NO. LI. THE SUPPOSITION THAT SACRIFICES ORIGI NATED IN THE IDEA OF GIFTS, ERroneous.

PAGE 44. ().-Dr. Rutherforth, in a communication to Dr. Kennicot, collects from Gen. iv. 20. that the introduction of property, or exclusive right, amongst mankind, is not to be fixed higher than the time of Jabal, the eighth from Adam. He is there said to have been the father, or first inventor, of p: that is, says Rutherforth, not, as we translate it, the father of such as have cattle, (for he was clearly not the first of such, Abel having been a keeper of sheep long before,) but of private property; the word signifying strictly possession of any sort, and being so rendered in the Syriac version. (Kennic. Two Dissert. App. p. 252254.) In addition to this it may be remarked, that the word seems to have been applied to cattle, merely because cattle were, in the earliest ages, the only kind of possession; and that when there is nothing in the context to determine the word to that application, it can be considered only in its original and proper sense, namely possession.

But whether this idea be right or not, it is obvious, that a community of goods must have for some time prevailed in the world; and that

consequently the very notion of a gift, and all experience of its effect upon men, must have been for a length of time unknown. And if the opinion be right, that sacrifice existed before Abel, and was coeval with the fall; it becomes yet more manifest, that observation of the efficacy of gifts could not have given birth to the practice, there being no subjects in the world upon which Adam could make such observation. Besides, as Kennicot remarks, (Two Diss. p. 207.) "no being has a right to the lives of other beings, but the Creator, or those on whom he confers that right"; if then God had not given Abel such a right, (and that he did not confer it even for the purposes of necessary food, will appear from the succeeding Number,) even the existence of the notion of property, and the familiar use and experience of gifts, could not have led him to take away the life of the animal as a gift to the Almighty; nor, if they could have done so, can we conceive, that such an offering would have been graciously accepted.

NO. LII.-ON THE DATE OF THE PERMISSION OF ANIMAL FOOD TO MAN.

PAGE 44. (e)-The permission of animal food evidently appears from Scripture to take its date from the age of Noah: the express grant of ani

mal food then made, clearly evincing that it was not in use before. This opinion is not only founded in the obvious sense of the passage Gen. ix. 3. but has the support of commentators, the most distinguished for their learning and candid investigation of the sacred text.* But, as ingenious refinements have been employed to torture away the plain and direct sense of Scripture upon this head, it becomes necessary to take a brief review of the arguments upon the question.

Two grants were made; one to Adam, and onè to Noah. To Adam it was said, Gen. i. 29, 30% Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth; and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree, bearing seed, to you it shall be for meat; and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. Again, to Noah it is said, Gen. ix. 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; EVEN

AS THE GREEN HERB HAVE I GIVEN YOU ALL

THINGS. Now, whilst the obvious inference from the former of these passages is, that God's ori

* See Munst. Vatab. Clar. Grot. and Le Clerc. on Gen. ix. 3. also Shuckf. Connect. vol. i. p. 81. and Kennic. Two Diss. p. 70.

ginal grant of the use of his creatures for food, was confined to the vegetable creation; the conclusion to be drawn from the latter is found to be precisely similar, inasmuch as, had animal food been before permitted for the use of man, there had been no occasion for the specific grant to that purpose now made to Noah. And, in perfect agreement with this reasoning, we find the Scripture history of the period antecedent to the flood, entirely silent concerning the use of animal food.

Dr. Sykes, however, can see nothing in the first grant to Adam, "but a general declaration of a sufficient provision for all creatures;" nor in the second to Noah, "but a command to slay before they ate flesh:" flesh having from the first been used for food. (Essay, &c. pp. 177, 178.) In support of these extraordinary positions, he employs arguments not less extraordinary.

1. He contends, that the former grant is nécessarily to be understood with certain limitations; for that, as some creatures were not formed for living on herbs, and some herbs were of a poisonous quality, the grant cannot be supposed to extend to every green herb; and hence he infers, that the grant cannot be interpreted as enjoining or prohibiting any particular species of food; and that consequently animal food may be included. (p. 169-171.) But it seems rather a strange inference, even admitting D

VOL. II.

the existence of noxious vegetables at the time of the grant, that because it must in propriety be limited to a certain description of the things generally permitted, it might therefore be extended to a class of things never once named; or that, because a full power was given to man over all herbs, to take of them as he pleased for food, whilst some would not answer for that purpose, the dominion given was not therefore to relate to herbs, but generally to all things, that might serve for human sus

tenance.

But 2. he maintains, that, at all events, this grant of herb and tree for the food of man, does not exclude any other sort of food, which might be proper for him. And to establish this, he endeavours to shew (p. 171-177.) that the declaration to Noah did not contain a grant to eat animal food in general, but only some particular sorts of it, such as are included in the word w, by which he understands creeping things, or such animals as are not comprehended under the denominations of beast and fowl; so that, admitting this to be a grant of something new, it was yet by no means inconsistent with the supposition, that sheep, oxen, goats, and such like animals had been eaten from the first. Now, this directly contradicts his former argument. For if, as that maintains, the grant to Adam was but a general