contain, only a general outline, just sufficient to connect the tissue of events with each other, without minutely detailing their especial reasons; their proximate causes; their immediate effects; the particular manner in which they came to pass; or all the little circumstances by which they were accompanied. And the reason of this is evident; because such a detail would not have furthered the great object of scripture; that of enlightening, improving, and spiritualizing mankind; teaching them their duty, and saving their souls. It might, indeed, have gratified their curiosity, but could not have affected their hearts, or improved their conduct. It was sufficient, therefore, for the Spirit of God to declare to man, that such events did occur; and it is man's duty, if he believe the Word of God, to receive the declaration with "faith unfeigned."

66

It is, consequently, to be expected that we should sometimes encounter short reci. tals in the Bible, which, unaccompanied by these explanatory circumstances, and having no preceding or subsequent detail, appear to be extraordinary, mysterious, or inexplicable; but which, had they been illustrated by a full account of their causes, associated facts, and final results, would

have been quite credible and intelligible; and appear at once to our understanding to be perfectly reasonable, just, and right, and every way consistent with the wisdom and goodness of the Being who ordained them.

These observations may, I think, be applied with propriety to the remarkable circumstance related in the text: " and the "Lord had respect unto Abel and his "offering; but unto Cain and his offering "he had not respect."

It will not be denied, that the naked fact of the acceptance of Abel's offering, and the rejection of Cain's, as it stands unexplained in the account of the transaction, without the mention of a reason why this distinction was made by the Almighty, is, at the first glance, somewhat startling to the mind; and, indeed, the infidel has, in more than one case, availed himself of the difficulty, and taxed the proceeding as an instance of partiality, so unbecoming the divine nature as entirely to destroy the credibility of the sacred narrative.

Previously to the respective offerings of the two brothers, no details are given which could lead us to anticipate that so marked a preference would be shown to the pious act of the younger one; nor have we any

hint afforded us, of such a difference in the behaviour or dispositions of the worshippers, at the time of their offering, as would, according to human notions, call for such a preference.

"Abel was a keeper of sheep, but "Cain was a tiller of the ground," says the Bible: employments which were equally sanctioned by the Almighty; 'who had originally given to man "dominion over "every living thing that moveth upon the "earth;" and after the fall, had ordained that he should "eat the herb of the field, "and bread, in the sweat of his brow." Both the brothers, also, seem to have fulfilled, with the like obedience, the religious duties which constituted the public worship of the primitive age of the world, by appearing before the Lord, (probably at a place appointed by Him for the purpose,) and presenting there an offering from their respective possessions-Cain of the fruits of the "ground;" and Abel "of the firstlings "of his flock."

As the cases of the two sons of Adam and Eve were, therefore, thus apparently similar; the question naturally occurs to the mind, how happens it that their treatment was so different? That "the Lord had

6.

respect unto Abel and his offering; but

"unto Cain and his offering he had not "respect ?"

A reference to the remarks which I have already made, will at once, I conceive, satisfactorily answer the question, independently of any other consideration; though, as it will presently appear, various passages in the scriptures assist in its solution.

The difficulty, then, arises from the conciseness of the narrative of the early transactions of mankind by the sacred historian. The great leading facts alone were those which Moses had to communicate.

The : minor ones he purposely omitted, inasmuch as they did not bear upon the principal subject of his work; and if individually detailed, would have swollen it to a size too vast for use or profit.

Had the story, consequently, been more fully told, and made to embrace an account of the different characters of the two brothers, their previous habits of life, the spirit of mind in which they made their offerings; and their outward behaviour in performing their devotions; we should, without doubt, have seen sufficient cause to acknowledge the perfect equity of the divine procedure in this matter; and to consider the transaction as another instance, in confirmation of the great truth

asserted by the Psalmist, that "the Lord "is righteous in all his ways, and holy in "all his works."

But though Moses has thus rapidly described the fact under consideration, and accompanied it with no explanatory circumstances; yet there are other inspired writers (as I have just hinted) who have dropped expressions respecting the personal characters of the two worshippers, and the feeling that actuated them in their religious observances, which substantiate what has been remarked; and clearly prove that there was an immense moral difference between these brothers, and consequently an equal one in the value of their offerings in the sight of God.

St. John expressly says that Cain "was "of the wicked one," or a child of the Devil; and that he slew his brother, "because his own works were evil, and his "brother's righteous." And St. Jude, speaking of those filthy dreamers, who "defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities," asserts that they followed the example of Cain, who had gone" before them in the same evil "way." To which may be added the more explicit mention of the two brothers by St. Paul; who, in his Epistle to the

66

66