VII. There is yet another matter, which, as it is altogether fatal to Mr. Davison's speculation while it decidedly corroborates the exposition adopted by myself, I may well be allowed to bring forward.

The final clause of the expostulation, which God addresses to Cain, our English translators have rendered in a manner which refers it to Abel.

And unto thee shall be HIS desire; and thou shalt rule over HIM.

In such a version, they have doubtless been influenced by the parallel clause in the preceding chapter: yet there is a considerable gramma

constituted the sin-offering enjoined upon Cain, was masculine. Hence, by a familiar involution of ideas, a masculine participle is joined to a feminine substantive, because the feminine substantive expresses a masculine victim.

The difficulty, therefore, with which Mr. Davison has to contend, I take to be this.

In the passage befors us, we have a confessed grammatical anomaly. Let the word Chattath be translated a sinoffering, as the annexed participle descriptive of an animal's recumbence naturally leads us to translate it; and the difficulty is at once removed, simply because the anomaly is explained. But let the word Chattath be translated either sin or punishment (if, for a moment, we grant the possibility of the latter version); and the difficulty remains in full force, not so much as even an attempt having been made to account for the anomaly.

Gen. iii. 16.

tical difficulty in thus referring the place to Abel. Throughout the whole of God's expostulation, the younger brother is never once mentioned *. Hence it seems not a little harsh and abrupt, that, without any preparation, Abel should suddenly be referred to by the mere terms His and

HIM.

Influenced by this palpable circumstance, some of the early Fathers deny the grammatical possibility of so referring the clause; contending, that the pronouns must assuredly have some antecedent in the course of the expostulation or at least of the transaction. Thus Athanasius would refer the clause to Cain's offering: and thus Augustine would refer it to Cain's sin, as expressed in the word Chattath†.

Now, if such a principle of reference be just (and I much incline to think, that an inspection of the original Hebrew will tend to establish its justice), no mean accession of strength will accrue to my general argument.

The reference being made to a thing and not to a person, the two pronouns ought to be trans

*See Gen. iv. 6, 7.

† Athan. Dict. et Interpret. quæst. 60. 336. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 7.

Oper. vol. ii. p.
Oper. vol. v. p.

lated, not HIS and HIM, but ITS and IT. For, grammatically, we have nothing in the whole expostulation, to which the pronouns can be referred, save the word Chattath. And, accordingly, to this precise word, viewed as describing a masculine victim, and therefore associated with the confessedly masculine participle Robetz, I more than suspect, that the two masculine pronouns, in the concluding clause of the expostulation, ought to be referred.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And, if thou doest not well, A SIN-OFFERING lieth couching at the door: and, unto thee, is ITs desire; and thou shalt rule over IT.

Thus runs the clause, according to what the Fathers deemed its grammatical necessity: and the obvious import of the entire place I take to be this.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And, if thou doest not well, an animal victim coucheth at the door, ready to be piacularly devoted by thee as A SIN-OFFERING: to thee this victim is submitted; and thou mayest freely exercise over IT the power of death.

In this manner I am led, through mere grammatical necessity, to understand the passage. As Athanasius speaks: To thee shall be the

submission of the gift, which thou hast brought; and over it thou shalt have full power*.

If, then, grammatical necessity compels us to refer the two pronouns to the substantive Chattath, Mr. Davison's proposed version, even if abstractedly possible, is forthwith converted into a hopeless absurdity: for it is quite clear, that the submissiveness of his own PUNISHMENT cannot be unto Cain, and that there is no conceivable mode in which Cain can be said to rule over his own PUNISHMENT incurred by his own sin.

VIII. And now we may be allowed to inquire into the general result of the whole discussion.

The word Chattath, when viewed abstractedly, can ONLY be rendered in the two significations of sin and sin-offering. Between these two significations, therefore, in the present passage, we MUST take our choice.

If we adopt the former signification, we produce a version, unaccountably anomalous, hopelessly unintelligible, and altogether unworthy of the divine speaker: if we adopt the latter signification, we produce a version, in every

* Αυτοῦ τοῦ δώρου, οὗ προσήγαγες, προσγένησεται σοὶ ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτοῦ· και σὺ εξουσιάσεις αυτοῦ. Athan. Dict. et Interpret. quæst. 60. Oper. vol. ii. p. 336.

point of view, both grammatical and contextual, perfectly satisfactory and quite unexceptionable. Hence, so far as I can see, by the laws of mere plain common sense, we are absolutely compelled to prefer the latter signification.

But, if we be thus compelled to adopt the latter signification, the question at issue is forthwith decided.

Cain omits to sacrifice a sin-offering: and God, in consequence, plainly COMMANDS him to perform that necessary rite.

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And, if thou doest not well, A SIN-OFFERING coucheth at the door ready to be presented by thee.

The passage, however, not only contains a plain COMMAND that Cain should present a sinoffering it likewise, from the very turn of the sentence, involves of necessity an intimation, that the rite of piacular sacrifice had ALREADY been divinely appointed.

Cain is not now enjoined, for the first time, to perform a rite, hitherto uncommanded, and therefore hitherto unattended by any religious obligation but he is REMINDED of what he OUGHT to have done; he is REFERRED to what his brother actually HAD done; he is urged to the perform