(58) Whether it was properly said with respect to Cain: "I have gotten a man from the Lord?" (#Ge 4:1). Here there is a distinction made, as to-from some one, and out of some one, and by some thing. Out of some one, as out of materials; from some one, as from a cause; and by some thing, as by an instrument. But the Father and Creator of all the world is not an instrument, but a cause. Therefore he wanders from right wisdom who says, "That what has been made has been made, not from God, but by God."

(59) Why the sacred historian first describes the employment of the younger brother, Abel, saying: "He was a keeper of sheep; but Cain was a cultivator of the earth?" (#Ge 4:2). Since, although the virtuous son was in point of time younger than the wicked son, yet in point of virtue he was older. On which account, on the present occasion, when their actions are to be compared together, he is placed first. Therefore one of them exercises a business, and takes care of living creatures, although they are devoid of reason, gladly taking upon himself the employment of a shepherd, which is a princely office, and as it were a sort of rehearsal of royal power; but the other devotes his attention to earthly and inanimate objects.

(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 4:3û4). 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.

(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.

(62) What is the meaning of the distinction here made between a gift and a sacrifice? (Genesis 4:4). The man who slays a sacrifice, after having made a division, pours the blood around the altar and takes the flesh home; but he who offers it as a gift, offers as it should seem the whole to him who accepts it. Therefore, the man who is a lover of self is a distributor, like Cain; but he who is a lover of God is the giver of a free gift, as was Abel.

(63) How it was that Cain became aware that his offering had not pleased God? (#Ge 4:5). Perhaps he resolved his doubts, an additional cause being added, for sorrow seized upon him and his countenance fell. Therefore, he took the sorrow which he felt as an indication that he had been sacrificing what was not pleasing or approved of, when joy and happiness would have been suited to one who was sacrificing with purity of heart and spirit.

(64) Why is it that the expression used is not, because you do not offer rightly; but, because (or unless) you do not divide rightly? (#Ge 4:7). In the first place, we must understand that right division and improper division are nothing else but order and the want of it. And it is by order that the universal world and its parts were made; since the Creator of the world, when he began to arrange and regulate the previously untamed and unarranged power which was liable to suffering, employed section and division. For he placed the heavy elements which were prone to descend downwards by their own nature, namely, the earth and the water, in the centre of the universe; but he placed the air and the fire at a greater altitude, as they were raised on high by reason of their lightness. But separating and dividing the pure nature, namely heaven, he carried it round and diffused it over the universe, so that it should be completely invisible to all men; containing within itself the whole universe in all its parts. Again, the statement that animals and plants are produced out of seeds, some moist and some dry, what else does it mean but the inevitable dissection and separation of distinction? Therefore it follows inevitably, that this order and arrangement of the universe must be imitated in all things, especially in feeling and acknowledging gratitude; by which we are invited to requite in some degree and manner the kindnesses of those who have showered greater benefits liberally on us. Moreover, to pay one's thanks to God is an action which is intrinsically right in itself: and it is not to be disapproved of that he should receive the offerings due to him at the earliest moment, and fresh gifts from the first-fruits of every thing, not being dishonoured by any negligence on our part. Since it is not fitting that man should reserve for himself the first and most excellent things which are created, and should offer what is only second best to the all-wise God and Creator; for that division would be faulty and blameworthy, showing a most preposterous and unnatural arrangement.

(65) What is the meaning of the expression: "You have done wrongly; now rest?" (#Ge 4:8). He is here giving very useful advice; since, to do no wrong at all is the greatest of all good things: but he who sins, and who thus blushes and is overwhelmed with shame, is near akin to him, being, if I may use such a phrase, as the younger brother to the elder; for those persons who pride themselves on their errors as if they had not done wrong, are afflicted with a disease which is difficult to cure, or rather which is altogether incurable.

(66) Why he seems to be giving what is good into the hand of a wicked man, when he says, "And unto thee shall be his desire?" (#Ge 4:8). He does not deliver good into his hand; but the expression is heard with different feelings; since he is speaking, not of a pious man, but after the action is accomplished, saying of him: The desire and respect of the impiety of this man's wickedness will be towards you. Do not therefore talk about necessity, but about your own habits, in order that thus he may represent the voluntary action. And again, the sentence, "And you shall be his ruler over him," has a reference to the operation. In the first place, you begin to act with wickedness; and now behold, another iniquity follows that great and injurious iniquity. Therefore, he both thinks and affirms that this is the principal part of all voluntary injury.

(67) Why he slew his brother in the field? (#Ge 4:9). That as all in fecundity and sterility arises from a neglect of sowing and planting land a second time, he may be kept continually in mind of his wicked murder, and self-blamed for it; since the ground was not to be the same for the future, after it was compelled, contrary to its nature, to drink of human blood, to bring forth food to that man who imbued it with the polluted stain of blood.

(68) Why he who knows all things asks the fratricide: "Where is thy brother Abel?" (#Ge 4:10). He puts this question to him because he wishes the man to confess voluntarily and spontaneously, of his own accord, so that he may not imagine that every thing is done out of necessity; for he who had slain another through necessity, would have confessed unwillingly, as having done the deed unwillingly; since that which does not depend upon ourselves does not deserve accusation; but the man who has done wrong intentionally denies it; for those who do wrong are liable to repentance. Therefore, he has interwoven this principle in all parts of his legislation, because the Deity himself is never the cause of evil.

(69) Why he who had slain his brother makes answer as if he were replying to a man; and says, "I do not know: am I my brother's keeper?" (#Ge 4:9). It is the opinion of an atheist to think that the eye of God does not penetrate through every thing, and behold all things at the same time; piercing not only through what is visible, but also through every thing which lurks in the deepest and bottomless unfathomable abysses. Suppose a person said to him, "How can you be ignorant where your brother is, and how is it that you do not know that, when as yet he is one out of the only four human beings which exist in the world? He being one with both his parents, and you his only brother." To this question the reply made is: "I am not my brother's keeper." O what a beautiful apology! And whose keeper and protector ought you to have been, rather than your brother's? But if you have excited your diligence to give effect to violence, and injury, and fraud, and homicide, which are the foulest and most abominable of actions, why did you consider the safety of your brother a secondary object?"

(70) What is the meaning of the expression, "The voice of thy brother's blood cries to me out of the earth?" (#Ge 4:10). This is especially an example by which to take warning; for the Deity listens to those who are worthy, although they be dead, knowing that they are alive as to an incorporeal life. But he averts his countenance from the prayers of the wicked, although they are living a flourishing life, inasmuch as he looks upon them as dead to any real life, carrying about their bodies like a sepulchre; and having buried their miserable souls in it.

(71) Why he is said to be cursed upon the earth? (#Ge 4:11). The earth is the last portion of the world, therefore if that utters curses, we must consider that the other elements do likewise pour forth adequate maledictions; for instance, the fountains, and rivers, and sea, and the air, and the land, and the fire, and the light, and the sun, and moon, and stars, and in short the whole heaven. For if inanimate and earthly nature, throwing off the yoke, wars against injury, why may not still rather those natures do so which are of a purer character? But as for him, against whom the parts of the world carry on war, what hope of safety he can have for the future, I know not.

(72) What is the meaning of the curse, "You shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth?" (#Ge 4:13).{6}{our translation is, "My punishment is greater than I can bear."} This also is a general principle; for in all evils there are some things which are perceived immediately, and some which are felt at a later period; for those which are future cause fear, and those which are felt at once bring sorrow.

(73) What is the meaning of Cain saying, "My punishment is too great for you to dismiss me? (#Ge 4:12). In truth there is not misery greater than to be deserted and despised by God; for the anarchy of fools is cruel and very intolerable; but to be despised by the great King, and to fall down as an abject person cast down from the government of the Supreme Power is an indescribable affliction.

(74) What is the meaning of Cain, when he says, "Everyone who shall find me will kill me:" when there was scarcely another human being in the world except his parents? (#Ge 4:14). In the first place he might have received injury from the parts of the world which indeed were made for the advantage of the good and that they might partake of them, but which nevertheless, derived from the wicked no slight degree of revenge. In the second place it may be that he said this, because he was apprehensive of injury from beasts, and reptiles; for nature has brought forth these animals with the express object of their being instruments of vengeance on the wicked. In the third place, some people may imagine that he is speaking with reference to his parents, on whom he had inflicted an unprecedented sorrow, and the first evil which had happened to them, before they knew what death was.

(75) Why whoever should slay Cain should be liable to bear a sevenfold punishment? (Genesis 4:15). As our soul consists of eight portions, being accustomed to be divided in its rational and irrational individuality into seven subordinate parts, namely into the five outward senses, and the instrument of vice, and the faculty of generation; those seven parts exist among the causes of wickedness and evil, on which account they likewise fall under judgment; but the death of the principal and dominant portion of man, namely of the mind, is principally the wickedness which exists in it. Whoever therefore slays the mind, mingling in it folly, and insensibility, instead of sense, will cause dissolution also of the seven irrational parts; since, just as the principal and leading part had a portion from virtue, in the same manner likewise are its subject divisions composed.

(76) Why a sign is put on him who had slain his brother, that no one should kill him who found him; when it would have been natural to do the contrary, namely, to give him over to the hands of an executioner to be put to death? (#Ge 4:16). This is said because, in the first place, the change of the nature of living is one kind of death; but continual sorrow and unmixed fear are destitute of joy and devoid of all good hope, and so they bring on many terrible and various evils which are so many sensible deaths. In the second place, the sacred historian designs at the very beginning of his work to enunciate the law about the incorruptibility of the soul, and to confute as deceitful those who look upon the life which is contained in this body as the only happy life; for behold one of the two brothers is guilty of those enormous crimes which have already been mentioned, namely, impiety and fratricide; and he is still alive, and begetting offspring, and building cities. But the other who was praised in respect of his piety is treacherously put to death; while the voice of the Lord not only clearly cries out that that existence which is perceptible by the outward senses is not good, and that such a death is not evil, but also that that life which is in the flesh is not life, but that there is another give to man free from old age, and more immortal, which the incorporeal souls have received; for that expression of the poet about Scylla,

"That is not mortal but an endless Woe,"{7}{the line occurs in Homer, Odyss. 12.118.}

is asserted in the same familiarity about a person who lives ill and passes a long life for many years in the practice of wickedness. In the third place, since Cain had perpetrated this fratricide of enormous guilt above all other crimes, he presents himself to him, quite forgetful of the injury that he has done, imposing on all judges a most peaceful law for the first crime; not that they are not to destroy malefactors, but that resting for a while with great patience and long suffering, they shall study compassion rather than severity. But God himself, with the most perfect wisdom, has laid down the rule of familiarity and intelligence with reference to the first sinner: not slaying the homicide, but destroying him in another manner; since he scarcely permitted him to be enumerated among the generations of his father, but shows him proscribed not only by his parents but by the whole race of mankind, allotting him a state separate from that of others, and secluded from the class of rational animals, as one who had been expelled, and banished, and turned into the nature of beasts.

(77) Why Lamech, after the fifth generation, blames himself for the fratricide of his elder Cain; saying, as the scripture reports, to his wives, Adah and Zillah; "I have slain a man to my injury and a young man to my hurt; since if vengeance is taken upon Cain sevenfold, it shall certainly be taken on Lamech seventy and sevenfold?" (#Ge 4:23). In numerals one is before ten, both in order and in virtue, for it is the first beginning and element and measure of all things. But the number ten is subsequent, and is measured by the other, being inferior to it, both in order and virtue; therefore, also, the number seven is antecedent in its origin to and more ancient than the number seventy, but the number seventy is younger than the number seven, and contains the calculation of generations. These premises being laid down, he who first committed sin, as if he had been really always ignorant of evil, like the first odd number, namely, the unit, is chastised more simply; but the second offender, because he had the first for an example, so that there cannot possibly be any excuse made for him, is guilty of a voluntary crime, and because he did not receive honourable wisdom from that more simple punishment, the consequence will be that he will both suffer all that first punishment, and will, moreover, receive this second one, which is contained in the number ten. For as in the horse-races they pay the groom who has trained the horse twice as great a reward as they give to the driver, so some wicked men, inclined to acts of injustice, gain the miserable triumph of victory and then are punished with a double punishment, both by the first one which is contained in the unit, and also by the second which is contained in the number ten; besides, Cain being the author of a homicide, when he was ignorant of the greatness of the pollution which he was incurring, because no death had hitherto taken place in the world, suffered a more simple punishment, namely, only a sevenfold penalty in the order of the unit; but as his imitator could not take refuge in the same plea of ignorance, he ought to be subjected to a twofold punishment, not only to one equal and similar to that which had been inflicted on the first offender, but also another, which should be the seventh among the decades. In truth, according to the law, the trial which is before the tribunal is a sevenfold one; first of all, the eyes are put on their trial, because they beheld what was not lawful; secondly, the ears are impeached, because they heard what they ought not to have heard; thirdly, the smell is brought into question, as having been reduced by smoke and vapour; fourthly, the taste is accused, as being subservient to the pleasures of the belly; fifthly, a charge is brought against the taste, by means of which, besides the operations of the senses abovementioned, in respect of those things which prevail over the spirit, other things, also, are superadded separately, such as the takings of cities, the captivities of men, the destructions of those citadels of cities in which wisdom dwells; sixthly, an accusation is urged against the tongue and other instruments of speech, for being silent as to what should be spoken of, and speaking of what should be buried in silence; and, in the seventh place, the lower part of the belly is impeached for inflaming and exciting the passions by immoderate lust. This is the meaning of that expression, according to which a sevenfold vengeance was taken upon Cain, but a seventy and sevenfold vengeance upon Lamech for the causes above mentioned, because he was the second offender, not having been taught by the punishment of the first delinquent, and therefore he is altogether worthy to receive his punishment, which is the more simple one, like the unit in numerals, and, also, a manifold punishment too equal to the number ten.

(78) Why Adam, when he begat Seth, introduces him saying, "God has raised up for me another seed in the place of Abel whom Cain slew?" (#Ge 4:25). In real truth Seth is another seed and the beginning of a second nativity of Abel, in accordance with a certain natural principle; for Abel is like to one who comes down below from above, on which account it was that he perished injuriously; but Seth resembles one who is proceeding upwards from below, on which account he also increases. And in proof of this argument Abel is explained as having been brought back and offered upwards to God. But it is not proper that everything should be raised and borne upwards, but only that which is good, for God is in no respect whatever the cause of evil. Therefore, whatever is indistinct and uncertain, and mingled, and in confusion and disorder, has also, very properly, blame and praise mingled together: praise, because it honours the cause, and blame, since as the occurrence happened fortuitously, so it is without any plans having been formed or any gratitude expressed. Moreover, nature also separated the two sons from him; it rendered the good one worthy of immortality, resolving him into a voice interceding with God; but the wicked one it gave over to corruption. But the name Seth is interpreted "watered," according to the variation of plants which grow by being watered, and put forth shoots and bear fruit. But these things are the symbols of the soul, so that it is not lawful to assert that the Divinity is the cause of all things equally, of the bad as well as of the good, but only of the good, and that alone ought to be planted alive.

(79) Why Enos, the son of Seth, hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God? (#Ge 4:26). The name Enos is interpreted "man;" and it is received as meaning, not the whole of the combined man, but as the rational part of the soul, namely, the intellect, to which it is peculiarly becoming to hope, for irrational animals are devoid of hope; but hope is a sort of presage of joy, and before joy there is an expectation of good things.