Cain, her eldest son, fell into a sin of the same kind; was induced to change divine institutions. "Cain brought the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord," instead of the firstlings of the flock. The fruit of the ground did not typify the sacrifice of Christ, and had not been ordered of God. It was a mode of honoring him of Cain's devising. He thought to improve on divine appointments; or dared to change them to suit his circumstances. "Cain was a tiller of the ground." The fruits of the ground were the product of his own labors --"Of such as he had, he would bring his offering. What advantage would accrue from changing with his brother to procure what God had required? God needed nothing and could receive nothing from his creatures." Abel believed himself under obligation to conform to the divine order, and in that way to seek the divine favor. Cain had not this faith. He was confident that another way would do as well; and followed the dictates of his own fancied wisdom. * Therefore their different reception. Had Cain been equally obedient with Abel no difference would have been made. Cain is appealed to, to judge of this matter for himself--"If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted?" TO do well, is to regulate principle and practice by the divine order; in both these Cain was deficient. They are commonly united. Error in principle occasions error in practice. * These are not mere conjectures--they are intimated by St. Jude, when he declares the schismatics of his day "have gone in the way of Cain and Core." Core, or Korah, certainly attempted to change a divine order by which the functions of the priesthood were appropriated to the family of Aaron. And the schismatics, who were contemporary with the apostles, set themselves up for teachers in the church without a regular, or supernal call to the ministry. These went in the way of Cain. His sin must therefore have been a departure from divine institutions. Not many ages after the deluge idolatry was introduced into the world, and corrupted and spoiled the worship of God. This seems to have been, at first, a design to improve on the homage which was paid to the true God. Adoration offered to other than God, is idolatry. This is of two kinds--that offered to angels, and departed spirits, and that offered to the heavenly bodies and to images. The former is said to have been originally designed to engage those to whom it was addressed to act the part of mediators with God. The heavenly bodies were adored as the supposed residences of Deity. Image worship was intended to help devotion. It was thought that visible representations would serve to impress a reverence for the objects of worship on the mind, and solemnize the heart. With this view, images and paintings were introduced into temples and places of worship. They appeared to have effect. The worshippers seemed more devout. A happy discovery, which had not occurred to Omniscience!