Page images
PDF
EPUB

6

Essays, &c., on Theology and General Literature.

CAIN AND ABEL.

LOOKING back in the history of our world to a period near six thousand years ago, we behold' an occurrence, very simple in its external aspect, yet fraught with great principles, both instructive and admonitory. Near the east of Eden, and where the visible presence of God was yet manifest in the flaming symbol-the Shekinah-we see two young men engaged in an act of religious homage. The scene has special interest, for it is the first act of worship recorded in the annals of man. Moreover, the two worshippers are brothers-the first two that bear that relationship-and their parents the first pair of the human family. How simple their worship in its exterior form! They wear no embroidered vestments-but the skins of animals, or the broad leaves of the palm or the fig, are all that cover their loins. No pompous ritual is rehearsed in measured cadence, and no artificial flexions of the body are displayed before an awe-stricken audience. Lowly they bow before a rude altar of earth or of undressed stone, on which their offerings are placed, and the simplest utterances of penitence and faith, of adoration and homage, are the only accents that rise from their lips, as the elder presents to God the fruits of the earth, and the younger a slaughtered victim from his flock.

But in the searching eye of God a broad distinction-an essential difference-marks the character of their worship; for God had respect unto Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect. How was this preference manifested, and on what grounds was it taken ? There was, doubtless, some visible sign that expressed this distinction. Probably a coruscation from the lambent symbol ignited and consumed the sacrifice of Abel, while the offering of Cain remained cold and neglected on the altar as he had laid it there-no sign from heaven or from the radiant presence attesting the approval of Him to whom it was presented. The one is visibly accepted, and the other as evidently rejected of God.

But why should Jehovah make this distinction? It cannot be that he is a respecter of persons. Both the worshippers are his creatures, and have equal rights and privileges. Nor can there be anything arbitrary in the decisions of the Most High, nor can a decision, involving his favour or his wrath towards an intelligent and responsible being be based on something merely ceremonial or circumstantial. There must undoubtedly be great moral and equitable reasons directing his proceedings. The Judge of all the earth must do right; and if he accept one man and reject another, the reasons must be found in the different character, and the consequent different relation, they respectively bear to the fundamental principles of his moral government. There must, then, have been great and essential differences in the character of these two men; but where shall we perceive that wide distinction if we look only at their external deportment up to this period? Cain is not an atheist, for by his offering he professes his belief in the being of a God;

1

nor is he an idolater, for he worships Jehovah alone, as the Creator of heaven and earth; and in acknowledgment of his Being, and of his claim to the homage of his intelligent creatures, he presents to him those productions of the earth which his bounty has bestowed. Nor is he charged with profligacy, rapacity, or licentiousness of manners; for, indeed, in that primitive age, temptation had not yet spread abroad her allurements to the grosser vices. Gold had not yet acquired its value, nor commerce excited the lust for gain. Competing interests and honours had not awakened man's cupidity and ambition, nor had the vine learned its intoxicating power, nor great cities spread out enchantments to sensual passion. Nor, indeed, does Cain seem to have been at all inclined to effeminate vices. Lust had not enervated his brawny arm, nor indolence enfeebled his purposes. Though the rich earth yielded spontaneously her fruits, he betook himself to honourable toil, and laboured with manly energy as "a tiller of the ground." Yet Holy Scripture tells us that "Cain's works were evil, and his brother's righteous;" and if the infant state of society afforded few excitements to grovelling propensities or flagrant rapacities, the malign passions of a degenerate nature were allowed to operate without restraint, fostering enmity towards God, and hatred towards his brother.

With one graphic stroke the pen of Holy Scripture touches the core of Cain's evil character, and reveals the cause of his rejection by God -it was the want of faith-and, in the absence of faith, his evil nature gathered strength, and brought forth the deadly fruits of rebellion. By faith "Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he, being dead, yet speaketh." The primitive narrative shows a difference in the offerings presented, and the New Testament unfolds the principles by which each was actuated. Cain offered only the productions of the earth, but Abel offered an animal as a sacrificial victim. There was a difference here, and if we look within at the motives of the worshippers, there was a difference there-one offering sprang from faith, the other from a heart in which a true evangelical faith had no existence; and without faith there was no love, and in the absence of faith and love, the whole offering was vitiated— it came from a degenerate heart. And, as we shall shortly see, it was itself an act of disobedience to God, and therefore was rejected.*

Now, faith is distinct from reason, for reason is the faculty by which man discovers truth in the exercise of his own intellectual

We are aware that Dr. Kennicott, and, after him, some other divines, suppose that the words wλɛiova Ovcíav, in Hebrews xi. 4, and which, in our version, are rendered a more excellent sacrifice, should be rendered a fuller sacrifice; as if Abel had offered to God both a thank-offering, as Cain did, and also a sacrificial victim. But this view is not sustained by the narrative, which speaks nothing of a second offering by Abel. It speaks but of one offering by each brother, and contrasts the materials presented on the occasion by each. Moreover, the offerings presented by Noah, Abraham, and Job, consisted of animals only, and we do not find mention made of any offerings except animal victims presented to God by the patriarchs before the giving of the ceremonial law. Besides, the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice did not depend so much on its fulness as on its faith. It was his faith in a Divine revelation which induced him to offer a slaughtered victim, and to this the Scriptures assign the cause of its acceptance. We therefore adhere to the translation as it stands in our own version.

powers; but faith is reliance on testimony; and testimony, in reference to subjects beyond man's own powers of discovery, implies a revelation; and as the faith of Abel guided him in his worship, the revelation must have had respect to the mode of worship. It must, indeed, have been a revelation which showed man what he must do in order to approach God acceptably, and to worship him aright. Hence it follows that the animal sacrifice presented by Abel was not dictated by his reason, but required by the authority of a Divine revelation. The offering of Cain, on the contrary, which excluded an animal victim, and consisted only of the fruits of the earth, was not in accordance with God's appointment, but in opposition to it, and therefore not of faith, but of reason: it was reason acting in defiance of a Divine injunction.

That the sacrifice of Abel was offered in accordance with a specific revelation is corroborated by its very nature; for what could suggest to his mind that the presentation of a slaughtered animal would be acceptable to God? He had no natural right to take away the life of God's creatures, except on the ground of self-preservation; and of all creatures, a lamb would be the most inoffensive, and its innocence would make the strongest appeal to the pity of a benevolent heart. Moreover, Abel himself, from the gentleness of his disposition, would feel an instinctive repugnance to take away life, and nothing could have induced him to shed the blood of an innocent animal but a Divine requirement; and if the act of slaughter were repugnant to his own gentle nature, how could he conceive that God himself could take pleasure in it as a part of worship? Had he offered the productions of the earth as Cain did, we should at once have seen such an oblation in harmony with the mildness of his disposition, and the spontaneous dictation of reason in presenting to God the fruits of the earth as the visible expression of gratitude and adoration to the bountiful donor of all good. But seeing he offered an animal, and in doing so imbrued his hands in the blood of an innocent victim, he must have acted, not from the dictation of reason, but from a higher authority than his own; and seeing, further, that God accepted of his offering, we have the strongest evidence that he must have acted under the special guidance and authority of a Divine revelation.

But where do we find the revelation given? This is not recorded in the brief narrative of the sacred writer, but it is implied. The promise of salvation made to Adam in Paradise implied that man was unable to save himself, and that his redemption should come through the interposition of another in his behalf. This redemption, too, was to be effected by the suffering of one who, partaking of human nature as the seed of the woman, should be bruised. Here, then, though the recorded promise was brief and enigmatical, it clearly implied vicarious suffering as the means through which the salvation of mankind should come. But we are not to suppose that the brief promise recorded in Genesis iii. 15 contains the whole revelation made to Adam. It was doubtless supplemented by instructions as to the mode in which God was to be approached in worship, and ere our trembling parents left the scene of their guilt, they offered a piacular sacrifice to God. Whence the skins with which our first parents were clothed, after their fall, and before they were banished from the garden? It is said that God clothed them with those skins; but did he create them for the pur

pose? Is it not far more rational to suppose that, having directed our first parents to offer animal sacrifices in worship, as typical of the promised deliverer and his vicarious death, he then directed them to clothe themselves with the skins of the victims they had slain? Now, the truths enunciated and symbolized in this instance comprised the revelation which, being given by God to man, were cordially believed by Abel, and his sacrifice, therefore, was at once an act of obedience and an expression of his faith in the Divine testimony, and in the promised Redeemer of mankind. In the sacrifice of Abel we recognize the following elements of evangelical faith:

1. There was faith in the rectoral character of God. The sacrifice of Cain recognized the existence of God as the creator and benefactor of man, but ignored the claims of his holy law and man's solemn responsibility. While it admitted God's goodness, it revered not his justice, nor regarded the penalty due to sin. But the sacrifice of Abel had respect to God as the governor as well as the benefactor of man; as holy in his nature as well as benevolent in his disposition; as just to punish the guilty as well as merciful to pardon the penitent. All these views of God are implied in the piacular offering presented, and doubtless these just conceptions of the Deity had been imparted by the instructions of his penitent parents in rehearsing to their children, not only the revelation of mercy, but also the scenes of their once happy condition in Paradise, and the communion they then enjoyed with the holy and blessed God.

2. The sacrifice of Abel was expressive of his deep conviction of the evil and desert of sin. There is no evidence that Cain regarded himself as a sinner, or, if he did, he had but a feeble impression of its malignity, pollution, and dreadful curse. The offering he presents has no reference to sin or repentance. In offering the fruits of the earth, he merely regarded benefaction in the Creator, and the duty of gratitude and homage in the creature, without a sigh for transgression or a deprecation of the vengeance it deserved. But the sacrifice of Abel spoke that man was a sinner, and that sin was a dreadful evil in the sight of a holy God. As the hand of Abel drew the blood of an innocent victim, and as his eye rested on its convulsive throes in the agonies of death, he would have an affecting sense of the evil which sin had caused. While man lived in innocence his hand never inflicted a pang on a creature; no bloody rite was required. The intercourse between God and man was always open, and prayer and praise ever found acceptance. Why, then, must the mode of worship be so different now? Why must he lacerate his own sensibilities by inflicting pain on an innocent animal? Because he is a sinner, and is the author of pain and misery. Why must he put a creature to death? Because he himself deserves to die, and the sentence of death eternal hangs over his guilty head.

3. The sacrifice of Abel expressed the conviction of his inability to save himself by personal obedience, and pointed symbolically to the promised Saviour of the world. If obedience could merit salvation, there was no need for suffering; and if personal suffering could have procured it, there was no need for the sufferings of another. But in the presentation of a slaughtered victim there was an acknowledgment that neither personal sufferings could atone for sin, nor personal obedi

ence merit the Divine favour; but that as a guilty, condemned sinner, he was lost, helpless, and undone, and that an atonement was essential to his salvation; yet, seeing the victim now offered was but an animal, it could not of itself be adequate to atone : it was designed to direct the eye of faith to another, who, in the fulness of time, should come and be bruised, as the true propitiatory victim for the sins of the world. Hence Christ is declared to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, because the earliest sacrifices presented, symbolically indicated his vicarious death.

4. The faith of Abel was a vital principle, and brought forth the fruits of obedience. It cannot be supposed that his faith was accompanied with such clear views as those which we enjoy under the full light of the Christian dispensation, yet it was a genuine and living principle. It was combined with contrition for sin, renunciation of self-righteousness, abasement of soul, and a thankful acquiescence in God's own method of salvation. It involved the entire submission of the soul to God, and a full dependence on the promised Saviour, for acceptance with God. However obscure the views of Abel, his faith was of the same kind as that which is exercised now by every believer in Christ. It had respect to the same Saviour and his work. Our faith looks backward to One who has come; Abel's looked forward to One who was to come in due time. As a practical principle it generated love to God, and all the fruits of experimental and practical holiness. On the other hand, the offering of Cain was not of faith. As he believed not the Divine revelation, he obeyed not the Divine injunction. As he felt not the evil of sin, he shed no tears of penitence, and he sought refuge in no atonement. Proud, self-righteous, and unbelieving, he took his own course, and ventured to come into the Divine presence without a propitiation. He would thank God for his goodness, but he would neither deprecate his vengeance nor sue for his mercy; or, if he did, he would adopt such a course as reason and self-righteousness suggested. Now, the absence of faith left Cain totally unrenewed-he was just as much depraved when bowing before the altar as when carelessly tilling his field.

These essential differences in the character of the two worshippers account for the acceptance of the one and the rejection of the other. Abel, though himself a sinner, both by nature and practice, yet as a penitent believer he could not but be approved of God, for he fulfilled the conditions on which God himself had suspended the blessings of salvation; and Cain could not but be rejected, not because he was a sinner, but because he rejected God's conditions of mercy; and in rejecting them, he rejected God himself, and put away the offers of eternal life.

But the rejection of Cain was not final as yet. Mercy still lingered around the proud and rebellious Cain, and sought his salvation. When the wretched man, swollen with mortified pride and chafed with anger, was about to leave the scene of his rejection, a voice from the holy oracle arrested him, saying, "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." That is, If thou art holy and perfect, fulfilling the whole law, shalt thou not be approved and accepted on account of thy personal righteousness? And even if

« PreviousContinue »