Abels Sacrifice declared acceptable, & not Cains, by some external signe.4. Had respect to Abel.) Both Cain and Abel did wel in offering external Sacrifice, but they differed much in sinceritie and manner 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 fat. To. 3. q. 4. Quæst. Hebraic. Lib 15. ciuit. c. 7. Mala. 1. Hebr. 11. Leuit. 9. Iudic. 6. 2. Par. 7. 5. Reg. 18. 2 Mac. 1.And therfore God respected & approued it. But to Cain and to his guifts he had not respect, because he wanted sincere deuotion. 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 holy Scriptures.
Reward and punishment according to our workes.7. Shalt thou not receiue.] Reward of good workes and punishment of euil are cleerly 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 forth with at the doore, afflicting thy conscience, and not suffering thy mind to be in quiet, for remorse of thy wicked fact, and feare of iust iudgement? For hence it came that Cains countenance fel, and his stomach boyled with angre: punishment so beginning euen in this life, & much more in the next world our Sauiour wil render (as himselfe saith) to euery man according to his workes: Mat. 16. Rom. 2.which the Apostle expresseth more distinctly, eternal life, or wrath & indignation.
Freewil in man, also after his fal.7. Vnder thee.) This Text so plainly sheweth freewil in man, also after his fal, that the English Protestants to auoid so cleer a truth, for these words, the lust therof [to wit of sinne] shal be vnder thee, and thou shalt haue dominion ouer it, Heretical translation.corruptly translate in some of their Bibles thus: Bible 1579.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, Lib. 15. c. 7. ciuit.Tu dominaberis illius; nunquid fratris? absit. Cuius igitur nisi peccati? Thou shalt rule ouer; what, ouer thy brother? Not so. Ouer what then, but sinne? In other English Editions, namely in the last, which we suppose they wil stand to, it is better, but yet obscure thus, Vnto thee shal be the desire therof, and thou shalt haue rule of it. Let vs therfore examine the sense, and if S. Hierome, the great scripture Doctour did rightly vnderstand it, Quæst. Hebraic. in Gen.God did speake to this effect to Cain: The Hebrew also & Greeke text proue freewil in Cain.Because thou hast freewil, I warne thee, that sinne haue not dominion ouer thee, but thou ouer sinne. The Hebrew hath thus: ad te appetitus eius, et tu dominaberis in eum, or, ei. Vnto thee the appetite therof, and thou shalt rule ouer it. Thargum Hierosolymitanum concludeth Gods speach to Cain thus: Into thy hand I haue giuen powre of thy concupiscence, and haue thou dominion therof: whether thou wilt to good or to euil. The Greeke hath thus: To thee is the conuersion therof, and thou shalt beare rule ouer it: to wit, appetite, lust, concupiscence is vnder thy wil. Freewil testified by antiquitie, uniuersalitie, and consent of learned & reasonable persons.S. Augustin. li. de vera Rel. ca. 14.Finally, al antiquitie, vniuersalitie, and vniforme consent of Christian Doctours, and other learned Philosophers, and reasonable men hold it for certaine and an euident truth, that man, yea a sinner, hath freewil. Luther abhorred the name of freewil.Yet Luther, the father of Protestants, so abhorred this truth, that he could not abide the very word, nor voutsafe (when he writ against it) to title his beastlie booke, Contra liberum arbitrium, Against freewil: but, De seruo arbitrio. Of seruil arbitriment. And denieth that man is in anywise free to choose, to resolue, or determine, but in al things seruil, tyed, constrained, and compelled to what soeuer he doth, saith, or thinketh. Further, that man in al his actions is like to a hackney, that is, forced to goe whither the rider wil haue him. And knowing the whole world against him, shameth not to confesse, that he setteth them al at naught in respect of himselfe, concluding thus: lib. de seruo arbitrio.I haue not (saith he) conferred with anie in this booke, but I haue affirmed, and I do affirme. Neither wil I that anie man iudge hereof, but I counsail al to obey, or yeald to my opinion. Caluin also for his part
