was testified of to be righteous. Hence, analogically, we must conclude, that it was not the antecedent wickedness of Cain, which caused the rejection of his sacrifice; but we must conclude, that it was his daring infidelity in regard to an express divine revelation (manifested in his contumacious devotement of a mere eucharistic sacrifice, as avowedly opposed to the divinely-prescribed expiatory sacrifice), which procured for him the awful character of being of that wicked one the apostate spirit.

2. If the principle, upon which Abel acted, were faith in a divine revelation; and if the principle, upon which Cain acted, were disbelief of that same divine revelation: then the crying sin of Cain was infidelity; an infidelity specially operating upon the revealed doctrine of an

atonement.

This conclusion, so far as I can see, follows, of plain necessity, from the apostolic definition

* Πίστει πλείονα θυσίαν "Αβελ παρὰ Καϊν προσήνεγκε τῷ Θεῷ, ΔΙ' ΗΣ ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος.

There may be a doubt, whether the relatives, in this sentence, refers to ziora or to ovcíav: but, in either case, the result is the same. It was through his faith, or through his sacrifice, or through the faith which led him to devote his sacrifice, that Abel was testified of to be righteous; not through the goodness of his antecedent moral conduct.

of Faith: nor, if the propriety of the definition be admitted, do I perceive how such a conclusion can possibly be avoided. Those persons, therefore, have judged rightly, who have pronounced Cain to be the first infidel upon record *.

3. Another consequence, which may be drawn from the present text, is the full establishment, that the view, which has been taken of the Mosaic history of the transaction, is substantially

correct.

Why does the Apostle pronounce the sacrifice of Abel to be more excellent than the sacrifice of Cain?

(1.) Some writers have chosen to say, that Abel brought the best of his flock, while Cain offensively deemed the refuse of his produce quite good enough for a sacrificial purpose t.

It is not unworthy of observation, that the Rabbins suppose Cain to have been a complete infidel upon every one of the great leading points of religion.

Cain said unto Abel his brother: There is neither judgment, nor judge, nor a future world, nor any reward to the just, nor any punishment to the wicked. And Abel answered and said unto Cain his brother: There is both judgment, and judge, and a reward to the just, and punishment to the wicked. Midbar Rabbah apud Selden. de Jur. Nat. lib. vii. c. 4. p. 844.

This dialogue, ingrafted upon Gen. iv. 8, is obviously a mere figment: but it effectually serves to shew the sentiments of the Rabbins respecting the character of Cain.

† See Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. lib. x. p. 349. Lips.

:

For such a speculation we have not a shadow of authority. The Bible affords not to it the slightest warrant.

(2.) Others may possibly conjecture, that Abel believed anteriorly that his sacrifice would be accepted, while Cain believed anteriorly that his sacrifice would be rejected.

The supposition is palpably absurd: for, if this were the only faith spoken of by the Apostle, the very action of Cain shewed that he possessed this faith no less than his brother. He would not have offered his sacrifice at all, had he been anteriorly persuaded that God would reject it with disdain *.

* Much the same objection will apply to Mr. Davison's opinion, that Abel sacrificed only through a firm belief in the large and indefinite promises of the Lord, that he would be his God and his great reward.

If this were the only faith of Abel, we have no reason to suppose, that it was not also possessed by Cain: for, unless Cain had had faith in God as a rewarder, he clearly would not have sacrificed to him at all.

The Apostle, however, teaches us, that Faith was the impelling motive which caused Abel to offer a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.

Therefore, evidently, Cain could not have possessed the faith, which Abel possessed.

But, if the faith of Abel were merely the faith ascribed to him by Mr. Davison; this same faith, as the very act of sacrificing demonstrates, was possessed also by Cain.

Hence it follows, that the faith of Abel, NOT being pos

(3.) Such phantasies being thrown aside as alike unwarranted and unsatisfactory, we may venture to pronounce, that the superiority of Abel's sacrifice must have consisted, partly in the peculiar faith with which it was offered, and partly in the specific contradistinctive nature of the sacrifice itself.

In both these respects, it must have differed from the sacrifice of Cain: otherwise, its alleged superiority is altogether unaccountable.

Now the Mosaic history fully corresponds with the apostolic attestation, if the exposition, for which I contend, be adopted: but let any other exposition be preferred, and the whole correspondence vanishes. Hence, with that harmony which ever characterises Holy Scripture, the interpretation of the Apostle's attestation, to which, by his own definition of Faith, we are irresistibly driven, requires, of very necessity, that natural and obvious exposition of the history which I have undertaken to maintain and defend.

sessed by Cain, could not have merely been the generalising belief ascribed to him by Mr. Davison: for that faith was possessed by Cain no less than by Abel.

CHAPTER III.

Evidence of the Primeval Divine Institution of Sacrifice, and of the Primeval Revelation of the Doctrine of an Atonement, from the peculiarity of the language employed under the Law of Moses.

THE discussion having thus far advanced, I now feel myself at liberty to draw, from the striking peculiarity of the very language employed under the Law itself, another proof of the primeval divine institution of sacrifice, and another proof of the primeval revelation of the doctrine of an atone

ment.

I. If the rite of sacrifice were indeed divinely instituted at the commencement of the Patriarchal Dispensation, we may naturally expect to find, under the Law, not any intimation that the rite was then for the first time divinely instituted, but only a recognition and modification of the rite, viewed as having already been long in wellknown and familiar existence.

Now this precise matter, which might thus have been reasonably anticipated, is actually established by the direct evidence of facts. It is a remarkable circumstance, which (I think) has not been sufficiently attended to by Mr.