of camel, distinguished for its swiftness. But none of these instances can bear him out.

The first, which he would arbitrarily render, "morbus maxime lethalis," is no more than the FIRST-BORN of Death, a strong poetical expression; for the more particular meaning of which see Parkhurst on the word, and Chappelow on Job xviii. 13. The second, which, he says, implies "ficus maxime fructifera," is an expression peculiarly unfortunate, as the word in this application is used to denote that species of fig, which is early ripe: insomuch that at this day the word* Boccóre (1) signifies, in the Levant, the early fig, as Shaw states in his travels, p. 370. fol. As to the third instance, the reason of applying this term to the fleetest species of camel, is not the general idea of distinction and superiority, but the peculiar quality of swiftness: the idea of celerity and prevention being most appositely conveyed by a term, whose radical signification implied the first, or earliest. In this sense the word is explained in the kindred dialects, of the Syriac, and (particularly) the Arabic: for which see Schindler and Castel. Indeed, no lexicon whatever, so far as I can discover, supports Grotius in the general signification which he attributes to the world. But all concur, in giving to it the meaning of the earliest, or first produced, or some other flowing from, and connected with, these.

Again, with respect to the word n, although it is undoubtedly used in several places to signify milk, as well as fal, yet, as Heidegger remarks, (Hist. Patr. Exercit. v. § 20. tom. i.) there is not a single passage in scripture, in which it is applied in that sense, when sacrifice is spoken of, and the offering

.מחלב is said to be

But moreover, as to Grotius's notion, that the wool and milk were the parts of the animal, which alone were offered by Abel on this occasion, it is notorious, that neither one nor the other is ever mentioned in scripture, as an offering to the Deity, unless this single passage be supposed to supply an instance. Kennicot also contends, in opposition to Grotius, that the strict analogy of translation will not admit the possibility of his construction of this passage of Genesis. For if, says he, "it be allowed by all, that Cain's bringing OF THE fruit of the ground, means his bringing THE fruit of the ground, then Abel's bringing OF THE firstlings of his flock, must likewise mean his bringing THE firstlings of his flock," the exact sameness in the original phrase requiring an exact similarity in the translation. (Two Dissert. pp. 192, 193.) The passage in

See Lowth's Isai. xxviii. 4. Blayney's Jer. xxiv. 2. and Newcome's Hos

ix. 10.

deed needs but to be read, to prove the whimsical conceit of this comment of Grotius. Not one word is said of wool, or that can lead the mind to it by any conceivable reference: but yet, because he is determined not to allow the sacrifice of Abel to have been an oblation of the animal itself; and there being no part of it that could be offered, without slaying the animal, except the wool and the milk; he is therefore led to pronounce, that in the offering of these the sacrifice consisted.

Nothing, in truth, can be more strangely chimerical, than the whole of Grotius's observations on this part of scripture. His criticisms on the words п, furnishes another extraordinary specimen. By these words, he says, nothing more is meant, than what the Heathens in later times understood by their Sugmen, which was a sort of turf, cut out of sacred ground, and carried sometimes in the hand of a Roman ambassador. On this Heidegger is compelled to exclaim"Sæpe vir, cætera magnus, ex paginis ritibus talia, obtorto collo, ad explicationem rerum sacrarum rapit; quæ, si propius intueare, nec cœlum nec terram attingunt." (Exercit. v. §. 19.) But to return.—

With respect to the word 2, it may be right to remark, that instead of, the fat THEREOF, (which is ambiguous) it may with more propriety be rendered, the fat oF THEM, meaning thereby, the fattest or best among the firstlings. It is well known, that the word n, is often used for the best of its kind. Thus non ahn, is the finest of the wheat, Ps. lxxxi. 16. exlvii. 14. And the fat of the oil, the fat of the wine, stand for the best of the oil and wine, and have been so translated,* Numb. xviii. 12. It is the more necessary to make this distinction, lest the particular mention of the fat might lead to the supposition that the sacrifice was a peace-offering, the fat of which was consumed upon the altar, and the flesh eaten by the priests and the person at whose charge the offering was made. This was clearly an offering of a later date. The use of animal food was not as yet permitted. And the sacrifice seems to have been an holocaust, the whole of which was consumed upon the altar. That the sacrifice was of this kind many arguments concur to render probable. (See p. 277 of this work, also Shuck. Connex. vol. i. p. 81.) But it is placed yond the possibility of doubt, if it be admitted with the authorities and reasons adduced in p. 310, 311. of this work, that the sign of the divine acceptance of Abel's sacrifice was the consumption of it by fire from heaven. Porphery, in his 2d book, De Abstin. Anim. considers this a suf

See Chrysost. Jun. Vatab. also Jen. Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 149. and Kem. Two Diss. pp. 193, 194.

ficient reason to pronounce the offering of Abel to have been an holocaust, and compares it with that of Solomon described in 2 Chr. viii. 1. where it is said, that when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering, (or holocaust) and the sacrifices.

No. LXI.-ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DIVINE RECEP

TION OF THE SACRIFICES OF CAIN AND ABEL.

PAGE 43. (p)-To those who reject the divine institution of sacrifice, this has always proved a stumbling-block; and to remove the difficulty, various solutions have been elaborately, but unsuccessfully devised. The difference in the treatment of the two brothers had been accounted for by ancient commentators, from the different mode of division of their several oblations, as if Cain's fault had consisted in not giving to God the best parts, or the proper parts of the sacrifice. This unintelligible notion, which an early enemy of revelation, Julian, failed not to urge against Christians, took its rise from the Septuagint translation of Gen. iv. 7. Ουκ, εαν ορθώς προσενέγκης, ορθώς δε μη διέλης, ημαρτες ;-If you should rightly offer, but yet not rightly divide, would you not sin?

Others have held, that the difference arose from this, that whilst Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, Cain did not in like manner bring of the first or best of his fruits. This idea, for which there appears no farther foundation in the original, than that it is simply stated that Cain brought of the fruits, originated with Philo, (as may be seen in p. 164. of this work,) and has had the support of several Christian commentators. See Cyril. cont. Julian. lib. x. p. 349. ed. Spanh. Lips. and Pol. Synop. in Gen. iv. 3. Hallet also, in his note (s) on Hebr. xi. 4. concurs in this idea, and at the same time adds, that Abel's faith caused him to select the choicest for sacrifice. Primate Newcome, in his new version, seems to adopt the same notion, explaining the more excellent sacrifice in Hebr. xi. 4. as "consisting of more choice and valuable offerings."

Again, the reason of the difference assigned by Josephus. (Antiq. Jud. lib. i. c. 3.) is, that "God was more pleased with the spontaneous productions of nature, than with an offering extorted from the earth by the ingenuity and force of man. This strange conceit has been confiped to Josephus, and the Rabbins, from whom Havercamp affirms, and Cunæus and Heidegger fully prove, it was derived by this author-sec. Krebs. Observ. in Nov. Test. p. 383.

Another reason assigned is the difference of moral character. But the history clearly connects the fact of the accept

ance of the one and the rejection of the other, with the nature, and circumstances of the respective oblations.

Again, it is said, that Cain's entertaining a design against his brother's life, laid the foundation for the difference of treatment. But this intention against his brother's life, is expressly affirmed to have been the consequence of the preference given to his brother's offering.

Dr. Priestley has observed,* (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 195.) that "the actions of both the brothers" (in the offerings made by them of the flock and of the fruits)" seems to have been of the same nature, and to have had exactly the same meaning." In this I entirely agree with him. Viewed in the light of reason merely, the distinction made between them by the Deity is utterly unaccountable. Sacrifices being considered as gifts, or as federal rites, or as symbolical actions expressing the dispositions and sentiment of the offerer, or in any way that human invention can be conceived to have devised them; the actions of the two brothers appear to stand precisely on the same ground, each bringing an offering of that which he respectively possessed, and each thus manifesting his acknowledgment and worship of the great author of his possessions.

But what do I infer from this? That reason cannot untie the knot and that to revelation consequently we must look for the solution. Here the difficulty vanishes, and all appears connected and satisfactory, as I trust is shown in the account given of this matter in the second of these Discourses-see p. 43, 44.

* This essay of Dr. Priestley's, in which (as it has been stated in p. 267 of this volume) he has laboured to disprove the divine institution of sacrifices, and to establish their mere human invention as springing from anthropomorphitical notions of the Deity, it may be curious to compare with his latest observations on this subject in his Notes, &c. on Gen. iv. 3. There, in treating of the offerings of Cain and Abel, he expressly asserts his belief in the divine origin of sacrifices. "On the whole (he says) it seems most probable, that men were instructed by the Divine Being himself in this mode of worship," (sacrifice,)" as well as taught many other things that were necessary to their subsistence and comfort."

This observation, together with those which have been already referred to, (p. 273, 274. of this vol.) cannot be read without wonder, when it is considered, that the author of them had spent a life, in the continued endeavour to refute the assertions which they contain. This, however, after all, but shows the vast difference there is between the disputant and the inquirer. The wonder is easily removed by the view already taken of this matter in p. 275 of this volume. And, upon the whole, there seems good reason to think, that had Dr. Priestley been permitted, for a longer period, to enjoy that freedom from angry polemics, which was indulged to the few concluding years of his life, he would have grown into a juster acquaintance with many of the vital truths of Scripture, and would have retracted many of those noxious opinions which he had so long and so assiduously toiled to disseminate.

The words of Clottenburg on this subject deserve to be noticed: "Etsi diversæ oblationi videatur occasionem præbuisse diversum vitæ institutum, ipsi tamen diversitati oblationis hoc videtur subesse, quod Abel pecudum oblatione cruenta ante omnia curavit, το ιλατηρίον δια της πίςεως εν τω αίματι, propitiationem per fidem in sanguine, quo necessario purificanda erant dona Deo oblata, Heb. ix. 22, 23.-Cainus autem oblatione solà Eucharistica de fructu terræ defungens, supinè neglexerit sacrificium asixor, ut eo nomine Deo displicuerit, neque potuerit, obtinere Justitia Dei, qua ex fide est, testimonium, quod non perhibebat Deus, neglecto istoc externo symbolo supplicationis ex fide pro remissione pecca torum obtinenda. Quemadmodum ergo, in cultu spirituali, publicanus supplicans cum peccatorum doncs, descendit in domum suam justificatus præ pharisæo, cum gratiarum actione, Deo vovente decimas omnium quæ possidebat, Luc. xviii. 12.―sic censemus hac parte potiorem fuisse Abelis oblationem præ oblatione Caini, quod ipse supplicationem suam pro impetranda peccatorum remissione testatus sit, per sacrificii propitiatorii cruentam oblationem, cum alter dona sua eucharistico ritu offerret, xwgis ainavoxurias." Sacrif. Patriarch. Schola. p. 15. On the subject of this Number see Kennic. Two Dissert. p. 225-233. and Barrington's Misc. Sacr. p. 69-71.

No. LXII.- ON THE TRUE MEANING OF THE PHRASE, ΠΛΕΙΟΝΑ ΘΥΣΙΑΝ, ATTRIBUTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL.

PAGE 43. (q)-Dr. Kennicot's criticism on this passage combined with Gen. iv. 4. is too remarkable to be passed over in silence. The words, Alova buriav, he contends, should be rendered a sacrifice greater, or more, in reference to number, rather than to value: for that, although woλus in the positive sense does sometimes signify excellens, præstans, yet in the other degrees of comparison it is never so used; but that Asia has constantly the signification of plus, amplior, copi osior, or numerosior: and for this he refers to the several lexicons of Budæus, Constantine, Gesner, Hederic, Leigh, Scapula and Stephens: and from Stephens's Concordance he says it appears, that has not the sense of præstantior, through the whole of the New Testament. The idea of number, he says, necessarily strikes us; and therefore Wickliffe's, which reads a MUCH MORE sacrifice, he affirms to be a just translation; and that Queen Elizabeth's version was right, in preserving the force of this by rendering the words, a greater sacrifice,