience by offering facrifices. There feems to have been a tendency to this among the Jews, in general, in after times; and it is the mistaken hope of hypocrites in every age. But how manifeft is the error! how grofs is the delufion! Sacrifices, and all acts of worship, derive their very beauty and excellence from the difpofition of the worhipper. Solomon tells us, Prov. xv. 8. "The "facrifice of the wicked is an abomination to "the "the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his "delight." How abfurd and contradictory, how difhonourable to God, is it, for the fame perfon to be a zealous worshipper and a wicked liver, a man fervent in prayer and deceitful in dealing, heavenly in his language and fenfual in his heart ! One would think the dreadful inconfiftency of fuch a conduct would alarm the most drowsy confcience; but God, in righteous judgement, gives up to a spirit of flumber, that they may be the standard of punishment for the greatest finners, who shall be appointed their portion "with hypocrites and unbelievers, in the "lake that burns with fire and brimftone for ever"more." II. I PROCEED to the fecond thing proposed; which was, To fhow in what respects it is that obedience is oppofed and preferred to facrifice, or juftly called better, as in the words of the text. It is not uncommon to hear this passage produced in order to prove the value of moral above pofitive precepts. Moral precepts, I fuppose you know, are precepts of perpetual and unchangeable obligation; and pofitive, fuch as either have not, or do not feem to have, any intrinfic excellence in themfelves, but depend upon the immediate and exprefs inftitution of God. Now though, no doubt, if it is done with proper care, and upon legitimate principles, a distinction may be ftated between these different kinds of duties: yet it is plain, that this cannot be the spirit of the paffage before us. There needs needs no more to fatisfy us of this, than to reflect upon the hiftory illuftrated above, which gave occafion to the words of the prophet. That command of God, for disobedience to which Saul was fo feverely reproved, and afterwards fo fignally punished, was fo far from being in itself a moral duty antecedent to the command, that it was not merely a pofitive, but an occasional and temporary duty: nay without the exprefs appointment and authority of God, it would have been an atrocious crime, viz. "Utterly destroy ing the Amalekites, man and woman, infant "and fuckling." We have not therefore the leaft encouragement from this example to make light of any command that is fupported by the inftitution and authority of God. Well then, may it be faid, were not facrifices inftituted by him? and how does the prophet affirm in this paffage, that "obedience is better than facrifice?" illuftrating this, and at the fame time guarding it against perversion and abuse, I intreat your atten tion to the following obfervations. For 1. Obedience is preferred to facrifices as they were uncommanded, free, and voluntary. If we attend to the facrifices under the law, we fhall find them of different kinds; particularly, we fhall find them diftinguished in this refpect, that fome of them were exprefsly and pofitively ordained, and others were left to the good-will or fpontaneous inclination of the offerer. The first were binding upon the whole of that people in the strongest manner, and could not be difpenfed with the other were left to themfelves, as the occafion |