difference between these two writers as be tween Sallust and William of Malmsbury. Let him next look into the poetical parts of Job, and let him compare them with any part of Ezra's undoubted writings, and I would then ask him, whether he would not as soon pitch upon Geoffrey of Monmouth for the author of the Eneid, if that were a doubtful point, as Ezra for the author of the poem of Job; and I should not much doubt of his answering in the affirmative," (Letter to Warb. PP. 96, 97.) Bishop Lowth does not stand single in these opinions. For the evidence supplied to the antiquity of the Book of Job from the nature of its language, I refer the reader to pp. 154-156; and in the subjoined note, the opinions of some of the most 36 On the idea that Ezra could have written in that pure and poetic style, which is to be found in the Mosaic writings, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, Michaelis makes the following remarks: Nihil Ezrâ inornatius; ut mirer, quo erroris portento Mosaica illi scripta tribui potuerint: quanquam non est, quod mirer, cum facinus simillimum ausus sit Harduinus." (Præf. in Not. et Epim. p. ix.) Again, "Comparet cui lubet, quæ ante et post exilium Babylonis Hebraice scripta supersunt; nec minorem inveniet labem ac ruinam quam in linguâ Latina. Quapropter est mihi veri dissimillimum, grande ac poeticum spirantes psalmos post reditum ex Babylone scriptos fuisse. Ezra certe, cujus Hebraismo nihil est humilius et ingratius, psalmos nobilissimos tribuere, peccato vicinum est Harduini, odas Horatianas infimæ linguæ Latinæ ætati tribuentis," (p. 196.) Again, speaking particularly of the Book of Job, he says, "Totius poematis ea est puritas, elegantia, sublimitas, quâ nihil majus perfectiusque in toto Hebraico codice superest. -Hocne poema, auream ubique linguæ Hebraicæ et Mosaicam ætatem spirans, ad ferrea illa tempora detrudamus, quæ extincto uno bono poeta, Jeremia, nihil perfecti ac ne quidem mediocriter puleri, fuderunt?" (pp. 187, 188.) Schultens is not less strong in his remarks upon the language and antiquity of Job:"Nullus inter sacros codices tam genuinum remotissimæ antiquitatis præfert characterem. Multo facilius Ennianæ linguæ venerandum decus et pondus, expressisset scriptor aliquis ferreæ ætatis, quam Hebræus ab exilio Babylonico redux grandissimum illud, magnificum, intemeratum, ultimæ vetustatis notâ eminentissima impressum, quod è sublimi hacce, tam materiâ, quam stylo, compositione relucet. Hoc qui discernere non valet, næ ille vel dissipate, vel imperite, judicare censendus." (Præf. *** 3) Warburton, who was not suspected of very deep knowledge of the Hebrew language, was little qualified to feel, and less disposed to admit, the force of such reasoning as the above. He therefore made no reply to the arguments so powerfully pressed upon him from these sources by Bishop Lowth in his Letter; although, as appears from a private communication to his friend Hurd, he found himself most sorely galled by his more critical adversary. See p. 369 of Letters from a late eminent Prelate. distinguished Hebrew critics will be found in a more detailed state to yield confirmation to the above positions. In speaking of Le Clerc, who has led the way to the reduction of the date of this poem to the age of Ezra, Schultenɛ has made the following observations:-" Dolenda est conditio linguarum orientalium, prout eæ a multis tractantur. Unus, alter, tertius ad summum annus iis percipiendis datur. Analysis satis prompta. Explicatio ad receptam versionem non omnino impedita. Placent profectus; et jam metam se tenere credunt, qui carceribus vix egressi. — Quid causa? Tum alia, de quibus alias, tum hoc vel maxime, quod qui in Græcis, Latinisve, non satis subactus, sibi aliquid arroget, mox in ordinem cogatur, atque ad subsellia relegetur: qui in Orientalibus, etiam in re pauperi ditissimus, non sibi tantum, sed et reliquis, videatur, si modo ope Lexici aliquid in medium proferre, mercesque suas venditare queat." Are our commentators of the present day more conversant in Hebrew literature, and more cautious in giving to the public their interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures, than Le Clerc ? We have now seen how indefensible, in the opinion of the most distinguished Hebrew critics, that hypothesis appears, which, reducing the Book of Job to the period of the captivity, ascribes its production to such an author as Ezra. In embracing this hypothesis, however, the Bishop of Killalla has but trodden in the steps of others. But what shall we say to that, which reduces Job himself to so late a date? This, I apprehend, is a discovery that has been entirely reserved for his lordship: at least I know of no commentator who is entitled to dispute with him the honour, whatever it may be, that belongs to the invention. It cannot, indeed, be affirmed, that he has laboured directly and specially to establish this point. But has he not so conducted his reasoning, as that it must follow by necessary implication? In the observations which have been offered at the outset of these remarks, pp. 159-161, we have seen that the time of Job, and the date of the book, are treated by him as in all respects the same. If, therefore, his lordship has succeeded in bringing down the latter below the Babylonish captiHaving adverted to these Letters, I cannot avoid transcribing ciples, as having done the same by the former. vity, he must be considered, on his own prin an extraordinary passage relating to the Book of Job, as an instance of the whimsical originality, for which that extraordinary man conceived his superior talents to have afforded him a licence" Poor Job! It was his eternal fate to be persecuted by his friends. His three comforters passed sentence of condemnation upon him, and he has been executing in effigie ever since. He was first bound to the stake by a long catena of Greek Fathers; then tortured by Pineda; then strangled by Caryl; and afterwards cut up by Wesley, and anatomized by Garnet. Pray don't reckon me amongst his hangmen. I only acted the tender part of his wife, and was for making short work with him. But he was ordained, I think, by a fate like that of Prometheus, to lie still upon his dunghill, and have his brains sucked out by owls." Pp. 29, 30. 37 It is possible that his lordship may, to the justness of the assertion which I have here repeated from the place referred to, object the following words, which will be found quoted from his preface in p. 158:-"But, if it were ever so difficult to ascertain the portion of time when the patriarch lived, it may not be impossible, from the internal marks in the poem itself, to conjecture with tolerable certainty the era of its author." I do not deny, that the bishop has here spoken of the times of Job himself and of the author of the book as not necessarily connected; nor do I assert that he deliberately intended to consider them as the same; I only affirm, that in his reasoning (whether inten tionally or not) they are completely confounded. The last note of the translation explicitly affirms, that Job must have lived after the time of David. The entire scheme of the reasoning pronounces, that he must have lived in the time of Ezra. setting the seal of Episcopal authority to the entire congeries of precipitancies, mistakes, and mutilations-a due regard to my own are more than sixty places in Job, in which the text has been corrupted. By much the greater number of these alterations is proposed upon the reading of a single MS., or of a couple at the most; and what deserves yet more to be remarked is, that, for not fewer than twenty-three, no authority of any MS. or version whatever is pretended, but the name of Stock alone is annexed, as a sufficient justification! To this, it must be remembered, that we are to add, the rejection of the two last verses of the book upon the same unsupported dictum. These, one would think, are tolerable exercises of the conjectural faculty; and yet, strange to say, they are far exceeded by one which yet remains to be noticed; and which will be found contained in the notes on chap. xli. 11, 12. "I am strongly of opinion, that, in the original of this fine poem, the speech attributed to God ended here," (viz. end of verse 12:) "not only because it forms a fuller and more dignified conclusion than that which now closes the chapter; but because it assigns a satisfactory answer to the question, With what view was this laboured description introduced, of the two formidable works of the Creator, the river horse and the crocodile? Answer that question yourselves, saith the Almighty: if ye shrink with terror before my works, how will ye dare to set yourselves in array against their Maker? But to whom then shall we ascribe the Appendix contained in the last two-andtwenty verses of the forty-first chapter? Either to the author himself of the poem, who, in his second but not better thoughts, conceived he might add something valuable to his picture of the crocodile; or, which is more likely, to some succeeding genius, impatient to lengthen out by his inventive powers what had therefore in brackets a superfetation that might well have been spared, we will go on, however, to give light to it. - Observe how the Appendix is ushered in: [12. I will not be silent,' &c.] Is this language for the Omnipotent? Is it at all suitable to the grandeur of conception manifested in the rest of the poem? the thread is too visible, by which the purple patch, of more show than utility, is fastened on." On this result I think it not necessary to offer any comment. And, indeed, it is not without some pain that I have been led to comment upon his lordship's work at all. There are many reasons why I could have wished to forbear; and among these is not the least forcible, the circumstance of its having issued from a member of that distinguished order in the Church, to which I feel at all times disposed, from inclination not less than duty, to pay the utmost deference and respect. This last consideration, however, upon reflection, seemed to render it the more necessary that I should undertake the unpleasing task, in which I have been engaged throughout the latter part of this Number. I had already given to the public, in a former edition of this work, those remarks on the history and Book of Job which are contained in the former part of the Number. I had, upon grounds which appeared to me satisfactory, maintained the antiquity both of the book and of its subject; and from this had derived an argument justly obtained possession of the public esteem. After enclosing in favour of the antiquity and wide extent of the sacrificial rite. I had also, proceeding in a way directly opposite to that which the bishop has, in his preface, described himself to have pursued, spared neither pains nor time to acquire the best information, and from the best interpreters, before I presumed to offer my ideas to the public. Soon after I had done so, the bishop's work appeared, carrying with it the authority of his station, and, by a single dictum, levelling the whole of my laborious structure in the dust. That my observations were not thought worthy of notice by his lordship, could not cause, even to the feelings of an author, much uneasiness, as the works of the most learned and celebrated commentators on Job were left not only unnoticed, but confessedly unperused. What remained, under these circumstances, to be done? Silence might be construed into an admission, that what I had before advanced had been unadvisedly offered, and could not be maintained; and, on the other hand, in treating of the bishop's performance, justice required that I should speak of it in terms remote from those of commendation. Executed with a haste that nothing can excuse; abounding with errors both of reasoning and interpretation; presuming, upon slight and fancied theories, to new-mould the original text;39 and withal 38 If any were requisite on a point so perfectly untenable, the observations in the first part of this Number would abundantly supply it. Bishop Stock prides himself on a list of conjectural alterations of the Hebrew text, contained in an Appendix to his translation,-by which it appears, as he pronounces, that there Here, indeed, is critical amputation with a vengeance. And here we have a large portion of the original at one stroke scored off, and rejected as a superfetation, (so his Lordship is pleased to call it,) exactly in the same manner as we find the history of the birth of Christ, in the beginning of Matthew and Luke, scored off, as a superfetation, by the Editors of the Unitarian New Testament. Heath had, indeed, transposed the first fourteen verses of the fortieth chapter, and inserted them between the sixth and seventh verses of the forty-second. For this, too, he had assigned a reason not deficient in plausibility. But to reject altogether an entire portion of the book, and this upon the merely fanciful and figurative ground of a "thread too visible" and a "purple patch," has been reserved for a bishop of the Established Church. Having adverted to the subject of conjectural emendation of the Sacred Text, I cannot but enter my protest most decidedly against the spirit, which has, of late years, so mis chievously infected the translators of the books of Scripture in that particular respect. The Bishop of Killalla, unfortunately, has had no small degree of countenance in such practices. By others, and those, too, critics of no small repute, this spirit has been too much indulged. The late Bishop of St Asaph has well observed, that considering the matter only as a problem in the doctrine of chances, the odds are always infinitely against conjecture. (Horsley's Hosea, pref. p. xxxiv.)—The consequences growing out of the habit of altering the original Hebrew according to conjecture, must be, that we shall cease altogether to possess a standard text, and that for the word of God, we shall ultimately have only the word of man. Bishop Pocock justly observes upon this practice, that, "every one, for introducing any where such a meaning as pleased him best, might alter the words as he pleased, of which there would be no end; and it would be a matter of very ill consequence indeed. W. must," he adds, "fit our meaning to the words, and not the words to our meaning." (Pocock's Works, vol. ii. p. 493.)—That the MSS. and ancient versions are not to be called in, to assist credit, but, infinitely more, a due regard to the cause of truth, demanded that such a work should not be allowed to pass upon the world as a faithful exposition of a part of sacred writ. In my observations upon the individual defects of this work, I have not thought it necessary to travel beyond the course which the bishop's remarks upon the date of Job unavoidably prescribed. But I cannot dismiss the subject finally without saying, that, in my opinion, the necessity for a new English version of the Book of Job (if any be supposed previously to have existed) has in no particular been diminished by that which has been given to the world by the Bishop of Killalla." As a matter of curiosity, and as supplying some relief from the tædium controversiæ, annex a short account of the history of Job, as it has been handed down amongst the Arabians. Job, or Aiub, (as he is called in Arabic, agreeably to the Hebrew name ) is reported by some of their historians to have been descended from Ishmael; it being held, that from Isaac, through Jacob, all the prophets had sprung, excepting three, Job, Jethro, (the father-in-law of Moses, called by the Arabians Schoaib,) and Mahomet; which three had come of the line of Ishmael, and were Arabians. By others, his descent is traced from Isaac, through Esau, from whom he was the third, or at most the fourth, in succession. And in the history given by Khendemir, who distinguishes him by the title of the Patient, it is stated that by his mother's side he was descended from Lot: that he had been commissioned by God to preach the faith to a people of Syria: that, although no more than three had been converted by his preaching, he was, notwithstanding, rewarded for his zeal by immense possessions: that his wealth and prosperity excited the envy of the devil, who, presenting himself before God, charged Job with motives of self-interest in his religious obedience, and asserted, that if the Almighty would deprive him of his substance, his boasted allegiance would not hold out for a single day: that the devil obtained permission to strip him of his wealth, but that Job's fidelity remained unshaken that having received still farther permission to afflict him in his person, the in rectifying the Hebrew text, where confusion has manifestly arisen, I am very far indeed from contending: but that what is properly called conjecture should be permitted to interfere, and now especially, after the immense labours of Kennicott and De Rossi in their collation of the various copies of the Hebrew, is, I think, wholly inadmissible. This is not the place to enlarge upon such a subject. I would strongly recommend to the perusal of the reader the judicious observations of Bishop Horsley, in his preface, as before referred to, and at p. xxxix. See also Dathii Opuscula, p. 135-137. 40 His lordship has, since the publication of the second edition of this work, been advanced to the See of Waterford. To avoid confusion, however, I have continued to designate him by the title under which he is known to the public as the translator of Job. devil infused by a pestilential breath such infection as to render Job's entire body one putrid ulcer, and of a nature so offensive, as tc repel from him every attendant, and to force the inhabitants to drive him out of the city into a remote and solitary place, whither his wife carried every day what was necessary for his subsistence: that the devil constantly stole from her whatever she had provided for this purpose; and having reduced her to such a condition, that she had nothing remaining for her husband's relief, he appeared to her in the form of a bald old woman, and offered, upon condition of her giving two tresses of hair that hung upon her neck, to furnish her every day with what she might require for her husband's subsistence that Job's wife having agreed to the proposal, and parted with the tresses, the devil produced the hair to Job, affirming that it had been cut from his wife's head when caught in the act of matrimonial unfaithfulness: that Job, enraged against his wife, was led to swear, that if he recovered his health he would most severely punish her for her offence: that the devil, having thus got the better of Job's patience, transformed himself to an angel of light, and published to the people of the surrounding country that Job had forfeited the favour of God, and that they should no longer permit him to abide among them that Job, being informed of what had passed, had recourse to God by prayer, who in a moment put an end to all his sufferings; for that the angel Gabriel descended to the place where he was, and, striking the earth with his foot, caused a fountain of the purest water to spring up, wherein Job having washed his body and drank of it, was suddenly and perfectly restored to health: and that, after this, God multiplied his riches in such a manner, that, to express the abundance of it, the Arabian authors say that a shower of gold fell upon him. See D' Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. tom. i. pp. 75, 76, 432, 458; also Saie's Koran, vol. ii. p. 162, in which latter place the story is given with some minute variations. The reader will of course consider these fables as introduced here principally for his amusement. One fact, however, they unequivocally speak-the belief of the Arabians that there was in reality such a person as Job, who lived in the patriarchal age, and was distinguished above all men by his sufferings and his patience. The reverence for the name of Job has been in truth from the earliest times, and to this day continues to be, through all Arabia, extremely great; so that many of the noblest families among the Arabians have gloried in being descended from that patriarch. The famous dynasty of the great Saladin have been known by the name of Aioubites, or Jobites, their illustrious founder being called by the name of Job. (D'Herb. Bib. Orient. tom. i. p. 76.) The reverence for this name has, I am sorry to say, been carried still far- but the peculiar quality of swiftness; the idea ther amongst Christians: the worship of Job of celerity and prevention being most appobeing (as Broughton tells us) of great anti-sitely conveyed by a term, whose radical sigquity, both amongst the Greek and Latin churches; the Greeks having chosen the 6th of May for celebrating the festival of Saint Job, and the Latins keeping it on the 10th. Diction. of all Relig. vol. i. p. 538. No. LX. - Page 19. Col. 1. ON GROTIUS'S STRANGE MISCONCEPTION OF THE Nature of ABEL'S SACRIFICE. Grotius, followed by Le Clerc, interprets the words in Gen. iv. 4, which we translate the firstlings, as signifying the best and finest; and will have this to relate only to the wool, - nification implied the first, or earliest. In this Again, with respect to the word, although it is undoubtedly used in several places to signify milk, as well as fat, 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 is said to be nona. which is known to have been offered to the gods in later times. That also which we render the fat thereof, he considers to mean more than the milk, and appeals to the Seventy, who in numerous instances have certainly translated the word, here used, by yana. But first, as to, it cannot be denied, that, in relation to man or beast, it is never found in any part of the Bible in any other sense than that of first-born. So appropriate is this meaning, that is used absolutely, to express primogeniture, and the right resulting from it, as in Gen. xxv. 31 34, and xliii. 33. It is, indeed, applied to first fruits, or fruits first ripe; but this evidently refers to its radical signification of first-born; nor can any instance be adduced of the application of the term in the figurative sense of finest and best, contended for by Grotius, unless such a signification be tacitly supposed to attach in all cases to the idea of the first, or earliest, in its kind. He has, indeed, referred us to the expression in Job, xviii. 13; to the use of the word, applied to the fruit of the fig-tree; and to the force of the term 11, employed to denominate the species 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 fructiferæ," 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 word1 boccôre () 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, 1 See Lowth's Isai. xxviii. 4; Blayney's Jer. xxiv. 2; and Newcome's Hos. ix. 10. 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. Kennicott 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, indeed, 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, furnishes another extraordinary specimen. "By these words," he says, 66 nothing more is meant than what the heathens in later times understood by their Sagmen, 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 paganis ritibus talia, obtorto collo, ad explica tionem rerum sacrarum rapit ; quæ, si propius intueare, nec cœlum nec terram attingunt." (Exercit. v. § 19.) But to return. 2 With respect to the word bn, 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 an is often used for the best of its kind. Thus on, is the finest of the wheat, (Ps. lxxxi. 16; cxlvii. 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 peaceoffering, 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 a 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. 131; also Shuck. Connect. vol. i. p. 81.) But it is placed beyond the possibility of doubt, if it be admitted, with the authorities and reasons adduced in pp. 147, 148, that the sign of the Divine acceptance of Abel's sacrifice was the consumption of it by fire from heaven. Porphyry, in his second book, De Abstin. Anim. considers this a sufficient reason to pronounce the offering of Abel to have been a holocaust, and compares it with that of Solomon, described in 2 Chr. vii. 1, where it is said, that "when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burntoffering (or holocaust) and the sacrifices." No. LXI.- Page 19. Col. 1. ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DIVINE RECEPTION OF THE SACRIFICES OF CAIN AND ABEL. 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 2 See Chrysost. Jun. Vatab.; also Jen. Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 149; and Kenn. Two Diss. pp. 193, 194. --- 66 of Gen. iv. 7. Οὐκ, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκης, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλης, ἥμαρτες, If should rightly you 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. 77 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 Heb. 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 Heb. 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 confined to Josephus, and the Rabbins, from whom Havercamp affirms, and Cunæus and Heidegger fully prove, it was derived by this author.-See 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 acceptance of the one and the rejection of the other, with the nature and circumstances of the respective oblations. But Again, it is said that Cain's entertaining a design against his brother's life laid the foundation for the difference of treatment. 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 observed1 (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 195,) that "the actions of both the brothers" (in the offerings made by them of 1 This essay of Dr Priestley, in which (as has been stated in p. 130 of this work) 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, (pp. 129, 130,) 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 shews the vast difference there in |