as to require the care and superintendence of a rational being, for the preservation and defence of at least the more helpless species. Hence Abel is represented to us as "a keeper of sheep," and Cain as "a tiller of the ground."

But whatever may have been the diminution of God's kindness towards a sinful and corrupted race, his presence was neither altogether withdrawn, nor his power and providence unfelt, nor his mercies left unacknowledged by the incense of grateful piety. "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." According to his respective occupation, and out of the increase with which his labour had been recompensed, each made a return after his manner and power; expressing by the act of his hands, the feelings of his heart, and confessing the great source from whence all blessings flow, by bringing an appropriate offering unto the Lord and the giver of all good things. The act of worship and gratitude was not, however, received in the same manner from both, nor were the two brothers alike approved in their deed of piety. "The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain

a Gen. iv. 3.

and to his offering he had not respect." What was the reason of this different treatment is not explicitly stated; and a similiar obscurity is also left upon the mode in which the approbation and disapprobation were severally expressed. Both these points, therefore, if they are to be determined at all, must be gathered from a careful review of the whole circumstances of the transaction.

Upon the latter of these questions, however, that is, upon the manner in which the divine approbation or disapprobation was shewn, I shall not take the trouble to dwell. The wrath of Cain; his fallen countenance and his uplifted hand, his countenance fallen in sullen and envious melancholy, and his hand lifted up against his brother in unholy wrath, bear sufficient testimony to the preference which Abel obtained, and to the reality of the rejection of Cain, and to the clearness with which both were revealed. Whether, as in after times, the acceptance of Abel's offering was proclaimed by the descent of a fire from Heaven upon the altar, or by an answer proceeding from the Shechinah of God's glory, or by a whirlwind, or an earthquake, or a still small voice, is a matter not only of extreme uncertainty, but also of very little comparative importance. The truth of the fact is what alone

we are particularly concerned to know, and that the words, the circumstances, and, above all, the sad consequences of the tale declare.

But the inquiry into the ground and reason of the difference between the acceptableness of the two sacrifices, is a question of another kind; far more essential and, on a casual inspection, not less obscure. The equity of God is deeply involved in it. For to justify so marked a distinction as that which subsists between respect and a want of it, we must find out some corresponding distinction between those who were made the subjects of such opposite treatment. The offering or the offerer must be proved on the one side to have had some comparative or positive excellence, or, on the other, to have had some positive or comparative demerit and defect.

I. First then, the words in which the rejection and acceptance are specified by the historian, have seemed to some to imply that the sacrifices themselves were the foundation of that difference with which the individuals who offered them were received. "To Abel and to his offering," says Moses, "the Lord had respect; but to Cain and to his offering he had not respect." Such is the phrase; and it is said that by a figure common to all languages, and particularly prevalent in that

in which the book of Genesis was originally composed, we are authorised to consider it as probably intending to imply that God had respect to the offering of Abel in itself. If this be the true interpretation, the offering of Abel must have been superior to that of Cain, either in its nature, its magnitude, or its quality. If however we take the sacrifices of Abel and Cain and consider them impartially together, we shall find it extremely difficult, from their nature alone, to account for the preference which was shewn to that of the former. For when we bring the intrinsic character of the offerings themselves to the test of ordinary reason, and institute a comparison between them for the purpose of determining their relative value on the common principles of human estimation, we are not only at a loss to explain the grounds of the preference, but are almost tempted to think that it ought to have taken a different direction. Abel's was a bloody, Cain's a bloodless sacrifice. Abel's quenched the sacred principle of life in the sentient creatures of the Almighty's goodness, and inflicted pain and robbed of their happiness and their being those to whom the hand of Heaven had communicated both. Cain did but bring the fruits of the ground which the word of God had authorised him to take and to enjoy. Abel sacrificed what, he had no permission, either express or

implied, to use for food; whilst Cain appeared with that which he had been allowed and commanded to eat. The one came with hands still reeking with his victim's blood; the other, in the simplicity of the primeval occupation, adorned the altar of the Lord of life with the beautiful products of that vegetable nature which had been ordained for universal use and admiration Look only to this representation; weigh only the essential nature of the things offered, and it will require but little penetration to perceive, that the sacrifices, considered merely in themselves, could not have been the only ground of the superior acceptableness of that of Abel. Upon this footing, the balance would appear rather to preponderate in favour of Cain.

Considerations like these have not failed to operate both with Deists and Divines. The Deist has triumphed in the supposed impropriety, if not inhumanity, of representing the Deity to have marked his preference of a sanguinary service; and the Divine, to meet the objection, has consequently insisted, not so much upon any difference in the nature, as in the quantity or quality of the respective offerings. But as far as quantity is concerned, there is nothing to authorise any certain conclusion and I can scarce persuade myself that any more definite