THORNS AND THISTLES.

151

Why should it not have been uniform in its action? There is no hint given, that it was to be partial in its operation; which we think would have been the case, if the literal sense had been intended for our faith. Moreover, these differences are traceable to natural causes,* and_the_labor which an inferior soil requires, may be considerably reduced by the appliances of art. But the ground was to bring forth "thorns and thistles,” and it does so. But when was it otherwise? It cannot mean, that it was then, for the first time, to do so. The species are not named: but geology shows us the existence of some that must have flourished long anterior to the creation of man. We feel it difficult to reconcile these facts with the common notion of God having, six thousand years ago, pronounced a curse upon the ground, for the punishment of his people. It is a shallow inference, and not a divine truth. The idea of God having, upon the one hand, taken from the ground that which had rendered it luxuriant in the production of human food; and, upon the other, to have imparted that which was to make it fertile in whins and briars, cannot be rationally sustained: nor is it requisite to uphold the character of God's justice, or to maintain the divine purpose of the narrative. It was written with an entirely different design, ‡ which we will endeavor briefly to explain.

By the ground is denoted, that orderly external of man, by which he was distinguished, when the development of his religious character became complete. (See page 65.) By the fall, its excellence was necessarily impaired, and so it became less prolific in the good things of use. "To eat of it in sorrow," denotes, to live from it unhappily; "to eat," is to partake of, and so to live; and every one may see, that to appropriate the false sentiments and evil affections, which had now taken hold of the external man, must needs have been attended with anxiety and sorrow. Experience shows that it is so, and satisfactorily explains the passage.

The ground was now to bring forth "thorns and thistles," to denote, that the external man would now engender evil and false

It may be said that God is the author of those natural causes: so far as this is the case, he operates in the way of general blessing, and never in the way of partial curse.

+ Consult Professor Johnson's Work on Agricultural Chemistry; also Liebeg's.

St. Austin says, "No Christian will venture to affirm that these things are not to be taken in a figurative sense."- Preface to his Twelve Books on the first three chapters of Genesis.

principles. Evils are the thorns, and falses are the thistles. Hence the Lord, when treating of the distinction between the good and the evil, and the faithful and disbelievers, said, “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matt. vii. 16.) To "eat the herb of the field," signified, that he would live low and vilely; and "to eat bread in the sweat of the face," was to partake of celestial things, only through toil and exertion. These ideas could be easily proved by citations from the Word, but we cannot dwell on the detail. The reasonableness of these views, brief as they are, will commend themselves to the thinker; they who will not think need not expect to know.

From what has now been stated, it will be seen, that by the condemnation of the serpent, is denoted, the evils which the sensual principle had brought upon itself: by the sentence upon the woman, was signified, the evils to which the voluntary selfhood had become attached; and by the anathema upon the man, was represented, the evils to which his intellectual part had consented; these respective evils were the curses; and, as man brought the evils, so he must have been the author of the malediction; and hence his sufferings therefrom.

CHAPTER XIII.

CAIN AND ABEL, WITH THEIR OCCUPATIONS.

"It is consonant to the history of Moses to suppose, that God wished him to give mystical representations of the more sublime subjects of theology; because that style of writing was suited to the hieroglyphical learning in which he had been instructed." - Dr. SPENCER, De Legibus Hebræorum.

THE history by which we are informed of the births of Cain and Abel, with their occupations, is exceedingly simple and compendious. "Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother, Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Gen. iv. 1, 2.) If we were to regard this as literal history, it would, nevertheless, be reasonable to think, that, as a revelation, something more was designed by it than what first meets the eye; and this it would be our duty to investigate and endeavor to learn. Although there might have been, in early society, such individuals as Cain and Abel, engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits, yet it is difficult to suppose them to be referred to, any otherwise, than as affording ground for

the construction of a symbolic history, relating to matters of a much more extensive and serious nature than the mere letter can possibly express. As the history, which precedes that of Cain and Abel, is only representative, we think that their history is of a similar character. The manner in which those histories are connected, seems to us to establish this opinion. As Adam is a generic name, expressing the idea of a community, then the names of Cain and Abel, who are described to have descended from them, must be similarly construed; for a community of persons cannot be said to give birth to individuals, in their general capacity. The people of one generation originate the people who succeed them; but each individual springs from his own particular parents. It would be absurd to say, that all the inhabitants of Rome were the father and mother of Julius Cæsar; and yet this is very like supposing the societies, called Adam and Eve, to have been the personal parents of Cain and Abel, considered as individuals. One generation, called Adam, gave birth to other generations, called Cain and Abel; but, as the former were a collection of men, so were the latter: as the former constituted a church, which afterwards fell, so the latter constituted separate communities, which distinguished themselves by different religious sentiments and life.

In

It is no uncommon thing for a single name to be employed, to express the idea of a whole people. It was customary among the ancients, it is found in the Scriptures, and occasionally, it is had recourse to in modern times. Thus, in countries, whether monarchical or republican, the king, or president, is named to express the acts and opinions of a whole cabinet. France, England, and other countries, are sometimes mentioned, not to signify their geographical existence, but to denote their living populations. the Scriptures, Egypt, Judea, Philistea, Sidon, Jerusalem, and many other places, are mentioned, not to indicate locality, but their inhabitants. Every one knows that the single names of Jacob, Esau, Joseph, Benjamin, and other descendants of Abraham, are frequently employed, not to express individuals, but a whole people, who were influenced and directed by certain views of a religious or economical character. The following instances will suffice. "I will visit Jacob according to his ways;" ""Jacob shall rejoice and Israel be glad;" "He leadeth Joseph like a flock." Multitudes of cases of this kind may be found in the Scriptures and those of Cain and Abel are to be classed among

them. They do not signify individuals, but communities, in whom were developed certain features of religious sentiment and feeling. They descended from the people called Adam, and the principles by which they were morally influenced, were derived from the

same source.

These statements will appear remarkable to all, who have been accustomed to regard those names as significant of individuals only. Nevertheless, it is evident, that at this time, more than four persons were in existence. Indeed, it is usual to concede this fact, by supposing that there might have been other descendants of Adam, whose births are not recorded. But apart from this idea, society must have been considerable. Some reasons for this opinion have been adduced above; others may now be added. The occupations assigned to Cain and Abel, if understood in a literal sense, require the admission of this idea. Tilling the ground, and keeping sheep, were distinctive employments that must have sprung out of the requirements of society. Although the cultivation of a little land might have been required for the maintenance of four individuals, yet it is difficult to see why the keeping of sheep should have been requisite for so limited a number. Such distinction of employments would scarcely have been recorded, if there had not been society sufficiently extensive to require their uses. But Cain's attention was not wholly directed to agriculture. We find that he had acquired some knowledge of the art of building; for he is afterwards described to have erected a city in the land of Nod: both this knowledge and the city, must have been called into existence by the requirements of society. It must have been such society that provided him with his wife; for there is no account of her origination.

But, for what purpose were the sheep to be kept? it does not appear that they were used as food. To suppose that they were kept for the sake of their wool, implies the existence of much larger society, than that with which the letter of the history brings us acquainted, and to which its uses, in the way of being converted into articles of clothing, must have been well known. If we conjecture that it was for sacrificial purposes only, that, obviously implies the prevalence of a religious community for whose offerings they were preserved. The offering of Cain, was of the fruit of the ground. What was this? was it brought in a natural or prepared state? The original word, minchah, is thought to be explained in Leviticus, to be an offering of fine flour, with oil and frankincense.

THE OCCUPATION OF CAIN AND ABEL, RELIGIOUS. 155

(Lev. ii. 1. See Dr. A. Clarke.) If Cain's offering were really of this description, how can we reasonably account for the existence of those arts, by which fine flour and oil were prepared, but on the supposition of society being more numerous than is usually thought of? The very circumstance of offerings being spoken of, unaccompanied by any command enjoining them, is presumptive evidence, that the idea of such a practice had been derived to these brothers, from a church or people, previously extant. Sacrificial worship was not commanded by God, nor is it any spontaneous offspring of the human mind. It must have originated out of the perversion of some divine law or institution, for it is most unreasonable, considered in itself; * and therefore, granting the offering of Abel to have been a natural sacrifice, that fact implies the perversion of some holier things that had been known to his predecessors, of whom the letter furnishes no information.

Both Cain and Abel brought offerings unto the Lord: this indicates a publicity in their worship, which idea, the notion of the presence only of the two parents and two sons, is not sufficient to supply. "The Hebrew word rendered brought, is never used with respect to domestic or private oblations; but always for public sacrifices." (Bishop Patrick.) The circumstance then, of their having brought offerings, obviously denotes the existence of society, and consequently, that there were two classes of them, each of which was most attentive to its own views concerning them. But the unquestionable fact, that Adam was a people, and not a single person, renders it unnecessary to dwell upon merely collateral circumstances, to prove that it is the religious state of society, and not the worldly vocation of individuals, which is represented by the occupations of Cain and Abel.

The Adamic church having fallen, in the transgression of its members, different views of faith and duty would, in the process of time, obviously arise among them. Having eaten of the tree of knowledge, they would begin to think and act from self. Self is not a uniting, but a dividing principle. Under such circumstances, sectarianism would break out among them; these, with their different branches, would, for a considerable period, be capable of being traced to the original stock. The fallen Adamic church was

*See Dr. Magee on the Atonement. Bishop Patrick says, "It is not probable that Adam would have presumed to invent a way of worship, by killing beasts and burning their fat; especially as we cannot perceive any inclination to it in nature."