It was not too late for him to redeem himself, and secure from God as full and gracious an acceptance as that What else can you infer

accorded already to his brother. from the terms of expostulation, which the Almighty uses

with Cain in the text?

What less than this do the words

fairly interpreted import? Indeed this language of God to Cain cannot be defended from the charge of insincerity and deception, if we take any other view. Is it not plain that God does here, most unequivocally, promise to Cain, present and full acceptance, if he would do something, which it must be understood lay in his power, here called a "doing well?" Does not God here faithfully promise, that, in that case, he shall have no longer cause to envy his brother his success, for that his own would be equal, the Divine favour being extended to both? And accordingly the alternative, placed before Cain, by God, in the text, is that of complying with the terms of Divine acceptance, like his brother, or, of sinning and having the sole responsibility of such sin, resting on his own head. For God finishes the appeal or expostulation of the text, offering to Cain acceptance in "doing well," by solemnly adding as a warning, and if thou doest not well, SIN lieth at the door.

Now, we know, there are various modes of rendering the last clause, but the most natural and approved version is that upon which we are laying stress, viz., that sin itself, in its proper character, and its impending curse, lay at Cain's door. From which it appears, that if Cain did not procure acceptance with God, by complying with the terms of acceptance, which his brother had proved to be available, and which God himself in the text, had encouraged him to use, he made himself thereby a sinner, which properly means a voluntary transgressor of the law of God; as well as made himself responsible for all the consequences with

mercy

which the righteous government of God is sure to vindicate, the insulted majesty of his law, as well as the of his gospel. But does not this imputation or declaration of the Almighty imply the moral agency of Cain, his possessing those moral powers, which made practicable to him, what was so clearly pointed out to be his duty, and what was no less to his great and lasting advantage; but which also enabled him to disobey the loudest calls of grace, the plainest dictates of duty, and to incur the most fearful responsibility of sin.

If God calls things by their right names, as their nature. is, it was not any inability to choose good, any fatal effect of Divine sovereignty, any uncovenanted mercies that distinguished Cain from his brother Abel, but it was sin, awful wilful sin, a wayward spirit in which he indulged, knowing the right, and yet the wrong pursuing. It was the sin of disobeying God, the sin of a wrong choice, and of continuing it even against God's own remonstrance; the sin of persisting in a wrong course of action, the sin of obstinacy, of pride of heart, of rebellion, of abusing mercy, of despising grace, of rejecting gracious offers, even terms of acceptance and salvation, with those proposed to others, and which proved to be the salvation of his own brother Abel. Thus the sin of Cain, in all the course thereof, and in all the consequences thereof, lay nowhere else but at Cain's own door. It was not therefore of God that Cain's position was different from Abel's, but it was simply Cain's abuse of his moral agency.

We sum up with what we believe to be the points of difference between the two brothers; Abel was willing to be saved in God's way or method; that method from the beginning has implied the great truth, that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." By bringing a bloody sacrifice, and offering that to God, Abel recognized

and acknowledged the grand truth, that he was a sinner, his life forfeited; and that there was no way for man to be saved but through an atonement. Hence his offering was an act of faith in the Divine substitute provided for man as a sinner, the Lord Jesus Christ; who, by one offering, has perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Cain, by his thank-offering of the fruits of the earth, acknowledged God indeed as a bountiful Creator, and himself to be God's creature, but did not acknowledge himself a sinner, nor God as Redeemer. He did not seek mercy, and especially through an atonement; neither was his offering expressive of faith in a Saviour of sinners. He would be saved in his own way or not at all. It was with him as with many in our own day, who will not be saved in God's way, they will not submit to God's plan and method of salvation. Thus the Jews of our Lord's day would not come to Christ that they might have life. "They went about to establish their own righteousness, and they would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of God." Here then is the sole cause of Cain being as he was, outcast from God, rather than " obtaining witness" that he, as well as Abel, "was righteous" by "God testifying of his gifts."

We propose to show

III. THAT THE DOCTRINE OF MAN'S MORAL AGENCY HAS NOT BECOME ANTIQUATED, OR SUPERSEDED, BUT IS IN FORCE STILL, SO THAT TO ITS LAWS AND CONDITIONS WE OF THIS DAY ARE SUBJECT, AS WELL AS THOSE OF FORMER AGES AND DISPENSATIONS.

Undoubtedly, it is as sustaining the character of moral agents, that we are chiefly responsible to God for our actions. It is on this ground chiefly that we are implicated in all the consequences of good or evil, and it is on this ground, too, that we are morally accountable creatures.

1. If, for instance, the knowledge of the rule, or standard, that determines the moral character of actions, is one necessary part of moral agency, who will say that we are not moral agents? If it is essential to a moral agent to be acquainted with the terms of acceptance, which God has appointed and authorized, can any of us, on this ground, plead exemption? Such terms were never more explicitly revealed. Man's duty to God, the conditions upon which he as a sinner may find God gracious are as simply, as fully, and pointedly, stated and enforced in the gospel, as we could desire, and beyond all former precedent. The gospel reveals one Saviour for all men, and requires on their part, as essential to salvation, only two things, "repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Upon such conditions God makes over to us the merits of Christ, makes promise to us of his favour and acceptance. Upon such conditions, we enter at once into the enjoyment of the blessings of salvation, we become the subjects of grace, the children of God, and we wait for the full manifestation of the sons of God. Accordingly we are told "That the just," or just man "shall live by faith." "That Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." "That there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich to all that call upon him." We are told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And to the same purport speaks the whole New Testament.

2. But, we are also moral agents as being in circumstances to comply with the conditions of the gospel, upon which salvation depends. We as fully admit as any one can do, the extent of the fall in the total corruption of human nature; but we contend that none of the family of

man are left hopelessly in the ruin it entailed. We believe that a remedy for the fallen state of man has been provided, not only in the universality of the death of Christ, as an atonement for sin, but in the universality of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to man, so that ALL have a day of grace, which by faithfully improving, some are saved, but which others abusing are left under condemnation. It is only such views that coincide with St. Paul's statements in the fifth chapter of Romans, showing that "where sin abounded" by the fall "grace did much more abound" by Christ. And "that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life." If it were otherwise with us, if from any cause man be impotent, if neither repentance nor faith were in our power, if although called by the gospel we have not power through the Spirit of grace to obey the gospel, then we should not be moral agents, because we could not chose, and could not act, our will in reference to all good would be powerless, we should not be free, but under an invincible necessity to incur the woes of the gospel, whilst deprived of its blessings.

Now we maintain that is not our case, any more than Cain's was one of invincible necessity. It is not our case on this ground, that it cannot be my duty to do that, which God does not put in my power to do; and that for no such acts, as are not in my power, can I either be responsible to any tribunal, or justly liable to any sentence, much less to so dire a punishment, and of such duration, as that which awaits lost souls, and more particularly awaits those who deliberately refuse the offers of the gospel. See, for example, 2 Thess., first chap., and 7, 8, and 9 verses"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting