It was written by Moses: it was written by the identical person, through whom was revealed the whole system of the levitical sin-offerings: it was written by the precise individual, who, from the mouth of God himself, has given us an express definition of the word Chattath when employed sacrificially.

Now the very word, which he himself perpetually uses, and which he himself from the mouth of God has expressly defined: this very word is selected by him, as the most appropriate term under which he could describe the animal-offering enjoined upon Cain.

Of all living men, Moses could be the least ignorant of the force of the word. Had the offering, required of Cain, been, not an EXPIATORY sin-offering, but an offering merely coNFESSIONAL of sin: we may, I think, be morally certain, that Moses would never have employed, in a sense which it is incapable of bearing, the well-defined and perfectly-familiar word Chattath.

I consider myself to have fully established the position, that AN EXPIATORY ATONING VIRTUE is ascribed, by the voice of inspiration itself, to the first-recorded animal sacrifice under the Patriarchal Dispensation.

CHAPTER IV.

Respecting the moral Objection to the rendering, A Sin-offering coucheth at the Door.

THE history of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel so much constitutes a principal strong-hold of his opponents, that Mr. Davison very naturally exerts all his strength either to wrest it from them or at least to neutralise it.

66

In pursuance of this object, he has brought an argument of a moral nature against the version, A sin-offering coucheth at the door. "I argue," says he, "that there is a grave objection to the whole notion of a sin-offering in this place, in its want of harmony with "the spirit and general tenour of Scripture: "which is not used to address the wilful sinner, "when he is supposed to be doing or meditating to do evil, with an invitation to go and

66

66

sacrifice; but rather to admonish him of his "evil deeds and their plague of punishment: "as reciprocally, in the preceding clause; If "thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? "After this antecedent enunciation, it is more

"conformable to the doctrinal habit of Scripture,

66

66

66

as it is also more in connection with the commencement of the passage, to expect some threatening or severe rebuke to follow*."

The present objective argument is plainly built, partly upon a gratuitous assumption, and partly upon a complete misconception of the general drift and purpose of the whole history.

I. Mr. Davison, palpably though tacitly, assumes, that Cain, anterior to the devotement of his vegetable sacrifice, had been a grievous moral offender: for, unless he be allowed to assume this position, his entire argument, which is clearly founded upon it, is altogether irrelevant and inconclusive.

But where did Mr. Davison learn the fact, which he has gratuitously assumed? From what part of Holy Writ has he discovered, that Cain, anterior to the devotement of his sacrifice, was a grievous moral offender? On what text does he build his objection, that, according to the scriptural analogy of God's dealings with the wicked and the profligate, Cain ought to have been threatened with punishment, not to have been commanded to go and sacrifice? The proof of Cain's previous immorality would properly, I think, * Inquiry, p. 54.

have preceded an argument evidently constructed upon its implied allegation: but, instead of solid proof, I find nothing save gratuitous assumption. On the hypothesis, that Cain, antecedently to his sacrifice, had been a grievous moral offender; Mr. Davison's objection may, or may not, be weighty. But how does Mr. Davison know of a certainty, that Cain, antecedently to his sacrifice, had been a grievous moral offender? Mr. Davison, I fear, has come under the lash of his own scourge, by "leaving Scripture," as he expresses himself," at a distance far behind; for the use, suppose, of more modest inquirers*.

I

II. In truth, however, Mr. Davison has totally misconceived the general drift and purpose of the whole history.

God does not command Cain to bring a sinoffering, because he had been recently guilty of some gross overt act of sin; the only basis, on which Mr. Davison's objection can for a moment be supported: but he commands him to bring a sin-offering, because, while in the general constitution of his nature he was a sinner, he yet presumptuously disbelieved God's own revelation, and rejected that specific mode of sacrifice which rested upon the notion of an atonement. It is in opposition to Cain's inward *Inquiry, p. 165.

principle, not by way of cheaply supplying the place of repentance for some recently-committed notorious immorality, that the necessity of devoting a sin-offering is so graciously and mercifully urged upon him. As the Apostle speaks, he WANTED the faith of Abel, when he brought his eucharistic oblation of vegetables. By FAITH, Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain: by WANT OF FAITH, Cain offered unto God a less excellent sacrifice than Abel. Cain's eucharistic oblation might, abstractedly, have been innocent or even laudable: but the inward principle, with which it was offered, and which the Apostle places in direct opposition to the praiseworthy faith of Abel, marred the whole sacrifice, and caused it to be an utter abomination to the Lord. The faith, possessed by the one bro

* This statement fully answers a not unplausible minor objection propounded by Mr. Davison.

"With regard to the acceptance of Abel's offering or "Noah's, though this acceptance has been employed to

66

prove that the sacrifice must have been of an expiatory "kind; it is by a circle of reasoning, which would only "reduce us to infinite difficulties. It would go to prove, "that no other oblation could be capable of acceptance: which "is too large a notion, either for truth or for serious argu"ment." Inquiry, p. 31.

Certainly, the bare acceptance of a sacrifice proves not its character: for, under proper circumstances, an eucharistic sacrifice may be accepted as well as an expiatory sacrifice. But this, I apprehend, is not quite a fair account of at least the offering of Abel. Any argument, drawn from its par