who were principled in it, that the Lord called him "the righteous Abel," (Matt. xxiii. 35;) and that the apostle spoke of his offering as being the "more excellent sacrifice." (Heb. xi. 4.) His occupation, as a "keeper of sheep," will further exemplify this fact.

66

The Scriptures very frequently employ the idea, as well as the expression, shepherd, to denote one who exercises the good of charity. It is on this account that the Psalmist said, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." (Psalm xxiii. 1.) He is essential charity; and from this principle he is perpetually engaged in watching over the welfare, and providing for the wants of mankind hence, also, it is written of Him, " He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs into his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead them that are with young;” (Isaiah xl. 11 ;) a passage beautifully expressive of the Lord's affectionate tenderness for the people of his pasture, and his charitable solicitude for the sheep of his hands. Peter was contemplated as a shepherd, when the Lord directed him to feed his sheep: (John xxi. 16:) he was expected to exercise an enlightened charity in the apostolic office to which he was appointed. Ministers of the Gospel are sometimes called pastors, that is, shepherds, for the same reason. He who leadeth and teacheth what is good is called a shepherd, and they who are led and taught, are called the flock. The Scriptures represent the good shepherd to love his sheep, and to care for the safety and unity of the flock; but the hireling shepherd is described as one who leaveth them, and in times of danger fleeth, so as to allow them to be scattered. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine:" (John x. 14:) and the church he called a sheepfold. (John x. 1.) The reason for these descriptions is, because a shepherd is an emblem of that charity, which carefully watches over the things of innocence, gentleness, and purity, in the human mind: and this is said to have been the occupation of Abel, because he was a representative of this excellence.

Thus we learn, that by Cain, as a tiller of the ground, was denoted faith, engaged in planting knowledge in the intellect merely; and that by Abel, as a keeper of sheep, was signified charity, chiefly employed in promoting the good things of use: and consequently, that they represented two classes of persons, in the most ancient church, to whom those principles respectively belonged. These conclusions will be corroborated by other evidences to be adduced in the succeeding chapter.

THE OFFERINGS OF CAIN AND ABEL.

167

CHAPTER XIV.

THE OFFERINGS OF CAIN AND ABEL: WHY THE OFFERING OF ABEL WAS RESPECTED, AND THAT OF CAIN REJECTED.

"Truth is like the dew of heaven; in order to preserve it pure, it must be collected in a pure vessel."— ST. PIERRE.

THE offerings of Cain and Abel are the first intimations of divine worship that are recorded. The subject is thus related: "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 his offering. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” (Gen. iv. 4, 5.) Now, whence could the idea of divine worship have originated? It can be only satisfactorily accounted for by admitting, that a church existed to which a knowledge of that duty had been communicated. It is true, we do not read of any command having been given upon this subject; this was not requisite, because we think it was necessarily included in the process by which the church was developed, and of which we have previously treated. The worship of the Lord must have been one of its conspicuous features; it naturally belonged to the Paradisiacal state of the Adamic people. Their fall would induce a neglect of the essential things of this duty, but not a complete forgetfulness of it: that calamity would, also, lead to a difference in the quality of the worship, but not to its entire abandonment. Cain and Abel, therefore, must have learnt the duty of divine worship from the church that was extant, and the difference in these offerings, must have originated in the different perceptions of that duty, then in the process of being manifested.

But how are we to understand their offerings? Are they to be interpreted as meaning the physical things described, as was afterwards the case in the Jewish church, or are they mentioned, only because they are the symbol of certain things of the mind, by which all worship must be performed? We think the latter, and not the former, is the view which ought to be taken of the case. Although men had fallen, they had not forgotten, that natural things were the emblems of spiritual sentiments and love: nor had they yet ceased to speak of them as such; these were subsequent occurrences. A really ceremonious worship did not come

into existence, until men had lost all spiritual ideas of it: when this took place, they began to worship the Lord with those objects, which their ancestors had only spoken of, as the symbols of those mental affections and thoughts, with which they worshiped. Having lost sight of the spiritual reality, they began to worship with the natural representation; and this was the origin of that ceremonial worship, subsequently arranged among the descendants of Abram. It was then instituted, not only as the shadow of better things to come, but also, as the types of those precious things which had perished.

At the time of Cain and Abel, the people had not sunk into so low a condition, as that which afterwards required the establishment of a ceremonial religion: worship of the Lord, from some interior principle, still prevailed among them; and as all such principles were known to them, to have their correspondence in natural objects, such objects would be mentioned in connection with their worship, to signify spiritual things only. If they spoke of the firstfruits, or of a lamb, as offerings to the Lord, it would not be to indicate those natural things, but symbolically to express some internal sentiment of truth and love: this we conceive must have been the case with the offerings of Cain and Abel.

It is well known that offerings, under the ceremonial law, were acts of worship, that is, not worship in themselves, but types of those spiritual and heavenly principles from which it must arise. This must be obvious to every one who will reflect. The offering, apart from the sentiment which it represented, could be of no religious value. In such a case, it would be an external without a corresponding internal, like a soul without a body, or a dumb idol. External acts of worship are mere ceremonies, unless they are sanctified with the adoration of the heart. What are the prayers of the lips but mere babbling, unless the affection of the mind is in them: all such acts are valuable only so far as there is a corresponding intention in them: they must be attended with an internal love, to give them sanctity and render them acceptable. The offerings, then, as forms of worship, were significant of mental and spiritual things, in which the real virtue and efficacy of the worship consists.

Offerings are presents: this is the idea which the word literally expresses; and the original may with propriety be so translated. But presents, in general, are intended to testify the esteem, which we entertain for those to whom we give them; and the will, or

THE REPRESENTATION OF OFFERINGS.

169

intention, is regarded by him who receives them, as of greater value than the thing presented. If this be true, then the things which are presented to God, must be tokens expressive of such sentiments of gratitude and love, as are cherished by the offerer; and God must be considered to receive them, not for the value of the things themselves, "for the world is his, and the fulness thereof," (Psalm 1. 12;) but wholly for the sake of the affections, by which they are accompanied. It is upon this principle that the Lord said, "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matt. v. 23, 24.) Here, it is plain, that the offering was considered as the symbol of an inward sentiment of love and charity, because reconciliation with a brother was necessary to render it acceptable.

Seeing, then, what an offering to the Lord involves, we may readily perceive, that the things which were arranged for this purpose, under the representative law, were intended to signify particular states of the affection and thought of those who worshiped. We find that lambs and rams, sheep and oxen, goats and calves, doves and pigeons, and flour and oil, were directed to be presented to the Lord. Moreover, some of them were to be offered under special circumstances. There were sin-offerings, meat-offerings, drink-offerings, heave-offerings, wave-offerings, peace-offerings, and trespass-offerings, to each of which, specific ceremonies were attached. These various offerings were evidently intended (or why else were they so many, and one thing selected for their celebration in preference to another?) to show forth, in a representative manner, the several states of affection and thought, which, under various circumstances, become characteristics of the worshiper.

The offerings under the Levitical law, seem, generally, to include the ideas of death and consumption by fire. These, however, were the results which attended the introduction of sacrificial worship, rather than the natural concomitants of the primitive offerings; they did not involve those circumstances, and therefore, they are not mentioned in connection with those of Cain and Abel; this may be taken as evidence, that they are stated only for the sake of the symbol which they afforded. We are merely informed of what they consisted, but not of the manner in which they were presented: it is, then simply the meaning of those offerings, into which we have to inquire. And first, of Cain's.

Cain, or the religion of faith without charity, has its offerings, that is to say, its modes and principles of worship. It was in the process of time "that Cain brought, of the fruit of the ground, an offering unto the Lord." From this it would appear, that the characteristics of the worship which now distinguished Cain, were not developed all at once: they were results brought about in the process of time. Thus it was not so far separated from charity, in the beginning, as it afterwards became. The last state was worse than the first it was about this period, when "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, an offering unto the Lord." What, then, is meant by the fruit of the ground? It will be remembered that Adam, when sent forth from the Garden of Eden, was to till the ground, whence he was taken; and, in treating of that circumstance, in a preceding chapter, it was shown that the ground was significant of the external man. That, is the ground on which the spiritual and celestial things of the internal man rest, as a house upon its foundation. It is compared to the ground, because it is, to the things of the mind, what the earth is to the body. The apostle says, "That which is first, is not spiritual but natural;" and then of this first, he says, it is "of the earth, earthy." (1 Cor. xv. 46-49.) The Lord said, " The kingdom of heaven is as if a man should cast seed into his ground;" (Mark iv. 26;) and, also, in explanation of the parable of the sower, he said, "He that receiveth seed into good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth some a hundred fold." (Matt. xiii. 23.) In these instances it is plain, that by the ground is meant the external man, and to sow seed therein, denotes, to implant truths that they may grow up and produce the leaves of faith and fruits of love.

Now, it is to be remarked, that Cain did not bring for an offering, the fruit of those seeds. Although he was a tiller of the ground, yet he only brought of the fruit of the ground, and not of the fruit of the seeds, which, as a tiller of it, he had sown there. This is a distinction of the highest consequence, to be carefully observed, in order rightly to understand the subject. The sentiments of revelation are couched in choice expressions; and the fruit of the ground is spoken of, as the offering of Cain, because it denoted the works of the merely external man.

But what is the external man? It is not the physical structure, but all those knowledges and affections which are gathered thereby from the outer world, and which then form, as it were, the ex