to pronounce, that the only two significations of the word Chattath are sin and sin-offering.

Now, in the passage at present before us, this precise word Chattath is the word employed by the sacred historian. Hence, in the passage before us, that word MUST be translated either sin or a sin offering: for of no third translation is it CAPABLE. So far as mere grammar is concerned, the word may be translated either way; that is, it may be translated either sin or a sin-offering: but, if we find that the one possible translation of it produces the very reverse of good sense, we shall not be blamed by any reasonable person, if we try the other equally possible translation. Let the experiment, then, be made: and let us observe the result.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And, if thou doest not well, a sin-offering coucheth at the door.

The strict grammatical or mechanical propriety. of this translation will not be contested: the only question therefore is, whether it produces, what the other equally possible translation has failed to produce, a sense good and consistent and contextually harmonious.

Now, I contend, that it perfectly answers such a description. From the context we are bound

to infer, that the rejection and the acceptance of the two offerings rested, not upon the antecedent moral conduct of the two brothers respecting which we KNOW nothing, but upon the nature and spirit of the two offerings themselves: and it is certain, that God's expostulation with Cain was intended to account for the difference which he made between the two offerings of the two brothers. Accordingly, if we adopt the present translation, every thing is clear and harmonious and consistent. For some reason or other, God was displeased with the nature and spirit of Cain's offering for some reason or other, God was pleased with the nature and spirit of Abel's oblation. Let Cain act in the matter of sacrifice, as Abel did: and Cain's oblation will be accepted, no less than the oblation of Abel*.

* Very remarkable is the rendering of the present text, which has been given by the Greek translators.

Οὐκ, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκης, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλης, ἥμαρτες ; ἡσύχασον.

If thou hast rightly brought, but if thou hast not rightly divided, hast thou not sinned? Be still.

Such a version is unaccountable, except on the supposition that the system of Masoretic punctuation was unknown when it was made. Let the points, however, be rejected: and we shall then find no great difficulty in ascertaining how it originated. The Seventy have clearly mistaken and nn for two infinitives: while they have made son the second person singular of an indicative; and p, an imperative.

IV. What then was the reason, WHY God accepted the one offering, and wHY he rejected the other?

According to their unpunctuated arrangement, the literal version of the passage would run as follows.

If thou hast done well in bringing, and if thou hast not done well in opening, hast thou not sinned? Be still.

In this manner the Seventy understood the place: but the very genius of Hebrew antithetic poetry alone shows them to have erred, and fully establishes the strict propriety of the Masoretic punctuation.

If thou hast done well: shalt thou not be accepted?

And if thou hast not done well: at the door a sin-offering is couching.

A learned friend and neighbour of mine has ingeniously suggested to me, that, although, at first sight, the translation of the Seventy might appear favourable neither to Mr. Davison's version nor my own; inasmuch as it excludes, from the fancied verb son, both the sense of punishment for sin and the sense of offering for sin : yet it involves, on the part of the Greek translators, a concurrence of opinion with my own view of the general question. This concurrence is established by the very turn of the phraseology: for such phraseology implies, that Cain's sin consisted in disobeying some imperative direction respecting the mode of sacrifice, which imperative direction was well known by the fratricide to have been anteriorly communicated by God himself.

The sacred historian had already informed us, that Cain and Abel each BROUGHT an offering unto the Lord: and, according to the Greek, God's expostulation with Cain runs ; If thou hast rightly BROUGHT (thy offering), but if thou hast not rightly divided (it), hast thou not sinned?

Now this expostulation, by introducing the idea of RIGHTLY bringing and NOT RIGHTLY dividing, implies of necessity some previous command on the part of God relative to the ordinance of sacrifice, the daring breach of which constituted the sin of Cain and produced the rejection of his

The reason may be gathered, both from the different nature of the two oblations, and from

offering for, without an antecedent imperative direction, there clearly could not have been a mixture of RIGHT and WRONG in Cain's devotement of his sacrifice.

Hence it obviously follows, that the ancient Greek translators believed the rite of sacrifice to have been divinely appointed from the beginning.

What precise idea they meant to annex to the word diéλns, may be a matter of some uncertainty. The bare notion of division they seem to have taken from a sense, which the verb л occasionally bears. Primarily, it denotes to open; whence springs its derivative substantive л, a door: but, secondarily, it denotes to open a line or furrow, as by a graving instrument or a plough; which mode of opening imports a division of parts previously united. Hence, I take it, sprang the rendering diens: but still it is difficult to say, what precise idea they wished to annex to the word.

The gloss of Irenæus, Cum zelo et malitia, quae erat adversus fratrem, divisionem habebat IN CORDE (Iren. adv. Hær. lib. iv. c. 34.), strikes upon my own apprehension as being singularly irrelevant and unnatural. I rather, though with entire submission to better judgment than my own, incline to paraphrase the Greek translation in some such manner as the following.

In bringing a sacrifice, thou hast acted rightly; because I myself prescribed the ordinance of sacrifice: but, in bringing an eucharistic sacrifice through studied contempt and disregard of a piacular sacrifice, thou hast not drawn a right line of division between two oblations of such totally different principles. Hence, from the circumstance of thy not drawing this right line of division between them, inasmuch as thou hast retained the one sacrifice and hast systematically rejected the other; thou hast sinned with a high hand against the Lord, thou hast not properly distinguished between the two modes of sacrificature.

After some such manner, the translation may seem to have been understood by Augustine.

that different spirit of the two offerers which made Cain evil in the sight of God and Abel righteous.

Abel offered up an animal victim, under the aspect of a sin-offering or a piacular sacrifice: Cain offered up a mere vegetable oblation, apparently under the aspect of an eucharistic sacrifice.

Now, whether we suppose both animal sacrifice and vegetable sacrifice to have been divinely instituted from the beginning, or whether we deem them both alike of mere human institution"; on either hypothesis, we shall have no reason afforded us from the supposed case itself, why God accepted the offering of Abel and why he rejected the offering of Cain. Hence the sin of Cain must have consisted, not in the mere oblation of an eucharistic sacrifice abstractedly considered, but in the spirit or temper with which it was presented.

1. Under these circumstances, our business is to inquire, what was the spirit or temper, which so grievously offended God, and which

Non autem rectè dividitur, dum non discernuntur rectè vel loca, vel tempora, vel RES IPSÆ QUÆ OFFERUNTUR, August. de Civ. Dei. lib. xv. c. 7. Oper. vol. v. p. 162.

Whether this be the purport of the Greek translation or not, at all events it clearly implies, that, in the judgment of the translators, Cain sinned in the act of sacrifice by violating some well-known antecedent command of God.