OT § 6

[Adam and Eve], who were stripped of their first garment [of innocence], deserved by their mortality garments of skin. For the true honor of man is to be the image and the likeness of God that is preserved only in relation to him by whom it is impressed. Hence, he clings to God so much the more, the less he loves what is his own. But through the desire of proving his own power, man by his own will falls down into himself as into a sort of [substitute] center. Since he, therefore, wishes to be like God, hence under no one, then as a punishment he is also driven from the center, which he himself is, down into the depths, that is, into those things wherein the beasts delight. Thus, since the likeness to God is his honor, the likeness to the beasts is his disgrace.

And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife tunics of skins, and clothed them. And this was done for the sake of significance, yet it was indeed done. For by this kind of garment, the Lord indicates that they had already been made mortal; for skins, which are not stripped from animals unless they are dead, contain the figure of death. Thus, when man sought to be God against the commandment, not by legitimate imitation, but by illicit pride, he was cast down to the mortality of beasts. And indeed, they had made for themselves girdles of fig leaves, to cover their shame: but God made for them tunics of skins, to cover their whole body: because they, having lost the glory of innocence through transgression, provided for themselves the covering of excuse, by which they transferred their guilt to the Creator: and the Creator himself, by the sentence of a just judgment, punished them with the penalty of mortality in both soul and flesh, having taken away the state of immutable life. Moreover, the Gospel parable narrates that the merciful father, among other gifts, ordered the first robe to be brought and put on his prodigal son returning to him through repentance, mystically signifying that the elect are to receive the habit of immortality, which they lost in Adam at the beginning of the world, at the end of the world in Christ, and indeed with greater grace. For Adam was made immortal in such a way that he could not die, if he kept the commandment: but the children of the resurrection will be so immortal that they can neither die ever, nor be affected by the fear of death. Regarding the reception of this robe, the Apostle says: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (I Cor. XV, 53): where "put on" signifies the removal of the nakedness, which Adam and Eve recognized and blushed for after sin.

Having spoken of the punishment which the tempter and those tempted received, Scripture describes how "the Lord made garments of skin for Adam and Eve, and clothed them. " [ Gen. 3:21 ] Whether these garments were from the skins of animals, or whether they were specially created, like the thorn bushes and thistles which were created after the other works of creation had been completed, seeing that it is said that "the Lord made... and clothed them," it seems likely that when their hands were laid upon their leaves they found themselves clothed with garments made of skin. Or were, perhaps, some animals killed before them, so that they could nourish themselves with their flesh, cover up their nakedness with their skins, and in their deaths see the death of their own bodies?

Were these garments from the skins of animals? Or were they created like the thistles and thorns that were created after the other works of creation had been completed? Because it was said that the "Lord made … and clothed them," it seems most likely that when their hands were placed over their leaves they found themselves clothed in garments of skin. Why would beasts have been killed in their presence? Perhaps this happened so that by the animal's flesh Adam and Eve might nourish their own bodies and that with the skins they might cover their nakedness, but also that by the death of the animals Adam and Eve might see the death of their own bodies.

In the same way, when our nature becomes subject to the disequilibrium and paroxysm of disordered passions, it encounters those conditions that necessarily follow the life of the passions. But when it returns again to the blessedness of an ordered emotive life, it will no longer encounter the consequences of evil. Since whatever was added to human nature from the irrational life was not in us before humanity fell into passion, we shall also leave behind all the conditions that appear along with passion. If a man wearing a ragged tunic should be denuded of his garment, he would no longer see on himself the ugliness of what was discarded. Likewise, when we have put off that dead and ugly garment that was made for us from irrational skins (when I hear "skins" I interpret it as the form of the irrational nature that we have put on from our association with disordered passions), we throw off every part of our irrational skin along with the removal of the garment. These are the disruptions of harmony that we have received from "the irrational skin": sexual intercourse, conception, childbearing, dirt, lactation, nourishment, evacuation, gradual growth to maturity, the prime of life, old age, disease and death.

In other words, take the case of a kindly father with a son of his own who was brought up with every care, who enjoyed every indulgence, had the run of a fine house, was clad in a silken tunic, and had free access to his father's substance and wealth; later, when he saw him tumble headlong from this great indulgence into an abyss of wickedness, he stripped him of all those assets, subjected him to his own authority and, divesting him of his clothes, clad him in a lowly garment usually worn by slaves lest he be completely naked and indecent. Well, in just the same way the loving God, when they rendered themselves unworthy of that gleaming and resplendent vesture in which they were adorned and which ensured they were prepared against bodily needs, stripped them of all that glory and the enjoyment they were partakers of before suffering that terrible fall. He showed them great pity and had mercy on their fall: seeing them covered in confusion and ignorant of what to do to avoid being naked and feeling ashamed, he makes garments of skin for them and clothes them in them. What I mean is that the machinations of the devil are quite different: when he finds people ready to do his will, he proves their undoing through some slight enjoyment, then drags them down to the very depths of wickedness and covers them in utter shame and degradation, leaving them prostrate, a piteous spectacle for all to see whereas the Guardian of our souls, seeing them in utter helplessness, doesn't allow himself to ignore their condition but devises a covering for them, while indicating to them through the frugality of the garment the sort of garments they have caused themselves to deserve. "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clad them in them." See the extent of the considerateness of Sacred Scripture. Still, what I've often said I say again now: let us understand everything in a sense befitting God. Let us understand "made" in the sense of "gave directions for" : he ordered that they be clad in garments of skin as a constant reminder of their disobedience. Let the affluent pay heed, those who pamper themselves with cloth from the silkworm and are clad in silk, and let them learn how at the beginning from the outset the loving Lord instructed the human race: when the firstformed man became liable to the punishment of death through the Fall and the Lord had to clothe him in a garment to hide his shame, he made them garments of skin, to teach us to shun the soft and dissolute life, and not to pine for one that is lazy and characterized by inactivity, but rather strive for an austere life. Perhaps, however, the wealthy will react badly to our words and will say, What reason is there in that? do you bid us wear garments of skin? No, I'm not saying that; after all, not even Adam and Eve wore those garments all the time, the loving Lord always adding further kindnesses to his previous ones, you see. I mean, when he rendered them liable to bodily necessities for the future, stripping them of the angelic way of life and its freedom from suffering, he later arranged for clothes for human beings out of sheep's fleece for no other reason than that they should have covering and that this rational creature should not live his life in nakedness and ugliness just like brute beasts. Accordingly, let the wearing of clothes be a constant reminder to us of the loss of advantages and instruction about the punishment which the race of human beings received on account of disobedience. Accordingly, let those people who make use of such paraphernalia that they are no longer familiar with garments of sheep's wool, but are clad in silk and have been carried to such extremes that they even drape gold with covering, the female sex particularly demonstrating this kind of luxury let them, I say, tell us: Why do you dress up the body with these things and delight in clothing of that kind, not understanding that this covering was devised as severe punishment for the Fall? I mean, why do you not heed Paul's words, "We will be content to have food and clothing." Do you see that it is necessary to be concerned with one thing only, that the body not be naked, and to have an eye only to this, that no further worry be had about variety of dress?

It is said that God made those miserable garments with which the first man was clothed after he had sinned. "For God made skin tunics and clothed Adam and his wife." Therefore, those were tunics of skin taken from animals. For with such as these, it was necessary for the sinner to be dressed. It says, "with skin tunics," which are a symbol of the mortality that he received because of his skin and of his frailty that came from the corruption of the flesh. But if you have been already washed from these and purified through the law of God, then Moses will dress you with a garment of incorruptibility so that "your shame may never appear"and "that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

And He said: Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. On this St. Augustine comments: "Since, he says, it is said in any manner and in any way, God nevertheless declared, it should not be understood otherwise, that He said 'one of us,' except that the plural number is taken on account of the Trinity, just as it was said 'Let us make man,' just as also the Lord about Himself and the Father said: 'We will come to him and make our abode with him' (John 14). Therefore it was repeated upon the head of the proud one by which outcome he desired what was suggested by the serpent 'You will be like gods.' Behold, he says, Adam has become like one of us. For these words are of God, not so much insulting him, as deterring others from being proud in that way; for the sake of those for whom these words were written: He has become, he says, like one of us, knowing good and evil. What else should be understood except that an example of instilling fear was proposed? because not only did he not become as he wanted to become, but he did not even maintain what he had become. On this point elsewhere: 'Nor are they the words of God confessing,' he says, 'but rather reproaching.' Behold, Adam has become like one of us, just as the Apostle says: 'Grant me this wrong' (II Cor. 12:13), surely he wants it to be understood from the contrary."

"Now, therefore, lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever, the Lord sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the ground from which he was taken. The above words are God's; but this action followed because of those words. For alienated from the life he would have received with the angels if he had kept the commandment, but also from the life he was leading in the paradise, in a certain happy state of the body, he necessarily had to be separated from the tree of life, whether because that happy state of the body would continue through it with visible matter by invisible virtue, or because in it there was also the visible sacrament of invisible wisdom. He had indeed to be alienated from there, either as already dying or even as excommunicated, just as also in this paradise, that is, in the Church, men are accustomed to be removed from the visible sacraments of the altar by ecclesiastical discipline."

For when God said: Lest he should put forth his hand and take of the tree of life and eat, and live for ever, he inspired man with a longing desire, and a love, and a good hope of immortality, and through him similarly inspired the invisible powers. For he did not exclude man from any of the promises given before the transgression, nor deprive him of them; nay, after having chastised him, he even gave him more, and through Noah augmented the dignity of his title as the image of God, for he said: Because in the image of God made I man.

Again, the two trees in the middle of Paradise mystically presignify the present state and the future, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a type of this world which is mortal and mutable, having pleasures and pains, and being a school of discipline, just as Adam was taught by this tree both good and evil. Now the tree of life is a type of the future heavenly world, in which life and blessedness reign, for the saying: Lest he stretch forth his hand and take of the tree of life, signified the vast height of the tree and thereby signified the mansions above. As therefore He commanded the Cherubim with the flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life, so He commanded the angels and the luminaries which revolve round the height of the firmament, to guard the way which is there that leads into the kingdom of heaven; intending to signify that the mansions above are meanwhile inaccessible to men. At His Passion therefore the Lord Christ carried with Him the soul of the thief into Paradise, having suspended the guardianship of the Cherubim and of the flaming sword, which turned every way. But after His resurrection, when He came to his ascension, He opened a passage through the host of the invisible Powers, and the luminaries and the firmament itself, and entered into the kingdom where immortality, and immutability, and blessedness reign. At the final consummation therefore, when the angels cease to make the luminaries revolve and when the stars fall, then the Cherubim and the flaming sword waving both ways no longer prevent men from entering into the true life, but the righteous, raised on high and traversing the new way and piercing the firmament with the Lord Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of life.

Fourthly, because the expulsion of the man from the Garden, by God, and his warning him and saying: Lest he should stretch forth his hand and touch the tree of life and eat and live for ever; these are the words of one who imparts knowledge, and obscurely hints that some gift of life eternal is reserved for men after the life of conflict here.

Having finished this it says, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." [ Gen. 3:22 ] By saying that "he has become like one of us," Scripture also revealed symbolically something about the Trinity. But at the same time God was actually addressing Adam ironically, seeing that Adam had been told, "you will become like God, knowing good and evil."

However, although Adam and Eve became aware of both these things from eating the fruit, prior to the fruit they were in practice only aware of the good, hearing about evil by report, but after eating it there was a change, so that they only heard by report of the good, whereas they tasted evil in practice. For the glory in which they had been wrapped left them, and the pains which had previously been kept away from them now dominated them.

"And now, lest he stretch out his hand and take from the fruit of the Tree of Life as well, and eat it and live for ever..." [ Gen. 3:22 ] For if he had the audacity to eat of the Tree of which he was commanded not to eat, how much the more would he make a dash for the Tree concerning which he had received no commandment? But because it had been decreed against them that they should exist in toil and sweat, in pains and pangs, God, who when they were still free from the curse and clothed in glory was prepared to give them immortal life, now that they were clothed in the curse, kept them back from eating of the Tree of Life, lest by eating of it and living forever, they would have to remain in a life of pain for eternity.

God's intention, then, was that this life-giving gift, which they would have received from the Tree of Life, might not be turned to misery and actually harm them even more than what they had acquired through the Tree of Knowledge. For from the Tree of Knowledge they had acquired temporal pains, whereas the Tree of Life would have made those pains eternal. From the Tree of Knowledge they had acquired death which would release them from the bonds of their pains, whereas the Tree of Life would have made them entombed all their lives, leaving them forever tortured by their pains. So it was that God kept them back from the Tree of Life, for it was not appropriate, either that a life of delight should be provided in the land of curses, or that eternal life should be found in the transient world.

Had they eaten, however, one of two things would have happened: either the sentence of death would have been proved false, or the life-giving characteristic of the Tree of Life would have been proved not to be genuine. In order, therefore, that the sentence of death might not be annulled, and the life-giving characteristic of the Tree might not be proved false, God kept Adam at a distance from it, lest he suffer loss from the Tree of Life as well, just as he had already been harmed by the Tree of Knowledge.

God said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Even though by saying, "He has become like one of us," he symbolically reveals the Trinity, the point is rather that God was mocking Adam in that Adam had previously been told, "You will become like God, knowing good and evil." Now even though after they ate the fruit Adam and Eve came to know these two things, before they ate the fruit they had perceived in reality only good, and they heard about evil only by hearsay. After they ate, however, a change occurred so that now they would only hear about good by hearsay, whereas in reality they would taste only evil. For the glory with which they had been clothed passed away from them, while pain and disease that had been kept away from them now came to hold sway over them.

If Adam had rashly eaten from the tree of knowledge he was commanded not to eat, how much faster would he hasten to the tree of life about which he had not been so commanded? But it was now decreed that they should live in toil, in sweat, in pains and in pangs. Therefore, lest Adam and Eve, after having eaten of this tree, live forever and remain in eternal lives of suffering, God forbade them to eat, after they were clothed with a curse, that which he had been prepared to give them before they incurred the curse and when they were still clothed with glory.

And how will that statement of the Lord stand, after the sin of the first man: "Behold, Adam is become like one of us, knowing good and evil?" For he must not to be thought to have been such before the sin that he was wholly ignorant of good. Otherwise, it must be admitted that he was created like an irrational and senseless animal; and this is quite absurd and foreign to the Catholic faith. No, rather, according to the pronouncement of the most wise Solomon, "God made man right," that is, to enjoy continually the knowledge of good alone. But they sought many thoughts. So they were made, as it was said, "knowing good and evil." After the fall, therefore, Adam conceived a knowledge of evil, which he did not have. But he did not lose the knowledge of good, which he did have.

See again God's considerateness. "the Lord God said," the text says, "'Lo, Adam has become like one of us in knowing good and ill." ' Do you see how remarkable is the ordinariness of the expression? Let us, however-, take it all in a sense befitting God. You see, the intention at this point is to remind us through these words of the deception practiced on them by the devil through the instrumentality of the serpent. I mean, that was when that creature said, "'If you eat, you will be like gods,'" and they presumed to taste it in the hope of achieving this equality. Hence also God wanted again to make them ashamed, to bring them to a sense of their- sins and to show them the gravity of their disobedience and the excess of the deception, said, "'Lo, Adam has become like one of us.'" Great is the reproach in this sentence, capable of touching the heart of the transgressor. Was this your reason, he is saying, for despising my commandment, that you had notions of equality? Lo, you have become what you expectedÐor rather, not what you expected but what you deserved to become."'Lo,'" he says, "'Adam has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.'" This, in fact, is what the guileful devil said to them through the serpent, that " 'your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.'" "'Now there is a risk that at some time he may put out his hand and pick fruit from the tree of life, eat it and live forever.'" See here, I ask you, the l.ord's loving kindness. I mean, we must study the saying precisely so that nothing concealed under the surface can escape us. When God gave Adam the command, he bade him abstain from nothing, with the single exception of that tree, and when he presumed to taste it he received the sentence of death; he made this clear to him in giving him the command in case he should break it, though he had given him no express instructions about the tree of life. I mean, since he created him immortal. as I see it and you can understand, it would have been possible for Adam, if he had wanted, to partake of that tree along with the others, a tree that was able to provide him with endless life hence he was given no instruction about it. If, however, someone of a meddling nature should enquire why it was called the tree of life, let him learn that it was not possible for human beings to discern all God's works precisely by following their own reasoning. The Lord, you see, decided that the human being created by him should have some practice in disobedience and obedience while living in the garden, and decided to provide examples there of these two trees, one of life, the other of death (so to say) in the sense that tasting it and breaking the command brought death on him. So when by partaking of this tree he became liable to death and subject in the future to the needs of the body, and the entry of sin had its beginnings as the result of which death also was fittingly provided for by the Lord, no longer did he allow Adam in the garden but bade him leave there, showing us that his sole motive in doing this was his love for him. To learn this precisely, we must read again the words of Sacred Scripture. "'Now there is a risk that at some time he may put out his hand and pick fruit from the tree, eat it and live forever.'" In other words, since he had given signs of considerable intemperance through the command already given him (he is saying) and had become subject to death, lest he presume further to lay hold of this tree which offers endless life and go on sinning forever, it would be better for him to be driven from here. And so the expulsion from the garden was a mark of care rather than necessity. Our Lord, you see, is like this: he reveals his care for us in punishing no less than in blessing, and even his punishment is inflicted for the sake of admonition. Because if in fact he knew that we would not get worse by sinning and escaping, he would not have punished us; but to check our decline into greater evil and to stem the tide of wickedness, he applies punishment out of fidelity to his own loving kindness which is exactly what he did in this case: in his care for the firstformed human being he bade him be driven out of the garden. "The Lord God sent him out of the garden of delight to till the soil from which he was taken." See here once again, I ask you, the precision of Sacred Scripture: "The Lord God sent him out of the garden of delight," the text says, "to till the soil from which he was taken." See, he puts the sentence into effect, driving him out of the garden of delight and obliging him to till the soil from which he was taken. It was not without purpose that he said, "from which he was taken." It was that he might in this work have a constant reminder of his humiliation, and be in a position to know that his subsistence derived from that source, and the composition of his body originally came from the soil hence, he says, till the soil from which he himself was composed. He had said as much also in the sentence, "'In the sweat of your brow may you eat your bread.'" Accordingly at this point also he says the same thing in the phrase, "to till the soil from which he was taken."

It is now necessary to say why, even though man did not receive the knowledge from the tree, it is called "the tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil;" for it is not a trifle to learn why a tree has such a name. In fact the devil said, "On the day when you eat of the fruit of the tree, your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." How can you maintain, you ask me, that it did not provide him with the knowledge of good and evil? Who said, in fact, that it provided him with this knowledge? The devil, you will answer. So do you put forward the testimony of the enemy and the conspirator? The devil said, "You will be gods." Did they really become gods? Therefore, since they did not become gods, they did not receive the knowledge of good and evil either. For the devil is a liar and never speaks the truth. In fact the Gospel says, "He never stays in the truth."

"And then, lest Adam stretch forth his hand to the tree of life and live forever, God dismissed him from paradise." It is well put, "he dismissed," and not "he excluded," so that he might seem to be drawn down by the weight of his own sins to a place that suits him. A bad man generally experiences this when he begins to live among good men, if he is unwilling to change for the better. He is driven from the company of good men by the weight of his bad habit, and they do not exclude him against his will but dismiss him in accordance with his will.

God now sends him "to work the earth from which he had been taken, " [ Gen. 3:23 ] so that he who had been harmed by the ease in the Garden might be benefited by toil on the earth.

When Adam sinned God cast him forth from paradise, but in his grace he granted him the low ground beyond it, settling him in the valley below the foothills of paradise; but when mankind even there continued to sin they were blotted out, and because they were unworthy to be neighbors of paradise, God commanded the ark to cast them out on Mount Qardu.

Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law subject to death, yet was hope preserved to him by the Lord's saying, "Behold, Adam is become as one of us;" that is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature. Then what follows? "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (and eat), and live for ever." Inserting thus the particle of present time, "And now," He shows that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man's life. Therefore He did not actually curse Adam and Eve, for they were candidates for restoration, and they had been relieved by confession. [Against Marcion 2.25]

"Behold the man is become as one of us," Genesis 3:22 He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;" and, "in our image;" and, "become as one of us." For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. [Against Praxeas 12]

"God placed cherubim and a flaming sword that moves"—this could be said in the one word movable—"to guard the way to the tree of life." Those who translate the Hebrew words in Scripture say that "cherubim" means in Latin "the fullness of knowledge." The flaming, movable sword means temporal punishments, because times move in their continual variety. It is called flaming because every tribulation burns somehow or other. But it is one thing to be burned until consumed, another to be burned until purified.

The second Adam, Jesus Christ, points out that through the water of the bath of rebirth, the flickering flame—by which the cherubim guardian blocked the entry into paradise when the first Adam was expelled—would be extinguished. Where the one went out with his wife, having been conquered by his enemy, there the other might return with his spouse (namely, the church of the saints), as a conqueror over his enemy.

And he drove Adam out and placed before the paradise of delight the cherubim and the flaming sword, which turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. The ancient translation has it thus: "And he drove Adam out and placed him opposite the paradise of delight, and appointed the cherubim and the flaming sword, etc." If we follow this, we must believe that this was done for the sake of signification, but still done, so that the sinner, indeed, would dwell in misery against the paradise, where blessed life was also spiritually signified. But what is said that God placed cherubim and the flaming sword before the paradise of delight, this must surely be believed to have been done by heavenly powers in the visible paradise, so that there would be a fiery guard there through angelic ministry, not done in vain, unless it also signifies something of the spiritual paradise, which is surely not to be doubted: and that this guard is well testified to be versatile for the reason that a time would come when it could also be removed. Indeed, it was removed for Enoch, who was translated not to die; it was removed for Elijah, who was taken up in a fiery chariot; it was removed for all the elect, when, after the Lord was baptized, the heavens were opened to him; it is likewise removed for each of the elect when they are washed in the font of baptism; it is more perfectly removed for the same, when loosed from their chains, they ascend to the glory of the heavenly paradise at their own time. Likewise, because cherubim is interpreted as a multitude of knowledge, or multiplied knowledge, it is well testified that the cherubim and the flaming sword were appointed to guard the way to the tree of life: because obviously, through the discipline of heavenly knowledge and the labor of temporal afflictions, the return to the high homeland from which we departed through the folly of transgression and the desire for carnal pleasures is open to us. And it is well said not simply a flame, but a flaming sword was placed before the paradise, to hint that the allurements of temporal desire should be struck in us by the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God if we desire to penetrate to the tree of life, who is Christ the Lord. And it is well reported that this sword is versatile, to indicate mystically that this sword is not always necessary to us, but, as it is written, there is a time for war, a time for peace: war, evidently when in the course of this life we struggle against aerial powers or even against the vices of our mind or body; but peace, when with perfect victory we are crowned, and are perpetually satisfied with the fruit of the tree of life without weariness. The adversary of the law and prophets, however, seeking, says this: "What use was the tree in paradise that bore the fruit of life?" To which Saint Augustine, answering, says: "For whom," he says, "except for those first humans who were placed in paradise? Then, after they were cast out of paradise for the merit of their iniquity, it remained to signify the memory of the spiritual tree of life, which is the wisdom of the blessed and the immortal food of the souls. However, whether anyone now partakes of that food, except perhaps Enoch and Elijah, I do not think it is to be rashly asserted. If, however, the souls of the blessed were not nourished by that tree of life, which is in the spiritual paradise, we would not read that the paradise was granted to the soul of the thief, believing in Christ, on the same day for the merit of piety and the most faithful confession. Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43). But to be there with Christ, this is to be with the tree of life, for he himself is indeed the Wisdom, of which it is written: "She is a tree of life to those who embrace her" (Proverbs 3:18) Amen.

That remedy ought to have had efficacy first upon those who believed in Christ, and by believing hoped, and by hoping loved; and on this account He ought to have descended to the nether regions immediately for their liberation. Whence, when the gate of heaven was opened through the passion of Christ—who by making satisfaction removed the flaming sword, by changing the divine sentence—He snatched from hell all His members.

At his departure from Paradise it says that God "caused a cherub and a sharp revolving sword to go round, to the east of the Garden of Eden, to protect the way to the Tree of Life. " [ Gen. 3:24 ] The barrier was thus a living one, which of its own accord went around guarding the way to the Tree of Life from anyone who audaciously wanted to pluck its fruit; for it would kill with its sharp sword any mortal who came to steal for himself immortal life.

Blessed is he who was pierced and so removed the sword from the entry to paradise.

(Verse 24.) And Adam was cast out, and he made him dwell opposite the paradise of pleasure. And he established Cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned to guard the way to the tree of life. There is much more meaning in the Hebrew than is understood here. For it says: And Adam was cast out, no doubt by the Lord: And he made him dwell before the paradise of pleasure, Cherubim, and a flaming sword, which turned, and guarded the way to the tree of life. Not that Adam himself, whom God had cast out, was made to dwell opposite the paradise of pleasure; but that after his expulsion, before the doors of paradise, Cherubim and a flaming sword were placed to guard the entrance to paradise, so that no one could enter.

Then, so that we may learn how great was the distance he moved him from the garden, Sacred Scripture teaches us this further fact in the words, "The Lord God drove Adam out and situated him opposite the garden of delight." [ Gen 3:24 ] Notice how each of the events proved an occasion of loving kindness on the part of the common Lord of all, and each example of punishment abounds with goodness. I mean, the expulsion was not the sole mark of love and goodness: there was also his location opposite the garden so that he might have unending anguish in recollecting from what heights he had fallen and cast himself into such depths. Yet even if the sight of it was the cause of unbearable pain, it was nevertheless an occasion of no little benefit: the constant sight proved to be an encouragement for this grieving man to carefulness in the future lest he fall into the same sin again. Such, after all, is the habit of human nature by and large: since, while we are in a position to enjoy good things, we don't know how to use them as we ought, we come to our senses with the loss of these things by learning through experience and gaining a sense of our own indifference. In this way we are taught by the change of fortunes from what heights we have fallen and with what troubles we have tortured ourselves. And so the instruction that the one who had lost his place there should dwell nearby and opposite the garden was a sign of deep concern in order that he might have the constant reminder from the sight of it and feel a sense of loss from it and never presume to eat from the tree through lusting after life while finding himself outside. Thus, you see, Sacred Scripture describes everything to us in a manner that shows considerateness for our limitations. "He set the Cherubim and the flailing sword of fire to guard the approach to the tree of life." ' Their indifference which they had already demonstrated in regard to the command given them, proved the cause of the approach being barred against them with such precautions. Consider, I ask you, that the loving God was not content with their dwelling opposite the garden: he placed these powers, the Cherubim and the flailing sword of fire, to guard the way leading there. It was not without purpose that "flailing" was added: the reason was to teach us that every way was barred to him since that sword was turning around and blocking every way leading there, sufficient to provide him with a reminder and fill him with constant fear.

Throughout martyrdom Jesus is with you to show you the way to the paradise of God and how you may pass through the cherubim and the flaming sword that turns every way and guards the way to the tree of life. For both, even if they guard the way to pass through to the tree of life, guard it so that no one unworthy may turn that way to pass through to the tree of life. The flaming sword will hold fast those who have built upon the foundation that is laid, Jesus Christ, with wood, hay or straw, and the wood of denial, if I may call it that, which catches fire very easily and burns all the more. But the cherubim will receive those who by nature cannot be held by the flaming sword, because they have built with nothing that can catch fire. They will escort them to the tree of life and to all the trees God planted in the east and made to grow out of the ground.

Note that the name Cain means "ownership," which explains what was said at the time of his birth by his father or mother: "I have come into possession of a man through God."

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying: I have acquired a man through God. Henceforth, after the delights of paradise and the guilt of the first transgression, the events of this world and mortal life are narrated, when the first-created, who had been made immortal, after receiving the condition of dying, began to generate mortal offspring from themselves, all conceived in iniquity and brought forth from the womb in sins. Cain is interpreted as possession, the reason for which name the mother herself explained when she said: I have acquired a man through God. And with this statement, our mother now teaches us with catholic discernment that although she bore a son subject to the sin of her transgression, nonetheless this which was born a man, that is, which possessed a soul and body, was a gift of divine creation and the first blessing.

(Chapter 4, Verse 1) And she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and said, I have gained a man from God. Cain, meaning acquisition or possession, is interpreted as κτῆσις in Greek, and expressing its etymology, it is said, Canithi, meaning possession of a man from God.

(Ver. 4.) And God looked upon Abel and upon his offerings: but upon Cain and his offerings he did not look. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So Cain knew that God had accepted his brother's offerings and rejected his own, unless that interpretation which Theodotion has given is true. And the Lord was angry with Abel and his offering: but with Cain and his offering he was not angry. But fire used to come from heaven to devour the sacrifice: and we read of it in the dedication of the temple under Solomon, and when Elijah built an altar on Mount Carmel (2 Chronicles 7:1; 1 Kings 18:38).

"Now, Adam had intercourse with his wife Eve." Consider when this happened. After their disobedience, after their loss of the garden, then it was that the practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not subject to the needs of the body? So, at the outset and from the beginning the practice of virginity was in force, but when through their indifference disobedience came on the scene and the ways of sin were opened, virginity took its leave for the reason that they had proved unworthy of such a degree of good things, and in its place the practice of intercourse took over for the future. Accordingly, consider, I ask you, dearly beloved, how great the esteem of virginity, how elevated and important a thing it is, surpassing human nature and requiring assistance from on high. I mean, for proof that those who practice virginity with enthusiasm demonstrate in the body the characteristics of incorporeal powers, listen to the words of Christ to the Sadducees: when they were discussing the question of resurrection and wanted to learn his view, they asked, "Master, there were seven brothers of our acquaintance. The eldest married and died without children, leaving his wife to his brother. The second died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; likewise with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh. So at the resurrection to which of the seven will the wife belong? After all, she belonged to them all." So what reply did Christ make to them? "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God: at the resurrection, far from marrying or being given in marriage, they will be like angels." Do you see how those who have followed the vocation to virginity for the love of Christ imitate the life of angels through treading the earth and being clad in a body? I mean, the greater and more elevated the task, so much and even greater the laurels, the rewards and the good things promised to those who give evidence of the practice of good works along with this vocation. "Now, Adam had intercourse with his wife Eve," the text says, "and she conceived and gave birth to Cain." Since sin had come on the scene through the act of disobedience, and the sentence had the effect of making them liable to death, for the future God in his inventiveness arranged for the continuance of the human race according to his wisdom by allowing for the propagation of the race through intercourse. "She said, 'I have gained a human being, thanks to God.'" See how the imposition of the punishment brought the woman to her senses? She attributes the child she bore not to a natural process but to God, and displays her own gratitude. Do you see how the punishment proved an occasion of admonition to them? The text says, remember, "'I have gained a human being, thanks to God." ' It was not nature, she is saying, that presented me with the child; instead, grace from above has given him to me.

After his disobedience, after their loss of the garden, then it was that the practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their disobedience they followed a life like that of angels, and there was not mention of intercourse.

Since Adam had been blinded in the eyes of his soul and had fallen from the life imperishable, he began to look with his physical eyes. He turned the vision of his eyes on visible objects with affectionate desire and "knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain." Such knowledge is in reality ignorance of all goodness, for had he not first fallen from the knowledge and contemplation of God he would not have been brought down to this knowledge.

Cain was followed by Abel, who was killed by his brother and served as the first prophetic symbol of the City of God. He was like an alien on earth, destined to suffer cruel persecutions at the hands of the wicked men who can properly be called natives of earth because they love this world as their home and find their happiness in the worldly felicity of the earthly city.

Again, she bore his brother Abel. Abel is interpreted as grief or miserable, by which name from the earliest age was foreshadowed the condition of his lamentable untimely death. For, although precious is the death of his saints in the sight of the Lord, having tasted the cup of saving suffering, yet, as far as human view is concerned, it is sufficiently mournful, since we have so far departed from the innocence of the first condition that not even those who were first born on earth as brothers could have peace and concord between themselves, but one envied the other and killed him, while they still existed alone with their parents as masters of the whole world; already clearly foreshadowing that saints in this life would be oppressed by the reprobate and suffer deaths: in this also to be noted that Cain was born first in this life, but Abel was taken away first from this life, because indeed this life is properly the life of the wicked, from which they are precipitated into eternal death; but truly the life of the elect is properly the future life, to which that they may come more happily, they are daily put to death in this life and are considered as sheep for the slaughter.

"She proceeded to give birth to his brother Abel." Since she proved to be grateful for the birth of the first child and acknowledged the former kindness, she enjoyed the good fortune of the second. Our Lord is like this, you see: when we display gratitude for previous good deeds and acknowledge the benefactor, he lavishes his gifts upon us more generously. Accordingly, because she attributed the birth to God, for that reason she receives another child. You see, the generation of children was the greatest consolation from then on, once mortality had come on the scene. For this reason, of course, the loving God at once and from the beginning reduced the severity of their punishment and stripped away the fearsome visage of death by favoring them with the propagation of children, foreshadowing, as it were, in this event an image of resurrection and ensuring that others would rise up in place of the fallen. "Abel was a shepherd, whereas Cain was a tiller of the soil." Sacred Scripture taught us the occupations of each of the children and the fact that while one preferred tending flocks, the other tilled the soil.

[The pagans say, "The Christians] censure the ceremonies of sacrifice, the victims, incense and the rest, which are used in temple worship. Yet the same ceremonies of sacrifice were originated by themselves or by the god they worship, in primitive times, when a god was assumed to need their offerings of first fruits." This question is evidently derived from that passage in our Scriptures that tells of Cain making an offering to God of the fruits of the earth and Abel of the firstlings of his flocks. We answer that the conclusion to be drawn from it is that sacrifice is a very ancient custom, because our true and sacred Books warn us that it is not to be offered except to the one true God. But God does not need sacrifices, as is most clearly expressed in the same sacred Books: "I said to the Lord, thou art my God, for thou hast no need of my goods," because in accepting or refusing or receiving them he is looking only to man's good. God does not derive any benefit from our worship, but we do.

It came to pass after many days that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground: Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. It is clearly shown that both brothers had faith in God, both either naturally admonished or taught by their parents, knew that gifts should be offered to God, and that the guilt of their father's transgression should be washed away by sacrifices offered to Him: but because they did not offer with an equal mind, their offerings were not equally accepted. For I do not think that Cain sinned in that he either worked the work of a farmer or offered gifts to God from the fruits of the ground, but that he worked with less perfect piety in the care of the flesh, and approached the offering of gifts to God with less perfect devotion. Finally, Noah, a farmer, also worked the land and planted a vineyard: and Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High God, offered bread and wine from the fruits of the land. Therefore, Cain was not rejected because of the kind of offering. He indeed offered to God from what he himself was accustomed to live by; but he was rejected along with his gifts by Him who looks into the hearts, because of the impious mind of the offerer, as the following words show when it is said:

For Cain offered gifts to the Lord from the fruits of the earth. For that people believed they pleased the Lord through good works, which they pursued for the sake of earthly reward. Or certainly, they offered gifts from the fruits of the earth when that people believed themselves to be justified through earthly circumcision, earthly Sabbath, earthly unleavened bread, and earthly Passover, despising the righteousness of faith which is in Christ.

Every kind of honour and happiness was bestowed upon you, and then was fulfilled that which is written, "My beloved ate and drank, and was enlarged and became fat, and kicked." [Deuteronomy 32:15] Hence flowed emulation and envy, strife and sedition, persecution and disorder, war and captivity. So the worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and has become blind in His faith, neither walks in the ordinances of His appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts, resuming the practice of an unrighteous and ungodly envy, by which death itself entered into the world. [Wisdom 2:24]

For thus it is written: "And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why are you grieved, and why is your countenance fallen? If you offer rightly, but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be at peace: your offering returns to yourself, and you shall again possess it. And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it came to pass, while they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." [Genesis 4:3-8] You see, brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother. Through envy, also, our father Jacob fled from the face of Esau his brother [Genesis 27:41-45]. Envy made Joseph be persecuted unto death, and to come into bondage. [Genesis 37:18-28] Envy compelled Moses to flee from the face of Pharaoh king of Egypt, when he heard these words from his fellow-countryman, "Who made you a judge or a ruler over us? Will you kill me, as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?" [Exodus 2:14] On account of envy, Aaron and Miriam had to make their abode without the camp. [Numbers 12:14-15] Envy brought down Dathan and Abiram alive to Hades, through the sedition which they excited against God's servant Moses. [Numbers 16:33] Through envy, David not only underwent the hatred of foreigners, but was also persecuted by Saul king of Israel. [1 Samuel 21:10-15]

Abel was very discerning in his choice of offerings, whereas Cain showed no such discernment. Abel selected and offered the choicest of his firstborn and of his fat ones, while Cain either offered young grains or certain fruits that are found at the same time as the young grains. Even if his offering had been smaller than that of his brother, it would have been as acceptable as the offering of his brother, had he not brought it with such carelessness. They made their offerings alternately; one offered a lamb of his flock, the other the fruits of the earth. But because Cain had taken such little regard for the first offering that he offered, God refused to accept it in order to teach Cain how he was to make an offering.

He saw the falsehood of that almost universal notion of to-day, the notion that rites and forms are something artificial, additional, and corrupt. Ritual is really much older than thought; it is much simpler and much wilder than thought. A feeling touching the nature of things does not only make men feel that there are certain proper things to say; it makes them feel that there are certain proper things to do. The more agreeable of these consist of dancing, building temples, and shouting very loud; the less agreeable, of wearing green carnations and burning other philosophers alive. But everywhere the religious dance came before the religious hymn, and man was a ritualist before he could speak.

Consider how the Lord of nature added knowledge to conscience. After all, who brought this to our understanding? It was none other than knowledge associated with conscience. The text says, "He brought an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord." He knew and understood that he should offer from his own possessions some produce to God as to his master. not because God needs them, but for the purpose of demonstrating his gratitude as being himself a beneficiary of such kindness. God, you see, is proof against need, and depends on nothing we have to offer; but in his ineffable love he shows considerateness for us, and for the sake of our salvation he allows these things to happen so that knowledge of the Lord may be for the human race a school of virtue.

(60) Why Cain after some days offers up the first-fruits of his fruits, but when it is said that "Abel offered up first-fruits of the first-born of his flock and of the fat," "after some days" is not added? (#Ge 4:3-4). Moses here intimates the difference between a lover of himself, and one who is thoroughly devoted to God; for the one took to himself the first-fruits of his fruits, and very impiously looked upon God as worthy only of the secondary and inferior offerings; for the expression, "after some days," implies that he did not do so immediately; and when it is said that he offered of the fruits, that intimates that he did not offer of the best fruits which he had, and herein displays his iniquity. But the other, without any delay, offered up the first-born and eldest of all his flocks, in order that in this the Father might not be treated unworthily.

And the Lord looked with favor upon Abel and his offering, but upon Cain and his offering He did not look with favor. For it does not say: And the Lord looked with favor upon the offerings of Abel and then upon him; but upon the offerings of Cain and then upon him He did not look with favor. It first testifies that the person of the offerer was accepted or not accepted by God, then the gifts were regarded or not regarded. For men are often appeased by the gifts of those with whom they were offended; but God, who is the discerner of thoughts and intentions of the heart, is pleased by no gift more than the pious devotion of the offerer: when He has approved the purity of our mind, then He will also accept the vows of our prayers or works.

Abel also offered from the firstborn of his flock and their fat. For the Lord, interceding with the Father on behalf of the saints, offers their vows to Him according to the form of the assumed humanity, that is, good works and the fat of inner love. For these are indeed the firstborn of his flock and their fat. The Lord looks upon Abel, saying: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased (Matt. XVII, 5). He looks also upon his gifts, because the life of the elect which he offers to Him gratefully, God the Father accepts, and as if by fire from heaven He ignites his sacrifice, because He inflames with the power of His spirit those who have taken care to mortify themselves for the Lord, so that they may more abundantly burn in the heavenly regions, indeed so that they may become wholly heavenly. But to Cain and his gifts, He does not look, because rebuking the carnal works of the Jews, He says through the prophet: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? says the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of goats (Isa. I, 11). And a little later: Your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, be clean, that is, through faith in the grace of Christ. Cain is enraged against his brother's piety, nor does he, rebuked by the Lord, repent from his fury conceived out of envy. How much the Jews raged against the Lord and the grace of the New Testament out of jealousy, how many times they persisted malignantly in their undertakings when corrected or admonished by Him, is sufficiently revealed by the Gospel history. They fittingly correspond to what is said of Cain, for their countenance fell: for they could not gaze upon the glory of the Lord with unveiled face. For they had lost that joy of divine grace, of which the righteous, glorying, say: The light of your countenance has been signed upon us, O Lord; You have put gladness in my heart (Ps. IV, 7).

If it is true that before the Flood they did not eat flesh, why is it then written: Abel was a keeper of sheep, and brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof? If they did not eat flesh, why did they take upon them the care of sheep? And why did Abel, when he brought a lamb for sacrifice, not slay it? Now, one who so enquires, will be truly answered that, in making the oblation, he presented the holocausts alive; for one of the editions shows this, saying: Over Cain and over his sacrifice he did not apply fire, so that it is evident that the offerings were consumed with divine fire. They provided themselves with a flock to procure for themselves milk and wool. Another objection: If they did not eat flesh, how came it into their head to select the fat for the sacrifice to God? Answer—Because when anything is to be burned in the fire, fat is more readily set ablaze

It was not idly or in vain that in beginning this sermon we taught your good selves that our Lord does not recognize differences in appearance but takes account of intentions and rewards the will. Here, too, to be sure, notice this happening. Accordingly, let us attend with precision, dearly beloved, to the text and see what Scripture says about Cain on the one hand and Abel on the other, and let us not pass it by heedlessly. I mean, Sacred Scripture says nothing idly or by chance; instead, even if it happens to be a syllable or a single jot, it has some treasure concealed in it. Such, after all, is the nature of all things spiritual. So what does the text say? "In the course of time Cain brought an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord, and Abel also for his part brought an offering of the firstborn of his flock, and in fact the fattest of them." The meaning of the verse is clear even from the reading to those already capable of following more closely. But since we should exercise our concern in general for everyone (spiritual teaching, after all, recognizes no distinction), come now, let us expose the meaning of the words more clearly and rehearse these same words again. "Cain," the text says, "brought an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord"; then, wanting to teach us about Abel as well, Sacred Scripture says that he for his part also brought his offering [155] from his occupation and his shepherding. "He, for his part, also brought an offering," the text says, remember, "of the firstborn of his flock, and in fact the fattest of them." Notice how it hints to us of the piety of this man's attitude, and the fact that he did not casually offer any one of his sheep, but "one of the firstborn," that is, from the valuable and special ones. In Cain's case, on the contrary, nothing of the kind is suggested; rather, the fact that he brought "an offering of the fruits of the earth," as if to say, whatever came to hand, without any display of zeal or precise care.

I repeat, and I shall not cease to make the point: God accepts our offerings not because he needs what we have to offer but because he wants our gratitude to be demonstrated through them as well. In other words, the person who makes an offering to God and offers him something of his own, and who calls to mind the difference in nature and the fact that a human being has been granted such a great honor, should give as good an account of himself as possible and offer the choicest gifts. But notice in this case, I ask you, dearly beloved: here you have the opportunity to contemplate what behooves you, namely, that the person who through indifference betrayed his own welfare duly pays the penalty. I mean, it wasn't a case of one man having a teacher and the other having a counsellor and adviser: each had instructions from his own conscience, and being moved by the intelligence supplied to the human race from above he proceeded to make his offering, such as it was; but the difference in attitude that emerged and the mediocrity of choice caused one man's offering to be acceptable and the other's to be spurned.

"God took notice of Abel and his conscience. Aftthis case is fulfilled the saying in the gospel that the first will be last and the last first.'-~ I mean, see how the one who enjoyed priority belonging to the firstborn and consequently made his offering first was shown to be inferior to his brother since he made it unworthily: as both presented their offerings, Sacred Scripture says, "God took notice of Abel and his gifts." What does that mean, "He took notice"? He accepted, he approved of the attitude, he rewarded the choice, he was satisfied (so to say) with what was done. You see, we speak about God and presume to open our mouth about that pure nature, yet being human we would have no choice but to understand these things through language. Notice, however, this remarkable feature: "God took notice of Abel and his gifts," the text says; it calls the offering of sheep gifts on account of the importance, the choice quality, the untainted appearance of what was offered. Accordingly, God took notice of him for the reason that he had made the offering with a pure intention, and of his gifts for the reason not only that they were free of imperfection but that they were in every respect clearly precious, both from the viewpoint of the offerer's intention and from the fact of their being the firstborn and in fact specially selected from them, among the fattest of them and the very prize ones.

And moreover, we may also see simplicity in Abel, and the Holy Book sheweth us that he was more simple than Cain; for they both brought offerings to the Lord, and the offering of simplicity was accepted, but the offering of wickedness was rejected. And Cain was angry with the Lord and with Abel; with Abel because he envied him, and with the Lord because He had rejected his offering. If he had been of a simple disposition he would not have been envious, and if he had been sincere he would not have been angry with the Lord.

And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. How did Cain know that the Lord had looked favorably upon Abel and his offerings, but had turned away his face from himself and his offerings, unless, as some have interpreted, the Lord had set fire to Abel and his sacrifice, but had not set fire to Cain and his sacrifice, that is, by sending fire from the heavens, He accepted Abel's offering, as we often read that this happened to holy men who offered. Cain, on the other hand, had to consume his own sacrifice by fire. For this is what the Apostle seems to mean when he says: By faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain to God, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, with God bearing witness to his gifts (Hebrews 11:4). Therefore, God testified to Abel's offerings by fire, by accepting them from the heavens, through which we are also taught by the Apostle's testimony that Abel's offering was made acceptable to God by his faith's devotion, and on the contrary, we must understand that Cain was rejected because he did not serve his Creator with complete faith.

Cain was angry because the offering of his brother had been accepted. Cain became angry on account of the fire that had come down and distinguished between the offerings. His face became gloomy because there was laughter in the eyes of his parents and his sisters when his offering was rejected. They had seen that Cain's offering had been placed in the midst of the fire and yet the fire did not touch it.

Since Abel made his offering with a proper attitude and pure intention, "God took notice," the text saysÐthat is, he accepted, he was satisfied, he approved of them; but it called the offerings gifts, by this means dignifying the attitude of the offerer. "And whereas to Cain and his offerings he paid no heed." Notice the precision of Sacred Scripture: by the phrase "he paid no heed" it shows us the rejection of what was offered, and by calling what was offered from the soil offerings he teaches us something else again. I mean, see how he shows us through the very events and terms that the Lord wants all these things to be done by us so that the kind of intention we have should be made clear through the actions we take, and so that we may be in a position to know that we are subject to a Lord and Creator who brought us from nothing to being. In other words, in naming the sheep gifts and calling the things from the earth offerings, Sacred Scripture teaches us that neither the herding of sheep nor the collection of fruits of the earth is what is looked for by the Lord but simply the disposition of one's attitude. Hence in this case, too, one man proved acceptable with his gift on this score, whereas the other was rejected along with his gift on that account. The verse, "God took notice of Abel and his gifts, whereas to Cain and his offering he paid no heed," let us take in a sense befitting God. I mean, the intention in the words is that he communicated to them the awareness that while he was satisfied with one man's choice, he took umbrage at the other's attitude. Such, however, is the way God does things; let us now see what follows. "This annoyed Cain very much and his face fell." What is the meaning of the words, "This annoyed Cain very much"? There were two reasons for his annoyance, not just that he alone had been rejected, but also that his brother's gift had been accepted. "This annoyed Cain," the text says, "and his face fell." What was it that annoyed him? Both things annoyed him, the Lord's ignoring his offering and his brother's gift being welcomed. So it was necessary that he recognize his guilt and adjust the error of his ways. After all, our Lord is loving, and when we err he does not turn away from us because of our error as if we continued in the error on the contrary, he keeps no record of it. In order that you may learn this with precision and see the indescribable magnitude of the loving kindness, consider in these present events the exceeding degree of his goodness and the extent of his longsuffering. I mean, when he saw Cain annoyed unreasonably and, so to say, at the point of drowning in the waves of his annoyance, he did not ignore him; instead, that love which he had shown for his father in giving him the opportunity for excuse and opening the way to renewed confidence in the words, "Where are you?" despite that damaging fall the very same love he now demonstrates towards the man who had proved so ungrateful, and stretches out his hand to this person who was at the point of tumbling down the cliff, as you might say, desirous as he was of offering him the opportunity to adjust the error of his ways. So he says to him,

In the case of Cain his wickedness did not begin when he killed his brother. For even before that God, who knows the heart, had no regard for Cain and his sacrifice. But his baseness was made evident when he killed Abel.

(61) Why, when he had begun with Cain, he still mentions him here in the second place, when he says: "And God had respect unto Abel and unto his offerings; but unto Cain and unto his sacrifices he paid no attention?" (#Ge 4:5). In the first place, because the good man, who is by nature first, is not at first perceived by the outward senses of any man except in his own turn, and by people of virtuous conduct. Secondly, because the good and the wicked man are two distinct characters; he accepts the good man, seeing that he is a lover of what is good, and an eager student of virtue; but he rejects and regards with aversion the wicked man, presuming that he will be prone to that side by the order of nature. Therefore he says here with exceeding fitness, that God had regard, not to the offerings, but to those who offered them, rather than to the gifts themselves; for men have regard to and regulate their approbation by the abundance and richness of offerings, but God looks at the sincerity of the soul, having no regard to ambition or illusion of any kind.

And the Lord said to him: Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do well, sin lies at the door? Why, he says, are you angry, and why are you tortured with envy of your brother, and you cast your eyes down to the ground? If you do well, if you offer your sacrifice with a pure heart, will you not be accepted, with the Lord looking favorably upon you and your sacrifice? But if you do not do well, sin lies at the door, and by having such a doorkeeper, you will always enter and exit with him accompanying you, instead of the Lord guarding your going in and coming out, just as it is said of wisdom: Whoever rises early to seek her will not toil, for he will find her sitting at his doors (Wisdom 6:15). And again: Because she goes about seeking those worthy of her and graciously shows herself to them on their ways, and meets them with all providence (Wisdom 6:17).

God said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why is your face gloomy?" Instead of being filled with anger, you ought to be filled with distress. Instead of your face being gloomy, tears ought to be flowing from your eyes. "If you do well, I will accept it." Notice then that it was not because of the small size of Cain's offering that it was rejected. It was not accepted because of his spitefulness and his lack of good will. "If you do well, I will accept it," even though I did not accept it before, and it will be accepted along with the chosen offering of your brother even though it was not accepted before. "But if you do not do well, sin is couching at the first door." Abel will listen to you through his obedience, for he will go with you to the plain. There you will be ruled over by sin, that is, you shall be completely filled with it. But instead of doing well so that the offering that had been rejected might be credited to Cain as acceptable, he then made an offering of murder to that One to whom he had already made an offering of negligence.

(Verse 6.) And the Lord said to Cain: Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it. We are compelled to linger longer on each individual. For even now the meaning is very different in the Hebrew than in the translators of the Septuagint. For the Lord said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it. And to you is his alliance: but you must rule over him more. But, he says: Why are you angry, and why are you tormented by envy towards your brother, with the bitterness of jealousy, you turn your face to the ground? If you do well, will not your sin be forgiven you? Or, as Theodotion says, will it be acceptable: that is, I will accept your offering, as I have accepted your brother's? But if you do evil, then sin will immediately sit before your doorstep, and you will be accompanied by such a guardian. But because you have free will, I advise you to not be conquered by sin, but to conquer sin. The mistake that the Septuagint interpreters made is this: that the word for sin, which is 'Attath' in Hebrew, is masculine gender, but in Greek it is feminine gender. And those who translated it, translated it with the masculine gender (as it was in Hebrew).

Consider, I ask you, dearly beloved, the ineffable considerateness in his care when he saw Cain under assault, so to speak, from the passion of envy, see how out of fidelity to his own goodness he applied various remedies to him so that he might be quickly plucked from the water and not be drowned. "'For what reason are you annoyed? For what reason has your face fallen?"' Why on earth, he is saying, are you overcome with such resentment as to show the extent of your displeasure on your face? "'For what reason has your face fallen?'" Why has this event so affected you? Why have you not considered what your obligation was? You weren't making your offering to a human being, capable of being deceived, were you. Did you not realize that I wasn't looking for some offering or other of yours, but for the pure intention of the offerer? "'For what reason are you annoyed? For what reason has your face fallen? Is it not true that, even if you make your offering correctly but fail to choose the offering correctly, you commit sin?" That is to say, while your having the idea of making an offering was commendable, still your not choosing the offering correctly led to the rejection of the offering. I he one who makes an offering to God, you know, must show great care in the choice, and the greater the difference between the recipient and the offerer, the greater the distinction you should lend to your choice. You, however, gave no thought to these matters but simply offered whatever came to hand; hence they in turn could not be judged acceptable. You see, just as your intention in making the offering did not make allowance for the difference in status, and so caused the offering presented by you to be rejected; in like manner, your brother's intention, which happened to be correct and revealed great care in the choice, caused his gifts to be acceptable. Still, I am not demanding a penalty for the error but merely highlighting the sin and offering you advice, provided you want to take it, mend your ways and not involve yourself in worse evils.

God wishes to defuse the wild frenzy and remove the anger by means of his words. You see, he observed the stages of Cain's thinking and realized the savagery of his deadly intention; so he intends at this early stage to sedate his thinking and bring repose to his mind by placing his brother subject to him and not undermining his authority. But even despite such great concern and such potent remedies, Cain gained nothing from the experience. Such was the degree of difference in their attitudes and the excess of evil intent.

But his desire shall be for you, and you shall rule over him. In accordance with the idiom of the Hebrew language, he substituted the indicative mood for the imperative, such as you have innumerable times: You shall love the Lord your God, you shall love your neighbor, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness (Deut. VI, 5), instead of saying: Love, and do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness. Therefore, he says, his desire shall be for you, and you shall rule over him; you, because you are of free will, I advise you to combat and restrain the desire of sin, and not let it grow over you anymore, but you shall rather rule over it more righteously by living correctly. This passage in the ancient translation reads thus: If you do well, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do well, sin lies at your door; and its desire shall be for you, but you should rule over it. It is rightly offered to God, who alone must be sacrificed to. But it is not rightly divided when neither places nor times of the offerings nor the things themselves which are offered, nor who offers, nor those to whom the offering is distributed for eating are rightly discerned, so that here division means discernment. In what of these was Cain displeasing to the Lord, it cannot easily be found. But since the Apostle John, when speaking of these brothers, said, Not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil, but his brother's were righteous (John III, 13); it is understood therefore that God did not look favorably upon his offering because he wrongly divided it, giving something of his to God, but keeping himself for himself, as all do who follow their own will, not God's, that is, living with a perverse, not a righteous heart; yet they offer to God a gift, with which they think He can be appeased, not to aid them in curing their bad desires, but to fulfill them. Rest, he says, for his desire will be for you, and you shall rule over him. Cease to be consumed by the sin of envy toward your brother, for the conversion of that same sin shall be for you, and your iniquity will rebound upon your own head, and you shall rule over it, having the power through the grace of divine help to repel the evil conceived in your heart. God spoke these things to Cain, in the manner in which He spoke to the first men through a subjected creature as if He was their companion in suitable form. But because he was admonished not inwardly but outwardly, nevertheless he carried out the deliberate crime of killing his brother even after the word of divine admonition or correction; for it follows.

So what is the upshot? You have sinned, and sinned grievously, but I am not imposing punishment for the sin; after all, I am loving, and "I do not want the death of the sinner, rather that he be converted and live." Since, then you have sinned, be at peace, lend calm to your thinking and rid yourself of the onset of the waves crashing around your mind, settle the storm lest you add to the previous sin another more grievous one and set your mind on something beyond repair. Don't give yourself into the clutches of the wicked demon. "'You have sinned, be at peace.'" He knew right from the outset that the future attack against his brother would take place, and by these words he checks it beforehand. You see, since he was God and knew the unspoken intentions of Cain's mind, he was aware of the movements of his heart; so with this earnest exhortation and the considerateness of his words he applies the appropriate remedy to him, doing everything in his power in case this man should reject the medication and fall headlong into the abyss of fratricide. "'You have sinned, be at peace." ' Don't think, he says, even if I have turned away from your offering owing to your incorrect attitude and have welcomed your brother's gift because of his sound choice, that I have stripped you of your pride of place and removed you from the distinction of firstborn. "'Be at peace," ' even if he has been deemed worthy of my regard and his gifts have proved acceptable, nevertheless "'his movement is towards you, and you will be superior to him.'" And so even after this sin I permit you to have the privilege of being firstborn, and I bid him be subject to your authority and your control. See the Lord's loving kindness, how he wishes to defuse the wild frenzy and remove the anger by means of his words. You see, he observed the stages of his thinking and realized the savagery of his deadly intention; so he intends at this early stage to sedate his thinking and bring repose to his mind by placing his brother subject to him and not undermining his authority. But even despite such great concern and such potent remedies, Cain gained nothing from the experience. Such was the degree of difference in their attitudes and the excess of evil intent. Lest, however, we prolong the sermon unduly and thus seem to tax the patience of your good selves, and lest our homily bore you to tears and be considered an ordeal to you, let us bring the talking to a halt at this stage. Let us commend this point to your warm attention, to avoid imitating conduct of that kind, bid good riddance to evil, and devote yourself to the Lord's command with great attention and with your whole heart, especially in the wake of such examples and others like them. I mean, in future none of us will be able to take refuge in ignorance. After all, if that manÐI mean CainÐwas not in a position to find anyone living before his time who did anything of that kind, and still was subjected to that severe and unbearable punishment, as you will later discover, what is it likely that we will sufferÐ we who have committed those sins and even worse ones despite such a generous measure of grace? Will it not assuredly be everlasting fire, the worm that does not die, gnashing of teeth, exterior darkness, a fiery hell and all those other ineluctable punishments awaiting us? I mean, there will be no grounds for excuse left for us, since we have been so much disposed to sloth and so remiss Surely, after all, we are all aware of what is to be done, and the sorts of things that should not be done? and that those who practice the former will enjoy the choicest of rewards, while those who fall victim to the latter will undergo condemnation to the most extreme of penalties? Hence I beseech, entreat and implore you not to let our assembling here prove to be of no avail; instead, let attention to our words be followed by deeds, so that having the certainty that comes from a good conscience and being buoyed up already in our present situation with sound hope, we may be able to negotiate with ease this life's sea of prob- lems and put in at the harbor of God's loving kindness, thus attaining to those good things beyond all telling which the Lord has promised to those who love him, thanks to the grace and mercy of his only-begotten Son, to whom with the holy and adorable Spirit be glory, power and honor, now and forever, for all ages of ages. Amen.