it must be understood in the sense expressly given to it by the law; and in this reference it is, that Buxtorf, Reland, Outram, and Jos. Mede, (whom Kennicot quotes in justification of his opinion,) seem to have spoken of the Mincha. But surely, when applied to oblations antecedent to the law, the term is not necessarily to be taken in that restrained sense, to which its general signification was limited, in later times, by those appropriate circumstances attached to it by the legal institution. It is undoubtedly true, as Gussetius, who is referred to by Kennicot, remarks, that a Mincha presented to God signifies an unbloody oblation. But when he says, that it always does so, and that "there is not one instance of its being used for an animal oblation throughout the Bible," (Comment. Ling. Ebr. p. 473.) he, in the first place, begs the question respecting the sacrifice of Abel, which is expressly called a Mincha: secondly, he forgets, that every other instance of its sacrificial application, is an instance of the use of the term under the law, by which its original meaning had been narrowed: and lastly, both he and Kennicot materially err in point of fact, the word Mincha being frequently employed even under the law, to denote animal sacrifices, as well as the bread or flour-offerings. Thus in 1 Kings xviii. 29, 36. 2 Kings iii. 20. and Ezra ix. 4, 5. we find the morning and evening sacrifices, which

beside a bread-offering and drink-offering included also the offering of a lamb, described by the general appellation of Mincha. In Judg. vi. 18. the same term is applied to the offering of a kid with unleavened cakes. And in 1 Sam. ii. 17. and Mal. i. 13, 14. it is used in relation to animal sacrifice, in a manner the most explicit and unqualified. So that, although, as Rosenmuller on Levit. ii. 1. affirms, this word be applied per eminentiam to the oblation of Corn, yet even under the law we find its more general signification force its way.

This proves decisively the weakness of Dr. Kennicot's argument derived from the supposition that the words, (Lev. ii. 6.) are to be understood in the sense, THIS IS A MINCHA, i. e. as marking the precise meaning of the term, wherever it occurred in a sacrificial relation. Indeed the circumstance of the various kinds of

Bread-offerings comprehended under the term Mincha, which Kennicot himself admits to have existed, (p. 190-192.) and of which there were not fewer than five, proves that this passage could not have been intended here as confining the term to the specific oblation to which it refers ; and that it could only mean, that this oblation was one of those, which might be included under the term Mincha. Vatablus renders the words, “Munus est: i. e. tale est munus quod offerri

debet Deo." See also Fagius, Vatablus, Castalio, on Exod. xxx. 9.

It is certain that the true and original signification of the word, is that of an offering presented to a superior. Thus we find it in Gen. xxxii. 20. and xliii. 11. 15. in which places it is used for the purpose of appeasing: again, in 2 Chr. xxxii. 23, and Ps. lxxii. 10. where it is applied to offerings brought by strangers to the temple at Jerusalem: and also in 1 Kings x. 25. 2 Chr. ix. 24. 2 Kings viii. 8, 9. where it is used to denote the gifts sent to earthly princes. The word appears to be derived from an Arabic verb signifying donavit: see Rosenm. and Le Clerc on Lev. ii. 1. and Schindl. Lexic. Pentag. Parkhurst derives it from the Hebrew verb, quievit, posuit, and Calasio from, duxit, without however making any change in the signification. From this it follows, that all sacrificial offerings, whether bloody or unbloody, must fall under the general denomination, Mincha. That it is taken in this large sense by all Lexicographers, Le Clerc (on Lev. ii. 1.) positively asserts. See also Castell, and especially Parkhurst, on the word.

Drusius (on Hebr. xi. 4.) affirms, that it is of greater extent than is commonly admitted. Ainsworth observes (on Lev. ii. 1.) that it " was generally any solemn gift or present, to God, or man: in special, a present or sacrifice unto God:

more specially, an offering of the fruits of the earth." Sykes also (Essay, &c. p. 17.) uses the word in the same general sense, whilst he admits, that "later use has pretty much confined it to oblations of flour or meal."

How little reason then Dr. Kennicot had for introducing so novel and dangerous a criticism, is, I trust, upon the whole sufficiently evident. How inconsistent also it is with the ideas of sacrifice, which he holds, in common with the doctrine maintained in these discourses, will appear, when it is considered, that if in the case of Abel's oblation, the word Mincha be supposed to relate, not to the sacrifice of the animal, but solely to an offering of the fruits with which it was accompanied, it must follow, since God is said to have had respect to his Mincha, that it was not the animal sacrifice, but the offering of the fruits, which conciliated the divine regard. And thus the theory, which pronounces the animal sacrifice to have been originally enjoined, as a type of the great sacrifice of Christ; and which ascribes to this, as the instituted expression of the true faith, the superiority of Abel's offering over that of Cain, is at once overturned. And yet to this very theory it is, that Dr. Kennicot, in his Dissertation on the Oblations of Cain and Abel, has given his warmest support.

Perhaps it may not be amiss here, to endeavour to fix the true meaning and value of the

,Corban זבח and מנחה קרבן,sacrificial_terms

Mincha and Zebach; and the more particularly, as their relative force seems not to have been stated with exactness by any late writer. The first of these terms, being derived from 1, signifies whatever was brought to God before the altar; whether dismissed, as the scape-goat; dedicated to the service of the Sanctuary, as the sacred vessels, and the conductors of the sacred rites, the Levites; or offered up, as the sacrifices. properly so called, which were consumed at the altar. Again, the Mincha was an oblation, which was of the nature of a sacrifice, being consumed at the altar, whether it consisted of things animate or inanimate, although, as we have seen, the Mosaic institution in a good degree narrowed its application; confining it, for the most part, to what is called the meat offering, or as it should in strictness be denominated the bread or flouroffering. And lastly, the Zebach was the obla tion of an animal slain in sacrifice. Thus, Corban is the most general term, including all sorts of offerings, or dedications, to God in his temple. Mincha is the next in order, applying to those offerings which were consumed at the altar. Zebach is the species infima in the scale, relating

only to the animal sacrifice.

And

But to return to Dr. Kennicot, and the imme

diate subject of this note.

His remark on the

word hw, that it necessarily involves the idea