De sacrificiis Caini

On the Sacrifices of Cain and on the Gifts of Abel, and on the Giants, and on the Flood, and on Stars and Fate Order is the mother of good discipline, having both a face and a form in its subjects, while preserving the mind of the hearers clear and unconfused. Let us not, therefore, depart from the order, but even if the readings complete their own course, let us preserve the sequence of the history. In the preceding discourses, it was taught from the instruction of the Holy Spirit what the constitution of man was, what his honor, what his rank, what the dominion over things given to him. To these matters succeeded the deception in Paradise, the judgment that was examined, and the sentence delivered with philanthropy. Following these came the events concerning Cain and Abel, who, while attempting to honor God with the same outward form, undertook the service with a different disposition. For both this one and that one offered. But the offering of one had only the form of a gift, while that of the other had both the proper disposition and honor. Then envy followed. For piety is always attended, on the part of the wicked, by envy, and on the part of the judge, by a crown. Abel was slain, the first herald of righteousness, the first to love and pursue piety, the first to honor truth and, with truth, to love and worship God, becoming in many respects an imitator of Christ.

I find that the holy Abel received many images of Christ. For just as the Savior is the founder and first righteous one of those renewed after the law, so Abel is the founder of righteousness among all ancient people. Neither in the renewal of humanity, which the Lord of all renewed, do you find anything prior to the Lord's own body, nor in the ancient order of people do you find righteousness shining forth before Abel. He is the founder of the ancient righteous, and this one is the founder of the new righteous and of the saints renewed in truth. For this reason the Savior established the memory of Abel as the beginning of all righteousness. For he says to the Jews: "Truly I say to you, every drop of righteous blood shed from the foundation of the world will be avenged from this generation, from the blood of the righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." He established as the beginning of righteousness the one who was plotted against among men but crowned by God, Abel.

And see the wonder. Because Abel was the first to contend for righteousness, he was the first deemed worthy to suffer for piety. He became an image of Christ, who suffered for truth, and the blood of Abel was found to be close to the Lord's blood, having great proximity through faith. What a saving blood is the teacher of the whole world; nothing instructs us in piety like the Lord's blood, using truth as its tongue. The blood of Abel cried out, and the blood of Christ cries out. But that one cries out interceding, while this one cries out bringing atonement to the world. For just as the Lord's blood sounded like a trumpet to the ends of the earth, and the blood of Abel interceded with God, the apostle, mentioning both this blood and that one, by comparison raised the truly superior blood to greater height. For he says: We have approached Mount Zion, and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, a festival and assembly of firstborn enrolled in the heavens, and the living God the judge, and spirits of perfected saints, and blood of sprinkling speaking better than that of Abel. For that one speaks interceding against murderers, while the blood of Christ intercedes for sinners and brings atonement to the world. For the blood of Christ is the sprinkling of the world, the blood of Christ is the ransom of men. It speaks better, he says, than that of Abel, inasmuch as that one intercedes, while this one pleads.

Then again, the blood of Abel was an image of the Lord’s blood in this way. Adam, having sinned, fell under the curse of death: “Earth you are, and to earth you shall return.” Abel, having become righteous and not having fallen into transgressions, received the sentence, but even having been testified to by the divine judgment, he lived honorably in life. Then the bloodstained Cain, having opened the gates of death, made a wicked passage for death to occur, or rather a good one. For see the philanthropy of God. The condemned—neither Adam nor Eve—had not yet died. Abel, who had not sinned, dies first among those condemned, God having so arranged that death not take firm hold; for the secure hold of death is sin. God therefore arranged that, when piety was being plotted against, the one who had not sinned should suffer on behalf of the condemned, so that he might become an image of Christ, who bears death for those who have sinned. For he came to death for the sins of the people, it is said. And the name Abel, in the Hebrew tongue, is interpreted as “mourning.” For piety always in the present time groans, mourns, weeps, laments over sins, blasphemies, injustices. Piety therefore passes its time in mourning. But the Savior says: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

When Abel was slain, then—to keep to the sequence—or rather, when he was crowned and took the first rank of righteousness, another son, Seth, is born to Adam. And his mother calls him Seth and explains the name, saying: "God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel, whom Cain killed." Seth is a compensation for the murder; for he was given in place of the son. Seth is interpreted as "watering." Understand the meaning here. For since the thirsty root of the mother, worn out by grief and deadened, was watered as by an incoming stream and again showed a shoot, he was called Seth, that is, "watering." And she says: "The Lord has raised up for me." She did not say "raised," but "raised up." Resurrection and raising up are different. Resurrection is our first creation. For then God, taking dead earth, raised the formation from the earth. He molded a living human being; and our first formation was a resurrection. For it raised what was cast down, it raised the dust and transformed it into the form of a human being. The second resurrection from the dead is called "raising up," meaning a resurrection a second time, since then it was from earth and now it is from earth. The apostle says: "Being conformed to the death of our Lord, if somehow we might attain to his raising up from the dead.

God has raised up for me," she says, "another seed in place of Abel, whom Cain killed." Thus Seth is born, as scripture testifies, having a character of the same form as Adam. Cain was born firstborn, and he bore not a single likeness of his father's face or image. Abel the righteous was born, and he had a form resembling Adam, yet not even he was so complete and similar. But Seth, whom God raised up in his place, as scripture says, came forth having imprinted his father's character according to Adam's appearance and his image. Why did scripture testify that he was born in the image of Adam? Here, I ask, pay attention to the meaning. This Seth, since he was a type of the resurrection—for God raised him up in his place—shows that the resurrection of the dead raises up the original forms and preserves the same images, and nothing of the human character is destroyed. Adam, it says, begot a son according to his own image and according to his own likeness, and named him Seth.

The heretics adulterate the teaching concerning the image. When we speak about the Son according to the apostle: "Who is the image of the invisible God" and "Who exists in the form of God," they say: "Does this image not persuade you that God is one thing and the image another? Is a man similar to a wax-poured image?" But scripture calls the image in different forms: for example, there is an image having form and shape like a statue; it does not have paleness or blondness or a black body or a white one. The wax-poured image represents forms and colors. For it makes the one-eyed man and the pale man and the gray-haired man and the black man and the red-haired man and the white man, and the wax-poured image imitates each color. The statue, however, cannot do this, but the wax-poured image has only shape and form. The natural image, which bears the character of nature, that is the one about which scripture said: "Adam begot according to his own form and according to his own image." Tell me, what is the image of Adam? If the image of Adam is his form, is the image the form of God? The Son is not the proper substance of which he is the image. "Adam begot," it says, "according to his own form and according to his own image." For this reason Christ is image, not bearing form and shape nor form and color; for the nature is incorporeal. You cannot speak of form concerning God, nor shape, nor appearance, nor color. For these belong to bodies. But what is the true image of God? That which is from him. The image is from Adam. The image is from the Father, begotten eternally from the Father who is without beginning.

And clearly bearing the likeness of the image, he says: "He who has seen me has seen the Father," according to the heretics. How can the unlike appear like through the unlike? You say the Son is lesser than the Father. Then he who has seen the lesser has seen the greater. Again, the Savior, according to you, can do nothing by himself. Then he who has seen the one who can do nothing has seen the one who can do everything. He who sees the subordinate has seen the autonomous. He who sees the creature has seen the creator. He who sees the one who at some time was not has seen the one who always is. These things follow from common reasoning. If he does not have equal honor, if he does not have co-eternity, if he does not truly shine forth from the Father's nature, how can "He who has seen me has seen my Father"? Adam begot according to his own form and according to his own image. Seth is born and preserves Adam's character. He begets a son named Enos, concerning whom Scripture says: "This one hoped to call upon the name of the Lord." Since we are lovers of God, we must also be lovers of the Word, loving not the external word but the divine word, the teacher of souls, the illuminator of every mind. What does it mean? It was testified of Enos that "This one hoped to call upon the name of the Lord." Did Abel not call upon the name of the Lord? If he did not call upon it, how did he offer gifts? Did Adam not call upon the name of the Lord? Why was it not testified concerning another?

I say then a word strange to hearers, but true and without risk, since it has Scripture as witness. Enos hoped to be invoked by the name of the Lord in this manner: having become exceedingly righteous and having joined himself to God through piety, to be invoked by the name of the Lord God. "What," he says, "prevents me, having loved God in this way, from also being called God, not by tyranny, but by love?" He hoped to be invoked by the name of the Lord, not to be called, but to be invoked by the name, so that he might be both called Enos and God. Enos is a man. This also interprets that Enos is interpreted as "man." He hoped, then, to be both a man by nature and God by grace. This Enos, then, was called God. All who saw him at that time said: "Truly worthy of God, truly this is the form of God." Those born from him thereafter were called sons of God. Those from the seed of Enos who preserved piety were called sons of God, the one not being burdened but rejoicing in the distinctive quality and welcoming the kinship of the pious. And I said: "You are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you.

From the time when Cain received the curse, the two tribes were divided, that of Seth and that of Cain. And the sons and descendants of Cain were called sons of men, while the sons and descendants of Seth were called sons of God. God wished that this righteous race of Seth, which he raised up in place of Abel, should not intermarry with the seed of Cain, just as he commanded the Jews not to give their daughters to foreigners nor to take from the daughters of foreigners. He therefore wished them to be separated; for God was gradually destroying the generation of Cain. Pay attention then, I ask. Cain appears to have had barely seven successors, that is, seven generations, and was then destroyed, as the race came to an end. Only daughters were born to the race of Cain, while the male sex abounded among the sons of God. Wishing to weaken the memory of the wicked and lawless one, God gradually cut off the male line among them, and only a few women were left, whom God knew could be ruled and not rule.

He did this also in the case of the Midianites. For God, commanding through Moses that all the Midianites be brought, says: "But preserve their virgin daughters, since the woman had done no harm toward impiety. For she was destined to be ruled and not to rule." Just as then he commanded that women be spared but men be slain, so he pronounced judgment against the male lineage of Cain's succession. For since [Cain] had acted manfully against the righteous person of Abel, God cut off the manly spirit and reduced it to weak and worthless women. "And when the sons of God saw," it says, "that the daughters of men were beautiful," that is: Those who were prevented from having [them] mingled with them. For "they chose," it says, "and took wives for themselves," not following the law. God does not blame them for taking wives, but for taking them for themselves. "They took," it says, "from among all those whom they chose." Then, since there were no men, they took them as captives and divided them among themselves, not by the law of marriage, but by the indifference of licentiousness.

Pay attention, then. This is also what Scripture says: "And it happened that when the sons of men became many, daughters were born to them," meaning instead: the succession of males was cut off for them, and the female remained with them. Then it adds: "And the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, took for themselves from among all those whom they chose." We have not set this forth simply. For some supposed that the sons of God were the angels; that angels, they say, descending, mingled with women, from whom the giants were born. This is all false. It is a myth, or rather a weakness. For how could the bodiless angel mingle with a body, when neither the same limbs are present nor the same desire? But let it be granted, according to the myth, that they were angels. Angels are spirits and fire, strong and invincible in power. The women suffered violence from angels. When the flood came, why did it kill the men and not the angels? Did others sin and others are condemned? And indeed, the violated women ought to have been pitied, and the impious punished. Then, when the flood occurred, what harm did the water do to the angels? Spirits are not drowned in waters. But the humans who suffered violence were drowned, and the angels who committed the violence were saved. This sequence does not show the order of violence, but those who supposed this supposed wrongly.

Let us see what the judge says. "God saw the earth," it says, "and it was utterly corrupted, because every flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth." What then has this to do with angels? "My spirit will not remain among these men forever, because they are flesh." If angels sinned, why does he accuse men? But some are misled by the name "giants." "If it were not," they say, "that angels had intercourse with women, whence come the giants?" Scripture calls "giants" not some strange creation or strange form, but the heroes, the warriors, the strong—these it calls giants. Scripture bears witness: "Behold," it says, "the Lord will remove from Judea and from Jerusalem the strong man and the strong woman, the strength of bread and the strength of water, the giant and the strong man." What was a giant doing in Jerusalem? That giants are men from men, and not a Hellenic fiction nor a mythical drama, Scripture again bears witness. "Noah," it says, "had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham begot Canaan. Canaan begot Nimrod. This one was a giant, a hunter before the Lord." Behold, the father is a man, and the grandfather is a man, and the one begotten is a giant. Also in the Old Testament, the spies say to Moses: "We entered the land, and we were before them like locusts, and we saw giants." And who the giants were, they say: "We saw the generation of Enak." Which is also what we say in common usage: "a heroic man," "a strange man," "a giant man"—not speaking of a different nature from ours, but indicating something brave and heroic of the soul.

Thus the story of the giants is not a pretext for fighting against God, but he called "giants" the tall heroes. For God made the sons of Seth tall, and those of Cain short and insignificant, so that even from their appearance the difference might be seen: how the blessed are raised to a height, while the cursed are humbled. So, to show again that giants are not a drama of impiety or mythology, the prophet David says concerning the sun: "From one end of the heaven is its rising, and its setting is to the other end of the heaven. It will rejoice as a giant to run a path." Therefore, the giants were not born from angels, but from men; and they were tall men, handsome in body and attested in beauty. They, abandoning the order of the ranks, distributed the women in disorder. God reproaches them and says: "My spirit will not remain among these men forever, because they are flesh.

The Manichaeans seize upon the text. "You see," they say, "that where there is flesh from matter, God does not rest. Therefore God rests in nothing. For we all have flesh." Then, "My spirit will not remain in these men forever" because they are flesh—this is characteristic of one who hates flesh. How then does Scripture say elsewhere, "I will pour out from my spirit upon every flesh"? Scripture calls "flesh" not the visible body, but it calls "flesh" the one who is immoderately disposed toward the body, neglecting the soul. Just as we say of the wise man, "He is all mind," not because he has no body, but because he is occupied with wisdom, so it calls the one always attending to the body and caring nothing for the soul "flesh," not because he ought not to have flesh, but because he ought not always to tend the flesh and neglect the soul. For the judgment is sought: how much one ought to tend the soul, how much one ought to tend the body. For does God wish us not to tend the body, but rather not to neglect the soul and not to tend it under the pretext of tending the bodies? Pay attention also to common usage. I know that many, and especially those eager to find fault, seize upon examples as being lowly. But my aim is to set up the image. For even if I use ordinary examples, it is the truth that is sought.

Often we mix wine for ourselves at feasts. And if it does not take as much water as it needs, we immediately say, "It is all unmixed," not because it has no water, but because it does not have as much as it ought. Another puts in much water, but little wine. And we immediately say, "It is all water," not because it has no wine, but because it does not have a proper proportion. Thus, when Scripture says of someone, "He is all spirit," it is not that he has no flesh, but that the grace of the spirit does not exceed in him. Again, when Scripture says of someone, "He is all flesh," it is not that he has no spirit, but that he has given more to the flesh. Why, brothers, do the Scriptures call fornicators and lovers of women? And it says, "Solomon was a lover of women." For the chaste man loves his own wife. Why then is the man who loves his own wife not called a lover of women, even though he loves his own wife? But where there is law, where there is measure, where there is conjugal union, the excess is rejected, and he is called chaste, even though he has a wife. So it is that lack of measure is hated, while measure is honored.

Does God want the body to have more than the soul? If someone says of a person, "He is all spirit," it is a compliment to the man; but if you hear, "He is all flesh," it is a reproach to the one accused. Paul says to his disciples, since they were devoted to the spirit, "You," he says, "are not in the flesh, but in the spirit." Were they then without flesh? No; but because they wore flesh, yet cared less for it and more for the spirit, he calls them not being in the flesh. And today, if I see someone assigned a task and he is negligent, I immediately say, "You are not here for me," not because he is not present, but because he is not present in his eagerness. Truly God sees injustice prevailing. One must know that neither vice nor injustice nor anything considered or reputed to be evil has a stable existence or nature, but is a perversion of the good, just as vinegar has no distinct nature. For there is no plant of wine and a plant of vinegar, but vinegar is a perversion of wine. Thus adultery is a perversion of marriage. For we know, brothers, that vinegar does not lose the appearance of wine, but retains the look of wine, losing only its quality. Since whether it comes from white wine or dark wine, it keeps the color. So too adultery and fornication do not destroy the appearance of a temperate person, but have the face of temperance while the deeds are lawless. It is like the perversion of wine.

And so that you may learn that we did not use the image simply, but that evil is a deviation from the true vine, God says through the prophet Jeremiah to the people: "Thus says the Lord: I planted you as a fruit-bearing vine, entirely true. How then have you turned to bitterness, the alien vine?" For does God accuse the tree of its nature? Did he give marriage and then accuse marriage? He fashioned man and said, "Let us make for him a helper like himself." And the helper he made, he calls a betrayer. If you keep the law, you have a helper; if you pervert the law, you have the helper as a betrayer. And pay attention. Paul says, "Marriage is honorable and the bed is undefiled in all things; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Learn from this the difference in the matter. Does marriage or fornication or adultery have one appearance and another? Is this not the same act? Are these not the same members? Do fornication and adultery use different members, and marriage others? Are they not the same members? Is this not the same act? But the law is not the same. The one who acts is punished and judged.

The judge stands, the law. If it is a marriage, he runs together and honors the marriage. If it is an unlawful marriage, the judge immediately sharpens the sword and cuts off the boldness. There he acts as a torchbearer for the marriage, as one who himself commanded it, but he punishes adultery, which does not please him. He honors a lawful thing. But wherever he finds a deviation from the law, he is provoked. Do you see that evil is not a nature, but evil is a deviation from the good? Similarly, Christ, in order to show how he honors the marriage which he made and punishes adultery which he did not make, pronounces against adulterers, saying: Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. But wherever he found a lawful marriage, he not only honored the matter but was also found among those invited. A wedding took place in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus was there. The lawgiver saw the law and honored it. He saw the matter and did not flee. And let no one say: Should God, then, who is so great, have gone to a wedding? Was it not a shame for the wedding to take place in the presence of God? God, bringing Eve to Adam, was not ashamed to act as a bridesmaid, and is the lawgiver, when present, ashamed? I say these things to…

[…] the flood overtook those who fled, and nothing found outside the ark was saved. The coming of Christ overtakes, and no one found outside the church is saved. The Lord of all bears witness to these things, saying: Just as it was in the days of Noah—they ate, they drank, they married, they gave in marriage, until the flood came and swept all away—so will be the coming of the Son of Man. You see the image shining and the truth unforced. But concerning the flood, a separate discourse will be set aside, so that we may complete the entire sequence with continuity and order, and so that nothing of the divine scriptures may be left unexamined. But I will say this and I set this forth: that every good work has both a form and a face. No one is ever ashamed of righteousness; it can be fought against, but it cannot be put to shame. Piety cannot be put to shame. Paul was persecuted, but he was not ashamed; he was bound, but he was not disconcerted. And he says, boasting: For the sake of the hope of Israel I wear this chain, but I am not ashamed. For the chains were not penalties for wrongdoing, but praises of piety. For this reason Paul boasts, saying: Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ. Another, even if bound, wishes no one to know. Paul was bound, and he is distressed if not everyone learns of it.

Now then. God reproached disorder, lawlessness, lack of measure. From this, the mythology of the stage-players is dissolved. By stage-players I mean all who speak falsehoods. When the flood occurred, where were the births of the stars? When the flood occurred, where was the birth according to the course of the stars separated? If the same stars existed then and now, they accomplished the same things, having the same course. But a small untimely infant perished. The star wished this one to become long-lived. How then was he scattered? But if birth brought one verdict against all infants, why did these things not happen at each time? For if the course is always the same, why do they say that things not accomplished are similar? Does everything happen according to birth? Before the recognition of Christ, many generations and ages passed. Where were the stars that make Christians before the coming of Christ? Where now are the stars that make Hellenism? Neither are there Hellenes after Christ, nor Christians before Christ? Where is the birth of the stars? We know, brothers, many strange things contrary to custom. Since they say that being born rich or poor, king or ruler, temperate or adulterous is from birth, I ask: Is temperance a thing, and do these things revolve in life from eternity? But also Christianity is a thing that once was not and now has begun. And Hellenism once was and now has been extinguished. Christianity once appeared, but has shone forth. Where is the course of the stars, which extinguished those and caused these to shine forth? Now in many places there are ascetic communities by the grace of Christ, of men who pride themselves on the evangelical way of life.

The stars that produce self-control—where were they then? I say these things to show that there is neither a course of birth nor fortune nor fate, but that good conduct yields good fruits and evil behavior a wicked end. God is patient, not as one who holds anger for a long time, but as one who is far from anger. I have said before, and I say again: if you see God threatening, he wishes to save; if you see God silent about sins, understand that he wishes to punish. When he threatens, he wishes to save; when he is silent, he intends to punish. I have said it, but I say it again: he proclaimed destruction to Nineveh and had mercy; he was silent about the Sodomites and destroyed them. If you see yourself being disciplined for a sin, understand that God is taking hold of you. Do not say, "God has hated me, and that is why I suffer such things." If you see yourself sinning and suffering nothing, say, "God has turned away from me. I am not pleased that he is patient. I have sinned much, yet he has not disciplined me with sickness or fever. Often he is keeping me for a greater evil." For it is characteristic of God to correct and discipline those who are loved by him, so that they may escape future punishment.

It is characteristic of God to punish the pious immediately if they sin, so that they do not proceed to a greater evil. He touches a righteous man who sins a little, so that he may not stumble greatly. He allows the impious man who stumbles often to go unpunished, since his sins are not worthy of present punishment, but of a greater one. David says concerning Moses and Aaron: "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who call upon his name." They called upon the Lord, and he heard them; in a pillar of cloud he spoke to them: "O God, you became propitious to them and avenging concerning all their practices." In this he showed that he loved in avenging their faults. Elsewhere, God, wishing to show an excess of indignation as he reproached the sin of the people, says: "Therefore thus says the Lord: I will not look upon your daughters when they commit fornication, nor upon your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery." That is to say, I no longer care about you, nor do I seek out your sins, I do not look upon the adulterer in order to correct him. Do you see that overlooking is a sign of anger, while educating is a sign of benevolence?

God therefore wishes to instruct us through threats, so that we may flee punishments. And God is able to make the threat serve for our correction, so that we may be chastened by word and not by experience, so that tears of repentance may arise and not tears of torments. The one who entreats weeps, and the one who is beaten weeps; the tears of those who entreat are one thing, and the tears of those who are scourged another. The tears of repentance are the spices of piety. For if the trees in the forest exude—some storax, others various spices—the tears of trees produce perfumes, do the tears of repentance become the spices of piety? May God therefore grant us to repent in truth, to dissolve our sins, and to receive eternal joy in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, glory, honor, and worship are due unto the ages of ages. Amen.