he so hide himself, but when called to account, he endeavours to lay the blame on another, saying, “The woman, whom Thou gavest me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” And that woman again transfers the accusation to another, viz. the serpent. Observe also the wisdom of God; for when Adam said, “I heard Thy voice, and I was afraid, for I was naked, and I hid myself,”1525 God does not at once convict him of what he had done, nor say, “Why hast thou eaten of the tree?” But how? “Who told thee,” He asks, “that thou wast naked, unless thou hast eaten of that Tree of which alone I commanded thee not to eat?” He did not keep silence, nor did He openly convict him. He did not keep silence, that He might call him forth to the confession of his crime. He did not convict him openly, lest the whole might come from Himself, and the man should so be deprived of that pardon which is granted us from confession.1526 Therefore he did not declare openly the cause from whence this knowledge sprung, but he carried on the discourse in the form of interrogation, leaving the man himself to come to the confession. 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 no1527 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;1528 that it was good to honour 1525 Gen. iii. 10, 11, 12. 1526 See Hom. VIII. 2. He does not mean that this of itself merits pardon; indeed the word is rather “allowance,” or indulgence (συγγνώμη); but that it is a condition of pardon, and a great means of recovery. See on Heb. vi. 5, and Hooker, b. vi. c. iv. 16, where “Hom. de Pœn. et conf.” is an extract from one found in the Greek. Ben. t. ii. 663, a Sav. viii. 97, 12. 1527 Sav. rep. as yet. 1528 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 dif- ficult 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 613 Homily XII