offering among his countrymen. (Iliad. iv. ver. 202.) And the ancient Goths, having "laid it down as a principle, that the effusion of the blood of animals appeased the anger of the gods, and that their justice turned aside upon the victims those strokes which were destined for men," (MALLET'S North. Antiq. vol. i. chap. 7.) soon proceeded to greater lengths, and adopted the horrid, practice of devoting human victims. In honour of the mystical number three, a number deemed particularly dear to Heaven, every ninth month witnessed the groans and dying struggles of nine unfortunate victims. The fatal blow being struck, the lifeless bodies were consumed in the sacred fire, which was kept perpetually burning; while the blood, in singular conformity with the levitical ordinances, was sprinkled, partly upon the surrounding multitude, partly upon the trees of the hallowed grove, and partly upon the images of their idols. (MALLET'S North. Antiq. vol. i. chap. 7.) Even the remote inhabitants of America have retained similar customs, and for similar reasons. It is somewhere observed by Acosta, that in cases of sickness, it is usual for a Peruvian to sacrifice his son to Virachoca, beseeching him to spare his life, and to be satisfied with the blood of his child.

FABER'S Hora. Mosaice, vol. i. p. 88.

No. 3. v. 24. God took him.] The following singu lar tradition may possibly have some reference to the translation of Enoch: "The Kalmucks, among other idols, worship in a peculiar manner one, which they call Xacamuni. They say, that four thousand years ago, he was only a sovereign prince in India; but, on account of his unparalleled sanctity, God had taken him up to heaven alive."

VON STRAHLENBERG's Siberia, p. 409. ́.

No. 4.-ix. 4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.] Mr. Bruce has given a very extraordinary account of the practice of eating blood in Abyssinia. This custom, so prevalent in several places, is forbidden in the scriptures. A recital of the narrative will probably suggest to the reader the reasons of the prohibition. Mr. Bruce tells us, that," not long after our losing sight of the ruins of this ancient capital of Abyssinia, we overtook three travellers driving a cow before them: they had black goat skins upon their shoulders, and lances and shields in their hands; in other respects they were but thinly clothed; they appeared to be soldiers. The cow did not seem to be fatted for killing, and it occurred to us all, that it had been stolen. This, however, was not our business, nor was such an occurrence at all remarkable in a country so long engaged in war. We saw that our attendants attached themselves, in a particular manner, to the three soldiers that were driving the cow, and held a short conversation with them. Soon after, we arrived at the hithermost bank of the river, where I thought we were to pitch our tent: the drivers suddenly tript up the cow, and gave the poor animal a very rude fall upon the ground, which was but the beginning of her sufferings. One of them sat across her neck, holding down her head by the horns, the other twisted the halter about her fore feet, while the third, who had a knife in his hand, to my very great surprise, in place of taking her by the throat, got astride upon her belly, before her hind legs, and gave her a very deep wound in the upper part of the buttock. From the time I had seen them throw the beast upon the ground, I had rejoiced, thinking that when three people were killing a cow, they must have agreed to sell part of her to us; and I was much disappointed upon hearing the Abyssinians say, that we were to pass the river to the other side, and not encamp where

I intended. Upon my proposing they should bargain for part of the cow, my men answered, what they had already learned in conversation, that they were not then to kill her: that she was not wholly theirs, and they could not sell her. This awakened my curiosity; I let my people go forward, and staid myself, till I saw, with the utmost astonishment, two pieces, thicker and longer than our ordinary beef steaks, cut out of the higher part of the buttock of the beast: how it was done I cannot positively say, because, judging the cow was to be killed from the moment I saw the knife drawn, I was not anxious to view that catastrophe, which was by no means an object of curiosity: whatever way it was done, it surely was adroitly, and the two pieces were spread upon the outside of one of their shields. One of them still continued holding the head, while the other two were busy in curing the wound. This, too, was done not in an ordinary manner. The skin, which had covered the flesh that was taken away, was left intire, and flapped over the wound, and was fastened to the corresponding part by two or more small skewers or pins. Whether they had put any thing under the skin, between that and the wounded flesh, I know not; but, at the river side where they were, they had prepared a cataplasm of clay, with which they covered the wound; they then forced the animal to rise, and drove it on before them, to furnish them with a fuller meal when they should meet their companions in the evening.' (Travels, vol. iii. p. 142.) “We have an instance, in the life of Saul, that shews the propensity of the Israelites to this crime: Saul's army, after a battle, flew, that is, fell voraciously upon the cattle they had taken, and threw them upon the ground to cut off their flesh, and eat them raw; so that the army was defiled by eating blood, or living animals. 1 Sam. xiv. 33. To prevent this, Saul caused to be rolled to him a great stone, and

ordered those that killed their oxen, to cut their throats upon that stone. This was the only lawful way of killing animals for food; the tying of the ox, and throwing it upon the ground was not permitted as equivalent. The Israelites did probably, in that case, as the Abyssinians do at this day; they cut a part of its throat, so that blood might be seen on the ground, but nothing mortal to the animal followed from that wound: but, after laying his head upon a large stone, and cutting his throat, the blood fell from on high, or was poured on the ground like water, and sufficient evidence appeared that the creature was dead, before it was attempted to eat it. We have seen that the Abyssinians came from Pales◄ tine a very few years after this, and we are not to doubt, that they then carried with them this, with many other Jewish customs, which they have continued to this day." (BRUCE's Travels, vol. iii. p. 299.) To corroborate the account given by Mr. Bruce, in these extracts, it may be satisfactory to affix what Mr. Antes has said upon the subject, in his Observations on the Manners and Customs of the Egyptians, p. 17. "When Mr. Bruce returned from Abyssinia, I was at Grand Cairo. I had the pleasure of his company for three months almost every day, and having, at that time, myself an idea of penetrating into Abyssinia, I was very inquisitive about that country, on hearing many things from him which seemed almost incredible to me; I used to ask his Greek servant Michael, (a simple fellow, incapable of any invention) about the same circumstance, and must say, that he commonly agreed with his master, as to the chief points. The description Mr. Bruce makes concerning the bloody banquet of live oxen among the natives, he happened never to mention to me, else I could have made the same enquiry; but I heard not only this servant, but many eye witnesses, often speak of the Abyssinians eating raw meat."

No.5.-ix.21.And he drank of the wine and was drunken.] Numerous passages might be selected from the sacred books of the Hindus, in which there appears an extraordinary coincidence with some parts of the sacred scriptures. It is admitted by those who are best acquainted with the heathen records, that the similarity is not merely casual, but that the facts and circumstances thus detailed had been in some way, however remote or traditional, derived from the divine original. The following extract from the Padma-purán, of which the translation is minutely exact, may afford a specimen of these conformities, which are strongly corroborative of the truth of the Mosaic history. It is evidently the history of Noah and his sons just after the flood.

1. "TO SATYAVARMAN, that sovereign of the whole earth, were born three sons; the eldest, SHERMA; then C'HARMA; and thirdly, JYA'PETI by name.

2. "They were all men of good morals, excellent in virtue and virtuous deeds, skilled in the use of weapons to strike with or to be thrown; brave men, eager for victory in battle.

3. "But SATYAVARMAN, being continually delighted with devout meditation, and seeing his sons fit for dominion, laid upon them the burden of government,

4. "Whilst he remained honouring and satisfying the gods, and priests, and kine. One day, by the act of destiny, the king, having drunk mead,

5. “Became senseless, and lay asleep naked; then was he seen by C'HARMA, and by him were his two brothers called.

6. "To whom he said, what now has befallen? in what state is this our sire? By those two was he hidden with clothes, and called to his senses again and again.

7. "Having recovered his intellect, and perfectly knowing what had passed, he cursed C'HARMA, saying, thou shalt be the servant of servants.