and the reference to the residence of Adam in the gar den, and to his right to eat of that tree, till he was fitted to be translated to the immortality of heaven, and to his being cast out of the garden upon his disobedience, must be manifest to every attentive reader.

Upon comparing together what has been said on this subject, it will, I trust, appear, that the covenant of our God with us is of the same nature, and very similar to his covenant with Adam. By the new covenant of grace through Jesus Christ, we are put into a state of, trial, every one for himself, and have the blessed hope and promise of regaining, by our faith and obedience, that heavenly immortality which Adam, through his disobedience, lost for himself and his posterity. We are, by the grace of holy baptism, taken out of the world, and put into the church of Christ, the antitype of the garden into which Adam was put, when God took him from the world in which he had been created.* The same Holy Spirit is given to us at our baptism, as the governing principle of life, which was given to Adam at his creation, as the principle of his life. The holy eucharist, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is appointed for us, as the tree of life was for Adam; to be to us the principle or means of immortality ;† to keep up a lively sense of our dependence on God, and of the atonement of Christ; to be the pledge of God's love to us, and the seal of the forgiveness of those sins of which we repent; and to be the means of continuing to us, and of increasing in us the power of the Holy Spirit, without whom we can do nothing which is good, and through whom we can do all things which God requires of us.

In this view our whole salvation is from God; not only the immortality of heaven, but every thing which leads to it, even all our ability to do that which is well pleasing to God. He created man in innocence, and gave his Holy Spirit to be the principle of his life, and to conduct him to eternal felicity. And when he had

forfeited, and thrown away the precious gift, He redeemed him by his Son, and restored to him the Holy Spirit as the principle of his life, to lead him to bliss and glory immortal. Be it then our care to live according to the motions and inspiration of goodness and holiness which this Spirit puts into our hearts, that through his guidance we may attain that immortal life for which our gracious Creator designed us.

DISCOURSE XI.

PART I.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORY OF CAIN AND ABEL.

GEN. iv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

And 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 to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering, he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, 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. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

THE tragical end of Abel's life has always excited

the pity of the human heart, and seldom fails to awaken a strong curiosity to be made acquainted with all the circumstances that led to it, particularly with the provocation which excited the rancorous resentment of his unhappy brother. That the preference which God gave to Abel's offering excited the resentment of Cain, is plain. But, to what was this preference owing? This is a question which has been frequently asked, and has often divided the opinions of the learned.

That there was a real difference between the offerings of Cain and Abel, is clear from the history. Cain brought of the fruits of the ground, Abel of the firstlings of his flock. And, that there was something wrong in Cain, respecting his offering, is certain. God is no respecter of persons, and would have accepted Cain as well as Abel, had he been equally worthy.

There is a question that presents itself, which ought to be attended to: the discussion of it, probably, may throw light upon the subject, and guide us to the point we wish to ascertain. The question is, How came Cain and Abel to bring offerings at all, of which Moses had said nothing, till he gives this history of Cain and Abel? Was it the dictate of nature? or, was it the command of God, that induced the brothers to bring offerings unto him?

Before the commencement of Christianity, all the nations of the world, of whom history has given us any account, were in the practice of offering sacrifices to their gods, to appease their anger, and render them propitious to their wishes. And all the heathen nations continue it to this day. There must, therefore, have been some common origin from which the practice was derived, for nothing else will account for its universal prevalence. But, when we recollect that all the nations of the earth are descended from one common ancestor, Noah; and that he offered a burnt offering to the Lord, of "every clean beast," and "of every clean fowl,"t when he came out of the ark, we are satisfied that the practice was derived from him. We must also suppose, that he derived it from the practice before the flood.

But still the question will recur, How came the first sacrifice to be offered? It does not seem to be the dictate of nature or reason; for no principle of reason would ever suggest, that the killing a brute animal and offering it in sacrifice to God would avert his anger, or procure his favour. The idea of averting the anger of

God, presupposes some offence which had provoked him. Now, nature and reason know of no atonement for offences against God, but leave the sinner exposed to the penalty of his transgressions. Neither nature nor reason, therefore, could dictate the offering of sacrifices. To some other source we must ascribe them. The most probable is, that they were the particular institution of God, and that Cain and Abel were instructed in the use of them by their father Adam.

In Genesis it is said, "Unto Adam also, and to his wife, did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."* We are not told how these skins were obtained. They could not be the skins of beasts killed for food; no permission being given to eat animal food, till after the flood. To depend on the skins of those which died by accident and disease, was too precarious; not to mention, that both accident and disease often render the skins of animals unfit for use. Most proba

bly, Adam and Eve were directed to use the skins of those which were slain in sacrifice for clothing, and that this rude covering continued, till human sagacity contrived that which was more convenient.

Upon this principle of divine institution, we may account for the universality of sacrifices; on every other, it remains utterly inexplicable. The practice descended from Adam to Noah, and from him to all his posterity. It is remarkable, that no nation, of whom we have any account, ever pretended to be the inventors of sacrifices, but always pleaded the custom of their ancestors; and supposed they sufficiently justified their religious rites by saying, they worshipped their gods according to the custom of their country. They sometimes acknowledged, that such a person taught them to worship such a god, with such particular rites and sacrifices; but the invention of sacrifices no one ever claimed.t

*Gen. iii. 21.

The heathen sometimes introduced into their temples the gods of other nations. With the god they introduced his particular worship, supposing he had directed it, and would be pleased with no other. On this ground the nations proceeded, whom the king of Assyria sent to inhabit the country from which he had removed the Israelites, 2 Kings xvii. Being afflicted with lions,