declaration of abundant provision, and consequently leaving man at full liberty to use all creatures for food, why introduce a permission at this time respecting a particular species of creatures?

But besides, i does not imply a particular species of animals, but denotes all, of whatever kind, that move. That this is the true acceptation of the word may be collected from Cocceius, and Schindler, as well as Nachmanides, (who is quoted by Fagius, Crit. Sac. on Gen. i. 29.) and the several authorities in Pole's Syn. on Gen. xix. 3: and so manifest does it appear from the original in various instances, that it requires no small degree of charity, not to believe, that Dr. Sykes has wilfully closed nis eyes against its true meaning. His words are particularly deserving of remark." Throughout the law of Moses, it is certain, that it (won) never takes in, or includes, beasts of the earth, or birds of the air, but a third species of animals different from the other two:" and this third species he conjectures to be, "all such, either fish or reptiles, that not having feet glide along." (p. 173.) Now the direct contrary of all this is certain: and had Dr. Sykes, in his accurate survey of the entire law of Moses, but allowed his eye to glance on the words contained in Gen. vii. 21. he probably would not have been quite so peremptory. ALL FLESH died, that

moveth () upon the earth; both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing (w) that creepeth () upon the earth. Here the creeping things are specially named, and included, together with all other creatures, under the general word won. And it is particularly deserving of notice, that in the xith ch. of Levit. in which the different species of animals are accurately pointed out, those that are properly called creeping things, are mentioned no less than eleven times, and in every instance expressed by the word : and yet from this very chapter, overlooking these numerous and decisive instances, Dr. Sykes quotes, in support of his opinion, the use of the word w in the two following verses: Neither shall you defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing (y) that moveth (w) upon the earth, verse 44.-And again, this is the law of the beasts, and of the fowls, and of every living creature that moveth (v) in the waters, verse 46. Here, because the word

, which is a description of all moving things, (as has been shewn above and may be proved from various other instances,-see Jenn. Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 306.) is found connected with reptiles and fishes, it is at once pronounced to be appropriate to them notwithstanding that through the entire chapter, whose object it is carefully to distinguish the different kinds of

animals, it is never once used in the numerous passages referring specially to the reptile and fishy tribes as their proper appellation, and is translated in these two verses by the LXX in its true generic sense, zwaμevos, that moveth. So that Dr. Sykes might with as good reason have inferred, that, because creeping things are occasionally called living creatures, living creatures must consequently mean creeping things. To say the truth, if Dr. Sykes had been desirous to discover a part of Scripture, completely subversive of his interpretation of the word w, he could not have made a happier selection, than the very chapter of Leviticus, to which he has referred.

But, to leave no doubt, that the grant made to Noah was a permission for the first time of animal food, we find an express description of the manner in which this sort of food was to be used, immediately subjoined: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Now, if animal food had been before in use, this injunction seems unaccountable, unless on the supposition, that it had been the practice, before the flood, to feed on the flesh of animals that had not been duly killed for the purpose; and Dr. Sykes's argument, which maintains, that this prohibition merely tended to prevent the eating such animals as died of themselves, or the eating the animal without having duly killed it, must rest entirely

on the presumption, that such had been the practice before. But on what ground he has assumed this, he has not thought proper to inform us: and the certainty, that, before the flood, animals were killed for sacrifice, seems not consistent with the supposition. It is curious to observe, that this argument adduced by Sykes, falls in with one of the strange conceits of the Jewish Rabbins: it being a tradition of theirs, that there were seven precepts, handed down by the sons of Noah to their posterity, six of which had been given to Adam, and the seventh was this to Noah, "about not eating flesh, which was cut from any animal alive." See Patrick's Preface to Job-also Jennings's Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 147.

It must be confessed, however, that arguments, of a nature widely different from these of Sykes, have been urged in opposition to the interpretation of the several grants to Adam, and to Noah, contended for in this note. Heidegger, in his Historia Patriarch. Exercit. xv. §. 9. vol. i. maintains, that the passage, Gen. i. 29, 30. is to be thus translated: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, &c. (to you it shall be for meat); NAY ALSO, every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the earth, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, WITH every green herb for meat. This translation he defends, on the ground of the occasional use of the preposition

in the inclusive, or copulative, sense; whence he holds himself justified in explaining it here, as the mark of the accusative, not of the dative case. In support of this acceptation, he also produces some names highly distinguished in the annals of sacred criticism, viz. Capellus, Cocceius, and Bochart. And to reconcile this interpretation with the grant to Noah, which seems inconsistent with the idea, that the right to animal food had been conveyed before the time of that patriarch, he considers this second grant but as a repetition of the first to Adam, and that the words, even as the green herb have I given you all things, are not to be understood, as conveying now, for the first time, a right to the use of all creatures, similar to that which had been before granted with respect to the herbs and fruits, but merely as confirming the grant formerly made, of the green herb and of all living creatures, without distinction.

Now, although the particle, is used in some few parts of Scripture, in the sense here ascribed to it by Heidegger, yet if we examine the instances in which it is so applied, (all of which may be seen at one view in Noldius Concord. Particul. Ebr. pp. 398. 401.) we shall find, that it stands in those cases combined and related in such manner as to give a new modification to its general and ordinary meaning. But surely, in the present case, no such modi