Chapter 4 of 50

4:3Offered gifts. Either God himself taught Adam, and he his children, or else they knew by instinct of nature, that Sacrifice must be offered to God, to acknowledge thereby his supreme dominion over man, and man's due subjection (as St. Augustine, and all Catholic Doctors teach) is principally required, but also in external things, because we consist of body, and not only of soul, and have, by God's goodness, the use of corporal things. As here we see example in the law of nature: and the same was ordained by written precept in the law of Moyses: the Prophets also foretold, that external Sacrifice should be offered in the law of grace, and new Testament, to wit, the same which Christ instituted, and left in his Church, to continue to the end of the world. Moreover this homage of offering Sacrifice is so peculiar to God only, that albeit many other exterior rites and services are used both to God and men, as to be bare head, to bow, to kneel, and the like before them, either of great humility (saith St. Augustine) or of pestiferous flattery, to such as are homines colendi, venerandi, si autem eis multum addatur, & adorandi: men to be worshipped, reverenced, and if much be given them, adored (for this term of adoring is also applied to men in holy Scriptures Gen. 23:7, 17:7, 29.) yet Sacrifice is due to God only, and to no creature how excellent soever. Insomuch (saith the same Doctor) that as all nations found it necessary to offer Sacrifice, so none durst sacrifice to any nisi ei, quem Deum aut scivit, aut putavit, aut finxit: but to him whom they either knew, or thought, or feigned to be God.Offred giftes. Either God him selfe taught Adam, and he his children, or els they knew by instinct of nature, that Sacrifice must be offered to God, to acknowledge thereby his supreme dominion ouer man, and mans due subjection (as S. Augustin, and al Catholique Doctors teach) is principally required, but also in external things, because we consist of bodie, and not only of soule, and haue, by Gods goodnes, the vse of corporal things. As here we see example in the law of nature: and the same was ordained by written precept in the law of Moyses: the Prophetes also foretold, that external Sacrifice should be offered in the law of grace, and new Testament, to wit, the same which Christ instituted, and left in his Church, to continew to the end of the world. Moreouer this homage of offering Sacrifice is so peculiar to God only, that albeit manie other exterior rites and seruices are vsed both to God & men, as to be bare head, to bowe, to kneele, & the like before them, either of great humilitie (saith S. Augustin) or of pestiferous flatterie, to such as are homines colendi, venerandi, si autem eis multum addatur, & adorandi: men to be vvorshipped, reuerenced, and if much be geuen them, adored (for this terme of adoring is also applied to men in holie Scriptures Gen. 23. v. 7. 17. 7. 29.) yet Sacrifice is due to God only, and to no creature how excellent so euer. In so much (saith the same Doctor) that as al nations founde it necessarie to offer Sacrifice, so none durst sacrifice to anie nisi ei, quem Deum aut sciuit, aut putauit, aut finxit: but to him whom they either knew, or thought, or fained to be God. > ⟦left-margin⟧ Lib. 10. de ciuit. c. 5. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ External Sacrifice due to God in euerie Law. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Leuit. 1. Dan. 12. Mal. 1. Luc. 22. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ Sacrifice due to God onlie, and to no creature. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Lib. 10. De ciuit. c. 4. Aristot. l. 2. Metaphis. Ethic. 9. Polit. 7. c. 8.

4:4Had respect to Abel. Both Cain and Abel did well in offering external Sacrifice, but they differed much in sincerity and manner of choosing or dividing their oblations, touching God's part and their own, as St. Justin Martyr, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and others teach. For Abel offered of the best things, of the first begotten of his flock, and of their fat. And therefore God respected and approved it. But to Cain and to his gifts he had not respect, because he wanted sincere devotion. Which difference of God's acceptance appeared doubtless, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine supposed, by some external sign, otherwise Cain had not understood it. Most like it was by fire sent from God, which inflamed and consumed Abel's Sacrifice, and not Cain's. As we read of divers other Sacrifices in holy Scriptures.Had respect to Abel. Both Cain and Abel did wel in offering external Sacrifice, but they differed much in sinceritie and maner of choosing or diuiding their oblations, touching Gods part and their owne, as S. Iustinus Martyr, S. Hierom, S. Augustin and others teach. For Abel offered of the best things, of the first begotten of his flocke, and of their fatte. And therfore God respected and approued it. But to Cain and to his giftes he had not respect, because he wanted sincere deuotion. VVhich difference of Gods acceptance appeared doubtles, as S. Hierom and S. Augustin supposed, by some external signe, otherwise Cain had not vnderstood it. Most like it was by fire sent from God, which inflamed and consumed Abels Sacrifice, & not Cains. As we read of diuers other Sacrifices in holie Scriptures. > ⟦right-margin⟧ Abels Sacrifice declared acceptable, & not Cains, by some external signe. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ To. 3. q. 4. Quæst. Hebraic. L. 15. De ciuit. c. 7. Mala. 1. Heb. 11. Leuit. 9. Iud. 6. 2. Par. 7. 3. Reg. 18. 2. Mac. 1.

4:7Shalt thou not receive. Reward of good works, and punishment of evil are clearly proved by this place. God saying to Cain: If thou doest well, shalt thou not receive again? what else but well for well doing? as Abel received consolation of his Sacrifice well offered. but if thou doest ill, shall not thy sin present forthwith at the door? afflicting thy conscience, and not suffering thy mind to be in quiet, for remorse of thy wicked fact, and fear of just judgement. For hence it came that Cain's countenance fell, and his stomach boiled with anger: punishment so beginning even in this life, and much more in the next world our Saviour will render (as himself saith) to every man according to his works: which the Apostle expresseth more distinctly, eternal life, or wrath and indignation.Shalt thou not receiue. Reward of good workes, and punishment of euil are clerly proued by this place. God saying to Cain: If thou doest vvel, shalt thou not receiue againe? what els but wel for wel doing? as Abel receiued consolation of his Sacrifice wel offered. but if thou doest il, shal not thy sinne present forthvvith at the dore? afflicting thy conscience, and not suffering thy mind to be in quiet, for remorse of thy wicked fact, and feare of iust iudgement. For hence it came that Cains countenance fel, and his stomach boyled with angie: punishment so beginning euen in this life, & much more in the next world our Saiour wil render (as him selfe saith) to euery man according to his workes: which the Apostle expresseth more distinctly, eternal life, or vvrath & indignation. > ⟦right-margin⟧ Reward and punishment according to our workes. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Matt. 16. Rom. 2.

4:7Under thee. This Text so plainly showeth free will in man, also after his fall, that the English Protestants to avoid so clear a truth, for these words, the lust thereof (to wit of sin) shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it, corruptly translate in some of their Bibles thus: Unto thee his desire shall be subject, and thou shalt rule over him: as if God had said that Abel should be under Cain (as the fantastical Manichees perverted the sense, whose absurdity St. Augustine correcteth, maintaining the true construction of the words) Tu dominaberis illius; nunquid fratris? absit. Cuius igitur, nisi peccati? Thou shalt rule over: what, over thy brother? not so. Over what then, but sin? In other English Editions (namely in the last, which we suppose they will stand to) it is better, but yet obscure, thus: Unto thee shall be the desire thereof, and thou shalt have rule of it. Let us therefore examine the sense, and if St. Jerome, the great Scripture Doctor did rightly understand it, God did speak to this effect to Cain: Because thou hast free will, I warn thee, that sin have not dominion over thee, but thou over sin. The Hebrew hath thus: ad te appetitus eius, & tu dominaberis in eum, or, ei. Unto thee the appetite thereof, and thou shalt rule over it. Thargum Hierosolimitanum concludeth God's speech to Cain thus: Into thy hand I have given power of thy concupiscence, and have thou dominion thereof: whether thou wilt to good or to evil. The Greek hath thus: To thee is the conversion thereof, and thou shalt bear rule over it: to wit, appetite, lust, concupiscence is under thy will. Finally, all antiquity, universality and uniform consent of Christian Doctors, and other learned Philosophers, and reasonable men hold it for certain and an evident truth, that man yea a sinner hath free will. Yet Luther, the father of Protestants, so abhorred this truth, that he could not abide the very word, nor vouchsafe (when he writ against it) to title his beastly book, Contra liberum arbitrium, Against free will: but, De servo arbitrio, of servile arbitrement. And denieth that man is in any wise free to choose, to resolve, or determine, but in all things servile, tied, constrained, and compelled to whatsoever he doth, saith, or thinketh. Further, that man in all his actions is like to a hackney, that is, forced to go whither the rider will have him. And knowing the whole world against him, shameth not to confess, that he setteth them all at naught in respect of himself, concluding thus: I have not (saith he) conferred with any in this book, but I have affirmed, and I do affirm. Neither will I that any man judge hereof, but I counsel all to obey, or yield to my opinion. Calvin also for his part, conspireth in this heresy with Luther, but more faintly rather wisheth, than imagineth that men be so mad as to flee from the name of free will. I (saith Calvin) neither myself would use this word, and would wish others, if they ask me counsel, to abstain from it. But we will be bold to oppose St. Jerome's reason against Luther, Calvin, all Manichees, and others that deny free will. God made us (saith he) with free will, neither are we drawn by necessity to virtues nor to vices; otherwise where is necessity, there is neither damnation nor crown.Vnder thee. This Text so plainly sheweth freewil in man, also after his falle, that the English Protestants to auoid so clere a truth, for these wordes, the lust therof (to wit of sinne) shal be vnder thee, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it, corruptly translate in some of their Bibles thus: Vnto thee his desire shal be subiect, and thou shalt rule ouer him: as if God had said that Abel should be vnder Cain (as the fantastical Manichees peruerted the sense, whose absurditie S. Augustin correcteth, mainteyning the true construction of the wordes) Tu dominaberis illius; nunquid fratris? absit. Cuius igitur, nisi peccati? Thou shalt rule ouer: what, ouer thy brother? not so. Ouer what then, but sinne? In other English Editions (namely in the last, which we suppose they wil stand to) it is better, but yet obscure, thus: Vnto thee shal be the desire therof, and thou shalt haue rule of it. Let vs therefore examine the sense, and if S. Hierome, the great Scripture Doctor did rightly vnderstandit, God did speake to this effect to Cain: Because thou hast freewil, I vvarne thee, that sinne haue not dominion ouer thee, but thou ouer sinne. The Hebrew hath thus: ad te appetitus eius, & tu dominaberis in eum, or, ei. Vnto thee the appetite therof, and thou shalt rule ouer it. Thargum Hierosolimitanum concludeth Gods speach to Cain thus: Into thy hand I haue geuen povvre of thy concupiscence, and haue thou dominion therof: vvhether thou vvilt to good or to euil. The Greke hath thus: To thee is the conuersion therof, and thou shalt beare rule ouer it: to wit, appetite, lust, concupiscence is vnder thy wil. Finally, al antiquitie vniuersalitie and vniforme consent of Christian Doctors, and other learned Philosophers, and reasonable men hold it for certaine and an euident truth, that man yea a sinner hath freewil. Yet Luther, the father of Protestants, so abhorred this truth, that he could not abide the very word, nor voutsafe (when he writ against it) to title his beastlie booke, Contra liberum arbitrium, Against freevvil: but, De seruo arbitrio, of seruil arbitrement. And denieth that man is in aniwise free to choose, to resolue, or determine, but in al things seruil, tyed, constrained, and compelled to whatsoeuer he doth, saith, or thincketh. Further, that man in al his actios is like to a hackney, that is, forced to goe whither the rider wil haue him. And knowing the whole world against him, shameth not to confesse, that he setteth them al at naught in respect of him selfe, concluding thus: I haue not (saith he) conferred vvith anie in this booke, but I haue affirmed, and I do affirme. Neither vvil I that anie man iudge hereof, but I counsail al to obey, or yeelde to mya opinion. Caluin also for his part, conspireth in this heresie with Luther, but more faintly rather wisheth, then imagineth that men be so madde as to flee from the name of freewil. I (saith Caluin) neither myselfe vvould vse this vvord, and vvould vvish others, if they aske me counsaile, to abstaine from it. But we wil be bold to oppose S. Hieromes reason against Luther, Caluin, al Maniches, and others that denie freewil. God madevs (saith he) vvith freevvil, neither are vve dravven by necessitie to vertues nor to vices; othervvise vvhere is necessitie, there is neither damnation nor crovvne. > ⟦left-margin⟧ Freewil in man also after his fal. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Heretical translation. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Bible 1579. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ l. 15. c. 7. De ciuit. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ Quæst Hebraic. in Gen. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ The Hebrew also & Greeke text proue freewil in Cain. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Freewil testified by antiquitie, vniuersalitie, & consent of learned and reasonable persons. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ S. Aug. l. de vera Rel. c. 14. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Luther abhorred the name of freewil. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ l. de seruo arbitrio. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Caluin also misliketh the word freewil. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ l. 2. c. 2. par. 8. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ l. 2. aduers. Iouinian. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ Where is necessitie there is neither reward nor punishment due.

4:16Cain went forth. It is a mark of Heretics to make breach, and go forth of the Church. And commonly it cometh of envy. Some run into heresies and schisms (saith St. Cyprian) when they envy Bishops, whilst one either complaineth that himself was not rather ordained, or disdaineth to suffer another above him. Hereupon he kicketh, hereupon he rebelleth. Envy moved Cain to kill his brother, because his own works were wicked and rejected: and his brother's just, and esteemed. So going forth became obdurate, obstinate, and desperate in his sin, and being reprobate of God, began a wicked City, opposite to the City of God. Wherefore Moyses, as St. Augustine noteth, intending to describe, and show the perpetual continuance of God's City, the true Church, from Adam, which he doth by the line of Seth to Noe, so forward to his own time, would not omit to tell also the progeny of Cain, even to the flood, wherein all his offspring was finally drowned and destroyed, that the true City of God might appear more distinct, more conspicuous, and more renowned. And that indeed the same only (and not any broken and interrupted companies or conventicles) might be known to be the true Church of God.Cain went forth. It is a marke of Heretikes to make breach, and goe forth of the Church. And commonly it cometh of enuie. Some runne into heresies and schismes (saith S. Cyprian) vvhen they enuie Bishops, vvhilst one either complaineth that him selfe vvas not rather ordained, or disdaineth to suffer an other aboue him. Hereupon he kicketh, hereupon he rebelleth. Enuie moued Cain to kil his brother, because his ovvne vvorkes vvere vvicked and reiected: and his brothers iust, and esteemed. So going forth became obdurate, obstinate, and desperate in his sinne, and being reprobate of God, began a wicked Citie, opposite to the Citie of God. VVherfore Moyses, as S. Augustin noteth, intending to describe, and shew the perpetual continuance of Gods Citie, the true Church, from Adam, which he doth by the line of Seth to Noe, so forward to his owne time, would not omit to tel also the progenie of Cain, euen to the floode, wherein al his ofspring was finally drowned and destroyed, that the true Citie of God might appeare more distinct, more cospicuous, & more renowned. And that in deede the same only (and not anie broken and interrupted companies or conuenticles) might be knowen to be the true Church of God. > ⟦left-margin⟧ Going forth out of the Church a marke of Heretikes. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ 1. Ioan. 2. Tract. de Zelo & liuore. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ 1. Ioan. 3. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ l. de Pastore. c. 8. & c. 20.

4:23I have slain. So hard and obscure is this place, that St. Jerome required by St. Damasus Pope to expound it, dareth not affirm any one sense for certain, but proposing divers, which the text may seem to bear, wisheth the Pope (who was also very learned) to examine all more at large: putting him in mind that Origen writ his twelfth and thirteenth books upon this only place. The most probable exposition seemeth to be gathered out of the Hebrews' Tradition, that this Lamech of the issue of Cain (for there was another Lamech of Seth's progeny) much addicted to hunting, and his eyes decaying, used in that exercise the direction of a young man his nephew, the son of Tubalcain. Who seeing something move in bushes, supposing it to be a wild beast, willed his grandfather to shoot at the same: which he did, and struck the mark with a deadly wound, and approaching to take the prey, found it to be old Cain. Whereupon sore amazed, afflicted, and moved with great passion, did so beat the young man, for his ill direction, that he also died of the dry blows. After both which mishaps, and his passion at last calmed, Lamech lamenteth as the text saith, that he had killed a man and stripling, to wit, the one with a wound, the other with dry blows, for which he feared sevenfold punishment more than Cain suffered for killing Abel. Nevertheless St. Jerome and other Fathers think it probable, that Lamech killing the one of ignorance, the other in passion, was not so severely punished as he feared. And so they understand the rest of this passage, that sevenfold vengeance was taken of Cain, by prolongation of his miserable life till his seventh generation, when one of his own issue slew him, and another of the same lineage with him. And Lamech was punished seventy sevenfold when his seventy seven children (for so many he had, as Josephus writeth) and all their offspring perished in the flood. Mystically by seventy seven may be signified that the sin of mankind should be punished and expiated in Christ our Redeemer, who was born in the seventy seventh generation from Adam.I haue slaine. So hard and obscure is this place, that S. Hierom required by S. Damasus Pope to expound it, dareth not affirme anie one sense for certaine, but proposing diuers, which the text may seme to beare, wisheth the Pope (who was also very lerned) to examine al more at large: putting him in mind that Origen writ his twelfth and thirteenth bookes vpon this onlie place. The most probable exposition seemeth to be gathered out of the Hebrews Tradition, that this Lamech of the issue of Cain (for there was an other Lamech of Seths progenie) much addicted to hunting, and his eyes decaying, vsed in that exercise the direction of a young man his nephew, the sonne of Tubalcain. VVho seing something moue in bushes, supposing it to be a wild beast, willed his grandfather to shoote at the same: which he did, and stroke the marke with a deadlie wound, and approching to take the pray, found it to be old Cain. VVhereupon sore amazed, afflicted, and moued with great passion, did so beate the young man, for his il direction, that he also died of the drie blowes. After both which mishappes, and his passion at last carmed, Lamech lamenteth as the text saith, that he had killed a man and stripling, to wit, the one with a wound, the other with drie blowes, for which he feared seuenfold punishment more then Cain suffered for killing Abel. Neuertheles S. Hierom & other Fathers thinke it probable, that Lamech killing the one of ignorance, the other in passion, was not so seuerly punished as he feared. And so they vnderstand the rest of this passage, that seuenfold vengeance was taken of Cain, by prolongation of his miserable life til his seuenth generation, when one of his owne issue slew him, and an other of the same linage with him. And Lamech was punished seuentie seuenfold when his seuentie seuen children (for so manie he had, as Iosephus writeth) and al their ofspring perished in the flood. Mystically by seuentie seuen may be signified that the sinne of mankind should be punished and expiated in Christ our Redemer, who was borne in the seuentie seuenth generation from Adam. > ⟦left-margin⟧ Scripture hard. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ Tom. 3. ad 1. quæst. Damasi. > > ⟦left-margin⟧ A probable sense according to the Hebrews Tradition. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ S. Chrys. ho. 20. in Gen. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ L. 1. Antiq. c. 2. Origen in Gen. Luc. 3. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ Mystical sense.

4:26Began to invocate. Seth was a most holy man, and so brought up his children, that they were called the sons of God. Gen. 6. Adam also and Eve were penitent, and became great confessors, and are now Saints. And so it cannot be doubted but amongst other spiritual exercises they prayed and invocated God. And therefore that which is here said: He (to wit Enos) began, or (as the Hebrew hath) then was begun, to invocate the name of our Lord, cannot be understood of private, but of some public prayer of many meeting together, and observing some rites and set form in peculiar place dedicated to divine Service, the Church being now grown to a competent multitude. And that besides Sacrifice, which was also before, as appeareth both by Cain and Abel.Began to inuocate. Seth was a most holie man, and so brought vp his children, that they were called the sonnes of God. Gen. 6. Adam also and Eue were penitent, and became great confessors, and are now Sainctes. And so it can not be doubted but amongst other spiritual exercises they prayed and inuocated God. And therfore that which is here said: He (to wit Enos) began, or (as the Hebrew hath) then was begune, to inuocate the name of our Lord, can not be vnderstood of priuate, but of some publique prayer of many meeting togeather, & obseruing some rites & set forme in peculiar place dedicated to diuine Seruice, the Church being now growne to a competent multitude. And that besides Sacrifice, which was also before, as appeareth both by Cain & Abel. > ⟦left-margin⟧ Suidas vocabulo Seth. Ioseph. l. 1. Anti. S. Aug. epist. 99. ad Euod. > > ⟦right-margin⟧ Publike prayer besides Sacrifice in the Church of God.