I have now given the subject as full an examination as I deem necessary. Should there be any other text, which will better serve to establish the propriety of Mr. Davison's speculation, it has hitherto escaped my notice*.

oQalóμeva. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. ix. p. 303. Lips. σφαζόμενα.

1696.

In favour of his interpretation, Augustine, perhaps not unreasonably, argues from the context of the passage. The Apostle had said, in the immediately preceding verse, Be ye reconciled to God. Now reconciliation to God was effected through the medium of the sin-offering. Hence, the mention of reconciliation to God led Augustine to suppose, that, in the immediately succeeding verse, Christ was relatively and coïdeally styled, through the Hellenistic use of a wellknown Hebrew idiom, not sin, but an offering for sin. Many persons will probably think with Augustine, that the context of the place obviously requires such an interpretation.

* The extreme danger of practically building upon the system of etymological speculation, which has been advocated by Mr. Davison, is strikingly exemplified in the different fates of the two Hebrew words non and y.

In its primary sense, non denotes sin; in its secondary ideal sense, something for sin: while y, in its primary sense, denotes iniquity; and, analogously, in its secondary ideal sense, something for iniquity.

Yet mark the singular difference or divergence of meaning, when, in the development of their common secondary ideal sense, they are each brought into practical employ.

The word л, in the development of its secondary ideal sense, NEVER denotes punishment for sin; ALWAYS denotes an offering for sin. But the word y, in the development of its strictly identical secondary ideal sense, NEVER denotes an offering for iniquity; ALWAYS denotes punishment for iniquity.

Now, according to Mr. Davison's system of etymologic

PART II.-RESPECTING THE TRUE PURPORT OF THE SCRIP TURAL HISTORY OF THE OFFERINGS OF CAIN AND ABEL.

The gloss upon the word Chattath, proposed by Mr. Davison, has now, I trust, been effectually displaced. Nothing, therefore, remains but the easy task of showing, from the history of the first-recorded sacrifice, that The rite of piacular oblation must have been DIVINELY instituted at the very commencement of the Patriarchal Dispensation.

I. Respecting the two sons of Adam and Eve, we read, that Abel was a keeper of sheep, but that Cain was a tiller of the ground. In process of time, or rather from the end of days (an expression which has been thought to indicate a regular habit of sacrificing at certain appointed seasons), Cain brought the vegetable produce of the earth as an offering to the Lord: but

speculation, each word alike, in the practical development of its secondary ideal sense, OUGHT to have signified both sacrifice and punishment: yet, in despite of system, plain matter of fact has demonstrated, that this is NOT the case.

On Mr. Davison's principle of settling the sense of Hebrew words through the instrumentality of etymological conjecture, I have as good a right to maintain that y denotes a sacrifice for iniquity, as he can have to maintain that n denotes punishment for sin.

Abel brought a lamb with its fat from the firstborn of his flock. As their respective offerings thus differed in their nature, so did they experience a marked difference in their reception. The Lord, we are told, had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but, unto Cain and to his offering, he had not respect. This diversity of treatment forthwith stirred up the jealous indignation of Cain: but, with wonderful condescension, God was pleased to argue with him, and apparently to point out the ground or principle of such diversity.

Why art thou wroth: and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And, if thou doest not well, SIN lieth at the door.

II. Thus runs the scriptural history of the transaction: and thus, in our common English version, runs the explanatory expostulation of God with Cain.

Now, that God's expostulation is verbally capable of such a rendering, no person will deny : but the question is, whether this rendering, either conveys any very distinct explanation of the difference which was made between the two offerings, or describes the Almighty as speaking in a manner suitable to his own wisdom and dignity.

1. It is evident, that the expostulation was intended to account for the difference which God made between the two offerings of the two brothers on all hands, this matter is fully allowed. How then, in its present form, does it account for that difference?

They, who think with Mr. Davison, contend, that, according to the obvious import of the expostulation, God rejected the offering of Cain simply on the ground of his antecedent bad conduct; while he accepted the offering of Abel simply on the ground of his antecedent piety.

Such an account of the matter is not devoid of plausibility; yet it is attended with some measure of difficulty.

As to the antecedent wickedness of Cain and the antecedent piety of Abel, the history is altogether silent: nothing is said respecting the character of either. We may coNJECTURE What we please: but, from the history, we KNOW nothing.

It may be urged, that the alleged antecedent difference of character, though not mentioned in the history, is yet set forth by St. John.

This is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one and slew his

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

In the present passage, I must confess myself unable to discover any intimation, that the characters of the two brothers were antecedently different, Certainly Cain hated his brother, and slew him: because his own works were evil; and his brother's, righteous. But, whether these works of Cain were antecedent to his offering, or whether they were involved in the nature and spirit of the offering itself, the inspired apostle is altogether silent: and, if there be any text of scripture, in which God is said to have accepted Abel's offering BECAUSE Abel was righteous, and to have rejected Cain's offering BECAUSE Cain was wicked; that text has hitherto escaped my notice. With respect to the antecedent characters of the two brothers, we, in fact, KNOW nothing: and, to ascribe the rejection and acceptance of their several offerings to any supposed antecedent diversity between them, is, I apprehend, a purely gratuitous interpretation. As for myself, I decidedly prefer a strict adherence to what is revealed †.

* 1 John iii. 11, 12.

† The notion of an antecedent diversity of moral conduct