11.
Again, in the case of Cain and Abel, the same proceeding is observable. For, in the first place, they set apart the fruits of their own labours to God. For we would shew not from his sin only, but also from his virtue, that man was capable of knowing both these things. Wherefore that man knew sin to be an evil thing, Adam manifested; and that he knew that virtue was a good thing, Abel again made evident. For without having learnt it from any one, without having heard any law promulgated respecting the first fruits, but having been taught from within, and from his conscience, he presented that sacrifice. On this account I do not carry the argument down to a later period; but I bring it to bear upon the time of these earlier men, when there were as yet no letters, as yet no 1 law, nor as yet prophets and judges; but Adam only existed with his children; in order that thou mayest learn, that the knowledge of good and evil had been previously implanted in their natures. For from whence did Abel learn that to offer sacrifice was a good thing; 2 that it was good to honour God, and in all things to give thanks? "Why then?" replies some one, "did not Cain bring his offering?" This man also did offer sacrifice, but not in like manner. And from thence again the knowledge of conscience is apparent. For when, envying him who had been honoured, he deliberated upon murder, he conceals his crafty determination. And what says he; "Come, let us go forth into the field." 3 The outward guise was one thing, the pretence of love; the thought another, the purpose of fratricide. But if he had not known the design to be a wicked one, why did he conceal it? And again, after the murder had been perpetrated, being asked of God, "Where is Abel thy brother?" he answers, "I know not; Am I my brother's keeper?" Wherefore does he deny the crime? Is it not evidently because he exceedingly condemns himself. For as his father had hid himself, so also this man denies his guilt, and after his conviction, again says, "My crime is too great to obtain pardon." 4
-
Sav. rep. as yet. ↩
-
See Davison's "Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice," reprinted in his Remains, where this view is maintained as at least probable, and freed from some objections. Archbishop Magee, in his work on the Atonement, vol. i. no. 41, vol. ii. no. 54, 58, &c., maintains the original, divine institution. It is difficult now to judge what may have been likely to seem reasonable and natural to our first parents, who had a stronger apprehension of natural things, as well as a more sensible communion with God, than we. It may be observed, that such a view does not interfere with the strictly typical character of the sacrifice, because man is made in the image of God, and many things which he does of mere nature, as well as moral actions not specially enjoined, are typical, and represented as typical in Holy Scripture. And again, sacrifice, if it originated in God's gift of reason, was certainly sanctioned, and endowed with an atoning power, by His special laws. The prevailing neglect of our Eucharistic oblation as such, and separating in thought our partaking of the sacrifice of our Lord from the sacrament of the altar, tend to obscure men's views on this subject. It is, however, difficult to conceive how the sacrifice of animals should have occurred to man, without some divine indication beyond the permission to use them for food. St. Chrys. on Gen. iv. Hom. XVIII. (5), speaks of nothing more than an offering "out of our possessions" as taught by natural conscience; and of Abel's offering being of the first-born, and of the best, as a proof of his devotion. On this view the type would arise from the divine permission of animal food. ↩
-
Gen. iv. 9. This clause is added in the Vulgate as well as the Septuagint. The Hebrew seems to present an hiatus after rm'yv (said rather than spake). The Targum of Jerusalem and that called of Jonathan supply it, Tr. (The Samaritan and Syriac and Aquila also contain this clause. Origen did not find it in the Hebrew, and Onkelos omits it. Michaelis quotes John xviii. 16, to meet the difficulty. Some render the word told, and refer it to what went before.). ↩
-
Gen. iv. 13, LXX. ↩
