hostility to which doctrine, entertained by the first Reformers, they are branded by these translators with the title of Manichees. (See the Doway Bible on Gen. iv. 7.)

vilege of theological investigation, in what way does the same writer represent the system of studies permitted for this purpose? The theology of the Romanist, and that of the Protestant, he describes, as "two worlds in opposite hemispheres, which have nothing common except the name."-" The Catho lic theology rests (says he) on the inflexible authority of the decisions of the Church, and therefore debars the man who studies it from all free exercise of his reason. It has preserved the jargon, and all the barbarous appendages of the Scholastic philosophy. We perceive in it the work of darkness of the monks of the tenth century. In short, the happiest thing which can befall him who has unfortunately learnt it, is speedily to forget it. The Protestant theology, on the contrary, rests on a system of examination, on the unlimited use of reason. The most liberal exegesis opens for it the know. ledge of sacred antiquity; criticism, that of the history of the Church; it regards the doctrinal part, reduced to purity and simplicity, as only the body of religion, the positive form which it requires; and it is supported by phi losophy in the examination of the laws of nature, of morality, and of the relations of men to the Divine Being. Whoever wishes to be instructed in history, in classical literature, and philosophy, can choose nothing better than a course of Protestant theology."-Ibid. pp. 307, 308.-Such are the observations, contained in a work, which has been distinguished by a prize, conferred by the National Institute of France.

Perhaps, one of the most decisive proofs of the justice of this writer's remarks on the state of sacred literature in the Romish Church, has been supplied by the late republication, in this country, of that wretched specimen of Scripture criticism, Ward's Errata. This powerless offspring of a feeble parent, which was supposed to have perished when it first saw the light, above a century ago, has lately upon signs of reanimation, been hailed in Ireland with shouts of joy. And the meagre abstract of Gregory Martin's Discovery of the manifold corruptions of the Holy Scriptures, a work which has itself lain for two hundred years overwhelmed by confutation, has been received by the Romanists of this part of the Empire, with a gratulation that might well become the darkest ages of the Church. A work, condemning the Protestant translation of the Bible for using the term messenger instead of angel, (in Mal. ii. 7. iii. 1. Mat. xi. 10. Luke vii. 27, &c.) by which the character of angel is withdrawn from the priesthood, and of a sacrament from orders for not rendering the words (in Hebr. xi. 21.) gorexσ EПI To angor ons galde aurs, as the Rhemish does, adored the top of his rod, and thereby surreptitiously removing one of the principal Scripture arguments for image worship:-for ascribing to the word D, in the second commandment, the meaning graven image, whilst the Rhemish renders it graven thing, which, with those who admit an image not to be a thing, will exempt images from the prohibition of the commandment :-for not giving to the words eravosa and pænitentia, the sense of penance, but merely assigning to them their true interpretation, repentance, and thus doing wilful despite to the sacrament of penance-a work, I say, condemning the Protestant translations of the Bible for these, and some other such errors; and in all cases demonstrating the error by one and the same irrefragable proof,—that the Romish version is the true one, and that the Protestant version, which differs from it, must consequently be false, is certainly not such a one, as might, in the nineteenth century, be expected to be raked up by the clergy of a widely extended communion, and exhibited triumphantly as a master-piece of cri tical erudition. In the opinion of many, this miserable performance did not deserve an answer; especially as every argument, which it contained, had been in former times repeatedly confuted. Perhaps however they judged more rightly, who thought, that even the weakest reasonings should be ex- posed, lest they might be imagined to be strong, and that even the most

To these Romish Doctors I leave a Romish Doctor to reply. Dr. Geddes, in his Critical Remarks, pp. 54, 55. has endeavoured to show that Jerome's version, or that of the Vulgate, cannot be maintained. He has not, however, adduced the arguments which bear most strongly against their interpretation; namely, those which apply to the mistranslation of the concluding clause of the seventh verse, and to the violence offered even to that mistranslation in pronouncing that Cain having sinned should acquire dominion over his sinful desires, which is as much as to say that by yielding to sin a man acquires the power of controling it. But too much has been said upon Romish exposition.*

hacknied arguments should be replied to, lest they might be conceived to be new. Accordingly, this work received an answer from Dr. Ryan, whose zealous exertions in the cause of religious truth are well known, and is about to receive another from the Rev. Richard Grier of Middleton. These gentlemen, at all events, display courage in their enterprize, since the author whom they attack, backed by the whole council of Trent, has pronounced, that whoever shall not receive the books of Scripture, as they are read in the Catholic (Romish) Church, and as they are in the Vulgate Latin edition, shall be ACCURSED. Errata, p. 37.

How little entitled the orthodox member of the Romish church is, at this day, to expect serious consideration in the walks of sacred criticism, may be inferred (in addition to what has been said in the last note) from the description given of him by a Doctor of his own communion. "The vulgar papist rests his faith on the supposed infallibility of his church, although he knows not where that infallibility is lodged, nor in what it properly consists: it is to him a general, vague, indefinite idea, which he never thinks of analy. sing. He reads in his catechism, or is told by his catechist, that the Church cannot err in what she teaches; and then he is told, that this unerring church is composed only of those who hold communion with the Bishop of Rome, and precisely believe as he, and the bishops who are in communion with him, believe. From that moment reason is set aside; authority usurps its place, and implicit faith is the necessary consequence. He dares not even advance to the first step of Des Cartes's logic; he dares not doubt: for in his table of sins, which he is obliged to confess, he finds doubting in matters of faith to be a grievous crime." Such is Dr. Geddes's account of him whom he is pleased to call the vulgar papist; under which title be in truth means to include, all who are sincere votaries of the Church of Rome, and whom that church would acknowledge as such: in other words, he means by this term to designate all who are actually within the pale of Popery.

And let it not be supposed that this is the testimony of an enemy in the disguise of a friend; and that the author, whilst he assumed the name of Catholic, was influenced by the feelings of a Protestant. On the contrary it is manifest from the following passage that his mind remained under the powerful influence of Romish impression, and that he continued still a partizan of that faith whose errors he affected to decry. For, says he, "Is the faith of the vulgar Protestant better founded? He rests it on a book called the Holy Bible, which he believes to be the infallible word of God.”—And thus he pronounces the faith of the Protestant and of the Papist to be alike implicit and alike unfounded "If the instructor of the Protestant be asked how he knows that the book which he puts into the hand of his catechumen is the infallible word of God; he cannot like the Priest, appeal to an unerring church he acknowledges no such guide: and yet it is hard to conceive what other better argument he can use."-He goes on even to pronounce, that "in the Popish controversy, the Romanists have on this point, the better

I come now to the translation by Theodotion, which, as it appears to me, does perfect justice to the original, and with which the version which I have proposed entirely coincides. Ουκ, αν αγαθως ποιης, δεκτον· και αν μη αγαθώς ποιης, επι θυρας αμαρτία εγκαθηται· και προς σε ορμη αυτό, και αρξεις αυτ8. Here is an agreement in all its parts with the rendering which has been submitted; the force of auagria, like that of on, extending to the sin-offering: yxatntai, as well as r, denoting the posture of an animal; and avrov the masculine decidedly marking, that the reference in the last clause was, not to αμαρτία,* *but to Abel. See Theodot. apud Montefalc.

Grotius has given the passage somewhat of a different turn, and yet departs but little from the meaning which has been here assigned. He considers the force of the si bene egeris, as carried down to the concluding clause, so as to make the sense this, "if thou doest well, Abel, as the younger, shall be rendered subject to thy authority." And so makes the clause beginning with, " If thou doest not well," &c. parenthetical; of which, he says, innumerable instances are to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This mode of translating the pas sage has been adopted by Purver in his English version: and is certainly not unworthy of commendation. At the same time, I cannot but think the view of the sentence which I have offered to the reader, more grammatical, more consist ent, and more natural.†

side of the question; called, by some of their controversalists, the question of questions." And in what way does their superiority appear upon this question of questions? By "its never having been satisfactorily solved by the Romanists themselves: they having always reasoned in what is termed a vicious circle; proving the infallibility of the Church from the authority of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture from the Church's infallibility.” (Preface to Critical Remarks, p. v.) This must undoubtedly have given the Romanists the better side of the question; for what Protestant logician could successfully reply to such an argument? But the reader must be wearied of this fatuity.

That is, to auagria, in the sense of sin; in which sense alone it is, that it has been by some made the subject of reference in opposition to Abel. In the sense of sin-offering, it would, as we have seen, admit the masculine pronoun avro; but to the word, taken in that sense, the reference of the pronoun would have no meaning.

The note of Ludov. de Dieu on this passage deserves to be noticed. "An non, sive bene offeras, sive non bene, ad ostium peccatum cubat? Quum scilicet, indigne ferret Cain, fratris sacrificium suo esse prælatum, quod non minus recte sacrificiorum ritus observasset fratre, neque quicquam, sive quoad rem oblatam, sive quoad externam offerendi rationem ac ceremoniam, dignius a fratre ac melius profectum esset, monet Deus, non esse hic ipsam oblationem respiciendam, recte ne ea secundum legem scilicet ceremonialem. facta sit, an secus: sed personam offerentem, dedita ne ea sit, peccato, an non. Tu peccatum perpetuo circumfers, illudque in procinctu habes, cubans quippe ante fores: itaque nihil refert, bene ne an male secundum ritus lega. les offeras. Vel optima tua oblatio a peccato vitiatur. Non debebat appetitus tuus ferri ad peccatum, sed peccati appetitus ad te, sicut mulieris appetitus maritum cui subest, tuque, ei dominari.-Posset etiam verti, An_non sive pulchrum quid adferas, sive, non pulchrum, &c.—Animodo. in Fet. Teek

No. LXVI.-ON THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF ABEL AND THAT OF CHRIST.

PAGE 46. (v)-Dr. Richie judiciously observes, on this passage of Hebrews, that " it makes the sacrifice of Abel to have been of the piacular kind, by the comparison which it makes between the effect of it and that of the sacrifice of Christ, which without doubt was of the piacular kind. For, unless these two sacrifices had been of the same kind, and productive of similar effects, such a comparison could not have been made, nor the effect of the one pronounced to have been better, or much greater, than the effect of the other: causes of a different nature producing effects of a dissimilar kind: and between effects of a dissimilar kind, no such comparison as that here made being admissible." Peculiar Doctrines of Revelation. Part II. § xlii. p. 138.

No. LXVII.-ON THE NATURE OF SACRIFICE BEFORE THE LAW: TENDING TO SHOW ITS CONFINEMENT TO ANIMAL SACRIFICE, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CAIN.

PAGE 46. (w)-From the time of Abel's sacrifice to the giving of the law, we find the sacrificial offering described by no other appellation than that of or , the holocaust or burnt-offering, and the Zebach or immolated victim. Thus we see the former expression used of the sacrifice of Noah in Gen. viii. 20. and again repeatedly applied to the sacrifice of Abraham in the xxiid chapter. It is also employed by Moses in speaking of sacrifices to Pharaoh, in Exod. x. 25. and again in describing the offerings of Jethro, xviii. 12. The oblations of Job likewise, (Job i. 5.) and of his friends, (xlii. 7, 8.) are so denominated: as are those of Balaam, in the xxiiid ch. of Numbers. In the numerous other instances of the mode of worship by sacrifice, which occur in this early period, the expression used is either n, or, where the sort of sacrifice is not exactly specified, a word immediately derived from, and clearly implying it, nam, which though translated generally by us an Altar, and being sometimes applied to that on which Incense was presented, cannot, as Sykes remarks, (Essay, p. 246.) when used absolutely, and in its strict sense, be otherwise understood, than as signifying "that on which slain animals were offered."

Doctor Richie, indeed, not only maintains that none but animal sacrifices were offered from the time of Cain to the p. 13. These interpretations possess much ingenuity: but are liable to the grammatical objection already urged, of taking on, in the sense of sin, in the masculine gender.

promulgation of the law, but that all during that period were none other than holocausts, or burnt-offerings; the Zebach, or slain animal, having been uniformly offered up in that manner: and that consequently all the sacrifices of this early period were piacular. In this last position Sykes concurs, so far as to allow, that "all holocausts before the days of Moses were deprecations of wrath," and he admits also, that from the time of Abel until that of Jacob, there is no instance of any other sacrifice than the burnt-offering. But from his peculiar notions concerning the nature of sacrifice, he is led to contend, that the sacrifice of Jacob, and those of Moses and Jethro, included a peace-offering, although he confesses, that in no one instance is there any mention expressly made of peace-offerings before the law.

The circumstances, on which Sykes grounds his opinion, are-1. The introduction of the word 21: which is of no weight, because nothing prevents the Zebach from having been an holocaust.-2. The mention of the eating of bread at the time of the sacrifice: from which no inference can be drawn respecting the nature of the sacrifice, as we have already seen in Number XLIX.--and 3. The mention of both the Zebach and the Holocaust, in the cases of Moses and Jethro, in Exod. x. 25. and xviii. 12. to which Richie has satisfactorily replied, by showing that the particle 1, is to be taken, not in the sense of and, but in that of even. Indeed Dr. Richie deserves particularly to be consulted on the whole of this subject. See Pecul. Doctr. Part. II. § 42-49. vol. i. p. 137 -144. See also Sykes's Essay, p. 231-251. where, if allowance be made for the author's peculiar bias on the subject of sacrifice, considerable support will be found for the principal part of Dr. Richie's positions. But whether Dr. Richie be well founded or not in his opinion, that all the oblations prior to the law, excepting that of Cain, were holocausts; this at least must be admitted, that they were animal sacrifices; more than which, the present argument does not require.

Josephus, it is to be observed, expressly describes the holocaust offered by Noah, as a sacrifice of deprecation. He states that this patriarch, under a persuasion that God had doomed mankind to destruction, and through terror of the repetition of the dreadful judgment he had so lately witnessed, offered up prayers and sacrifices to God, to turn away his wrath. Antiq. Jud. Lib. I. cap. iv. This testimony of the Jewish historian, as to the received notions of the nature of sacrifice in his day, the reader will please to add to those which have been adduced in Number XXXIII, in reply to Dr. Priestley's remark upon that head. It will most natural ly fall in at p. 230. of this work.