Now Abel offered for his sacrifice the firstlings of his flock: a bloody sacrifice, a lamb slaughtered for the purpose. We have reason to suppose that this service was by _divine appointment instituted_ immediately after the Fall to prefigure the one grand sacrifice of the Messiah. But Cain’s sacrifice was not of this sort, therefore unto Cain and his sacrifice the Lord had not respect. Cain was a tiller of the ground, and brought an offering of the first of the ground, which, simply considered, appears as much an act of piety as the sacrifice of Abel. But state the case, that God had positively directed and required the sacrifice of blood, and it is seen at once that Cain’s offering, although of the best that he had, was an act of disobedience; whilst Abel’s sacrifice was a pious observance of the divine institution, for it is written, “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” In short, may we not consider this man’s service as mere will-worship? He probably adopted his own invention, instead of the stated worship of God, and the result was that which was to be expected. Note likewise how he bears the displeasure of his Creator; we see no submission, no humble contrition, no attempt to serve his Creator in a more acceptable manner, “he was very wroth, and his countenance fell;” and soon after we read that he put to death the righteous Abel. Those who at this day “separate themselves” too hastily pass by the history of Cain, considering him perhaps only as a murderer, or as generally a profane person, but St. Jude appears to consider him as a schismatic, a false teacher, a despiser of government; for when he is guarding us against persons of this description he tells us “they have gone in the way of Cain.” The Apostle joins the way of Cain with “the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of Corah.” Now the error of Balaam was the seducing the people from the established worship of God, and leading them to separation and idolatry; and the gainsaying of Corah was the formal rebellion of some inferior ministers of the Church, with their adherents, against their superior, the high priest. We must suppose that the criminality adverted to in these three examples in some point coincided; accordingly, the guilt which appears to be common to the three instances is that of separation from the divinely instituted form of worship. We read in the sequel, that after this separation of Cain his posterity were called “the sons of men,” and the posterity of Seth, who continued in the true Church, were called “the sons of God,” probably because one party espoused the religion of men, the other adopted the religion of God.