by God. Some explanations of the cause of this have been given, which are trifling and futile, and which, we may imagine, would never have been expressed, had duc attention been applied to the language of this chapter, and to the declaration of St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews. In the fourth chapter of Genesis it is said, " And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering, he had not respect: and Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell; and the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and, if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." It has been observed by many learned commentators, that most pro

bably the mode by which God marked his acceptance of the sacrifice (whether it was an Holocaust or not) was by fire descending from the Shechinah. This idea may receive confirmation from the contest between the Prophet Elijah and the Prophets of Baal, as related in the eighteenth chapter of the first Book of Kings; where it is said, "Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice." It has also been observed, that the original word, translated "Sin" in our Bibles, means a sin-offering, and the Greek word* in the Septuagint version, does not always mean Sin," but frequently "an offering for the expiation of sin:" according to this interpretation, it is considered by many learned men, that we are to understand by "Sin lieth at the door," that "an animal, ready for sacrifice, lieth, or coucheth at your door,"

*

αμαρτία, vide 2 Cor. v. 21. “He hath made him to be sin for us," (evidently a sin-offering,) "who knew no sin."

as if God had said, "Why are you displeased that I have not accepted your offering? had you offered up an animal for an expiation, according to my injunction, your offering would have been accepted equally with that of your brother; but as you have not obeyed my injunction, but have chosen to offer a tribute according to your own will, and not according to mine, go and offer up an animal which you may easily procure, as it lieth near your place of abode, and that sacrifice, with shedding of blood, I will accept." That this supposed paraphrase is not fanciful, but, that it is the real interpretation of the meaning of God's remonstrance with Cain, will appear from St. Paul's words in the eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, "By faith, Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice* than Cain, by which he ob

* λetova Ivolav, a fuller sacrifice, i. e. a sin-offering as well as the first fruits for a thanksgiving.

From Dr. Hales:-Minhah, offering of first fruits,

tained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he, being dead, yet speaketh." What other meaning can there be of the words "by faith" than this? that Abel had that well grounded faith in the promises of God, of

contrasted with Zabah, "the animal sacrifice," Psalm xlix. 7. Hatah, "the sin-offering," Ezek. xliv. 29. And both the oblations of the first fruits, and the sacrifice of a lamb, were required at the yearly sacrifice of the Passover, Levit. xxiii. 10-13. And also in the daily sacrifice, under the service of the tabernacle, in the Wilderness, Exod. xxiv. 38-42; of the first temple, 2 Kings xvi. 15; and of the second temple, Ezra iii. 3; and Nehemiah x. 33, which subsisted till "the daily service was abrogated."+ Daniel ix. 27, by Christ our Passover, who was sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. v. 7. "Once for all," (epara,) Heb. ix. 26.

The sacrifice of Cain, therefore, was imperfect or incomplete; he brought, indeed, an oblation of his first fruits, as an offering of thanksgiving for God's temporal bounties, Deut. xxvi. 2-11; he was not, therefore, devoid of religious sentiment; but he did not bring an animal sacrifice, or a sin-offering; either, because he

+ Dr. Kennicott, speaking of the abrogation of the daily sacrifice, says, "like the moon, which having no intrinsic brightness, shines only by a light borrowed from a nobler body; and disappears at the rising of the sun, as being no longer of service to mankind.

the coming of a future deliverer, and he also had a pious conviction connected with, and springing from, that faith, that he was bound in duty to obedience to God's will, and strictly to follow the injunction of his Maker, by offering an animal in sacrifice. This was the sole cause of his offering being accepted, and

did not count himself a sinner, and so had no need of it; or because he wanted Faith, and disbelieved the use and efficacy of this instituted mode of Atonement, or perhaps upon both accounts conjointly. Whereas Abel not only brought a Mïnhah (as expressly asserted in the latter clause, and therefore to be understood in the former) in token of thanksgiving; but also by Faith a sin offering also, confessing himself a sinner, which therefore St. Paul styles Tλelova Ovσiav, “a fuller sacrifice," or more complete and excellent than Cain's, and speaks of it in the plural number dwpois, Gifts." Heb. xi. 4. When it is said that "the Lord, had respect unto Abel and his oblation," it was because it was accompanied by the "sin offering;" whereas "unto Cain and his oblation he had not respect," because it was defective in the form, and rebellious in the spirit, with which it was offered. This was "the error of Cain," (Jude 11.) a renunciation of "the benefits of the instituted mode of Atonement for sin," and a "going about to establish his own righteousness, like the self-sufficient Jews, Rom. x. 3.

K