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. Oux,

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 side. of the question; called, by some of their controversialists, 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 Ro manists 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.

αν αγαθως ποιης, δεκτον

και αν μη αγαθως ποιής, επι θυρας αμαρτια εγκαθηται και προς σε ορμή αυτέ, και αρξεις αυτε. Here is an agreement in all its parts with the rendering which has been submitted; the force of auapria, like that of, αμαρτία, extending to the sin-offering; eyxanтα, as well as yo, denoting the posture of an animal; and AUTOU the masculine decidedly marking, that the reference in the last clause was, not to apagria* 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 passage 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

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

I have offered to the reader, more grammatical, more consistent, and more natural.*

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

PAGE 54. (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 SHEW ITS CONFINEMENT TO ANIMAL SACRIFICE, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CAIN.

PAGE 55. (")-From the time of Abel's sacri*The note of Ludov, de Dieu on this passage deserves to be noticed. "An non, sive bene offeras, sive non bene, ad

fice 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.

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 legales offeras. Vel optima tua oblatio a peccato vitiatur. Non debebat appetitus tuus ferri ad peccatum, sed peccati appetitus ad te, sicut mulieris appetitus ad maritum cui subest, tuque ei dominari.-Posset etiam verti, An non sive pulchrum quid adferas, sive non pulchrum, &c.

Animodo. in Vet. Test. p. 13.-These interpretations possess much ingenuity: but are liable to the grammatical objection already urged, of taking N, in the sense of sin, in the masculine gender.

In the numerous other instances of the mode of worship by sacrifice, which occur in this early period, the expression used is either 2, or, where the sort of sacrifice is not exactly specified, a word immediately derived from and clearly implying it, , 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 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