some vague notions respecting a Divine victim. But if Christ was the "Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world," a memorial was then needed, and none could have been more suitable and expressive than that of animal sacrifice. It was a sacramental memorial answering to the Gospel ordinance, to show forth the Lord's death until he come.

Abel's offering, therefore, was such as became a fallen creature who acknowledged his apostacy, and felt his need of an atonement; but Cain's, instead of being a piacular sacrifice, such as had been required by God and established by usage, was simply eucharistic, as to a Being whom he had never offended. Hence Paul not only places the blood of Abel's sacrifice in direct comparison with the blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently "the blood of sprinkling," and represents both "as speaking good things" in different degrees;1 he draws a distinction between the brothers' respective sacrifices: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain;"2 and why more excellent, but that it was distinguished by faith? What faith? a general persuasion that God would accept his offering? This cannot be, for the cause of Cain's disappointment was that his was not accepted. It was expressed, then, by Abel's bloody piacular sacrifice; and as the Scriptures assign no other object of this faith than the promise of a Redeemer, his faith implies that its object, as well as the medium of its expression, had been distinctly revealed, and was in effect a prospective faith in the coming Messiah; like that "by which," as Paul said, "the elders obtained a good report:" while Cain's bloodless offering betrayed his unbelief in the need of a vicarious expiation; the inmost sentiment of his heart being, that it was enough for him to thank God for his mercies, not to humble himself on account of his sins, much less deplore his apostacy.

As every one, then, should honour God with his substance according as he has been prospered; so no one who does not come before him in the name of the great anti-typical Lamb can scripturally hope in his favour. The condition of our acceptance is virtually the same as when Abel laid the hand of his faith upon the head of the bleeding victim. Since man, by transgressing the Divine law, had exposed himself to the

1 Heb. xii, 24.

2 Heb. xi, 4.

penalty of death, spiritual as well as temporal, no religion could have been suitable to him and his posterity which did not respect the honour of that law, and aim to restore him to the prerogatives and felicities of his original nature. Being guilty, degenerate, ruined, it is certain he can never make satisfaction to Divine justice, nor restore himself to holiness; and therefore, Christianity, in its remedial and sanctifying agency, is true to man's condition as a fallen being; true to the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent; true to the great import of the early institution of sacrifice. He whom we regard as the great sacrifice for sin, was announced immediately after man's fatal apostacy, shadowed forth by the piacular sacrifices which relieved the fears and sustained the hopes of successive generations; pointed out by Moses, and with gradually increasing clearness by his successors in the prophetic office; and if our faith is stronger or more clearly defined than Abel's, his was not the less acceptable in the sight of God.

In what way God manifested his acceptance of Abel's offering, is not stated; yet as there was but one sign of the acceptance of such offerings, it was probably by fire coming down from above, and consuming the sacrifice; as, when Moses offered the first great burnt-offerings according to the law; when Gideon offered upon the rock; when David stayed the plague; when Solomon dedicated the temple; or when Elijah put to confusion the worshippers of Baal. To" accept one's burnt-offering," was, according to the Hebrew sense of the phrase, "to turn it into ashes," whereby it was declared and understood that the innocent was accepted in room of the guilty, the sacrifice having sustained the vengeance that would otherwise have fallen on the sinner. The Divine acceptance of Abel's offering must have been signified in some decided and unequivocal manner. Cain at once perceived that his own was rejected; but, instead of humbling himself on account of his sin, or being angry with himself that he could have presumed to palm such a sacrifice on the holy and heart-searching God, he is strangely out of temper. His hard thoughts of God, his envious if not vindictive feelings toward his brother, may be read in the expression of his fearfully altered countenance.

But God, instead of treating him according to his ill deserts, manifested his forbearance; instead of rebuking him in sore displeasure, condescended to reason with him; and in so doing, laid down the essential principles of his moral government; principles by which he himself is necessarily governed in his judgment of men, and which, as he cannot deny himself, they can never violate with impunity.

"Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?" God can have no pleasure in his death. Cain shall have no just reason to complain. If he will not listen to the voice of kind expostulation, his conduct will be only the more inexcusable. "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" As though God had said: You blame me for having had respect to Abel's offering; but if you had done well, your offering would have been accepted also; or if you should now bring an offering in penitence and faith, you shall be accepted. There is room for repentance, and hope for the guilty. "But if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door:" you will be tempted to greater sins; you will go on in the error of your ways, nor will you be able to escape the punishment due to your sins; there is an inseparable bond between sin and punishment.

It has been supposed that, as the original word here translated sin, may be rendered in accordance with the tenor of other passages in the Old Testament, a sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin, there was an intimation to Cain of the Divine mercy, on condition of his making a sin-offering in the faith of a Redeemer. Certainly it is not unreasonable to conclude, from God's approbation of the one sacrifice and rejection of the other, that he rebuked Cain for not conforming to that species of sacrifice which his brother had offered. We have already seen that the difference in their sacrifices was the ground of that distinction which God made in his treatment of the sacrificers; and if so, it follows that he enforced the observance of animal sacrifice. The general sense of the passage is, however, that if Cain did as he ought, he would be accepted; if not, God could not pardon him, nor could he himself arrest the downward course of transgression, or preclude its consequences; and the experience of the world ever since has borne testimony to the fact, that whenever any man does not do as he ought, sin lies at the door. Sceptics do but betray their

own ignorance of the natural course of things in this world, or their wilful disregard of the teachings of facts, when they cavil at the Divine authority of the Mosaic record, on the ground that death was made the penalty of merely eating an apple; and that Cain incurred the Divine displeasure merely because he did not sacrifice a lamb! Adam's sin was in itself an overt act of rebellion, deranging, so far as its effects might extend, the moral government of the world: Cain's sin was not only the violation of a known injunction, it implied the questioning of God's right to his obedience, and an impeachment of God's holiness.

The father, by his sin, parted with Paradise; and the son, by his, parted with peace. The former humbly availed himself of the benefit of the promised seed; the latter not merely neglected to observe parental precept and example, but showed his disbelief of the Divine promise, and his dissatisfaction with God's appointed ordinance. The former, notwithstanding his sin, set an example of penitence and faith; the latter, through the pride and selfishness of his heart, instituted will-worship, and by his offering set an example of infidelity, and of insubordination to Heaven's rule. Still, God remonstrated with him, and it is evident from this recorded fact, that notwithstanding his excuseless conduct, he, equally with his brother, might have been at last accepted, had he only repented, and, in the hope of the promise, brought an offering for sin. But in him we have a picture of the woeful change which sin had wrought in man's original nature. The fact that Abel's offering was accepted, seems to have stirred up in his bosom every evil passion. He was angry at his brother for having done well; and even the Divine remonstrance, instead of softening his feelings, served rather to exasperate his spirit. This is the not unusual result of expostulation with those who, while conscious of having done wrong, are yet unwilling to do right. God's ministers can do no more than reason with sinful men, and warn them of the error of their ways; and if they will not heed the voice of faithful reproof and affectionate warning, their guilt is aggravated as Cain's was, and their case may be quite as hopeless.

We are prone to think that all is well with one, so long as he is attentive to the duties of his calling. Man's relations to

his God are practically deemed of no importance compared with his relations to the community. He may live in the neglect of all religious duties, yet feel himself not unworthy of the Divine acceptance. He may train up his children to respect the rules of society, but to teach them to observe the ordinances of Heaven is not, in his view, essential to their welfare. Yet the very first sin, after man's fall, was a disregard of sacred matters! This was followed by envy and anger, by murmurings against God, and by malice, which fast ripened into hate, and terminated in a brother's bloody death. So may the ruinous course of many a young man be traced to a neglect of ordinances, which he had been taught to respect, or to a violation of the Sabbath, which he had been brought up to observe. Philosophy may trace crime to unbridled passions, but the Bible teaches us that all evils flow from sin. Man's heart cannot be right toward his neighbour, unless right toward God. He who withholds from God his dues, may at any time deprive his neighbour of his rights. He who reverences God, will respect God's image in man, He who looks up to God with a grateful, lowly heart, is free from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness." Loving God, he loves his neighbour as himself.

66

Sinful men, however, are apt to be unreasonable in relation to the claims of God. Not only must they be permitted to serve God in their own way, but they expect to be accepted, no matter whether their offering has been merely the homage of the lips, a conscience-quieting compliance with some religious custom, or some beggarly charity as an atonement for a life habitually careless and undevout; as though God had not a right to prescribe the way in which he is to be worshipped, a valid claim on all that we have and are; or could be pleased with a heartless, faithless sacrifice! Of all who presume on the Divine acceptance, they are the most deceived, who, overlooking the manner in which God has required us to worship him, or the only grounds on which, in consistency with his high perfections, he can justify the sinner, make a merit of their formal observances, and ostentatious almsgiving, or barren virtues: and the reason may be found in the fact that, just in proportion as men make a merit before God of any thing they do, are they blind to the spirituality of his law, and