learned disputants would be as well fed, as they would teach us, if they had nothing else to eat, till they gave up this absurdity. In a word, Moses' expression can in no wise signify any thing else, but that Abel brought a living animal of his flock an offering unto the Lord. For,

1

With respect to Abel's offering being called a minchah, it is easy to be accounted for. The word minchah is, indeed, often used sacrifically to denote an inanimate offering, in opposition to the sacrifice of a ·living creature; but it has likewise a more general acceptation. It is the word used of Jacob's present to his brother Esau; and, again, for the present sent out of Canaan to Joseph. It is well translated, when used in this sense, by the Greek word Aupov, a gift: the apostle thus renders it:a in this general sense it is, and may be used of all sacrifices both animate and inanimate; for every sacrifice is, in this sense, a minchah,

P

Gen. xxxii. 13, 19.

9 Heb. xi. 4. ἐπὶ τοῖς Δῶροις αυτέ,

› Gen. xliii. 10.

Awpov, a gift, or present unto the Lord; though every minchah or gift, is not a sacrifice of a living creature."

Having thus far shewn, that Moses must be understood as expressing Abel's offering to be of a living creature; I come now to consider, that the apostle plainly tells us, that this was his meaning. The writer of

The truth is, Abel made two offerings to the Lord, at the same time. One was the minchah, or thanksgiving offering, by which he acknowledged God as the Creator and Preserver. The other was an animal for a sin offering, by which he acknowledged his sinful state, the need he had of an expiatory victim, and his faith in the coming Redeemer. Hence the apostle says, Abel, by faith, offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain and God testified of his gifts, rose Swenie i. e. both the minchah and sin offering. Cain, not having faith in the coming Saviour, acted simply as a Deist, and offered only the minchah, or thank-offering, to God, without either a consciousness of sin, or faith in the promised atonement; therefore his offering was not accepted. Dr. Kennicott has handled this subject in a masterly manner, in a work entitled, Two Disser tations, 1. On the Tree of Life; 2. On the Oblations of Cain and Abel, 8vo. Oxon. 1747, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. EDIT.

the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, that Abel's offering was Juría, i. e. the oblation of a creature slain.' I laid great stress upon the inspired writer's using this term.' I am answered, that it is notorious, that the word Juría is several times used in scripture for an inanimate oblation, And the ingenious writer, above mentioned, cites, for his assertion, Lev. ii. 1. Undoubtedly he might have cited many other passages. His mistake is, in citing the Septuagint translation for scripture; not considering that these trans

Dvoíar "ACIλ #poonsxe, Heb. xi. 4. I might, I think, here observe, that the apostle elsewhere expressly calls Abel's offering an offering of blood. Alluding to the blood of Christ, by whose death we have the forgiveness of sins, he says, ye are come-to the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things than that of Abel, Heb. xii. 24.

that of Abel; he does not mean Abel's blood, or the blood shed by the death of Abel; for Abel's death was no sacrifice for sin; but the blood which Abel offered in his Juría, or sacrifice, though accepted by God, as he had commanded it, was but a shadow in comparison of the sacrifice of Christ.

See Connect. vol. i. b. ii.

Phil. to Hydasp. letter v. p. 32.

lators, not being infallible, might err in their translation. The translators of the Septuagint were extremely careless in their use of this word. They render the third verse of the fourth chapter of Genesis, ἤνεγκεν Κάϊν από τῶν καρπῶν τῆς γῆς θυσίαν τῷ Κυρίῳ. Here they call Cain's offering, which is described and allowed to be of the fruits of the ground only, Juolav, a sacrifice or mactation. But then it is to be remarked, that the apostle herein particularly corrects them, removes the word Svolav, misapplied by them, and uses it of θυσίαν, Abel's sacrifice only, and not of Cain's offering." The inspired writers of the New Tes

I would take away all possible ambiguity, that can be supposed in the apostle's expression; and would, therefore, observe, that should any one imagine that the apostle's words are elliptical, that the words may be taken, by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain's, i. e. sacrifice that the word via may as well be understood at the end of the period, as inserted in the beginning. I answer, it is impossible so to construe the apostle, his words being, wires their Juoíar "AC1r maçà Karpoon. Were this the meaning, it should be waga Te Kair but we say, a more excellent sacrifice; where do we find ova to signify more excel

tament are known generally to cite the Old Testament, according to the Septuagint version; and where they do so, it is evident they did not think the expression import

lent? Things that are more excellent, are called rà diaspora, Rom. ii. 18. Phil. i. 10. A more excellent way is, nad' væαręboλnı idèr, 1 Cor. xii. 31. A more excellent name is, diapopáτepov ovoμa, Heb. i. 4. and a more excellent ministry is, diapofwrigaç derspyias, Heb. viii. 6. But whev signifies more, amplior,says Stephens, Concord. Græco-Lat. Nov. Testam. And to its here having this signification agrees what follows: Abel brought volan πλείονα παρά Κάϊ». The preposition παρά is used in the New Testament to signify præter, besides, more than, over and above. Thus St. Paul, guarding the Galatians against receiving the observances of the Jewish law, superadded to the Christian religion, most solemnly warns them, not to receive any thing that should be preached to them, παρ' ὁ ευηΓγελισάμεθα, Οι παρ' ὁ παραλάβετε, Gal. i. 8, 9. They were to receive no doctrines, as gospel, more than, over and above, what St. Paul had preached to them. And thus Abel's θυσίαν was πλειόνα παρὰ Κάϊν. Cain had offered only inanimate gifts: Abel had offered these also; for these often accompanied the burnt-offering: but Abel's Suria was something over and besides these, it was the mactation of an animal. And in the not having this added, Cain came short of what ought to have been done by him.