Le Clerc has indulged an arbitrary fancy,* in his comments on Scripture. No. LXV.- WITH CAIN. PAGE 45. (1) The plain, natural, and significant interpretation, which in the page here noticed, has been given to a part of scripture which had long exercised, but to puzzle and perplex the Commentators, was first proposed by the learned Lightfoot, (see his Works, vol. ii. pp. 1085, 1243.) and has since been adopted by Kennicot, (Two Dissert. 216, 217.) and Pilkington, (Remarks, &c. p. 163.) The use of the word son, Sin, for a sin-offering, is so familiar, that it can scarcely be necessary to adduce instances in proof of it. Examples of it may be seen in Exod. xxix. 14. xxx. 10. Levit. iv. 3, 21, 24, 29. vi. 25.-2 Kings xii. 16. Ezech. xlv. 23. Hos. iv. 8. and in numerous other passages. On this idiom, see also what has been said in p. 239-243. of this work, and in Pilkington's Remarks, pp. 163, 164. But the translation of the passage here given, receives its strongest confirmation from the peculiar force of the word 12, which is connected with on, and which strictly implies couching, or lying down as a beast. For this, see Schindler and Castell on the word. And indeed all the Commentators have been obliged to admit this sense of the phrase, even whilst they adopted a translation of the passage, with which it seems but little consistent: the idea of sin lying couched at the door, being, to say the least of it, a bold image. Yet in this sense they have been compelled to • Whoever wishes to be satisfied of the levity of Le Clerc's occasional strictures on Scripture, may consult the dissertation of Witsius, on the Author of the Pentateuch, in his Miscellanea Sacra, (tom. i p. 106-130.) in which he discusses, at considerable length and with much force, the objections urged by Le Clerc against the received opinion that the Pentateuch was the work of Moses. It is true, indeed, that Le Clerc afterwards retraced his steps; and in the third dissertation of the Prolegomena of his commentary on the Old Testament, refuted the several objections which he had himself before advanced. The rashness, however, which, upon so important a subject, could have led to so wild a theory as this writer had set up, in opposition to the suffrage of all antiquity, to the authority of Christ and his Apostles, and to the plain evidence of the thing itself, is not done away with, although its mischiefs may be mitigated, by his subsequent recantation. Having made mention of the objections raised against the authenticity of the five books of Moses, I think it right to direct the young reader, in addition to the dissertation of Witsius already noticed, to Bishop Watson's Apology for the Bible in answer to l'aine, and to Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Penta teuch. apply the term. See Fagius, Vatablus, Clarius, Dathe, and Rosenmuller. But the word sin-offering, being substituted for sin, the whole difficulty is removed, and the peculiar propriety of the term employed instantly appears. There is yet another circumstance of some weight which is remarked by Parkhurst, and is also noticed by Castalio, Dathe, and Rosenmuller, although they have not drawn from it the natural inference; namely, that son, which is feminine, is here connected with a word of the masculine gender, which, as Parkhurst judiciously observes, is perfectly con sistent, on the supposition that on denotes a sin-offering: for then according to a construction common in Hebrew, which refers the adjective not to the word, but to the thing understood by it, the masculine pa is here combined with the animal, which was to be the sin-offering. In conformity with this reasoning it will be found, that son, in other parts of scripture where it is used for a sin-offering, is, though feminine itself, connected with a masculine adjunct. See Exod. xxix. 14. Lev. iv. 21, 24, v. 9. and other places of Leviticus, where the masculine pronoun n is used instead of the feminine n. But in Gen. xviii. 20. xx. 9. Exod. xxxii. 21, 30. and other places, where the word occurs in its original signification of sin, it has constantly the adjective connected in the feminine. Dr. Geddes was either not aware of this peculiarity, or did not choose to notice it, whilst he laboured so hard in his Critical Remarks (p. 54.) to show, that there were no authorities to justify the connecting on a feminine, in its ordinary sense of sin, with a masculine adjunct. He has not taken the like pains to show, that such a connexion is authorized in the application of the word in the sense of sinoffering: in which particular application it is, that this anomalous connexion is specially contended for. He has merely contented himself with asserting, (p. 55.) that the rendering the word in this sense is liable to the same objections, which he has urged against its application to the sense of sin. This he has asserted, whilst it will appear upon a single glance, that to every objection which he has advanced, this signification of the term supplies an immediate and satisfactory reply. The principal difficulty attending the translation of the verse in question, has arisen from the apparent want of connexion between the concluding clause, and those which go before. If however the context be well considered, the connexion becomes clear and convincing. Of Cain, who was filled with rage at the preference given to his brother Abel, by the acceptance of his sacrifice, whilst his own was re Z z jected, Jehovah demands the reason of his anger: "If thou doest well, (says he) shalt thou not be accepted? or rather, as the margin of our bible reads, shalt thou not have the excellency, or exaltation, above thy brother, which thou conceivest to belong to thy birth-right? And if thou doest not well, a sin-offering lieth at thy very door, to make the due reconciliation, and restore thee to the station which thou hast lost by thy misconduct. So that in every way it depends upon thyself, that thy brother shall be rendered subject vnto thee, and that thou shalt have the superiority over him." This meaning naturally and spontaneously flows from the literal rendering of the passage as it stands connected. And the Lord said unto Cain, wherefore art thou wroth, &c. (with thy brother)? Is there not, if thou doest well, exaltation; and, if thou doest not well, a sin-offering lying at thy door? And thus he may become subject to thee, and thou mayest have the dominion over him. It is apprehended that this, which is an exact translation of the original, affords in the view of the above paraphrase, a clear, consistent, and satisfactory sense, of a part of scripture, which has hitherto caused much trouble to interpreters. The rendering by the LXX is so very different from this, and from the commonly received translation, that on the first view it would seem to have been derived from a Hebrew original, entirely dissimilar to that which we at present possess. It therefore will not be unacceptable to the curious reader, to show how the Greek translators must have considered the text, in order to have derived from it a sense apparently so foreign from its import. They render it thus: Ovx, cav ogbug προσενέγκης, ορθώς δε μη διελής, ημαρτες ; ησυχασον· προς σε αποτξοφη auty, xaι ov agğeis avт8: or, as in some of Holmes's various readings,—ε#15g0On avт8, xaι ov avty aging. Though you may have rightly offered, yet if you have not rightly divided, have you Το Be at rest. not sinned? shall he submit himself, you and you shall rule over him. Now, if in the original, NY JOR be construed in connexion, making the infinitive mood, and expressing by on the mode, in which the action denoted by that infinitive was performed; and if, in like manner, the words лan be made to coalesce, whilst nn is interpreted in the sense of dividing: if on be considered as a verb, and 2 also as a verb, with a stop preceding and following it : -the sense affixed by the Septuagint may be elicited. For then may be rendered oglas #goteveyns; and mrab J'un, ogows dieans. also may be rendered by nuages, and by navxacov. All this however, it must be remembered, is to be considered rather possible than natural. For although the infinitive certainly admits such a connexion with the verb o, as to imply the doing well* that which is expressed by the infinitive, yet the use of the verb for offering sacrifice, and of n for dividing, can scarcely be said to be autho rized by any passages in Scripture. Indeed that nne should admit the sense of dividing, it ought to be written, unless we suppose the word to be taken in the sense of freely sharing, or imparting, (which no is not incapable of expressing,) and that thence the Greek translators felt themselves justified in extending it to the above signification. As for p also, it is only by a considerable latitude of figurative application that it can be interpreted as in the Greek; its literal meaning being that of lying down as an animal. So that upon the whole, the version by the LXX is rather to be defended than approved: whilst the translation by Jerome, and still more that by Theodotion, presents a view of the passage much more natural as well as grammatical. Jerome's translation runs thus, "Nonne si bene egeris, demittetur tibi? Et si non bene egeris, ante fores peccatum tuum sedebit? Et ad te societas ejus: sed tu magis dominare ejus." (Quæst. Hebr. in Genes.) And this again is thus modified in the Roman Vulgate, "Nonne si bene egeris, recipies? Sin autem male, statim in foribus peccatum aderit? Sed sub te erit appetitus ejus, et tu dominaberis illius." In both of these the sense is nearly the same as that in our common English Bibles, except that the last clause is applied by the followers of the Vulgate, not to Abel, but to the sin just before spoken of, and is interpreted as pronouncing on the full dominion of man over his sinful desires, and asserting the uncontroled freedom† of his will. The Romish writers. adduce Jerome's paraphraset on the text, as clearly proving this to have been his view; and also refer to the authority of Augustine, who specifically argues the point thus, "Tu dominaberis illius; nunquid fratris? absit. Cujus igitur nisi peccati?" On these authorities, together with that of the Jerusalem Targum, the § Doway translators ground a triumph Of this construction, Prov. xxx. 29. Psal. xxxiii, 3. Isai. xxiii. 16. Ezech. xxxiii. 32. and many other parts of Scripture supply instances. Erasmus (Hyperaspist Diatrib. ii. sec. 96.) cites the passage thus: "Sub te erit appetitus tuus, et tu dominaberis illius:" and from this unauthorized reading, deduces an argument in opposition to Luther, on the free will of man. In his Questions on Genesis, he thus explains the text: "Quod si male egeris, illico peccatum ante vestibulum sedebit, et tali janitore comitaberis: verum, quia liberi arbitrii es, moneo ut non tibi peccatum, sed tu peccato domineris." § Ernesti, in his Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, p. 79. exclaims, "Quam multi errores orti sunt in Ecclesiâ ex linguæ Hebraicæ ignorantiâ ! Doctrina de purgatorio, pœnitentia, fide, bonis operibus, et aliæ, ex Augustino quidem, et versione vulgatâ proferri quidem, sed adseri et defendi non over the heretical (Protestant) versions, whose object in referring the clause to Abel and not to sin, they conceive to be that of escaping from the doctrine of free-will; for the possunt contra interpretem linguæ Hebraicæ gnarum."-Other reasons, however, very different from mere ignorance of the Hebrew language, have been assigned for the errors in Scripture interpretation, imputable to the advocates of the church of Rome. Father Paul informs us, in one of his Letters, (Letter 25.) that the Pope, complaining of Fra. Fulgentio, said, "that preaching of the Scriptures is a suspicious thing; and that he who keeps close to the Scriptures, will ruin the Catholic faith." And again, (Letter 26.) the Pope is made to say of him, "that indeed he made some good Sermons, but bad ones withal: and that he insisted too much upon Scripture; which is a book, to which if any keep close, he will quite ruin the Catholic faith."—And indeed, that the Pope had reason to complain of Fra. Fulgentio's sermons, must be admitted, when we find from Burnet's Life of Bishop Bedell, (p. 119.) that that father, in preaching on the words, Have ye not read? took occasion to tell the auditory, that if Christ were now to ask this question, all the answer they could make to it would be; No, for they were not suffered to do it: and thence proceeded to remonstrate, with the most animated zeal, against the restraint put on the use of the Scripture by the See of Rome. In a work, which, within a few years, has obtained the most distinguished mark of approbation, from the highest learned society of a nation holding communion with the Church of Rome, we meet with a detailed statement of those causes, which have disqualified the votaries of that Church for the task of Scripture interpretation. After an enumeration of the advantages, derived to the literature and civilization of Christendom, from religious hou. ses, as depositaries of the remains of ancient learning, the author thus proceeds." If the Churchmen persevered in this manner the faint tradition of knowledge, it must, at the same time, be acknowledged, that in their hands it more than once became dangerous, and was converted by its guardians to pernicious purposes. The domination of Rome, built upon a scaffolding of false historical proofs, had need of the assistance of those faithful auxilia ries, to employ on the one side their half knowledge to fascinate men's eyes, and on the other to prevent those eyes from perceiving the truth, and from becoming enlightened by the torch of criticism. The local usurpations of the Clergy, in several places, were founded on similar claims, and had need of similar means for their preservation. It followed, therefore, both that the little knowledge permitted should be mixed with error, and that the nations should be carefully maintained in profound ignorance, favourable to superstition. Learning, as far as possible, was rendered inaccessible to the laity. The study of the ancient languages was represented as idolatrous and abominable. Above all, the reading of the holy Scriptures, that sacred inheritance of all Christians, was severely interdicted. To read the bible, without the permission of one's superiors, was a crime: to translate it into the vulgar tongue would have been a temerity worthy of the severest punishment. The Popes had indeed their reasons for preventing the word of Jesus Christ from reaching the people, and a direct communication from being established between the Gospel and the Christian. When it becomes necessary to keep in the shade objects as conspicuous as faith and public worship, it behoved the darkness to be universal and impenetrable." Villers's Essay on the Reformation of Lather, p. 88-90. The same writer in another place, thus contrasts the characters of the Protestant and Romish Churches, as to their grounds of assent to sacred truths.-"The Church of Rome said, 'Submit, without examination, to authority! The Protestant Church said, "Examine, and submit only to thy own conviction." The one commanded men to believe blindly : the other taught them, with the Apostle, to reject the bad, and choose only that which is good:" Ibid. p. 294.-And when the Church of Rome was, at length, obliged by the necessities of self-defence, to grant to her faithful sons the pri |