prevented his acceptance of Cain's eucharistic sacrifice?

The Lord's expostulation with the elder brother fully answers this important question.

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

Cain, as we learn from the tenour of the expostulation, claimed to do well: and, in consequence of this claim, instead of devoting a sin-offering like his brother, he satisfied himself with bringing a mere eucharistic vegetable oblation. His moral conduct, I apprehend, had hitherto been exemplary; for, otherwise, he could have set up no plea that he did well: and, from the language of God, we may infer, I think, that he had proudly and exclusively built upon it. God, therefore, condescends to argue with him on his own principles.

"If thy whole conduct be so irreproachable, "that thou art free from sin, and that thou "needest not an atonement to be made by a

66

sin-offering: then, assuredly, on the just plea "of sinlessness, thou shalt be accepted. But, "if that be not the case (and thou mayest be "certain, that it is very far from being the case), "then, as an atonement, a sin-offering coucheth

"at the door of thy tent ready to be offered

The spirit, then, of Cain was that of a proud meritorious asserted sinlessness: and it was that spirit which rendered his otherwise laudable eucharistic sacrifice so utterly abominable in the eyes of the Lord. He presented his eucharistic sacrifice, not in humble conjunction with, but in haughty opposition to, a piacular sacrifice. The former, upon theologic principle, he offered: the latter, upon theologic principle, he offered not. Hence God directed him to supply the omission, and thus to imitate the more dutiful behaviour of his brother Abel. If thou doest not well, a sin-offering coucheth at the door.

2. Of Abel, the spirit was the very opposite to that manifested by Cain.

From the firstlings of his flock he brought, as a sin-offering and thus, through the instrumentality of the symbol, he confessed his need of an atonement. This better spirit caused his offering to be accepted by God: this better spirit procured for him the appellation of a righteous man: this better spirit gained him the enmity of his jealous and unhumbled relative. Cain was of that wicked one, the very father of unhallowed pride: Cain slew his brother.

And wherefore, asks the Apostle, slew he him? Because his own works were evil; and his brother's, righteous.

V. Thus, in every point of view, does the present translation bring out a sense good and consistent and contextually harmonious: while, upon the common translation, no such praise can justly be bestowed *.

But, either the one, or the other, of these two translations MUST be adopted: because the word Chattath denotes ONLY sin and a sin-offering.

Our choice, therefore, MUST lie, between a

* Mr. Davison asserts, that "Our English translators, without committing themselves to this more limited sense of punishment, have yet kept their translation on fair terms with it. They FAVOUR, although they do not EXPRESS, it." Inquiry, p. 59.

Where is Mr. Davison's proof of this assertion? Whence did he learn, that our translators FAVOURED the gloss which he would put upon the text now under discussion?

Had our translators THOUGHT with Mr. Davison, they would doubtless have RENDERED the place accordingly. As for a dread of "committing themselves," they could not possibly have entertained any such apprehension: for, however erroneously, in three several passages, as we have seen above, they actually interpret the word Chattath" in this "more limited sense of punishment." Hence it is obvious, that, had they BELIEVED such to be its meaning in the present text, they would have rendered it accordingly.

Our translators, so far from FAVOURING Mr. Davison's gloss, are plainly, I think, HOSTILE to it. Certainly, the whole evidence of their alleged FAVOUR rests upon the simple circumstance, that they wrote SIN lieth at the door.

consistent and intelligible translation, and an inconsistent and unintelligible translation.

VI. The translation, however, for the plain NECESSITY of which I venture to contend, is recommended, not only by its own inherent merit, but likewise by the very phraseology of the entire passage itself.

In our common English version, the Hebrew text is rendered Sin LIETH at the door: but, as it is well known, such a translation by no means expresses the force of the original. The word, which inadequately has been rendered LIETH, properly describes the COUCHING or RECUMBENCE of an animal.

Nor is this the only peculiarity of the clause, as it stands in the Hebrew. Contrary to the strict rules of grammar, the masculine participle Robetz, which expresses the act of couching, is constructed with the feminine substantive Chattath, which by our translators is rendered sin.

Here, then, we have a double peculiarity; a peculiarity of import, and a peculiarity of grammar: and each peculiarity alike directs us to the version for which I am contending.

A participle, which properly describes the recumbence of an animal, is employed, simply because an animal is spoken of: and this par

K

ticiple is irregularly written in the masculine gender, because, agreeably to the more common sacrificial practice, the animal, pointed out to Cain, was a male*.

Mr. Davison's proposed rendering, if admissible, would produce a metaphor. But metaphor there is none. The whole is plain matter of fact. An animal is the appointed sin-offering. Hence, obviously and naturally, the sin-offering is said to couch, as a recumbent beast, at the door of the tent †.

* See Phil. Jud. de Victim. Oper. p. 843. I may here add, that the use of the feminine word ɔɔ in Gen. iv. 4, where it is applied to the firstlings of Abel's flock, does not invalidate the criticism on the words Chattath and Robetz in ver. 7 for is a noun of multitude, denoting collectively male firstlings. Compare Deut. xii. 6, 17. xiv. 23. XV. 19. Exod. xiii. 12. Levit. xxvii. 26. See Parkhurst's Heb. Lex. in voc..

† Mr. Davison has, I think, dismissed the grammatical irregularity in the present passage much too rapidly. With Dathe, he pronounces the difficulty to be a light one; and thence, somewhat unceremoniously, throws it aside. Inquiry, p. 49, 50.

Now, without entering into an accurate calculation of the amount of the difficulty, I may at least fairly remark, both that his very statement confesses its existence, and that his proposed rendering (even if admissible) would not remove it whereas, by the version for which I contend, the difficulty is at once both explained and removed; or rather, the difficulty is removed by the mere act of giving what I deem the true explanation of the passage. Though the word Chattath itself be feminine, the animal, which would have