fallen, and robbed of his excellence; he has added ladaath, to the knowledge of the good, by his transgression the knowledge of the evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever in this miserable state, I will remove him, and guard the place lest he should reeater. Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden," &c. This seems to be the most natural sense of the place. Some suppose that his removal from the tree of life was in mercy, to prevent a second temptation. He before imagined that he bid gain an increase of wisdom by eating of the tre of knowledge, and Satan would be disposed to tempt him to endeavour to elude the sentence of death, by eating of the tree of life. Others imagine that the words are spoken ironically, and that the Most High intended, by a cutting taunt, to upbraid the poor culprit for his offence, because he broke the divine command in the expectation of being like God to know good and evil; and now that he had lost all the good that God had designed for him, and got Lothing but evil in its place, therefore God taunts him for the total miscarriage of his project. But God is ever consistent with himself; and surely his infinite pity prohibited the use of either sarcasm or irony, in speaking of so dreadful a catastrophe, that was in the end to occasion the agony and bloody sweat, the Cross and passion, the death and burial, of Him in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col. ii. 9.

In chap. i 26, 27, we have seen man in the perfection of his nature, the dignity of his office, and the plenitude of his happiness. Here we find the same creature, but stripped of his glories and happlass, so that the word man no longer conveys the same ideas it did before. Man and intellectual excellence were before so intimately connected as to appear inseparable; man and misery are now equally 80. In our nervous mother tongue, the Anglo-Saxon, We have found the word Loo God signifying, not only Se Supreme Being, but also good or goodness; and it is worthy of especial note that the word Man man, in language, is used to express, not only the being so called, both male and female, but also mechief, wickedness, fraud, deceit, and villany. Thus a simple monosyllable, still in use among us in its first sense, conveyed at once to the minds of our ancestors the two following particulars: 1. The human being in his excellence, capable of knowing, loving, and glorifying his Maker. 2. The human being in his fallen state, capable of and committing all kinds of wickedness. "Obiter hic notandum,"

the same

from the garden.

A. M. 1. B. C. 4004.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

d Exod. xxv. 2, 20. 1 Kings vi. 25-28. Josh. v. 13. Ps. civ. 4. Hebr. i. 7.

says old Mr. Somner in his Saxon Dictionary, "venit, Loo Saxonibus et DEUM significasse et BONUM: uti Man et hominem et nequitiam. Here it is to be noted, that among the Saxons the term GoD signified both the Divine Being and goodness, as the word man signified both the human being and wickedness." This is an additional proof that our Saxon ancestors both thought and spoke at the same time, which, strange as it may appear, is not a common case: their words in general are not arbitrary signs; but as far as sounds can convey the ideal meaning of things, their words do it; and they are so formed and used as necessarily to bring to view the nature and properties of those things of which they are the signs. In this sense the Anglo-Saxon is inferior only to the Hebrew.

Verse 24. So he drove out the man] Three things are noted here: 1. God's displeasure against sinful man, evidenced by his expelling him from this place of blessedness; 2. Man's unfitness for the place, of which he had rendered himself unworthy by his ingratitude and transgression; and 3. His reluctance to leave this place of happiness. He was, as we may naturally conclude, unwilling to depart, and God drove him out.

mikkedem, Or before

He placed at the east] the garden of Eden, before what may be conceived its gate or entrance; Cherubims,¤¬¬¬ hakkerubim, THE cherubim. Hebrew plurals in the masculine end in general in im: to add an s to this when we introduce such words into English, is very improper; therefore the word should be written cherubim, not cherubims. But what were these? They are utterly unknown. Conjectures and guesses relative to their nature and properties are endless. Several think them to have been emblematical representations of the sacred Trinity, and bring reasons and scriptures in support of their opinion; but as I am not satisfied that this opinion is correct, I will not trouble the reader with it. From the description in Exod. xxvi. 1, 31, 1 Kings vi. 29, 32, 2 Chron. iii. 14, it appears that the cherubs were sometimes represented with two faces, namely, those of a lion and of a man; but from Ezek. i. 5, &c., x. 20, 21, we find that they had four faces and four wings; the faces were those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle; but it seems there was but one body to these heads. The two-faced cherubs were such as were represented on the curtains and veil of the tabernacle, and on the wall, doors, and veil of the temple; those with four faces appeared only in the Holy of Holies.

The word 7 or an kerub never appears as a

A.M. 2. B. C. 4003.

d

A. M. cir. 129.

с

b

That is, gotten or acquired.- b Heb. Hebel. c Heb. a feeder, ver. 25, 29. 1 John iii. 10, 12, 15. Ps. cxxvii. 3. Jaha vii. 44.- d Ch. iii. 23. ix. 20. Heb. at the end of

NOTES ON CHAP. IV.

Verse 1. I have gotten a man from the Lord.] Cain, 77, signifies acquisition; hence Eve says anithi, I have gotten or acquired a man, eth Yehovah, the Lord. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the sense in which Eve used these words, which have been as variously translated as understood. Most expositors think that Eve imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent. This exposition really seems too refined for that period. It is very likely that she meant no more than to acknowledge that it was through God's peculiar blessing that she was enabled to conceive and bring forth a son, and that she had now a well-grounded hope that the race of man should be continued on the earth. Unless she had been under divine inspiration she could not have called her son (even supposing him to be the promised seed) Jehovah; and that she was not under sach an influence her mistake sufficiently proves, for Cain, so far from being the Messiah, was of the tricked one; 1 John iii. 12. We may therefore suppose that eth Yehovah, THE LORD, is an elliptical form of expression for meeth YeLocal, FROM THE LORD, or through the divine blessing. Verse 2. And she again bare his brother Abel.] Laterally, She added to bear (1755 pm vattoseph laledeth) his brother. From the very face of this account it

appears evident that Cain and Abel were twins. In most cases where a subject of this kind is introduced in the holy scriptures, and the successive births of children of the same parents are noted, the acts of conceiving and bringing forth are mentioned in reference to each child; here it is not said that she conceived and brought forth Abel, but simply she added to bring forth Abel his brother; that is, as I understand it, Cain was the first-born, Abel, his twin brother, came next.

Abel was a keeper of sheep] Adam was originally a gardener, Abel a shepherd, and Cain an agriculturist or farmer. These were the three primitive employments, and, I may add, the most rational, and consequently the best calculated to prevent strife and an immoderate love of the world.

Verse 3. In process of time] □'' Õp¤ mikkets yamim, at the end of days. Some think the anniversary of the creation to be here intended; it is more probable that it means the sabbath, on which Adam and his family undoubtedly offered oblations to God, as the divine worship was certainly instituted, and no doubt the sabbath properly observed in that family. This worship was, in its original institution, very simple. It appears to have consisted of two parts: 1. Thanksgiving to God as the author and dispenser of all the bounties of nature, and oblations indicative of that gratitude. 2. Piacular sacrifices to his justice

Cain's offering

A. M. cir. 129. B. C. cir. 3875.

rejected.

A. M. cir. 129.

b

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his de

d

a Hebr. xi. 4.10, 11. Ps. xx. 3.

4. Prov. xxi. 27. Job xxix. 4.- „d Or, subject unto thee.

and holiness, implying a conviction of their own sinfulness, confession of transgression, and faith in the promised Deliverer. If we collate the passage here with the apostle's allusion to it, Heb. xi. 4, we shall see cause to form this conclusion.

Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering] minchah, Unto the Lord. The word minchah is explained, Lev. ii. 1, &c., to be an offering of fine flour, with oil and frankincense. It was in general a eucharistic or gratitude offering, and is simply what is implied in the fruits of the ground brought by Cain to the Lord, by which he testified his belief in him as the Lord of the universe, and the dispenser of secular blessings.

Verse 4. Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock] Dr. Kennicott contends that the words he also brought, x □ man hebi gam hu, should be translated, Abel brought Ir also, i. e. a minchah or gratitude offering; and besides this he brought of the first-born (man mibbechoroth) of his flock, and it was by this alone that he acknowledged himself a sinner, and professed faith in the promised Messiah. To this circumstance the apostle seems evidently to allude, Heb. xi. 4: By FAITH Abel offered λova Ovolav, a MORE or GREATER sacrifice; not a more excellent (for this is no meaning of the word #λɛwv), which leads us to infer, according to Dr. Kennicott, that Abel, besides his minchah or gratitude offering, brought also voia, a victim, to be slain for his sins; and this he chose out of the first-born of his flock, which, in the order of God, was a representation of the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world; and what confirms this exposition more is the observation of the apostle: God testifying Tois dwpois, of his GIFTS, which certainly shows he brought more than one. According to this interpretation, Cain, the father of Deism, not acknowledging the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice, nor feeling his need of an atonement, according to the dictates of his natural religion, brought a minchah or eucharistic offering to the God of the universe. Abel, not less grateful for the produce of his fields and the increase of his flocks, brought a similar offering, and by adding a sacrifice to it paid a proper regard to the will of God as far as it had then been revealed, acknowledged himself a sinner, and thus, deprecating the divine displeasure, showed forth the death of Christ till he came. Thus his offerings were accepted, while those of Cain were rejected; for this, as the apostle says, was done by FAITH, and therefore he obtained witness that he was righteous, or a jus

|

tified person, God testifying with his gifts, the thankoffering and the sin-offering, by accepting them, that faith in the promised seed was the only way in which he could accept the services and offerings of mankind.

Dr. Magee, in his Discourses on the Atonement, criticises the opinion of Dr. Kennicott, and contends that there is no ground for the distinction made by the latter on the words He also brought; and shows that though the minchah in general signifies an unbloody offering, yet it is also used to express both kinds, and that the minchah in question is to be understood of the sacrifice then offered by Abel. I do not see that we gain much by this counter-criticism. See ver. 7.

Verse 5. Unto Cain] As being unconscious of his sinfulness, and consequently unhumbled, and to his offering, as not being accompanied as Abel's was with faith and a sacrifice for sin, he had not respect-He could not, consistently with his holiness and justice, approve of the one or receive the other. Of the manner in which God testified his approbation we are not informed; it was probably, as in the case of Elijah, by sending down fire from heaven, and consuming the sacrifice.

Cain was very wroth] That displeasure which should have been turned against his own unhumbled heart was turned against his innocent brother, who, though not more highly privileged than he, made a much better use of the advantages which he shared in common with his ungodly and unnatural brother.

Verse 6. Why art thou wroth?] This was designed as a gracious warning, and a preventive of the meditated crime.

Verse 7. If thou doest well] That which is right in the sight of God, shalt thou not be accepted? Does God reject any man who serves him in simplicity and godly sincerity? But if thou doest not well, can wrath and indignation against thy righteous brother save thee from the displeasure under which thou art fallen? On the contrary, have recourse to thy Maker for mercy; † non nos lappethach chattath robets, a sin-offering lieth at thy door; an animal proper to be offered as an atonement for sin is now couching at the door of thy fold.

The words on chattath, and non chattaah, frequently signify sin; but I have observed more than a hundred places in the Old Testament where they are used for sin-offering, and translated àμapria by the Septuagint, which is the term the apostle uses, 2 Cor. v. 21: He hath made him to be sin (àμapriav, ▲ SIN-OFFERING) for us, who knew no sin. Cain's fault now

Wisd.

b Ch. 13, 14.

*Job xi, 15. Ps. xxiv. 3-6. lv. 21. cxxxix. 19. 1. 3. Matt. xxiii. 35. 1 John iii. 12. Jude 11.i. 9, 11. Ps. ix. 12.- e Job xxii. 13, 14. Ps. x. was his not bringing a sin-offering when his brother brought one, and this neglect and contempt caused his other offering to be rejected. However, God now graciously informs him that, though he had miscarried, his case was not yet desperate, as the means of faith, from the promise, &c., were in his power, and a victim proper for a sin-offering was lying (ra¬ roleta, a word used to express the lying down of a quadruped) at the door of his fold. How many sinners perish, not because there is not a Saviour able and willing to save them, but because they will not use that which is within their power! Of such how true is that word of our Lord, Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!

Unto thee shall be his desire, &c.] That is, Thou shalt ever have the right of primogeniture, and in all things shall thy brother be subject unto thee. These words are not spoken of sin, as many have understood them, but of Abel's submission to Cain as his superior, and the words are spoken to remove Cain's envy.

Verse 8. Cain talked with Abel his brother] vaiyomer Kayin, and Cain said, &c.; not talked, for this construction the word cannot bear without great violence to analogy and grammatical accuracy. But why should it be thus translated? Because our translators could not find that any thing was spoken on the occasion; and therefore they ventured to intimate that there was a conversation, indefinitely. In the most correct editions of the Hebrew Bible there is a small space left here in the text, and a circular mark which refers to a note in the margin, intimating that there is a hiatus or deficiency in the verse. Now this deficiency is supplied in the principal ancient Versions, and in the Samaritan text. In this the supplied words are, LET US WALK OUT INTO

THE FIELD.

The Syriac has, Let us go to the desert. The Vulgate, Egrediamur foras, Let us walk out. The Septuagint, Acowper ELS TO TEDIOV, Let us go out into the field. The two Chaldee Targums have the reading; so has the Coptic Version. This addition is completely lost from every MS. of the Pentateuch now known; and yet it is sufficiently evident from the Samaritan text, the Samaritan Version, the Syriae, Septuagint, and Vulgate, that it was in the most authentic copies of the Hebrew before and some time since the Christian era. The words may therefore be safely considered as a part of the sacred text, and with them the whole passage reads clear and consistently: "And Cain said unto Abel his

His punishment.

A. M. cir. 129. B. C. cir. 3875.

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

brother, Let us go out into the field: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up," &c. The Jerusalem Targum, and the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, pretend to give us the subject of their conversation; as the piece is curious, I shall insert the substance of it, for the sake of those who may not have access to the originals.

"And Cain said unto Hebel his brother, Let us go out into the field; and it came to pass that, when they were in the field, Cain answered and said to Hebel his brother, I thought that the world was created in mercy, but it is not governed according to the merit of good works, nor is there any judgment, nor a Judge, nor shall there be any future state in which good rewards shall be given to the righteous, or punishment executed on the wicked; and now there is respect of persons in judgment. On what account is it that thy sacrifice has been accepted, and mine not received with complacency? And Hebel answered and said, The world was created in mercy, and it is governed according to the fruit of good works; there is a Judge, a future world, and a coming judgment where good rewards shall be given to the righteous, and the impious punished; and there is no respect of persons in judgment; but because my works were better and more precious than thine, my oblation was received with complacency, And because of these things they contended on the face of the field, and Cain rose up against Hebel his brother, and struck a stone into his forehead, and killed him."

It is here supposed that the first murder committed in the world was the consequence of a religious dispute; however this may have been, millions since have been sacrificed to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. Here, certainly, originated the manyheaded monster, religious persecution; the spirit of the wicked one in his followers impels them to afflict and destroy all those who are partakers of the Spirit of God. Every persecutor is a legitimate son of the old murderer. This is the first triumph of Satan; it is not merely a death that he has introduced, but a violent one, as the first-fruits of sin. It is not the death of an ordinary person, but of the most holy man then in being; it is not brought about by the providence of God, or by a gradual failure and destruction of the earthly fabric, but by a violent separation of body and soul; it is not done by a common enemy, from whom nothing better could be expected, but by the hand of a brother, and for no other reason