[Footnote A: This doubtless gives the ground of explanation for the acceptance of Abel's offering for a sacrifice, the firstlings of his flock; and the rejection of Cain's offering, the fruits of the ground (Gen. iv:3-7). The one was brought in compliance with the appointment of God, the other was not of divine appointment, but was an unwarranted deviation from the commandment, hence, "the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering," but not unto Cain's. In Kitto's article on "Sacrifices" there is another very great reason urged as to why Abel's sacrifice was acceptable and why Cain's was not. It is reasonable, and in harmony with the importance of the whole doctrine of the Atonement, and I have nowhere else found the idea so well expressed. "It amounts then to this--that Cain, by bringing an eucharistic (expressing thanks merely) offering, when his brother brought one which was expiatory, denied virtually that his sins deserved death, or that he needed the blood of Atonement. Some go further, and allege that in the text itself, God actually commanded Cain to offer a piacular [expiatory, atoning] sacrifice. The argument does not require this additional circumstance; but it is certainly strengthened by it. When Cain became angry that Abel's offering was regarded with divine complacency, and his own refused, God said to him, '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.' Now the word 'chattah,' translated 'sin' denotes in the law a 'sin-offering' and the word translated 'lieth' is usually applied to the recumbency of the beast. It is therefore proposed to translate the clause, 'sin-offering coucheth at the door; which by paraphrase would mean, 'an animal fit for a sin-offering is here, couching at the door, which thou mayest offer in sacrifice, and thereby render to me an offering as acceptable as that which Abel has presented." (Kitto's "Bible Literature," Art. "Sacrifice.")] This clearly establishes the divine origin of sacrifices among the antediluvian patriarchs; and, indeed, of all antiquity;[A] and also the fact, that they but foreshadowed the great sacrifice to be made in due time by the Son of God himself. Doctor Wm. Smith, the author of the "Old Testament History," says: [Footnote A: A strong moral argument in favor of the divine institution of sacrifice, somewhat feebly put by Hallet (Comment, on Heb. xi:4, cited by Magee, "On the Atonement"), has been reproduced with increased force by Faber ("Prim. Sacrifice," p. 183). It amounts to this: "Sacrifice, when uncommanded by God, is a mere act of gratuitous superstition. Whence, on the principle of St. Paul's reprobation of what he denominates will-worship, it is neither acceptable nor pleasing to God. "But sacrifice, during the patriarchal ages, was accepted by God, and was plainly honored with his approbation.