to his diuine Maiestie. And that not only in internal affection, which (as S. Augustin, and al Catholique Doctors teach) is principally required, but also in external things, because we consist of bodie, and not only of soule, and haue, by Gods goodnes, the vse of corporal things. As here we see example in the law of nature: and the same was ordained by written precept in the law of Moyses: the Prophetes also foretold, that external Sacrifice should be offered in the law of grace, and new Testament, to wit, the same which Christ instituted, and left in his Church, to continew to the end of the world. Moreouer this homage of offering Sacrifice is so peculiar to God only, that albeit manie other exterior rites and seruices are vsed both to God & men, as to be bare head, to bowe, to kneele, & the like before them, either of great humilitie (saith S. Augustin) or of pestiferous flatterie, to such as are homines colendi, venerandi, si autem eis multum additur, & adorandi: men to be worshipped, reuerenced and if much be geuen them, adored (for this terme of adoring is also applied to men in holie Scriptures Gen. 23. v. 7. 27. v. 29.) yet Sacrifice is due to God only, and to no creature how excellent so euer. In so much (saith the same Doctor) that as al nations founde it necessarie to offer Sacrifice, so none durst sacrifice to anie nisi ei, quem Deum aut sciuit, aut putauit, aut finxit: but to him whom they either knew, or thought, or fained to be God.
4. Had respect to Abel] Both Cain and Abel did wel in offering external Sacrifice, but they differed much in sinceritie and maner of choosing or diuiding their oblations, touching Gods part and their owne, as S. Iustinus Martyr, S. Hierom, S. Augustin and others teach. For Abel offered of the best things, of the first begotten of his flock, and of their fatte. And therfore God respected and approued it. But to Cain and to his giftes he had not respect, because he wanted sincere deuotio. Which difference of Gods acceptance appeared doubtles, as S. Hierom and S. Augustin supposed, by some external signe, otherwise Cain had not vnderstood it. Most like it was by fire sent from God, which inflamed and consumed Abels Sacrifice, & not Cains. As we read of diuers other Sacrifices in holie Scriptures.
7. Shalt thou not receiue:] Reward of good workes, and punishment of euil are clerly proued by this place. God saying to Cain: If thou doest wel, shalt thou not receiue againe? what els but wel for wel doing? as Abel receiued consolation of his Sacrifice wel offered. but if thou doest il, shal not thy sinne be present forthwith at the dore? afflicting thy conscience, and not suffering thy mind to be in quiet, for remorse of thy wicked fact, and feare of iust iudgement. For hence is came that Cains countenance fel, and his stomack boyled with angre: punishment so beginning euen in this life, & much more in the next world our Sauiour wil render (as him selfe saith) to euery man according to his workes: which the Apostle expresseth more distinctly, eternal life, or wrath & indignation.
7. Vnder thee] This Text so plainly sheweth freewil in man, also after his falle, that the English Protestans to auoid so clere a truth, for these wordes, the lust thereof (to wit of sinne) shal be vnder thee, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it, corruptly translate in some of their Bibles thus: Vnto thee his desire shal be subiect, and thou shalt rule ouer him. As if God had said, that Abel should be vnder Cain. As the phantastical Manichees peruerted the sense, whose absurditie S. Augustin controlleth maintayning the true construction of the wordes, Tu dominaberis illius; nunquid fratris? absit. Cuius igitur nisi peccati? Thou shalt rule ouer: What, ouer thy brother? Not so. Ouer what then but sinne? In other English Editions, namely in the last, which we suppose they wil stand to, it is better, but yet obscure thus, Vnto thee shal be the desire therof, and thou shalt haue rule of it.
