Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1

CHAP. I.

IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Touching the first words here Augustine maketh a question, whether by the beginning Christ be not to be understood; and Ferus hath both this, and a second, first of all, which he judgeth most simple; and 3 in the month, that is, the Spring, and 4 in Summer, as if he had said, many have taught diversely of the beginning: but this is the sum of all. Now although all things were made in Christ, Colos. 1. 16. yet I assent rather to others, who take this according to the letter, as if it had been said, when the World first began, God proceeded to the making of all things in this manner: first, he created, that is, made of nothing the heaven and the earth, that is, he laid a foundation of all his works, which he would make by rearing up an huge heap of matter, out of which they should be framed. For if an allegory be in these words, Christ being meant by the beginning, there is no certainty in the History, and so nothing can be concluded hence against the eternity of the World, or for the time since the Creation. Whereas by these words, In the beginning God created, three errors are together confuted. 1 Of Plato, who maketh Idea's, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eternal, saying of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , God made the World. 2 Of Aristotle, who maketh two, matter and form. 3 Of Epicurus, who maketh two more. Touching the things said to have been created, the heaven and earth; some think that the visible heavens and earth only are hereby meant, and not the highest heaven, Moses preferring to deal with the Jews, who were led by things sensible only according to their capacity, and therefore omitting to say anything of that heaven, which was to be spoken of afterwards in times of more perfection, and seeking by these visible things to screw them up to the knowledge of the invisible wisdom and power of God. Because David also speaking of the same, the heavens and the earth are the work of thy hands, which thou didst make in the beginning, addeth, that we might understand what heavens he meant; they all shall perish: from whence it is plain, that the visible heavens only are those, which he speaketh of, and not the invisible which are everlasting.

Others, again, by the heavens here understand both the invisible and the visible because it is not probable, but that Moses, the first Penman of the Scripture, would teach the creation of all things, and not of the visible only.

But others more ancient, and a greater number have by heaven here understood the highest, or the empyrean heaven only, and by the earth all other things, or the matter and substance, out of which all this visible world, consisting of heaven and earth was made, and all things in them, For the highest heaven together with the angels therein being the chief of God's works, what could be more fitly placed: first, in this narration of the making of all things, then the making thereof: yea, it must be granted either to be meant here, or else nothing is set forth by Moses touching the making thereof, and then it may be doubted, whether that heaven and the angels be creatures or no. For although this be taught by Saint Paul, Col. 1. 16. yet it being a rule, that he went by in his teaching, to set forth nothing, but what the Prophets taught before, it is certain that he had reference to this history of Moses, upon which his words are nothing, but as it were a Commentary, and therefore Moses doubtless by heaven meant, the highest heaven, and the angels therein. The first exposition then falleth to the ground, and the second is against the current of the history following, which maketh it plain, that the visible heavens were made out of that confused chaos, which is here called earth For both the Crystalline heaven, which is the ninth, and the other eight heavens are called the firmament, wherein were made the Sun, Moon, and Stars; Verse 8. 14. wherefore the third only must needs stand, that the heaven here spoken of is the tenth and highest heaven, called elsewhere the heaven of heavens, and the third heaven; in respect of the air, which must then be counted one, and the starry and Crystalline heavens another, If by heaven and earth the huge confused chaos of this World had been meant comprehending that, which by and by is made a firmament or heaven, earth, and sea, he would not in the next Verse; leaving out the word heaven, have said; and the earth was without form, and void: but the heaven and earth were without form. Wherefore the word heaven not being here repeated, it must needs follow, that an heaven made perfect at the first, and so divers from the heavens spoken of afterward is meant, which is the habitation of angels, and of all the faithful after this life ended.

God created, Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here a Nown of the plural number is joined with a Verbe of the singular, which many take to be done, to intimate the blessed Trinity, three persons in one Godhead. But Calvin rejecteth this, as a wresting, because if by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three persons be understood, they should be without distinction, according to the error of Sabellius, and therefore he rather thinketh, that the manifold virtue of God is hereby set forth. And Pererius argueth against it, because not only this word, but others in the plural number are often joined with singulars; as Isaiah • 9, 4. I will deliver Epypt into the hands dominorumduri, Gen. 42. 33. The Lord of the land said to us, in Hebrew is, dixit nobis domini terrae. Exod. 21. If his master shall give him a wife, in Hebrew is, si domini ejus dederit illi uxorem: and therefore he saith, that it is rather a propriety of the Hebrew speech in this place without any mystery. And much like unto this is that exposition, which Paulus Fagius saith, the Jews give hereof, that God is named in the plural number for honors sake, as Princes do speak of themselves, and are spoken of by others, as in the places already cited. Moreover, neither Origen, nor Jerome, nor the Rabbins of the Jews, who have been most accurate in searchiug out mysteries, did ever find any herein, which it is not likely but they would have done, had there been any in these words▪ For mine own part, I cannot see any such weight in the reasons brought against the mystery of the Trinity set forth hereby, as not to embrace that exposition. For although plural words be joined with singulars somtimesalso, when others are spoken of in respect of their manifold power, yet it followeth not, but that, when God is spoken of, his name may be put in the plural to intimate this and the mystery of the Trinity also. R. Simeon ben Jochai in Zoar saith, come and see the mystery of the word Elohim, there are three degrees and every degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one and joined in one, and are not divided one from another. How the distinction of the three persons is hereby taken away, as Calvin objecteth; I cannot see, unless it be in the Creation, wherein it is not to err, but to speak truth to say; that the three persons of the Trinity are undistinguished, as the Father, so the Son, and Holy Ghost being rightly held the Creator of the World. Et omnia opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa. To conclude then, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is set forth both the greatness and manifold power of God, and the great mystery of three persons in one Godhead, it being joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a verb of the singular number, or at the least of two, the Father and the Son, the Spirit which proceedeth from them both, being reserved to be spoken of til the next verse. Zanchi mentioneth a conceit of the Trinity also, intimated in the word Bara alone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 standing for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the spirit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Father: but this, he saith, is too curious.

And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The words translated [without form and void] are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are diversely rendered by divers. By the Septuagint invisible and uncompounded, in the vulgar Latin vain and empty; by Pagninus desolate and vain. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth properly signify vain, in which sense it is used twice, 1 Sam. 12. verse 21. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 voidand empty, the meaning is, that yet it was no earth in appearance, and not fit for the use, for which it was made, the waters covering all things, and so it wanting all trees, plants, beasts and other things, with which it was after replenished. Zanchi by the first word understandeth the want of all form externally and by the other, the want of internal vigor and virtue. But no man in short can describe it better then Ovid hath done, calling it rudis indigestaque moles, a rude and indigested heap. And because here were earth and water mingled together, and the water was the far greater part, having named it earth, he calleth it also the deep and waters. And the deep might this confused Chaos well be called or abyssus bottomless, the bottom whereof could not be sounded, because as Beda hath it, all was water then even to the Empyrean heaven. Now upon the face of this deep, he saith darkness was, that is, not darkness a created thing, as some would have it, but a want of all light, because light being made, this darkness was by and by chaced away. If that in Isaiah, I create light and darkness, shall seem to favor this opinion, it is easily answered, that by light and darkness there are meant nothing else, but good and evil, prosperity and adversity, and the word create is put for, bring in, or send. It is most probable, as Zanchi hath it, that the confused Chaos, that then was, was more earthy and thick in the lowest parts, being most an earthy substance and least watery, in the middle most watery, some earth being mixed withal, and in the highest a thinner kind of substance consisting of air and water, which for the want of light, was all yet like a thick and black cloud, and out of this highest were the heavens made together with the contiguous air, out of the second and third, the waters and the earth, the sea and land. But whilst these were all one confused heap, he saith, that the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The word translated moved upon, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying moving ones self, as a Hen doth sitting upon her egs to hatch them. So Basilius saith, that as a bird doth brood her egs, so the spirit of God did cherish and vivify the nature of the waters preparing them for generation. And Jerome also expoun death this word by [incubabat] And in this sense the same word is used, Deut 32. 11. But what is meant by the spirit of God, is not agreed amongst Expositors. The most general received opinion amongst the Fathers and later Writers is, that the holy Ghost is to be understood, and so as the Father and the Son were said before to have created the World, in like manner the holy Ghost is here said to have created all things also, For the holy Ghost is expressly spoken of, as he by whom the world was made Psal. 104. 30 Job 26. 13. and Esa. 40. 12, 13. speaking of the making of all things, he asketh, who helped the Spirit of the Lord, or who was his counselor? that is, in the making of all things, whereby it is plain, that the Spirit of God, that is, the Holy Ghost made the world, and put vital virtue into all things. Moreover that by the Spirit of God the Holy Ghost is meant here, is evident, because it is not spoken of, as a thing created, as the earth, and the waters, which go without any addition, whereas this Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and the word moved upon cannot agree to any creature but to the Holy Ghost only because nothing else had then any vivifying virtue therein. Yet there have been, that by the Spirit of God here have understood the air moved, not naturally then, but of God extraordinarily, and therefore called the Spirit of God. And so they have held, that as the elements of earth and water, in like manner the element of air is here set forth to have been made in the beginning. And Chrysostom will have neither the Holy Spirit of God, nor the air, but some divine virtue understood, whereby the waters had power to bring forth, as we see afterwards they did at the Word of God, and that by this virtue they were in continual motion. And to prove, that the Spirit of God may be taken in this sense, that which is said of the Spirit of God coming upon Samson, is alleged, and upon Saul. But I rest in the first, as being sufficiently proved and most countenanced by authorities. Who so desireth to read more of it, let him look into Zanchi de oper. Dei.

And God said, let there be light & there was light, &c. Here a great doubt offereth itself, what light this was, seeing the lights of heaven, the Sun, Moon, and Stars were not made til the fourth day. The best and the most commonly received resolution of this is that of Beda, Hugo, the Master of the sentences, and of other Schoolmen, that it was a certain lightsome body after the manner of a shining cloud in the upper part of this world, which being carried about did make the day and night, as the Sun being made out of it afterwards did. But because it was not so shining▪ and energeticall as the Sun, and so not of that force to make the earth to fructify and to send forth gtasse, plants and trees, and to cherish and comfort all terrestrial things, it pleased the great Creator, when he had upon the first day for an ornament to his work, and for the distinction of day and night, made this lightsome body, to frame out of it yet a greater and more glorious light upon the fourth day to vegetate the world with the influence thereof continually. And this light thus made was carried round about from East to West in twenty four hours, as the Sun now is, beginning the course and to be in all likelihood twelve hours after the first beginning of the Creation, till which time all was dark, in which regard the evening is said to have been first, and then the day to that part of the world, where man was afterwards made. And this light being thus framed, as it did enlighten at the instant one part of the world, so it left the other still in darkness, till that by the course, to which it was appointed, leaving this for a time, it enlightened that, and this is called here the distinction put betwixt the light and the darkness Basil saith, that by the light here, the nature of light is to be understood, and that the Sun was made the fourth day, that this light might be placed and carried about therein, as in a Chariot, being made lightsome and shining by this light within it: and with him agreeth Nazianzen. Theodoret saith, that this light was the universal light, which being all together was of that wonderful brightness, that it could not be beheld with eyes of men or of other earthly creatures, and therefore it was the fourth day made into the Sun, Moon and Stars, which might be more accommodated to sublunarian creatures, and further their generation. And to the same effect almost Augustine maketh a quaere, whether the Sun, Moon and Stars were not made after this to enlighten the inferior parts of the world, this light being made to enlighten the superior and more remote parts, or whether the Sun were not added to make the day more lightsome? Vatablus saith, that this light was the very Sun, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, but spoken of again afterwards, when the fixed stars were made by way of capitulation. For it is not to be thought, that the first three days differed from the days following, but were such, as they, and therefore they must be distinguished by the light of the Sun, as the other days were.

Calvin seemeth to be for some extraordinary light, which God made to shine, when there were none organs of light, thus showing, that he would not have us so to look at the means of any good, but to trust in him for a supply, when all means fail. Damascene by this light understandeth the element of fire. And these be the differences betwixt them, that held this light to be corporal, others again have held it to be a spiritual light, as Augustine, who by the heaven said to be created, understandeth the angelical nature, by the light made, their confirmation in grace, who were good Angels, and by the separating betwixt the light and the darkness, the casting out of the angels, that fell. And to the same effect teacheth Eucherius and Rupertus. But the Angels, as hath been already shown, were made the first day, as is set forth, when the making of heaven and earth is mentioned, and yet not understood by the word, Heaven, but hereby both heaven above, and the angels therein being meant, and this light was such, as made the day, and therefore certainly no spiritual, but a corporal light, as for those who are for a corporal light, let the Reader follow whom he pleaseth, but of all, the first seemeth to me most probable, neither can any else be admitted, but some absurdity will follow thereupon. Now touching the general words used here, and afterwards [God said] hereby is meant nothing else, but that God willed effectually that there should be light, and so of other things, and his willing of this is set forth by this phrase, because when we would have anything done, w • declare our will by speaking. Thus Vatablus, who also saith, that Servetus hereupon blasphemously inferred, that the Son, who is the Word, was not eternal, but now began to be, because it is not said, till now, that God said, but it is most likely that God is not brought in speaking, till now, not because the heavens and the earth were not made also by the Word, for all things, saith John, were made by the Word, and without it was made nothing that was made, but because now first by the making of light a distinction of things cometh in, and so God's wisdom beginneth to be conspiouous.

And the evening and the morning were the first day. That is, a large day consisting of 24 hours, which the Hebrews hereupon call Gnereb Bocher Dan. 1. 14. and the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 Cor. 11. 25. For the word day strictly taken for the time of light, is but 12 hours, Joh. 11. 9. According to this description of a day, the Jews begin their large day in the evening, Levite. 23. 32. And likewise the Athenians, the Chaldees at the Sun-rising, the Egyptians at noon, the Romans and all western parts at midnight.

And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, &c. The word translated firmament is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an expansion or extension, or spreading abroad, as a curtain is drawn out, for so this spreading abroad is compared Psal. 104. 2. and of God's spreading abroad of the heavens it is spoken, Isa. 40. 22. Ch. 42. 5. The Septuagint render it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a firmament, because by the power of God, this spreading of a thing not solid but thin and penetrable, is made a means as if it were a solid body, to keep the waters above from flowing down and drowning the world, as Calvin speaketh. The great question here is, what is meant by this expansion or firmament, because although it be plain that it is heaven, as it is said, God called the flrmament heaven, yet forsomuch as it is set to divide the waters above, from the waters beneath, it may justly trouble the Reader to think, whether all that is called heaven, both starry and aerean be meant, and if so, what waters be above all these and for what use they serve, or whether some part of this expansion be meant only, and which this is, and what the waters be, that are above it? Origen seeing this doubt hard to be resolved otherwise, fleeth to an allegorical sense, understanding by the waters above the firmament, the good angels, and by the waters beneath, the evil, applying hereunto that of the Psalmist, saying, let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord, that is, saith he, the angels above all visible heavens. But this is both recited by Epiphanius, and by Jerome and justly rejected, because the Angels were not made out of this confused Chaos, neither can they for any reason be called waters. All other Ancients for the most part understanding by the firmament the heavens, wherein the Sun, Moon and Stars are placed, hold that the waters above the firmament are those above the eighth sphere, and the heavens whereby they are stayed there, are a solid and firm body, either like unto crystall, which by art is made so solid out of water, or out of a fume being wonderfully solidated, and thickened; For according to the first of crystall speaketh Beda, Theodoret, Magister Historiae Scholasticae, Hugo, &c. according to the other, Basil and Ambrose, and the Master of Sentences, Gennadius, Philo Judaeus, and Josephus do not differ here from, Justin Martyr also saith, that the back of the heavens is all covered with water, and that of these waters there is a double use, one to mitigate and to temper the exceeding great heat of the stars, the other, that the back of heaven being by their weight pressed down might be kept from tossing thither and thither by the often and violent force of the winds. And Theodoret, Basil, Philo, Josephus, and Beda, yield the same reasons also, but Beda thinketh that moreover from hence came the superabundance of waters that drowned the world. And Ambrose that when any great floods suddenly happen, it is from hence, and when the Sun appeareth, as if it were all drenched with water. Augustine speaketh most confidently of these waters being above all visible heavens, saying, after much dispute hereabout, howsoever and what manner of waters soever they be, that are there, we doubt not, but that there are waters, for the authority of this Scripture is greater then all the capacity of man's wit. And he saith, that herein this great world is like unto man, who is Microcosmos, or a little world; for above all the inward parts, which are hot, the brain which is cold, is placed, to cool the over great heat of them. And he further addeth a reason to prove the being of cold waters here, from the coldness of Saturn, the highest of the seven Planets, and the nearest to these waters. There are also plain passages, whereby this is confirmed, Psalm 148. 4. ye waters that are above the heavens, and in the song of the three children, ye waters that are above the starry sky.

Yet both Calvin, Zanchi, Pererius, and many more new writers reject this opinion as false and improbable, holding, that these waters said to be above the heavens are none other then the waters in the upper region of the air, from whence rain and snow cometh; and to prove this, they first impugn the former tenet, saying, that waters cannot be above the stars, because so they should by miracle be held there, for so much as they are heavy, which is not to be thought; seeing in the natural constitution of things nothing is miraculous, but each thing is placed, as doth best agree with the nature thereof. And again, there can be no use of waters there, either to temper the supposed heat of the stars, because God could have made them such, as they should not have needed any cooling, or to flow down to drown the world at such time as God would have them, because, neither can it be conceived, how this should be through the starry heavens being solid, and if so, a vacuum must needs be granted at that time to have been in their place. And lastly, if there be waters there, the division of waters should not have been into two, but into three, viz. above the heavens, in the upper region of the air, and in the seas. Then this, that the waters above the firmament are in the upper or middle region of the air, the element of fire being in the highest, and the air wherein we breath and wherein the fouls fly, being the lowest, is proved because the holy Scriptures in many places do speak of waters here in very great abundance, as Jerem. 10. 13. Job 26. 8. Mal. 3. it is spoke of opening the windows of heaven to send rain, Cataractas Coeli, as when the world was drowned. But let us impartially consider, whether these reasons may not easily be taken away, and first that argument taken from the nature of waters being heavy may as well be urged against the being of waters in the air. For if it shall be said, that these waters at the first are vapors, which be light and apt to ascend, the same may be said of the waters, which be highest of all: for being yet more attenuated and made lighter, why should it be thought unreasonable, that they should be elevated to the highest? especially seeing it is a maxim in Philosophy, that everybody may be rarified and divided in infinitum, and so be made lighter in infinitum, as Augustine also reasoneth.

For the next argument, although man's wit cannot enter into the reason of God's actions, yet it becometh everyone with silence to subscribe to that, which he hath taught. But suppose that none other reason be given, but that waters are held there to flow down, when God w • ll have them come upon the earth in greater abundance to drown all, as he once did? This sometime seemed good to Beda and Ambrose, as hath been shown, and Epiphanius also held the same, and good cause for thus both men might be kept the more in awe before the flood, being all in continual danger of being drowned, and since although it be promised, that all shall never be drowned again, yet they may justly fear drowning still in particular places, as it hath befallen some suddenly at sundry times. As for the solidity of the heavens, hindering this, I cannot herein subscribe to Basil or Beda, that the heavens are called a firmament, because solid, but because being of a thin and most rare substance, yet by God's decree, they keep the waters above from the waters beneath, as if they were a firm and solid body. Thus also Rupertus. For the vacuum feared by this means, God can easily dilate the waters remaining, so that great abundance being poured down, yet there shall be no vacuum notwithstanding. Touching the third argument, if the waters in the middle region of the air come of vapors exhaled, he is so far from holding a distinction of waters in the Creation into three, contrary to Moses, that saith, the upper waters here meant, are above all these heavens, as that he rather consenteth with Moses, and they, that are for the waters in the air, are against him. For waters ingendered in time of natural causes were not distinct things at the first Creation, and by consequence that doctrine denieth that distinction, this affirmeth it. As for the Scriptures alleged, they prove not, but that the air may also be understood by this word Heaven, which no man denieth. I conclude then with the Ancients before named, that the waters above the firmament or heaven, are an huge heap of waters placed by God in the creation above all visible heavens, and so by the firmament, I understand all the heavens both starry and aerean. For that those waters are exceeding great, appeareth in that God said, let there be a firmament in the miost of the waters, as great a quantity being above, as in all the seas, whereby again is overthrown this opinion of waters in the air, being here meant, and that all the heavens are meant by the firmament, and not the air only, is plain, because speaking of the Sun, Moon and stars, he saith immediately after, that they were placed in the firmament. It is an evident offering of violence to the words to expound them thus, God said; let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, that is, part whereof may be in the midst, viz. the nether region of the air, for if it had been so meant, it should have been said so. And lastly the name firmament were improperly given to the starry heavens, unless it be in respect of the waters settledly divided hereby, and kept asunder by the decree of the Lord. The name by which the firmament is called, is heaven 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, there are waters covering the superficies thereof, as at the first the waters covered all things. And thus I have resolved this most difficult question. Some by the firmament dividing between the waters have understood only the eighth sphere, or together with it the seven other spheres, wherein the Planets are placed, holding that the waters above are none other then the ninth heaven, called by Astronomers the Crystalline heaven. But this opinion is easily confuted, because betwixt the waters above and beneath, there is besides these a great space of the whole air, and as the sky, so the air is plainly comprehended in this name, as appeareth verse 20. Moreover they, which expound it thus, do not hold, that this Crystalline heaven is true water, but so called, because in coldness and perspicuity it is like unto water, whereas by the text there are true waters, as there be under the firmament. And here because I have spoken of the ninth heaven, I will set down what the Rabbins have taught touching these heavens. Maimonides saith, there are nine spheres or heavens, 1 that of the Moon nearest to us, • that of Cochab, 3 of Nogah, 4 of the Sun, • of Maadim, 6 of Tsedack, 7 of Shabthai, 8 where all the stars be that are seen, the ninth that which turneth about every day, being highest of all. And all these are one above another, but because clear as Crystall, all the stars are seen through the first. And although they seem blew, yet they have no color, or other qualities, as heavy, light, &c.

This days work being finished, it is only added, the evening and morning were the second day, and not as at the end of other days works, God saw that it was good. Whereupon a question ariseth, why this clause is omitted here? Some of the Rabbins of the Jews, saith Musculus, yield this as a reason, because hell was made upon this day according to Isaiah 30. some because divisions are not good, and a division was made upon this day: some because by these waters thus divided, the world was afterwards drowned. Of the Fathers some say that the angels fell upon that day, and others, that the binary number not being pronounced to be good argueth, that contracts of marriage are not good: but this is contrary to chap. • . 18. The best reason rendered hereof is, that no perfect work being yet wrought, it is deferred to pronounce that this distinction of waters, and making of the firmament is good, till the gathering of the waters, that yet covered the earth into one place. For this being done, the next day it is immediately added, God saw that it was good, and because by saying so that is supplied, which here is wanting, as belonging to this, it is again repeated in the end of this third days works, verse 12. that no day might want this clause,

When the Angels fell, and hell was prepared, the scripture speaketh nothing in particular of the day, but that they fell before man, is evident, because the devil in the serpent tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.

And God said, let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so, God also called the dry land earth, &c. Here a great question offereth itself, how so great waters were gathered together, and kept from overspreading all the land, as they did before, seeing they are of a fluid nature, and how they can be said to have been gathered into one place, seeing there are many great rivers in other places, and the Caspian sea is divided from the Ocean, having none intercourse with it, so that it should seem, that the waters were not gathered into one, but into many places, or into two at the least? To the first part of this question, some answer, that the waters were gathered and are kept together upon heaps by God's Almighty Power, who did he but withdraw his hand which stayeth them, they would soon return and drown all the earth again, because, as they imagined, they are higher than the earth, and greater in quantity. And to this end these places are alleged. Ps. 104. 6. The waters shall stand upon the mountains. Psal. 33. Gathering the waters of the sea, as it were on an heap. Ecclesiasticus 39. At his word the waters stood as an heap. But thus it must be granted, that God doth a continual miracle, which in natural things is not to be admitted. For the first place alleged, it showeth only, what the state of this world was before this separating of the waters from the earth, as is plain by the words following, for then indeed the waters covered the highest parts of the earth, but not since, except only in Noah's Flood. Touching the other places, the waters may be said to be gathered on an heap, as it were in places made low for the purpose, and yet not be higher, than the earth.

Others therefore resolve this question better, that the waters being thinner and so further dilated before, were now made thicker and so made fit to be contained in a less room, the earth which before was even, being also hollowed low in those parts, where the waters should run, and more high and mountainous about it. And to this is applied that of Ps. 104. where it is said, At thy Word, the waters flee, the mountains ascend, and the fields descend, thou hast set them bounds, which they pass not; neither do they return to cover the earth. It is an error then, which is held by some, that the earth was plain in all parts, till the flood. For we do both read of mountains then, the tops whereof were all covered, and this discourse of the Psalmist is of mountains, as they were made at the creation, to say nothing of the commodiousnesse of hills and valleys for springs and rivers, and to make the air the more healthful. The very situation of the waters, to which we are said also to go down, evinceth, that they are in hollow and low places of the earth. And it is to be noted, that the word used here, which is translated; Let them be gathered together, cometh of Kava, from whence the Latins derive their Cavare, to make hollow.

For the gathering of the waters together into one place, it is not so to be understood, as if they should all be concluded together in one, but those waters only, which by and by are called the seas, the rivers, which run here and there in divers parts, were left to be continually flowing into the seas, not being an hindrance but a furtherance to the fertility of the earth, which was by the Lord intended, when he said, let them be gathered together, that the dry land may appear. And yet these rivers and springs are fed again, partly with waters sucked by the veins of the earth out of the seas, thus waxing sweet, and partly with the rain distilling from the clouds, as Rupertus elegantly setteth it forth, saying, the waters were not so gathered into one place, that the earth appearing should be cast out of the womb of the deep, as an abortive, but drawing waters thence incessantly into all the veins, it sucketh the copious dugge of the deep, and receiveth the early and latter rain from heaven ascending thence, and descending again by the clouds. If by the waters being gathered away from the earth, it had been left quite destitute, it could neither have hung together, because without waters, which, as glue holdeth the earth together, it would have been as small dust, neither could it have been fruitful with grass, corn, trees and plants, the nourishment whereof is the moisture in the earth. Touching the Caspian sea, which alone seemeth to stand in another place, having none intercourse with the Ocean, Strabo, Pliny, Dionysius de situ Orbis, and Basil, hold that this sea hath intercourse with the Artick Ocean: others, as Herodotus, Aristotle, and Ptolemy, that although in every part, it be included with mountains, yet being fed by huge rivers, it exonerateth itself into the Euxine sea by secret passages within the earth. Howsoever, it may be said, that this gathering together into one place is to be understod of all such places as into which God then brought the waters, that they might no longer cover the earth, the dry land thus being counted one place, and the place of seas another. And thus the waters which before flowed all over, were brought into a channel, compassing the earth round as a band. Now for the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 given to the seas, the reason is plain, but why the dry land should be called earth, it is not agreed. The Hebrew word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which some think cometh of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 currere to run, because the seas run round about it, and all creatures go and run continually upon it, some of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 been placitum, because it is of the good pleasure of God, that being thus freed from the waters, it is made fit for habitation and fructification; one fetcheth the reason of the name further from the Chaldee word, whereby the earth is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pavimentum or solum, because of the nearness of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to it. I subscribe to the second, not only because it is made thus of the good pleasure of God, but also because it is such, as that we and other creatures may be well pleased to inhabit upon it, as affording all comfortable things for this life. The Latin word is terra, a terendo, because we tread upon it with our feet, and certainly in giving the name, the expressing of the aptness for habitation is aimed at, as Zanchi hath it.

And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, and herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, &c. St. Augustine giveth a strange interpretation of these words, that God only gave virtue here to the earth, to bring forth these things, but that they were not brought forth, till afterwards, because Genes. 2. 5. it is said, when God made the plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew. For these words, saith he, are to be expounded thus; when he put virtue into the earth to produce herbs and plants, before they grew and sprang up, which was not till afterwards, and the reason is by and by rendered, for the Lord had not caused it to rain upon the earth, the rain being the means to make these things to grow and flourish. But it is not only said, that God commanded the earth to bring forth, but v. 12. it is added, that the earth did the same day bring forth, according to this word. Wherefore Augustine was deceived by those words of the 2 Chapter, the meaning whereof is nothing else, but that the earth was void of trees and plants, til God by his Almighty Power, brought them forth before they grew, he said, let them be, and immediately they came forth and adorned the earth, and thus it was provided to feed the creatures against the time, that they should be made. Touching the things here said, be brought forth, grass and herb, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated grass, doth properly signify that which groweth afterwards into a stalk, being yet young and tender like grass, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated herb, the same being grown greater, even unto perfection, and the bearing of seed, as Vatablus hath it, and after him Zanchi. Thus the Lord saith in the parable, that the corn groweth first into grasle, then into an ear, and so ripeneth. Hereby then is meant, that God made out of the earth, immediately to spring up all such green things, as the earth yieldeth, even to perfection, which in time are wont to grow up and to bear seed, as corn and grass, for that seedeth also, and herbs and flowers of all sorts. And as he made the earth to bring forth these to perfection instantly, so did he make it to bring forth all sorts of trees, that bear fruit, being at the same time full of fruit, ripe and ready for use, which fruit hath the seed within it And if it be doubted touching such trees, as bear no fruit, whether they were not also made now, some hold, that they were, but are not mentioned, it being supposed, that every man would understand them, as subordinate, although these only, which are the principal and of greatest use at the first, are named. But haply they did only begin then to spring out of the earth, being left to grow to more perfection in time. Howsoever, it is certain, that this decree of the Lord, gave virtue to the earth to produce them, and from thence forward to the end of the world, to yield herbs and trees growing, and increasing by degrees to perfection, each one according to the kind thereof, as they do to this day. And if trees were made at the first with ripe fruit upon them, and all growing things that yield seed were then seeded, it must needs follow, that the time of Autumn was the time, wherein the World was made, and so the month of September was anciently the first month of the year. For had it not been thus, how should man and all other creatures have been sustained, till things had been grown to perfection, and moreover God should herein have proceeded otherwise, then in the making of all other things out of the earth and waters, as man, fowls and beasts, seeing there is none that denieth them to have been made perfect at the first, man of such perfection, as that he had the wisdom and understanding of a man, and fowls able to fly and to ingender, and beasts in their full strength, and fit to multiply also. Tostatus therefore saith, that the most skillful of the Hebrews held, that God began to make the world September 25, and so man was made September 30. The Sabbath day then was the first of October, and so the six days of creation being cut off, it was the first of the year, and October the first month, And unto this agreeth Lyranus, and Josephus. And the old name of this month in the Chaldee tongue Thisri, signifying the beginning, maketh it most evident, that this was the first month. And the same is acknowledged by Jerome, who saith, that in all the east, the month Thisri was counted the first month of the year. Indeed the month Thisri was begun in September, and ended in October, and therefore it cannot certainly be said, what day the World was begun to be made, but only in one of these two months. If it be objected, that the Hebrews began their year in the month Nisan, which answereth to our March, Josephus showeth the reason hereof, saying, that God appointed Moses to order it so, because they were then by a famous deliverance brought out of the Egyptiacall servitude, therefore he saith, that this should be unto them the beginning of the year. But anciently the month Marsonone, which answereth to our October or November, was counted the second month of the year, wherein Noah's flood began. And still, saith he, but only that in regard of Festival times and sacred things the months are otherwise counted, in regard of Fairs and other worldly things, the account was not innovated, but went still as in times past.

And that in autumn the year was then reckoned to begin in respect of civil things, appeareth in that the feast of in-gathering the fruits of the earth, is appointed to be kept immediately after the said gathering in ended, which is usually in September, and this time is called the end of the year, and therefore the beginning of the next year must needs be yielded to have been then also. And that which is brought against this here maketh plainly for it, viz, that the month Nisan at their coming out of Egypt is commanded to be counted the first month to them. For if they had always reckoned that for the first, it should not doubtless have been so ordained, because they would in course have kept it, as the first, without such an ordinance. Wherefore it is plain, that the months of the year were otherwise counted before that, viz. from September or October, &c. and how could this have been so, but that even from Adam, who knew the beginning of the year, they were counted so? Yet most of the ancients have held, that the creation was in the spring time. Eusebius saith, that it was created the same day that Christ rose again, viz. March 25. so likewise Athanasius, and Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 14. Leo papa serm. 9. de passion Domini. Gregor. Nazianz in Oratione in novam Dominicam. I sidorus, Damascene. Rabanus, &c. whereof some yet have stood for the 15 of the Kalends of April, that is March 18, the day upon which Christ suffered. And for this time they urge the ordinance before mentioned, that this should be the first month, and that it is the most pleasant time and fittest for generation, as it is most likely the time of the Worlds beginning was. Others again have stood for the month of July, because in Noah's time, it is said to have been the 24 day of the eleventh month, when the Dove returned to Noah with a green olive branch. For if it were the eleventh month of the year, when the olive tree put forth leaves, which must needs be in May, for then, saith Pliny, the olive and the vine do wax green; June was the twelfth and last, and then July must be the beginning of a new year, and as the year was counted then, so it is not to be doubted, but it was counted even from the time of Noah. But this is a most weak reasoning, for both the same Pliny saith the olive leaves do never fall off, or loose their green color, and if the year be begun in September or October, who knoweth not but that then and therefore much more a month before all trees hold their leaves still? And for the other opinion so generally received, the reasons brought are not sufficient to weigh against that which hath been said for the beginning in autumn. For so soon as Adam was made, to show that things were in that state, that they are in in autumn, the fruit of the trees in paradise is spoken of, any being allowed him to eat of, but only of the tree in the midst of the garden. So that either it must be said, trees yielded fruit twice a year, in the spring and autumn, which is not probable in a temperate place, or else it was the ordinary time of fruit, when the world was first made, viz. autumn, But it may further be demanded here, why all things were made to spring up thus to perfection, there being yet no Sun nor rain, as is said Gen. 2. 6. which are the ordinary means of producing them? To this Calvin answereth well, that God would hereby show, that although he doth commonly work by means, yet he can, when it pleaseth him, without all means provide necessaries for us, that we may put our trust in him, even when ordinary means of sustentation fail. Now God having made the earth, to bring forth plants and trees of all sorts, it is added, he saw that it was good, and finally, God looked upon all that he had made, and it was very good.

A question therefore here offereth itself; whether thorns and briars, and other hurtful and poisonous things were not now brought forth? To this Basil saith, that the very thorns of the rose-bush were not then, but afterwards added for a punishment of man's sin. And Augustine saith, that for the sin of man, the earth was cursed to bring forth briars and thorns, not that itself should feel these thorns, for it is without sense, but that it might set the fault of man's sin always before his eyes, that he might be admonished to turn from sin, and to keep God's Commandments, and poisonous herbs were also created for a punishment of sin, because man, when he had sinned, began first to be mortal. To the same effect, also speaketh also O Ecolampadius, as he could do no less upon those words Gen 3. briars also and tborns it shall bring forth unto thee, so that the earth did not at the first out of its own nature bring them forth, but being accursed for sin; yet some there are, that affirm these and all poisonous things to have been brought forth now, but man had that understanding to know the evil thereof; and to eschew it, and to use the good of every creature, as there is none but is good for some use at the least for medicine.

But before that man had sinned, what use had he of medicinal things, being subject to no disease? and wherefore then could these hurtful things have served, and if man being in that state, they could not have been good for any use unto him, how could it have been said, that all things made then by God were very good?

And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years. A question is first made here by Expositors, wherefore the lights of heaven, by [Quest. 1] whose influence plants and trees do grow, were not made first, but after the earths producing of these? But to this I have answered already out of Calvin upon verse 12. and the same answer in effect is made by Chrysostom, Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, &c. that God would not make the stars first, although more excellent and the causes of growing things, to teach us, that the Sun, Moon and Stars are not the only causes producing them, for they were before these, but God, that he alone might be by all Nations adored and worshipped, and not the host of heaven; notwithstanding the great benefits, which we partake of by their means. For that men would be apt to fall to idolatry this way, lamentable experience did afterwards teach both in Jews and Gentiles. But it is further questioned, why the stars were made before [Quest. 2] other earthly creatures, all things being now made so upon earth, as that they might hereby have been sustained? To this Theodoret answereth, that the light, which then was, could not have been endured by the eyes of the creatures, until such time, as the piercing force thereof was abated by distinguishing it into innumerable stars, it was of so great brightness. Others, that the three last days of the Creation were spent in the making of things, which were for ornament, and therefore it was meet, that the heavens, which were the chief, should first be replenished with lights. I do not think that of Theodoret so probable, because that light was so far from being more bright then the light of the Sun, as it is better compared by others to the light in the morning, before the Sun rising. For God in making the world proceeded by degrees, every day adding something to the perfection thereof, whereas if the light were more excellent at the first: when these lights were made, there should have been a declining from that excellency, which was before, which is not to be imagined, but rather contrariwise, that the light being less before, was now increased. I subscribe therefore rather to the other reason, it being most meet, that the heavens which have the priority in all things, should have it in the lightsome bodies, wherewith it was to be replenished, before, that the earth was replenished with those, that feed and live thereupon. But it is further demanded, why, there being light before, God speaketh here of lights, as if there had been none hitherto, and what use that [Quest. 3] light after this served for? This hath been already cleared in speaking upon the making of the light, and therefore the Reader may have recourse again thither v. 3. Only it is to be conceived, that some parts of the heaven being thicker, and not now first condensated, this light was diffused amongst them all, but chiefly to the Sun and Moon, some great augmentation thereof being new made, that it might enlighten all.

To divide the day from the night, &c. and for days and for years. How do these [Quest. 4] lights divide day and night, light and darkness, making days and years? To this Zanchi answereth, that by light and day one and the same thing is not here to be understood, as neither by darkness and night, and that days mentioned in the second place, are not to be understood, as day in the first, because there is a light of the Moon and Stars, and a day, as days are called, that make years, consisteth of 24 hours, whereas it being divided by the distinction of day and night, is sometimes but half so much, sometime more, sometimes less, this day being therefore called artificial, the other natural. To distinguish between the day and the night, then, saith he, is between the artificial day and night, and between the light and darkness, is between that light which is given by these lights of heaven by day or by night, and the darkness which is when none of them appear, and by the revolution of the Sun, which is once in 24 hours a natural day is made, and of such days a year. In all which others consent with him, but only in his distinction of light and day, and of darkness and night: for these words are promiscuously used throughout this Chapter, yea it is expressly noted verse 5. that God called the light day, and the darkness night, and in speaking of the creation of the lights here, when he cometh to repeat the doing of that, which God is said to have commanded to be done, verse 14. 15. instead of saying, to divide betwixt the day and the night, he saith, to divide betwixt the light and darkness, verse 18. [Quest. 5] using the worlds light and day, darkness and night, as setting forth one and the same thing, so that it is plain, they are not divers but the very same. But a greater question is yet behind, what is meant, when he saith, let them be for signs and for seasons? Touching seasons or set times, the question is easily resolved. For by the word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the festival times of the Jews are set forth, as the Pasch, New-moons, and feast of tabernacles, and accordingly the Psalmist saith, he hath made the Moon for set times. And thus the Rabbin's of the Jews expound this word here, but others add also the seasons of the year, Summer and Winter, the Spring and Autumn, and also times politically set to keep Fairs, and for other meetings about affairs of the Commonwealth: for by the course of these lights of heavn, all set times for any purpose are distinguished. Touching signs, it is more controverted, of what the Sun, Moon and Stars may be looked at, as signs? The judiciary Astrologer beareth himself hereupon, as a sufficient warrant, not only to prognosticate of the weather, but of events, that shall happen to men and women by calculating their nativities by the position of the heavens, and the aspects of the planets, and by having respect hereunto at the undertaking of any business. But herein he hath all Divines that ever wrote, against him. For although the sun be set to rule over the day, and the moon over the night, yet over men he doth not say, that they or the stars shall rule. Moreover the vanity of the Astrologer in this matter appeareth in that in one minute, they acknowledge such variations to be in the positions of the heavens, as that he, which is born this minute shall be most fortunate, but he, which is born the next, most unhappy, seeing so small a point of time, may easily be mistaken, as Basil reasoneth. He, that will, may read both Basil more at large, and Johan. Vicus Comes Mirandulae, who hath written twelve learned books against this Astronomancy. Now as the Chaldean and Astrologer, who by the stars taketh upon him to divine of men's destinies, go too far, so there are some that on the contrary side straighten the significations of the stars too much, saying, herein they are signs, in that the sun being nigh setting showeth, that night is near, and when the rising thereof approacheth, that day is near, and when it cometh towards us, that the spring and summer are near, and when it is going from us, that autumn and winter approach. But I rather hold with them, who understand the stars to be set for signs, not only in these respects, but that hereby we might conjecture of the weather, that so businesses of husbandry may be ordered accordingly, and sometimes of judgments imminent, and of the last judgment, to be stirred up to repentance, and sometime of mercy and grace approaching. For touching the weather, our Savior Christ himself, alloweth by the Suns appearing red and clear at the going down, or red and lowering at the rising together fair or fowl weather to be signified hereby. And for judgments, the Sun being contrary to the course of nature in the eclipse, when Christ suffered, and both Sun and Moon three days together in Egypt, were certain signs of God's anger: for mercies the Sun and Moon standing still in the days of Joshua, the Sun going back upon the dial of Ahaz in the days of Hezekiah, and the star appearing to the Magi, when Christ was born, were signs of God's great grace and favor. Lastly, touching the great day of Judgment to come, the Lord saith, that signs shall appear in the Sun, Moon and stars, and then he biddeth his to lift up their heads with joy, as Zanchi hath observed, and before him Basil, Augustine, and Philo were of the same mind also. Now as there are signs vulgarly known, as the Sun or Moon compassed about with a circle to be a sign of fowl weather, and the Moon being sharp and thin upon the third day to be a sign of fair weather, but contrariwise, being obtuse and thick: so there are signs known only by more art and study to the skillful, and more experienced, by the rising of stars; yet, as the weather doth not always fall out, though most commonly, according to the signs vulgarly known, so it doth not according to the other signs; for which cause they cannot certainly be built upon, it being a thing reserved to God alone to know certainly, what shall come, that the creature might not in anything be respected only, but our eyes might be lifted up to the Creator, and he alone might he worshipped and served by us. But it is objected, that [Object.] Astrology is condemned as vain, Isa. 47. 12. 13. and Jerem. 10. 2. I answer, [Sol.] Jeremy biddeth, that we should not fear the signs of heaven, not meaning, that God did not thereby sometimes signify judgments to come, but that they had no power to hurt, for which they should be adored, as the Virginians are said to worship the devil that he might not hurt them. For when any evil is signified to come hereby, it is to be taken, as God's commination for sin, to stir us up to repentance, being thus assured, that either he, with whom it is free to do, or not to do, as by these signs he signifieth, will avert the evil, or provide that it shall not be evil unto us. And for that place in Isaiah, it is plainly against the opinion of power being in the stars, whereupon wicked people were sometimes confident of good to come, although they went on in their sins, and against conjecturing of the weather a year before upon imaginary grounds.

This question being thus answered, another yet remaineth, whether the Moon and Stars, have any light of their own, or a light only borrowed of [Quest. 6] the Sun, because he calleth them all lights, implying, that they are such originally and by their first creation, and yet it should seem, that the Moon being so variable in the light thereof according to the position of it in respect of the Sun, being sometime lesser, and sometime greater, borroweth all the light therefrom, and that the stars have their light from the Sun also, because whilst it shineth, they never appear?

Answer; Many learned Authors hold, that the Sun only hath light [Answ.] in itself, but that the Moon and stars borrow their light of the Sun, as Albertus magnus, Avicenna, Beda, Plinius lib. 2. cap. 6. Aristotle lib. 2. de Coelo, &c. But others think that the Stars, which are of the eighth sphere, being above the Sun, have a proper light of their own only, which also seemeth most probable, because there is none appearance to the contrary. But that the Moon borroweth the greatest part of the light of the Sun, all consent, it appearing to be so by the great variableness thereof, being sometime lesser, and sometime greater. And whereas it is together with the Sun spoken of, as a light of heaven, for it is said, God made two great lights, this is, in respect of the light shining upon the earth, as Calvin speaketh. For Moses was nothing curious in setting down these things to rude and ignorant people, and therefore he speaketh to their apprehension, leaving the secrets of Astronomy to the more acute and subtle to be pryed into, which also was the cause, why he calleth the Sun and Moon two great lights; not in regard of their magnitude, the Moon is certainly known to be much less, than one of the fixed stars, but for the light, which cometh in most abundance there-from; and the Moon is much greater to the sight of the eye, than any star, because it is by many miles nearer to the earth. Touching the greatness of the bodies of these lights that they are exceeding great all agree, and not as they appear to us being so far distant from them. And this common sense evinceth, because if a man from an high mountain beholdeth men or beasts, they seem as little as birds unto him, as Basil reasoneth. But how great they are, there have been divers opinions. Anaximander saith, that the Sun is as great as the whole earth, Anaxagoras greater then Peloponesus, but Ptolemy saith, that the proportion of the Suns diameter compared to the diameter of the earth, is as 11 to 2, and therefore the body of the Sun appeareth, if the terms of both be cubically multiplied, to be as 166 to 1. The Moon is by Pliny held to be greater, than the earth, as he gathereth by the eclipse of the Sun, whereof that is the cause, and Basil saith, that it cannot be less than the earth, but others hold that it is no greater than the fortieth part of the earth, as Zanchi saith. Moreover the stars in the eighth heaven, which be of the first magnitude, which are 15 are by Astronomers said to be 107 times greater than the earth. But whether Venus and Mercury, two of the Planets be so great as the earth it is by some doubted. But to the exact knowledge hereof none can attain. Lastly, whereas God is said then to have made the [Quest. 7] Stars also, but not in what number, a question may be, how many stars there are? But this is a thing not to be found out by mortal man, because it is proper to God to number them all, and as for man, Abraham is bidden to tell the number of the stars, if he can, it being promised, that his seed should be as they in number, that is, innumerable to man. Yet of the fixed stars, where this infinite multitude is, there are numbered by Astronomers 1022 which are distinguished into 41 constellations, representing so many several beasts and other living creatures, and therefore called accordingly 12 in the Zodiaque, 11 in the south, and 18 in the north. But besides these there are a great many more which cannot be numbered. The names of some of them are set down Job 38. 31. Amos 5. 8. 2 Kings 23. 5. As Cesil, Cimah, Mazzaroth, which we call Arcturus, Orion, Pleiades, Planets, by the rising whereof storms, tempests and fair weather proceed.

And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and foul, that may fly in the open firmament of heaven, &c. The Hebrew is a little different, the creeping creature of a living soul, that is, the creeping things of the water, consisting of soul and body; for fishes, because they have no feet to go upon are called creeping creatures, according to Hesychius, their going is a kind of creeping in the waters, and therefore the word used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wich cometh of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to run, because the fishes creep so swiftly in the waters, as if they did run, as Zanchi hath it. And touching the next words in the Hebrew, they are, and let the fowls fly in the midst of the firmament, whereupon occasion hath been taken to doubt, whether the fowls were made out of the waters or no, because it is not said, and the fowls which may fly, but [Quest. 1] [which] is put in in the translation, as understood, it being left undetermined of what the fowls were made, and declared only, where they should be. Some therefore hold, that they were not made out of the waters, but the earth, which they think is also strongly proved, Chap. 2. 19. Out of the ground God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and Aristotle numbereth them amongst terrestrial creatures, yet both amongst the ancient fathers, and now most commonly it is held, that they were not made out of the waters. Saint Augustine saith, that they were made out of the vapourous part of the water, or air, wherein they fly, which is full of watery vapors, because of the nearness to the water. Rupertus likewise saith, that they were made ex aquâ tenuiori, & nebulosâ, And Calvin and Zanchi, &c. hold the same. But Vatablus because of that passage Chap. 2, 19. saith, that some of them were made out of the water, as watery fowls, and others out of the earth. But he attended not to these words, every fowl, which Moses saith, God made out of the ground. Saint Augustine, and they, that stand for the making of the water, say, that in Chap. 2. 19. where the fowls as beasts are said to be made out of the ground, by ground both earth and water are to be understood, as making together one Globe. Or else, that those words are not to be understood, as if the fowls also were formed out of the ground, but thus; when God had formed every beast out of the ground, and when he had formed every fowl of the air, it being not set forth, out of what the fowls were formed.

But I cannot see, how either of these answers can satisfy, not the first, because the ground or earth hath hitherto been set forth, as distinct from the waters, nor the second; the matter out of which the beasts were made being declared, when their making is again mentioned, what reason can there be, that the matter out of which the fowls were made, should be concealed? For if they were made out of the waters, it had been easy to have added, and every fowl out of the waters, which because it is not added, there is no evasion left, but it must needs be yielded to be the same with the beasts, viz. [Object.] the earth. But it will be said, if Moses had not meant, that the fowls as well [Sol.] as the fishes were made out of the waters, he would doubtless have set forth out of what they were made, as he did in speaking of all other creatures. To this I answer; forsomuch as he hath not finally omitted, but taught this Chap. 2. 19. it is in effect all one, as if he had set it down here, as the manner of making woman is omitted in this Chapter, but expressed in the next. And indeed why such a repetition of making these creatures out of the ground should be made there, a reason can hardly be rendered, but because the original of fowls had not been hitherto declared, If a reason be asked, why it was thus deferred, I know none other, but that it is not altogether left untouched in these words, and let the flying fowl • fly over the earth, &c. for here, though obscurely, the earth is pointed at, as the place from whence the fowls come. And indeed it were strange when as all other creatures live where they were made; if the fowls were made out of the waters, that they should live upon. the earth. Object. If it be further objected, but why is the creation of fowls spoken of together with fishes, if they come not from one original? Sol. To this we may answer that some of them live most in the water, and all the rest for the most part in the air, wherein they fly from place to place, and the air and water were at the first all one, and therefore it was not unfit in speaking of the creation of fishes, to speak of fowls also. Moreover, they are in many things alike, as in levity and agility, and as the one hath sins, so the other hath wings, as the one scales, so the other feathers, both want ears, and bladders to hold their water and dugs and milk, and their motion is a like very swift, the one flying in the air, and the other as it were flying in the water, and to either of them the tail is of great use to direct their course, and in fishes there is spawn like unto eggs, as eggs are in fowls, yet in their flesh they are altogether unlike, the flesh of fowls being, as that of other terrestrial creatures, as their food is from the earth. So that howsoever for their great similitude unto fishes, their creation might well be spoken of together, yet the solidity of their bodies showeth, that they came not from the fluid or watery vaporous air, but from the solid ground. My reverence of antiquity is such, that I am not willing thus to go from common received expositions, but the evidence of reason herein rather beareth sway with me, because thus both places speaking of fowls may well be reconciled, but otherwise, not possibly.

If it be further demanded here, why fishes and fowls are made before [Quest. 2] beasts? Saint Augustine answereth, that the air and water are nearest and most like unto the heavens, and therefore Moses descendeth orderly after the narration of the making of heavenly bodies, to tell of these. Others that he doth thus by proceeding from things less perfect to the more perfect, first, trees and plants being made, which have but a vegetative life, then fishes and fowls, which howsoever they be sensitive, yet they are not so sensitive as beasts, amongst which many come near unto man.

But it is singularly added, then God created great Whales: why are these spoken of by name, but none of the beasts likewise, but only in general? To [Quest. 3] this it is answered, that Whales are the greatest of all other creatures in this World, whereby the mighty power of God is most set forth, as Job 41. and therefore good reason there was, that they above all should be nominated. For in the Atlantic sea, there are Whales seen like great mountains, as both Basil and Theodoret have it, so that Mariners sometimes have thought them to have been little Islands. The word used for Whales is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whence the Latin word Thinni cometh, and it fignifieth all very great, both fishes and dragons, but here it is taken by all for the greatest, viz. Whales only. And it is to be noted, that the word (created) is used, to set forth the making of these, which is not in speaking of other creatures, but only of the prejacent matter of all in the beginning of the Chapter, and of man. The reason doubtless, is because the power of God did most appear in making of the Whales, and therefore to set forth an extraordinary act of the divine power, this word is here used.

Now the fishes and fowls being made, it is said, God blessed them, &c. but [Quest. 4] when the beasts and creeping things of the earth are spoken of, no such thing is spoken of them. What may the reason of this be? To this the Hebrew Rabbin's answer, that hereby was intimated, that the Serpent should by and by tempt man to sin, whereby a curse and not a blessing should come upon him and all other earthly creatures. Others, that hereby was signified the superabundance, that should be of fishes and fowls above beasts and creeping things of the earth, according to the signification of the word first used, when the waters are bidden to bring forth fishes, for, as the word signifieth; it is is rightly translated, let them bring them forth abundàntly. Origen will have by the first word the exceeding great increase of their bodies signified, and by the other their multiplying: but the first word used is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fructify (and so is the same in effect with the other multiply) these two words being used to set forth the same wonderful multiplication of these creatures. Or else it may be said, these words of blessing are omitted in speaking of the beasts for brevities sake, as being understood from the former using of them so little before, or because man being made upon the same day, for his excellency above the beasts, it is omitted in speaking of them, and so the more remarkably added in speaking of him. But certainly from God's blessing the beasts have a power to multiply also.

And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, &c. when the waters were bidden to bring forth fishes, it was said before, let them bring forth the moving creature that hath life, but the earth must bring forth the living creature or the living soul, as it is in the Hebrew, but hereby is meant the whole compositum, consisting of soul and body, and so whether it be read the one way or the other, it cometh to the same, but yet in that the soul is spoken of, as brought forth out of the earth, Zanchyes note is true, that the soul of a beast and of other creatures is not, as the soul of man from above, but out of the corruptible earth or waters, as the body, and so when one perisheth there is an end of the other also. But what may be the reason of this diversity in speaking of the [Quest. 1] creatures brought forth out of the water and out of the earth? It is conjectured, that hereby is intimated more imperfection to be in the fishes, and [Quest. 2] more perfection in the beasts, which hath been touched before. But why is the beast made the same day with man? Answ. Because beasts keep together with man upon earth, as neither fishes nor fowls do, and some of them are helpful unto him in tilling of the ground, and for divers other uses. But if beasts be more perfect than fishes, why were they not made first? Answer; [Quest. 3] It hath been already shown, that God's order in making all things hath been from the beginning to proceed from things less perfect to the more perfect, the rude matter of all being first created, and then distinguished, &c. But there is also another reason here yielded, it pleased God to replenish the superior parts of the World, with creatures first, and then the inferior, first heaven, then waters and lower Region of the air, and lastly the earth.

But in speaking of these creatures he calleth them by three names, beasts, [Quest. 4] creeping things, and cattle. What therefore is to be understood by either of these? Answ. The first word in Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated jumenta, cattle, setting forth those that are useful for man, and are made to serve him, being therefore so called à juvando from helping, such are horses and oxen, &c. and not only the tame, but the wild, that live upon grass, as Hares and Conies, &c. the last word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated fera, a wild beast setteth forth those, that live in wildernesses, and are hurtful unto man, but yet to be subdued by him, as Lions, Bears, Wolves, &c. that live upon flesh, the middle word creeping things, setteth forth such as have no legs or very short ones, so that their bellies go upon the ground, as all Expositors agree. Yet Luther saith, it may be doubted, whether these differences always hold or no, because verse 30. they are all set forth by one word beasts, to whom, as to the fowls, the Lord saith, he had given the green herb for meat, but there is only one word used, so that this distinction may still hold, where more words are used. But the earth is bidden to bring them forth after their kind. [Quest. 5] Here then may be a question, whether any such beasts, as come of divers kinds ingendering together were then made; as Mules, that come of an horse and an asse, and the Leopard of a Lioness, and a Libard, and a Lynx of a Wolf and an Hart? To this Rupertus answereth, that these creatures are adulterine and begotten besides the course of nature, and therefore were not made at the beginning. In which answer, I cannot see, how any should but rest, because if every beast were made after their kind, there could not possibly be any mixed, coming of two kinds at the first, but this must needs happen in process of time Moreover, that God made not these, but that they came of a confusion afterwards displeasing to God, appeareth, because he forbiddeth the coupling of beasts with beasts of another kind, and it is noted, that Ana found mules first in the wilderness many hundreds of years after the Creation. Yet some except here against, saying, that although mules were then found first by Ana, yet it followeth not, but they might be from the beginning, and touching that prohibition of the coupling together of divers kinds, that this was only allegorical, as the not sowing of ground with divers seeds, to show that marriages were not to be made with the uncircumcised, and not to show the thing in itself to be displeasing unto God. But the first reason of everything being brought forth after the kind, is not hereby answered, neither is it likely that mules should so long a time after have been spoken of as so rare beasts, but that they were new, neither had any man ever seen any such before. For the allegory in that prohibition of divers beasts coupling together, I acknowledge it, but yet if God had made any such mixed creatures, I cannot see, how the very thing literally understood could have been by him forbidden, because he never forbad anything, but that, which was voluntarily done besides the first natural course for any signification. And such also were the two other things in the forenamed place adjoined, the plowing with an Ox and an Ass, and the sowing of the same ground with divers seeds: for these were things in time invented by men, and strange copulations came from the strange lusts of the creatures. If a question be further made touching [Quest. 6] Monsters, and such living things, as are bread of corruption, as lice, fleas, flies, &c. whether there were any kinds of such made at the first? Saint Augustine moveth and answereth one of these, that such living things, as are bred of the corruption of other things were then made, but not such, as are bred of dead bodies corrupted. But there is a like reason of the one sort and of the other. And therefore Basil without such distinction saith, not only the more perfect fishes were bred of the waters by God's command, but also frogs, and gnats, &c. But I cannot see, how anything coming of corruption should have a being then, when there was nothing corrupted, but all very good. It is sufficient, that God put into the creatures then a generative power, to produce such things afterwards when they should be dead or corrupted, so that it may be said, they were then potentially, but not actually. And yet the world was not imperfect at the first no more then it is now, seeing new species of such things are daily produced. Touching the other about monsters, Augustine was opposed herewith by the Manichees, who objected, that all things made by God at the first were not good, for these were not, and yet God made them, or else he made not all things. To this he answereth, Monsters cannot be reckoned amongst those creatures, of which Moses saith, that they were very good, because they all were without either the fault of excess or defect, being in all things very perfect, so as monsters are not. And therefore it is certain, that they were begotten after the sin of man, but not without the will of God, and although they are not perfect, yet both in respect of their substance, and for some uses they are good. For according to their name Monstra, they do monstrare show things that may be profitable for us to know, viz. that sin hath been committed, that we may be moved to repent, and how much we are bounden to God, that when he could have made us such also, yet he hath dealt more graciously by us, to be stirred up to due thankfulness therefore. For in that there are monsters both amongst men and other creatures, the corruption of man appeareth to be very great, extending itself even to the dumb creatures. If it be said, but thus more kinds are still created, it is answered, not so, but bodies are daily framed for creatures some of one sort and some of another, as it must needs be to the worlds end, for monsters are not new kinds of creatures, but the same diversified by excesses or defects, or misplacing some members. All things then were made by God, and were neither eternal, as some Philosophers have thought, that the kinds of them were, nor made by Angels, according to others, nor bred naturally out of the earth by virtue of the Sun, as Epicurus held.

And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion, &c.

The dignity of man herein appeareth to be great above other creatures hitherto spoken of, that there is a consultation about the making of him, and in the most excellent fashion, that might be, in the image of God himself, more particularly his dignity appeareth first, in that God consulteth about the making of him, so as he did not about the making of other creatures, but only said, let them be, or be brought forth, and they were. Man was not made of God by an imperial word, saith Tertullian, but by a familiar hand, that loving speech, being premised, Let us make man, &c. 2. In that he was made after God's image, and in his likeness. 3. In that all other creatures in this world were subjected unto him, Saint Ambrose saith, that this was man's greatest dignity, because some of the creatures are far greater and stronger, then man, as Elephants, Lions, and Tigers, &c. who yet are by man subdued so, as he saith, that they are taught as little ones, serve as servants, are holpen as weak, beaten as fearful, and corrected as subjects, &c. Zanchi, because when God's subjecting of the beasts to man is spoken of, one word translated jumenta cattle, only is used, thinketh that the wild beasts were not made subject unto him, but sheep and oxen, &c: as it is Psalm 8. But both experience now teacheth, and Saint James affirmeth, that all beasts are subdued by him. So that under this word here all are to be understood, though distinguished into three kinds before. 4. As all creatures were subjected unto man, so they were brought unto him to be named, it being intimated hereby, of what great natural knowledge he was, and this bringing of the creatures unto him being, as it were an acknowledgment on their part, that he was their Lord and Sovereign, and therefore they ought to obey and serve him. 5. Although he were made of the same earth, out of which the beasts came, yet it was not by being produced, as they, but by being formed, as it were with God's hands, a soul being breathed unto him which is immortal. 6. His very body also was made so, as to live forever, if he had not sinned. 7. He was set in a most delectable place, paradise, which abounded with all varieties of fruits for food and delight, when as no such provision was made for other creatures. 8. He was endued with the spirit of prophecy to tell, whence Eve was taken, although he saw it not. 9. Lastly, when God hath appeared at any time in any similitude, he hath not been seen like unto any other earthly creatures, but like to man only, this being a fore-runner of the joining of man unto God afterwards in one person.

But here a question offereth itself, to whom God spake when he said, let [Quest. 1] us make man; for I shall not need to say anything of the order of making him, being the most excellent, last of all others, because it hath been already shown, that this was done by proceeding from things imperfect to the more perfect, and this indeed addeth more yet to man's excellency, in that, like unto a great Lord, the house of this world is made fit for him, and furnished with all necessaries, before that he is brought into it. Now touching the question upon these words, (let us make man) the Fathers generally agree, that this was a consultation held by the blessed Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who are herein declared to be three persons, but because it is said (after our image) that they are but one essence or substance. The Jews who will by no means acknowledge the Father and Son in the Godhead, have devised other expositions, saying, that God here spake to himself, after the manner of great men, who are wont to speak of themselves in the plural number, and some, that he spake to the earth, as out of which the body of man was framed, others that he spake to the Angels whom he used as Ministers to make the body of man and other earthly creatures, he only breathing into him the breath of life. But the last of these is well confuted by Saint Augustine, saying, if God had said only, let us make man, it might have been understood, as spoken to the Angels, but because it followeth after our image, and it is a wickedness to believe, that man was made after the similitude of Angels, and that the similitude of God and of Angels is one and the same, therefore the plurality of the Trinity is rightly understood here, which Trinity yet appeareth to be one God, because it is said, fecit, not fecerunt.

And Saint Amb. saith, that God could not speak thus to his servants, because it is not to be thought, that servants were consorts with their Lord in his works, or the works with their author, and if this should be admitted, that the work were common to God and angels, yet the image was not common. The Son therefore is to be understood, who hath said, I and the Father are one, and of whom it is said, being the image of the invisible God, &c. And touching the body of man, which they say was made by the angels, it is expressly taught, that God made it out of the earth. For the rest of the Fathers consenting, that the mystery of the Trinity is hereby set forth; see Rupert. lib. 2. de trinit. & oper. eius. Theodoret quest. 20. in Gen. Cyril. lib. 1. adversus Julianum, Chrysostom. in Gen. 1. And therefore as God spake not to the Angels, so neither did he speak to the earth, for that were absurd, that the workman should speak to the dead matter, out of which he meant to frame anything, nor to himself, because man, who hath the use of reason, speaketh not to himself, but to others. And of as little moment is that which Calvin commemorateth, that some have expounded the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 flat: and which Musculus speaketh of, that he spake to the four Elements. And hitherto of the consultation, Let us make man.

Another question followeth about the word, Adam translated Man, what [Quest. 2] it signifieth? and whether the soul or body of man, or both be meant hereby, and whether man alone, or both man and woman? To this it is answered. First, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Adam cometh of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying red earth, such as the earth was in the first purity thereof, as Eusebius hath it, who also addeth, that man is sometime called by another name, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying forgetful, because the reasonable nature being joined to a body is made forgetful. Being incorporeal it is divine and reasonable, not only remembering things past, but having through the sublimity of speculation a precognition of things to come, but 〈…〉 g joined to the flesh, it is ignorant and forgetful. This name Adam in Greek consisteth, as S. Cyprian and Aug. say, of four letters, setting fourth the four parts of the World, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the East, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the West, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the North, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the South, and therefore it was mystically intimated by this name given to man, that his posterity should inhabit all those parts. But seeing this name was not given in Greek but in the Hebrew tongue, it is better to conceive as others have it, that he was thus called to put him in mind, from whence he was taken, that he might always be humble, and subject to his maker. In Greek man is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to look upward, as Plato hath it, and in Latin Homo, ab humo, from the ground. Secondly, By the word Man, some have thought, that the interior man only is to be understood, because it is said, after our Image, which cannot be spoken of the body, but of the soul only. Thus Ambrose, and Basil, who to prove this opinion, alledgeth some places, wherein the inner man is spoken of, as • Cor. 4. Col. 3. And of this Saint Augustine maketh mention, that it was held so by some, but he confuteth it, because God is said, as to have made man after his own Jmage, so to have created them Male and Female, which distinction is not in the inner man, and moreover to have appointed his food, which neither can agree hereunto. And yet, as Augustine saith, they that held thus, brought some probable reason for it, because the making of man is again spoken of, Chap. 2. so that it may seem, that here first, the soul is spoken of, and there the body, but who so, shall look into the Text, shall soon see the vanity of this allegation, and that the whole man consisting of soul and body is meant by man here. Thirdly, Some have held, that by the word Adam woman was not meant also, but the man only, but this is easily confuted, because it is said, God created man after his Image, both male and female.

A third question here is, what is meant by God's image and similitude, and [Quest. 3] whether the woman was not made after God's image, as well as the man, because she is elsewhere said to be the image of man, and man the image of God? To this divers answer diversely. Some heretics called Anthropomorphitae, that man is said to have been made in the image of God in respect of his body, having such eyes, hands, feet and other limbs, as he hath, but this is so gross, as Calvin saith, that it is not worth the naming, forsomuch as God is plainly taught to be a Spirit, John 4, 20. Others, as Calvin also saith, holding this image to be in the body, affirm, that to be so called, because the wisdom and power of God shine so much in the admirable framing thereof, but neither is this right, because by the same reason not only man, but the heavens and other creatures should be after God's image also, for in them the wonderful power and wisdom of God is no less shown, then in making man's body with the lineaments thereof. The foundest expositors therefore hold, that man is said to be made after God's image, not in body, but in soul, and yet not in soul only, because that is not man, but both in soul and body, whereof man consisteth, the soul understanding and doing acts of righteousness by and through the Organs of the body. So Zanchi, who further addeth that the body of man representeth the manifold virtues of God in the members thereof, as man's eyes represent God's providence, his hands and arms his strength, and forsomuch as man's hands build and plant, and do all the wonderful works of Architecture, and Husbandry, he may be said herein to be the image of the great Creator of all things. Yet properly in soul only, man is the image of God, in body significatively as the members thereof, and the frame of it is a sign of the divine attributes. Thus Basil and Ambrose acknowledge that there is in man's body a certain property, viz. the erect figure thereof, which representeth an heavenly God; being herein adopted to such a soul, as should always be lifted up to things above, and to seek them. And Augustine saith, that our body is so made, that it showeth us to be better than the beasts, and like unto God.

Touching the two words here used image and similitude 〈…〉 ey greatly differ. For some will have only one and the same thing meant hereby, the word similitude serving to express further what is meant by image. Thus many of the Ancients, as Zanchi saith, and Calvin denieth any difference to be betwixt image and similitude, and Vatablus saith, that the adding of these words after our likeness, is no more in effect, but most like unto us. Their reasons are first because the same thing being spoken of again, one word only is used verse 27. so God created man in his own Image, and not in his own image and similitude. Secondly, because the creation of man being elsewhere spoken of, he is said to have been after God's image only, as Gen. 9. 6. 1 Cor. 11. Ecclesiasticus chap 17. Colos. 3. Ephes. 4, &c. but Gen. 5. 1. only after God's likeness. To this Zanchi answereth, that when one of these words is afterwards used, the other is necessarily to be understood synecdochice, one only being used for brevities sake. For as Augustine saith, to affirm any word in Scripture to be idle is blasphemy And therefore both he distinguisheth betwixt image and similitude, and so doth Basil. Hom. 10. in Gen. and Origen. lib. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c. 6. and Ambrose Hexem. lib. 6. c. 7. Gregor. Nissen. Hom. de creat. homin. Eucher. Victorinus, Theodoretus, &c. Now the difference held to be betwixt image and similitude by all these famous Expositors, is, that the word image setteth forth the reason and understanding of man, wherein, he is alone the very image of God, other terrestrial creatures wanting a reasonable soul, but he only having it. R. Moses Maimonides saith, the excellent reason and knowledge found in man's soul, is the form of man, and therefore it is said, (let us make man after our Image) R. Menahem; it is thus said of man for the understanding mind, that is in him, such as is not in any other earthly creature, and Proclus, the mind that is in us is the image of the first mind. The word similitude setteth forth the gifts and graces spiritual, wherewith he was by his creation endued, he being perfectly righteous and holy, and so like unto God who is most holy. But against this it is objected, that the word image doth rather set forth righteousness and holiness, because it is thus expounded being afterwards spoken of. Ephes. 4. 24. Colos. 3. 10. and therefore this distinction cannot stand. To this I find not anything answered, but only, as the fathers before alleged, so Rabbi Moses Egypt. lib. 1. cap. 1. affirmeth the foresaid distinction, that image setteth forth the substance of the soul, and similitude the virtuous qualities, alleging some passages of holy Scripture to prove this difference, and so likewise Damascene. For mine own part, I cannot see how anything can be answered, and therefore by image I would rather understand man's spiritual gifts and graces, and by similitude his reason and understanding, and so the meaning may well be rendered thus, let us make man, who may represent our purity and holiness, yea, and that not being sensible only, and so ignorant, as other earthly creatures, but wise and reasonable, and having a soul immortal, that in all things he may be as like unto us, as a creature can be to the Creator, that in him our holiness and wisdom may be beheld and reverenced, when all other creatures do submit unto, and are ruled by him. Touching the woman, it is plain, that as the man, so she also was created after God's image. Thus Augustine lib. 12. de Trinit. cap. 7. and Basil. Hom. 10. in Gen. whereas the Apostle calleth her the image of the man then, it is not to be understood exclusively, as though she were not the image of God also, but in some secondary respect. Both man and woman were made after God's image in a primary respect, viz. as his image standeth in holiness and righteousness, in wisdom and understanding, and in the immortality of the soul. But in a secondary respect, as the image of God standeth in principality and rule, the man alone is God's image chiefly, because although the woman hath also dominion over the creatures, yet being weaker, neither doth she so rule over them as he doth, neither is she equal, but inferior to the man, as being made out of him and for him, as all things were of God and made for him. Some there are, who have stood for man his being God's Image in respe •• of the three persons in the Godhead. For in reason he may aptly be said to represent God the Father, in speech, that cometh from this reason, God the Son, who is the Word, and in love, God the Holy Ghost. So Augustine lib. 1. de Trinit. But this is rejected, as being besides the scope by Calvin. Theodoret laboring much to find out, what is God's image, concludeth, that because it must be somewhat in man, which is not in the woman, nor in any other creature, that it is uncertain. And Epiphanius, that it is not known, in what part this image is. But of all others, the Rabbin's of the Jews have spoken upon this most foolishly, saying, that man is said to be God's image, because as God filleth all the World, so the soul filleth all the body, as one God is over the world, so one soul is over the body, as God is not defiled with any filthiness of the world, so the soul is not defiled with the filthiness of the body, and as God seeth all things, but is seen of none, so doth the soul: for all these agree to the soul of a beast also. Lastly, there is another opinion recited and confuted by Saint Augustine, that by image and likeness here is meant the likeness of the Son of God, taking flesh, after which they thought, that the first man was made, and so much the rather, because he is said to be the image of the Father, and as man is here said to have been made after God's image, so 1 Cor. 11. he is said to be his image also. But Christ is not only called the image, but the substantial image of the Father being coequal and coeternal with him. That man was not made like unto the Son in his humanity appeareth, because it is said in the plural number, after our image, the whole Trinity being meant, not in the singular after thy image. Hitherto August. And of Christ made after the likeness of one of us men, we do sometimes read, but of man made after the similitude or likeness of Christ never.

Quest. A fourth question followeth, because having said, So God created man in his own image, it is added in the image of God created he him, and male and female created he them, why the same thing is thrice repeated? Answer, This is not doubtless without a mystery, the meaning is, that God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost created man, and not one Person only, the three Persons being yet declared to to be one, in that a verb of the singular number is here joined with a noun of the plural.

A fifth question is, whether the dominion of all worldly creatures was here given to man without exception, because the Whale, called Leviathan, seemeth [Quest. 5] to be excepted, and how the case standeth with man since his fall in respect of this Dominion? Answer, Some have held, that although the fishes are here given to man to rule over, that the Whale is not subjected unto him, nor the wild beasts. So Theodoret, that all creatures are not here meant, but such, as were made for man's uses, as fishes, and tame beasts, and creeping things for medicine, and not the Whale, or wild beasts, which neither are mentioned therefore Psalm 8. and unto Theodoret Zanchi subscribeth herein. But Basil contrariwise saith, in speaking to man, seeing such force of reason piercing into, and overcoming all things is bestowed upon thee, how shouldest thou not have power of ruling over the Whales also? I have seen the admirable cunning, and witty art of men in taking these Whales. So that the creatures which through their natural ferity are not tamed, are through necessity compelled to serve man their Emperor. Whence it is plain, that God hath given a power unto man to rule over all other creatures, and that the very Whales and other Monsters of the Sea, which are terrible to be named, are subject to the rule and dominion of man. Hitherto Basil; to whom I rather assent, not doubting, but that by fishes Whales also are to be understood, and by beasts, wild beasts, as well as tame. For both through his reason and understanding man is able to master any of them, and experience teacheth the same, when as they are often times taken by him. And to put this out of all doubt, Saint James saith, that every kind of beasts, birds, and things in the Sea are tamed by man. Touching the difference of man's dominion over the creatures before and after sin, it is generally held, that although by sinning the image of God in man was defaced, yea lost in respect of that, wherein it principally stood, viz Righteousness and Holiness, and the knowledge of divine things: yet in respect of natural reason, it remaining, he hath dominion still over the creatures of all sorts, although not in such ample manner, as he had at the first. For then it is to be held, that they did voluntarily obey him, yea those, that were most fierce and wild. For God brought all sorts to Adam to be named by him, implying his Lordship over them, and how at his naming of them or speaking to them by name they should be obedient. Of this obedience there have been some instances since, as when all sorts of creatures lived with Noah in the Ark and were subject unto him, when the Ravens came so familiarly to Elijah to bring him food, and the Bears came out at the cursing of Elisha, and destroyed the 42 children that mocked him. It is true, these things were done by miracle, and rarely, but before sin it is most probable, that it was ordinarily so. If it be said, the creatures had not the reason to come and do such obedience to man. I answer, God, that made some so [Object.] obsequious, as we see still by experience, as Dogs, and Cats, &c. Did make them all doubtless such at the first, that they did not flee away, but came about man, and fawned upon him, and in their kind shown their willingness to yield him obedience. But man having disobeyed God, as it was just, his dominion over the creatures became more laborious and difficult, and instead of voluntarily serving him, many of them now are become hurtful to him and are ready to make a prey of him. He hath indeed a rule and dominion over them still: for this is established again, Gen. 9. 2. But his rule is not now so large, and with great travail and pains. Hugo de Sancto Victore saith, that God hath taken away the dominion of man over two sorts of creatures, the greatest and fiercest, as Lions, Tigers, &c. And the least, as Flies, Fleas, &c. Which cannot be tamed, by the one giving him to understand, that he is deprived for sin of his excellent power of domination, and by the other, how vile and base he is now become. Yet Chrysostom observeth, that God hath even in this particular dealt graciosly with man, in that he hath not withdrawn from his obedience those creatures, whereby he might have profit, but only such, as did set forth the excellency of his power, those, whereby he might have profit, help, ornament or delight, being still left unto him, as Sheep, Oxen, Horses, &c.

And God said, behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth: and every tree, in which is fruit, to you it shall be for meat. 30 and to every beast, &c. Beda gathereth from hence, that before the fall of man, as no herb was venomous, so no tree was without fruit: but this last was plainly an error, because some trees are naturally barren, yea and such, as were in Paradise, as the Fir tree, the Cedar, &c. commemorated, Ezech. 31. And therefore to intimate so much in the Text, it is said, in which is fruit. [Quest.] But a great question here doth justly offer itself, whether man might not eat flesh at the first, but Hearbs, Seeds, and Fruits only. And because the other creatures are confined to herbs and seeds, whether such of them, as live now upon flesh, were otherwise sustained then, as Lions, Bears, Wolves, &c. Touching either of these divers Expositors are of divers opinions. Some think, that although herbs and seeds and fruits only are named, when man's food is appointed unto him, yet for so much as flesh is not forbidden, and a dominion over the creatures to use them, as he thought good, was given unto him, he might at his pleasure make food of that also. And they argue from this, that Sacrifices were to be made of the creatures, some part of which was to be eaten, and likewise that they were to be killed, that they might have their skins for clothing, wherefore it is most probable that they ate their flesh. So that God in appointing these things to be eaten, did but appoint their ordinary food, there being a liberty to use flesh for food also, when man should think good. But others hold, that seeds and herbs and fruits were man's only food till the flood, because none but these are mentioned and an express allowance is given to eat flesh after the flood, as these things. Thus the Fathers generally, and most new Writers of all sorts. And it seemeth to have been an ancient received opinion, by that which old Poets have left written, As Boetius. The former age was content with the faithful fields, and satified their hunger with the Acorn, when they had fasted long. And Ovid; Men were content with meat growing without forcing, they gathered the fruits growing in mountainous places, and those that grow upon thorns, &c, lib. 1. Metamor. And it standeth with good reason, that man should feed then only upon such things, they being such as might well suffice nature, and most pleasant at the first, and men's bodies being strong and healthful, and this was a most simple diet, and so most fit to be appointed at the first to rebuke the luxury of after times. Some also yield this for a reason, that man not being used to the shedding of blood might be better preserved from murder. But this reason is weak, because beasts were killed for Sacrifice, and to have their skins for apparel, and therefore Cain, the very first man borne into the World, fell into this damnable sin of murder. The reasons before rendered therefore are best, and that the creatures not being killed up at the first, might the better be multiplied upon the earth. After the flood men's bodies grew weaker, and it is generally thought, that neither herbs nor waters were so wholesome as before, but more corrupt through that Deluge, and therefore flesh was now allowed to be eaten, and whereas waters were their only drink before, vines were now planted; that they might have wine for their infirmity. Yet it is not to be doubted, but that Noah and his sons did forbear the killing of beasts to eat for a time, that their increase might not be hindered. Calvin thinketh it best to suspend, and not to determine this question.

Touching beasts, that now live upon flesh, some also think, that they did so at the first, because the nature of a creature is always the same, and that when God assigned herbs and seeds for the beasts to feed upon, he meant not all beasts. But this is contrary to the Text, speaking of all, wherein was the breath of life, and howsoever creatures never alter from their specifical nature, yet they may alter from their individual, using such food at one time, as they used not at another, as children, who at the first are nourished with milk, and eat no solid meat, yet afterwards they eat it. Others therefore more probably hold, that even those beasts that since have lived upon flesh, and birds also, lived then all upon seeds and herbs, and that this discord and malignity of nature came upon them afterwards, since the flood, one bearing a kind of hatred to another, and so preying upon it, and tearing and eating the flesh thereof. And this opinion hath both the present text plainly for it, and even at the time of the flood it must needs be yielded to have been so, because all sorts of creatures earthly living with Noah in the Ark, were sustained without eating flesh, for otherwise their number, being so few of each kind taken in, would not have sufficed, see also for this Esa. 11. 7. and chap. 65. 25. The clause of all added. And God saw all that he had made, and it was very good, serveth to show that all things being approved of God, we should not presume to question any, whether it be good or no. And whereas they are said to be very good, which is more than hath been spoken hitherto, it is by reason of their perfection: so Calvin.

CHAP. II.

THus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the hosts of them. This repetition may seem to be superfluous to tell the same thing over again, but indeed it is to very good purpose, both to meet with such as have held, that the world and all things therein were made in a moment, for six days were spent in the making thereof, and to give us occasion more seriously to consider of these works of God, who are ready slightly to pass them over, as O Ecolampadius saith, and if God now had perfected his Heaven and Earth; in vain do Philosophers dispute of more Worlds. And lastly, to show that the World was now perfected on all parts, there being nothing wanting to the perfection thereof. And therefore the words may be read thus, the heavens and the earth were perfected, &c. the most wise Worker made all things in so great perfection, that there was nothing now wanting, that could be desired; so Ferus. And according to this number of six days, saith R. Elias, the world shall continue six thousand years, two thousand empty, without the promise to Abraham, two thousand under the Law, and two thousand under Christ, and for our iniquities they that are past of these, are past: so that by his account the time of Christ's coming is past long ago. Touching the next words, and all the hosts of them. Fagius saith, that the Hebrews by the hosts of heaven here understand, the Sun, Moon and Stars, Angels and men's souls, by the hosts of the earth, man and all beasts, and fowls, and growing things, which are so called, because by these God doth his mighty and powerful acts, as a King by an host of his men, in which regard, God is often called the Lord of Hosts. And not much different herefrom, Chrysostom saith, that the Sun, Moon and Stars are the hosts or ornaments of heaven, and trees, plants and other creatures here below, the ornaments of the earth. In the Septuagint's translation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the ornament of them.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, &c. The Septuagint's, whom also Chrysostom and some others follow, read it thus. And on the sixth day God ended his work, fearing peradventure, least if it be read upon the seventh day, it should be thought, that he did something upon it. And one indeed gathereth hereupon, that God made the woman the seventh day. But this is plainly contrary to the express text before, God created man, male and female created he them. The meaning is nothing else then, but that God on the seventh day ceased from doing anymore towards the perfecting of the world, all that was to be done, to this end being fully performed upon the six days. Some labor otherwise about the resolving of these words, as Fagius showeth, and Vatablus as the Hebrews, who say, that at the instant of the beginning of the seventh day God finished all his works, or the seventh day beginning to appear, or before the seventh day. But the former solution is most plain, to make an end of working, being nothing else, but to break off, and to work no more. And therefore Jerome, who seemeth to have understood the words otherwise, as if God had done some work upon this day, argueth without a ground, when as he reasoneth from hence against the Jews strict resting upon the Sabbath, saying, Here now we shall straighten the Jews, who glory of the rest of the Sabbath, because in the very beginning it was broken, when God wrought upon the Sabbath, finishing his works therein. For the very adding of these words, (which he had made) showeth that all things were made before, and so doth the history preceding Chap. 1. and this, that he is said now to have rested, resting and working being opposite. And Exod. 20. it is expressly said, in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the Sea and all that in them is. Touching God's resting, it is spoken, according to the manner of men, not that he with all these great works was wearied, but that thenceforth he wrought no more. And he is said to rest, as an example to us men, showing what we should do upon the seventh day, and what we shall do after the six days of the worlds durance ended, we shall keep an everlasting Sabbath in heaven. Yet this resting of God is not to be understood, but as it is here limited, from all the works that he had made, that is, so that after this time he added nothing to make the world more perfect, because it was fully perfected in six days. For he worketh still always, John 5. 17. in governing, upholding, and in making the creatures prolificous, and to multiply upon the face of the earth. Touching his sanctifying of the seventh day, and blessing it. This was by separating it from common uses, from travail and labor in worldly works, which were to be done upon all the six days, and making it more excellent than them, as it is more excellent and of more honor to finish a work, then to be doing in it: so Theodoret. How excellent this day became hereby, appeareth, because the Law was continually read upon this day, double sacrifices were offered, poor servants and beasts had rest from their hard labor, the other days of the week were all denominated herefrom, as first and second of the Sabbath, &c. after the similitude of this day, the seventh month had in it an holy convocation, at the end of seven weeks was Pentecost, the seventh year was holy, and seven times seven years being expired, there was a Jubilee, by seventy weeks, the coming of the Messiah is set forth, and the number of seven is upon many other occasions spoken of as sacred. Thus Eusebius, Beda, Clemens Alexandrinus Augustine, &c. But here a question is made, whether the seventh day were to be kept holy from the time of Creation, or only from the time of the commandment given upon Mount Sinai? To this some answer that these words are put in here by the way of anticipation, the time, when this history was written by Moses, being the time of giving the Law, until which they hold, that men were not tied to keep a Sabbath. Thus Beda, Justinus, Eusebius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Tostatus. And there be some arguments, which seem to confirm this. First, because the labor, that man took in the state of innocence being easy, and little troublesome to him, he had no need of a day to rest [Quest.] upon. Secondly, Because it is not probable, but that he would then daily without any appointment of a time peculiarly, give himself to divine contemplation. Thirdly, Because if the Sabbath had been then instituted, all men should have been tied unto it, whereas neither the Gentiles kept it, nor the holy Patriarchs, that we can read of. Fourthly, In the commandment afterwards given Exod. 20. no mention is made of the practice of the Patriarchs herein. Lastly, it is a thing generally held by Divines, that Adam had but one precept given him at the first. Yet others hold, that the Sabbath was now appointed, and that all times and ages were bound from the beginning to keep holy one day of seven. And Zanchi goeth furthest of any, saying, that he doubted not, but the Son of God did upon this day put upon him an human shape, and conversed with our first Parents, instructing them in all divine knowledge, and touching the future happiness. For mine own part, although I dare not say with Zanchi, that the Son of God did so, yet our first Parents kept the Sabbath day, because the reason of keeping it concerned them from the beginning as well as after the giving of the Law; God rested, and blessed and hallowed it. For when was this blessing of this day, but at the beginning, at the very time when God rested? And if so, how can it be said, that it was not to be observed til two thousand years after? For when God separateth anything, as holy, from thence forward, it hath always been used to be so accounted. Moreover to show, that this day was not then first set apart for the worship of God, when the Commandment was given, but long before; it is begun with this word Remember, as having reference to a former institution. And Exodus 16. the Sabbath is kept before the giving of the Law, which was not till Exodus 20. To the reasons brought then to the contrary, I answer, that although Adam in Paradise had no need of a resting day for his ease, or for divine contemplation, yet he being set upon the six days to work in the garden of Eden and to dress it, there could not so fitting a commemoration have been made of God's resting from the works of Creation without appointing one day specially for this purpose, neither could this blessed day have been so worthily kept, as by resting from all works upon it, and not doing ordinary works of dressing the garden in part, and in part meditating upon divine things, but by being wholly sequestered from all manual works hereunto. Again, the Lord in appointing this Sabbath had respect, not only to man's present happy estate, but to that which he saw, he would soon fall into, when it should be most needull. For the example of the Gentiles and Patriarchs alleged, I doubt not, but howsoever no mention is made hereof in the sacred history, yet the holy Patriarchs did devoutly keep this day: for many things, that were done then, are not related. And for others, it is no marvel, if being so far depraved all memory of a Sabbath was blotted out amongst them. Yet Eusebius lib. 13. praepar. Evang. cap. 7. reciteth some passages of Linus, Homer, and Hesiod, the old Divines of the Heathen, wherein they speak of the Sabbath day. As for the not mentioning of the Patriarchs examples in the command: it is not to be marvelled at, all things being delivered in so great brevity, and God's own example, which was most moving, being urged. Lastly, it is true, that man in paradise had but one express commandment, this being a duty to be learned from example, and hearing God blessing this day, thus putting more excellency upon it, than upon any other day of the week, according to which it could not be spent, but by being more wholly devoted to divine worship and contemplation. Touching God's blessing of the seventh day, the Rabbin's in the book called Bereshitb Rabbah say, that it is received from the blessing that is on high, and is the abundant wealth of the world, as God's blessing is said to make rich. If it be applied to the seventh thousand year, he blessed it, because then all souls shall be bound in the bundle of life. And to show, that the Sabbath is all day, he saith not evening and morning.

Because in it he rested from all the works, which God created by making; Calvin and before him the vulgar Latin, and Marlorat read it, quae creavit ut faceret. Augustine, quae inchoavit facere. Our new translation, which God created and made. But the Hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Zanchi expoundeth two ways, either by making, or ad faciendum to do, intimating that the creatures should not be idle, but produce from thence forward the like unto themselves. Augustine followeth the Septuagint in his reading. The best interpretation is, to take it, as divers learned in the Hebrew tongue do, as an Hebraism, by making to make, the meaning being nothing else, but that God made and formed every creature in all the lineaments and parts thereof, and so the best reading is, he created by making, causing presently all things by his Almighty power to be, which by his Word he commanded should be. And in saying thus it is allowed to the creating of things before described, as touching the Firmament, God said, let there be a Firmament. And immediately it is added, God made the Firmament. And again, God said, let there be lights, and by and by God made two great lights, &c. They are then too sharp sighted, that find out here an ordinance, that these things thus created, should make others like to themselves: for it is both very improper to say, that the creatures generating, is a making, and if it be thus taken, everyone should make the like, which is not so in any heavenly body, or spirit. And of the same sort is that exposition, whereby it is interpreted, to order and to dispose thereof to a certain end, as some interpret it. But I rest in the plain meaning.

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, &c. These words are a conclusion of the preceding History, as if he had said, thus were the heavens and the earth and all things therein contained made by God's Almighty Power, at such time, as it pleased God to create them, having no preexistence, but all made out of nothing. And the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here first used, because all things were now perfected, according to some Hebrews, as Vatablus hath it; Whereas it is said, in the day, by day it is to be understood, the time, as Esa 29. c. 48. For they were made, not of one, but in six days, so Ferus, of the name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 see, Exod. 3. 15.

And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth. Here a question may be made, why next unto the heavens and the earth, plants and herbs are mentioned again, and not other creatures rather, which are more excellent, and [Quest.] why in speaking of the Plants, he saith, before they were? To the first Zanchi answereth, that his purpose here being to teach, how all things were in the beginning made by God, he singleth out these specially, because most doubt might be made of these, as being such, that they might be thought to have been put forth by the proper virtue of the earth, or by man's industry helping the same. Wherefore that thy might plainly appear to have been made by God, he saith, that they were before that any rain had fallen upon the earth, and before there was a man in the World. To the second, the Hebrews answer easily, as Fagius showeth, by reading it, as a new sentence thus, And every plant of the field was not yet upon the earth, &c. For the Lord had not yet made it to rain. Whereas it is against this objected, the earth was made to bring forth plants and herbs before this, upon the third day. Rabbi Solomon answereth, that they were indeed brought forth, but sprung no further, but to the superficies of the earth, and so did not much appear, till that by the falling of the rain they shot further out. Others of the Hebrews say, that not all, but such plants and herbs are meant, as grow in grounds husbanded by the art of man, and therefore they say, that they are called, plants of the field, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying a field manured and not of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying the earth in General. But the solution of Rabbi Solomon is easily taken away: because it is not said in the Text, that they appeared not, but they were not, so that they were not so much as in the bud, and first beginning to appear. And for the other solution, it is improbable, because although this distinction may be maintained, yet a field manured being part of the earth, and man not being able by his art to make any new species of plants, it must necessarily follow, that when it is said, there were no plants of the field then, there were none at all, either artificial or natural, in all the earth. There is then a better solution, that this is spoken by way of capitulation, as it is plain touching man, who was made, chap. 1. But here it is said, there was not a man, and so likewise of the woman, verse 20. The meaning then is, in the first day, When God created the heaven and the earth, plants and herbs were not yet, but all was as a confused Chaos covered over with water: yea, when there was a separation of the waters from the dry land, they were not till God caused the earth to bring them forth, and this was done also by extraordinary means, no rain having yet fallen, till the Sun, Moon, and Stars were made, but the earth being otherwise watered and made fruitful. But neither Calvin, nor any of ours, nor any of the ancient Fathers read these words thus, but as we translate them, making one sentence together with the former. And to make the sense more plain, one supplieth them thus. And in the day, that God made every plant, which was not before in the earth. And if the words be thus understood, there can no such question be further moved, as was made before: or as we read it, and every plant, before that it was. The meaning is plain, that God made plants, and trees, and herbs, and adorned the earth herewith, there being none before, nor natural causes to produce them, as rain, and such like, as now there be. And so the next words, for God had not caused it yet to rain upon the earth, are added, as a reason, why the making of plants, &c. Was ascribed unto God, as his immediate work.

And there went up a mist from the earth and watered the ground. The Greek and Latin interpreters, for a mist, read a fountain ascended from the earth, and watered the ground. Whereupon a difficult question hath been moved, how a spring or fountain could do this, the earth being so large? Augustine and other Latin Expositors after him, and Philo before, answer, that fountain in the singular number is put for fountains, wherewith being in all parts, the earth was watered, before that it rained: or else if it were but one, it overflowing at certain times watered all, as Nile did the Egyptian grounds afterwards. And the interlineary gloss addeth, that till Noah's flood there was no rain, but the earth was thus watered. Albinus saith, that all the ground of paradise only is meant, which was compassed with great waters. But the speech is more general, it watered the whole face of the earth. And the watering of Eden is spoken of verse 10. as a distinct thing herefrom. And that a fountain, or fountains should swell up to water all the earth is incredible, because then some parts must be covered deep again with waters, whilst they swelled up to water the high mountains, and so the world must for a time be brought again to the first consistence, when the waters covered all. As for that of the gloss, it cannot possibly be true, because the Sun shining, and exhalations being made in those days, as well as now, which are the cause of rain, there could not but be rain. The Chaldee Paraphrast therefore expoundeth it better by a cloud, but because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may best of all be translated a vapor, our Traslation is to be preferred, and it is also confirmed by Theodoret out of Aquila, Translating it in like manner, a mist or vapor, of which clouds were afterwards ingendered, which shoure down rain.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, &c. Moses having briefly set forth the Creation of man, both male and female, in the first Chapter, now because man's excellency above other earthly creatures doth require it, and that it may be understood, in what manner and order they were made, he returneth to the Creation of man again, to set it forth more distinctly. According to the Hebrew, the words are, God formed man, the dust of the ground, the Septuagint translate it, taking the dust of the ground, the vulgar Latin, of the mud of the ground, because the watering of all the earth was spoken of before by a vapor, which maketh dust mud, or dirt. It is, as Vatablus hath it, an Hebraism, which is frequent, the preposition of, being placed after dust, which should go before. And yet, according to Fagius, the Hebrew words thus placed are most significative, showing that man indeed is yet nothing, but dust, to make him humble. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dust signifieth the smallest dust, that is, which is to be considered to extol the Almighty Power of God the more, in making out of it so goodly a body.

The word, formed, is properly finxit, framed after the manner of a potter, but that, as Augustine saith, it being so near that word, which signifieth to fain, the word formed, hath rather been chosen to expound it by.

And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul. [Quest. 1] Here three questions offer themselves. First whether the soul and body of man were not made together, but the soul after the body, as here it seemeth? Answer; Some hold that notwithstanding this order thus plainly set down; the soul was not made after, but together with the body, both because it is said, God made man of the dust of the earth, whereas the body only is not man, but body and soul together, and also because at the time of creation, God made no work but fully perfect at the first. Thus Thomas Aquinas, and not he alone, but before him some ancient fathers, as Gregori. Nyssen. and Damascene, and Augustine seemeth to have held the same, and generally all the Schoolmen. But on the contrary side Chrysostom is for the order intimated in the words Hom. 12. and 13. in Gen. and Gennadius, and Tostatus, and Ferus, &c. And the same is plainly confirmed, 2 Esdras 3. 5. where it is said, thou Lord gavest man a body without life, and then didst breath into it, &c. As for the reasons before alleged, they are of little force. It is true indeed, the body without the soul is not man, yet because this is that which is seen, it is called man, being by itself, and might well be so called, if we consider the word translated man, for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 earth. By this name he is called before his inlining by a soul in respect of the matter, out of which he was made, and to remember this for his humiliation, the soul being infused into the body, he is still so called. Again, the soul came by God's breathing in his face or nostrils, therefore the body with the face and other limbs was first made, and then immediately the soul. Touching the perfect state of each creature at the first making thereof, I see no reason, why it should be held necessary, that it should be perfect at the first instant, but rather by degrees, before that the Lord left it. Because some time was spent about the making of particular species of creatures, as six whole days about the whole work of Creation.

Secondly, what spirit was this, of which the text speaketh, that was breathed [Quest. 2] into him In Hebrew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the breath of lives, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Some have held the soul of man, because God is said to have breathed it into him, to be part of the divine substance; as Christ afterwards breathed and gave the holy Ghost to signify, that it was of the same substance; as the fathers generally teach. But Lactantius only hath been thought to have been in this error amongst them, that the soul of man is of the substance of God. Amongst others many have held it, as the Manichees and Priscillianists, as Augustine relateth and confuteth it. So likewise Plato and other heathen Poets, as Zanchi saith. But this opinion is most false, because then a part of God should be subject to sin, and to be damned. Others are so far from understanding by this breath of life a part of the divine substance, as that they will have so much of the soul of man only understood, as whereby he liveth, the reasonable soul not being meant here, but amongst others the reasonable soul of man is generally understood with all the faculties of it, vegetative, sensitive, and rational. Zanchi reasoneth earnestly, as there is good cause against that opinion. For to understand that part of the soul only, whereby a man liveth, were to divide that, which is indivisible, or to affirm two souls to be in one man, or that Moses speaking of the inferior part of the soul omitted to speak of the principal. Moreover the words are most significative to express the reasonable soul with all the faculties, the breath of lives, in the plural number; thus also Cajetan Others will have the word lives put thus in the plural number, to show that he breathed into both his nostrils, some, that he should live a most long life, some, that man should live a double life, here and hereafter, some, that hereby was intimated the double life of man's soul in the body, and when it is separated therefrom, others lastly the natural life, and the life of grace, but I rest in the first and last but one. If any shall stumble at the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 breath, whereby the soul of a beast is also set forth, it is also called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eccles. 12. 7. Moreover the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying the soul, is derived from breathing, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refrigero, and anima in Latin from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the wind, because it cometh and goeth with the breath. Now this act of breathing, when God created the soul of man, hath been thought by some to have been done, as the words sound, the Son of God taking a human body to him, and both forming man with his hands, and breathing out of that body into his nostrils. But others more generally hold the speech to be figurative, breathing being ascribed unto God, when he created the soul of man, for divers significations. First, to show, that God could as easily make the soul, as one of us can breath. Secondly, to show, that the soul is not drawn out of any prejacent matter, but made of nothing, and therefore is immaterial and immortal. Thirdly, to show, that the soul is created and infused together, according to that saying, Deus infundendo animam creat, & creando infundit. Lastly, to show that the soul of man is capable of grace, life, and wisdom, which come out of God's mouth. Thus Theodoret; I hold with the former opinion, both because it is said, that God breathed, and formed, and afterwards he appeared unto, and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden, which must needs be in a body. Neither is it any way absurd to hold thus, and thus the words may be properly taken, whereas otherwise we must flee to an allegory, which we ought not to do, but where necessity enforceth to it. And being thus understood, here is nothing that maketh for the former error, that the soul is of the substance of God, but against it. Because as Augustine reasoneth of the breath, which cometh from the spirit of a man is not any part of his spirit itself, but the air raised thus by the power of his Spirit: so the soul infused in to man by God's breathing, being none other, but a breath coming from God, cannot be a part of God, but some other thing made thus by him. But yet howsoever the soul was put in at the nostrils, whereby we breath, it is not to be thought to be the breath, although it cometh and departeth herewith: for then it should be nothing but air, and so dissolved into the air, whereas being departed out of the body, it subsisteth by itself. It is then God's breath infused into the body, which must afterwards return to be at his disposing again, but not our breath, this being but an effect thereof. Augustine laboreth much in finding out, whether the soul were created of nothing, and because if so, all souls of men must needs be yielded to be created likewise, and then God did not finish all his works of creation in six days; he diversely examineth this point, but in the endconcludeth, that it must needs be either made of nothing, or that, out of which it was made, is latent to us. But others generally hold, as was said before out of Theodret, that the soul was made of nothing, being herein different from all things made of prejacent matter, that they are corruptible, but that eternal. As for the objection, that thus it must needs be yielded, that God did not in six days finish all his works of creation, it is easily answered, he created all the species, which is meant, when he is said to have made all in six days, so that he maketh no more new species, but not all the individuals, these remaining to be made successively to the worlds end. Some because they have thought this objection could not be answered, have held, that a certain number of souls were made at the beginning, yea before the world, and kept by God in the heavens, but brought forth and infused into the bodies of men, as they were made. Thus Plato, and after him Origen, and divers of the Hebrews. But this cannot stand, if we reason either philosophically, or divinely. For the soul according to Philosophy, is an act of the body and the form thereof, wherefore it cannot be before the body: again, if souls were all in the beginning, they must be busied about something, before their insusing into the body, which cannot but be either good or evil, yet it is said of Jacob and Esau, before they were born, that they had neither done good nor evil. And unto these we may add, that if the soul had been made before the body, God should have in the making of man proceeded in a diverse manner from his proceedings in all other works of creation, because that therein he still proceeded from the less to the more perfect actions, other creatures being first more rude and imperfect, then perfected by the addition of that, which did chiefly conduce to perfection, thus Zanchi. And to this we may add the order of making man's body first, and then the soul spoken of before.

Thirdly; how is man said to be made a living soul, and whether he were at [Quest. 3] the first perfect, in respect of the limbs and parts of the body? Answer, It is generally agreed, that the word soul, here is put for man. Adam was made a living man. For thus the word soul is commonly used, man being set forth hereby. Whereas this sentence, the first man was made a living soul, hath an opposite sentence set against it; 1 Cor. 15. The last Adam was made a quickening spirit, the meaning is not, that the last Adam Christ was all spirit, and had no true natural body, but whereas the first Adam did live himself only by v • rtue of the soul put into him, the second Adam putteth life into others also, and that not a natural, but a spiritual life, the life of grace, so the first was made a living man, the second a man enlivening others. Touching the body of man, when he was first created, it was by consent of all, perfect in all the lineaments thereof, as other creatures then were: for being but newly made, they are bidden to increase and multiply. Some think, that they were, as we, about 30 years of age, but others, as at 50, because that must needs have been the juvenile age, when men lived so long. And if so, Adam living till 930. he was of the greatest age of any that ever lived, viz. 980. whereas Methuselah lived but 960. Touching the greatness of Adams body, some have thought him to have been as great as a Giant, yea the greatest of Giants, because, Josh. 14. It is said, that Hebron was in times past called Chiriath-Arba, and that Adam the greatest, was there set amongst the sons of Anak, which were Giants. And unto this Jerome agreeth, affirming Adam to have been buried there. And Moses-Barcephas alledgeth sundry authors, affirming Adam to have been of so vast a body, as that he waded through an Ocean, when he went out of Paradise into the other parts of the world, where we now dwell. But although we cannot, but think Adam to have been of a very great body, yet a Giant doubtless he was not, because they are spoken of, Gen. 6. as springing up then in the world. And for that place, Josh. 14. howsoever the Septuagint read it so, yet according to the Hebrew, it is, this Arba was a great man amongst the Anakims, &c. For Adam is commonly held not to have been buried there, but upon Mount Calvary. See Cyprian, Serm. de resur. Christi. Epiph. lib. 2. Contra haeres. c. vlt. August. serm. 70. de immolat, Isaac, &c. Touching the place, where Adam was made, some think it to have been in Paradise, but because God is said to have set him in Paradise, others hold, that he was made elsewhere, and brought and placed there by the Lord, after his Creation.

And the Lord God planted a Garden Eastward in Eden, and there he put the man, whom he had formed, ver. 9. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree, that is pleasant to the fight, and good for food, the tree of life also, &c.

For these words, The Lord God planted, Zanchi readeth it, the Lord God had planted, referring it to the third days work, but it is mentioned here again, by way of capitulation, to come more particularly to the description of this most pleasant place. Thus also Calvin, Vatablus and generally all Expositors; except Basil, who speaketh of Paradise, as being made after the creation of man, but he was herein deceived by the placing of these words, for as the earth in general, and all other things necessary for the use of man, were made before him, that he might want nothing conducing to a blessed estate, at his first coming into the World, so that place in particular, wherein he was to dwell, was without doubt made and planted with all varieties also, as a most magnificent palace for him, so great a Lord, and so much tendered by his God and Maker.

A garden in Eden, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated garden, is by the Septuagint rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Paradise, and that not unfitly, seeing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew signifieth a pleasant garden, and in the Persian tongue, Paradisus signifieth a magnificent garden of a King, as Calvin hath it. Now the Lord is said to have planted this, the more to express the excellency of the place, because when ordinary things are spoken of, nothing else is said, but God said, let such or such a thing be, but when anything extraordinary is made, as man, God formed him, and of this garden it is said, God planted it, a speech used to the capacity of the common people. God being herein compared to man, digging and planting, when he doth not any such manual labor, as Occolampadius speaketh, but he planted, by commanding such a pleasant place to be, Chrysostom. And this place for the pleasantness thereof called a garden, was in Eden Eastward, The word Eden, as Zanchi hath it, signifieth either the beginning, or pleasure. According to the second, Jerome translateth it, and so some gather, that Paradise was in no certain place of the world, but all over the earth, being replenished, with suchvariety of delightful trees and plants, as that it was all over wonderfully pleasant. And according to this thing signified hereby, viz. pleasure, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek seemeth to take the name herefrom. But whatsoever the word Eden signifieth, it is certain, that a particular place properly called Eden is here meant, both because it is said to have been Eastward, and not in all quarters of the world, and because those rivers, which did compass it about, did not compass all, but one part of the earth only. Moreover the Prophet Isaiah speaketh of Eden, as one particular country, and of the children of Eden, and so doth Ezekiel. But what country this is, is a great question, and where it is at this day.

That Eden is the name of one place in particular, almost all the Greek Fathers agree, and the learned Rabbin's of the Jews, Kimhi, Abraham, Ben-Ezra, and Solomon. Whereas the argument drawn from the quarter of the world, to which ward Paradise is said to stand, viz. to the East, is illuded, by translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the beginning, as Jerome doth, hence laboring to prove, that it was made first, before the heaven and the earth, it is easily confuted because the rivers here spoken of, do evince a particular place in the East, and so it is translated by the Septuagint, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Gregory Nissen, &c. And both Severus and Damascene yield this as a reason, why most anciently, in praying men turned their faces to the East, viz. As lamenting their ejection out of the earthly Paradise for sin, and sighing after a restitution to the heavenly.

Now for the question, what country this Eden was, wherein Paradise stood. Some ancient writers have held, that it was beyond the Ocean, an huge tract of ground altogether unknown unto us, and others, that it was in some place elevated above the rest of the earth, and out of all danger of winds and storms, frosts and snowes, &c. But the most received, and most probable opinion is, that it was in that country, which is now called Mesopotamia, or neete unto it, both because the description of the rivers agreeth hereunto, and because the east spoken of in the Scripture, commonly setteth forth either Mesopotamia, or some other country about the Sinus Persicus, as Persia, Armenia, and Arabia. When Jaacob went • nto Mesopotamia, he is said to have gone into the East country. And Balaam is said to have been brought to curse Israel from the mountains of the East, which Moses afterwards expoundeth of Mesopotamia. Job, that was an Idumean, is said to have been of the East, and the Wise men, that came to Christ, were most probably Arabians, and yet they are also said to have come out of the East. From whence we may gather, that whatsoever country lay from Judea towards the Persian Gulf, was in the Scriptures account the East, and not any part beyond that, as India, or some unknown part, further then India. For the Arabians, Idumeans, Amalekites, and Moabites, as also the people of Mesopotamia were Eastward between Persia and Judea.

That paradise was in some more remote part of the world separate by the Ocean from all the rest, is most improbable, because man being cast out could not then have come into these known parts as he did. And that it could neither be there, nor so high elevated, as some have imagined, the known rivers about it do plainly evince.

Moreover Cain is said to have dwelt on the east side of Eden, and to have built there, so that it is most probable, that man after his ejection out of paradise kept still in those parts, where paradise stood, and therefore it was not in another unknown world, but in the East Country, wherewith they were anciently familiarly acquainted.

Origen who turned this whole history into an allegory, hath expounded paradise only spiritually and mystically, as if there had never been any such place upon earth, and after him Ambrose and others: but the description of the site and the bounding of it doth plainly show them to have been in a great error. But how great this pleasant garden was, what use the rest of the earth should have been put unto, if man had not sinned, why so delectable a place was made for man to dwell in so short a time, and to be excluded forever after, and to what use it since served, and what reason there is, why no man could since find out the garden, the entrance into which was denied unto man forever after, divers Expositors conjecture diversely. Touching the first, Ephrem saith, that the place, where paradise was, was greater, than all the known parts of the earth; others not pitching upon any particular greatness, that it was very great, because it should have contained all Adams posterity, if he had not sinned. But Tostatus guesseth, that the length of it was but about 12 miles, and the circumference 36 or 40. So large, as the first would have it, it could not possibly be, because it was but in one country, Eden since called Mesopotamia, and only a part thereof, and yet I think it not so little, as Tostatus, because what could such a quantity of ground do towards the maintaining of Adam and his children, if he had stood, when they should have been multiplied into thousands? But the Scripture being silent about this, nothing can be said certainly; it might be so great, it might be greater, it might be lesser, and so fit for a man to walk about and dress and look to it, as Adam was appointed to do, there being a liberty for his posterity, as they multiplied, to go out into other parts of the earth, and to replenish them, which, had not man sinned, should all have been most fruitful and pleasant to the inhabitants as paradise itself, and so I have resolved the second question also, that the rest of the earth in time should have been all inhabited by man, as God gave him dominion over all. Touching the third, some of the Ancients have held, that akhough man sinning was cast out of paradise never to be received in again in this life, yet it serveth still for excellent use, viz. for Enoch and Elias to inhabit in, and for all the souls of the faithful til Doomes day, as appeareth by one in particular, the thief upon the cross, to whom being ready to die Christ said, this day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Thus Justin Martyr respons. ad Orthodoxorum Qu. 75. 76. & 85. and Tertullian in his Apologeticks, and Isidorus de vita & ob • tu Patriarcharum, the Master of the Sentenoes, and divers Schoolmen. But this reason cannot stand, because Elias is said expressly not to have been carried into paradise, but to have been taken up into heaven: and as for the souls of the faithful, and of the thief upon the cross in particular, although it were by the Lord said unto him, this day shalt thou be with me in paradise, yet it is not necessary hereby to understand an earthly paradise, but rather an heavenly: for so paradise is expounded by Saint Paul, where he speaketh of a man taken up into paradise or into the third heaven. And we do confidently hold, as the Preacher speaketh, that when the body goeth to the earth, the spirit returneth to God, that gave it, and as the Apostle Paul, being dissolved we go to Christ in heaven, which is best of all, and being unclothed of our earthly tabernacle, we are no time left naked, but clothed immediately with an heavenly. The paradise then, wherein Adam was placed is not now used to receive souls into it. And as for that opinion touching Enoch and Elias living there, it is a mere imagination devised by those, that will by no means admit, that any went bodily into heaven before our Lord and Savior Christ, as limbus patrum was devised, because they held, that no souls went thither, till that he by entering had made way for them also. For there is nothing in all the holy Scriptures, that giveth any hint of such a matter, but only to make it a colorable ground for this, the vulgar Latin Eccles. 44. hath these words touching Enoch. Enoch pleased God, and was translated to paradise, that he might give repentance to the Gentiles: but in the Greek there is no mention of paradise, only it it said, Enoch pleased God and was translated, &c. And therefore some Ancients who have held, that Enoch and Elias went not up into heaven, have rejected this opinion, as Rupertus, who saith. The Scripture doth nowhere say, that Enoch and Elias were translated into paradise, where they might eat of the tree of life, and live forever, but they were so taken away, that they were lead into some secret country of the earth, there to live in all tranquility, till at the end of the world they shall return again and die.

And to the same effect speaketh Gregory, Hom. 29. in Evang. And Augustine saith, as it is certain, that Enoch and Elias still live, so it is uncertain, whether they be in paradise or elsewhere. The true reasons then, why God made this delectable place, out of which he knew that Adam for sinning should soon be ejected, were these. First, that there being a place of such happiness before his eyes, out of which he was cast for sinning, he might be pricked with the more sorrow, when he beheld, what goodly things he had lost by sin. Secondly, That this place might as an Emblem in some sort express the blessedness of the place, to which we shall come afterwards by faith and repentance, to be the more excited hereunto. Thirdly, man being made so excellent, it was fit, that he should have a place to dwell in answerable to this his condition. Touching the last, why no man can tell at this day, where paradise is? If they may be heard, who will have paradise to be in the unknown parts of the earth beyond all the Ocean, or so high that it is unaccessible, the resolution of this question is easy, but they have been already confuted. Others there are who say, that there be so great Deserts full • of such cruel beasts and poisonous Serpents, and that there are such high and steep mountains in the passage, and some places so infectious and killing all, that attempt to go over them, that none could ever come thither. But that of Chrysostom seemeth to me most probable, that before the flood the place, where paradise stood, was well known unto men, only they were prohibited entering by the Cherubin keeping the way, but when the waters did overflow all, the marks of that passage were demolished, and all things were so confounded, that the certain place thereof, there being no evident signs of such a place of pleasure remaining, could never since by mortal men be known anymore. For that the foresaid reasons of the inaccessibility of this garden are merely imaginary appeareth, because if men could not have come unto it, in vain had a guard been placed to keep man from entering. It was enough, that paradise continued til • the flood, when all earthly things, which were made for man's use, were for his sins destroyed again. From thence forward, although the plot of ground remaineth, yet God never meaning to make man so happy upon earth again, as he did Adam by his first Creation, it cannot be imagined, that he would replant that plot, and make it as delectable, as in times past, but let it lie now, as other parts of the earth undistinguisht by such singularity.

Touching the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

It is said, that God caused every tree, pleasant to the sight, and good for food, to grow in Paradise, and in particular, these two. So that man wanted no content, but had the liberty of all desirable variety, which aggravateth his sin the more, in going notwithstanding, beyond his bounds. As the tree of life, so that of the knowledge of good and evil was in the midst of the Garden, Gen. 3. 3. Whether they were two individual trres only, or two kinds of trees, Calvin maketh a question here, but the Text is plain, that they were only two. The tree of life by the consent of best expositors, was a tree, which yielded such fruit, that if the man had eaten thereof, he should forever have been free from all sickness, and from death itself. Thus Augustine decivit. dei lib. 13. c. 20. and after him Beda, who saith, it was called the tree of life, because it received this virtue from God, that whoso did eat of the fruit thereof, his body should be confirmed in stable soundness, and perpetual solidity, neither should he fall through any infirmity, or weakness of age into a worse estate, or die. And to the same effect, Chrysostom. Idom. 13. in Gen. and Rupertus lib. 3, de trinit. & oper. cius cap. 30. Th. Aquin. part. 1. quae. 97. artic. 1. And Zanch. de oper. dei, &c. The other trees served to nourish the body, and so to preserve life, and for this end were to be eaten of from day today, but this being once eaten of, made the man immortal, as appeareth by that, which is after the fall of man, added by the Lord; He stopped the passage to the tree of life, lest man entering should eat and live forever. So the meaning is plain and evident, that this was a true material tree, as others were, and that by God's appointment, it had this virtue to make a man live forever. Touching which, we ought neither to make any question, seeing God, who giveth to our ordinary food virtue to nourish, and preserve this natural life many years, could by his Almighty Power, if it pleased him, to someone edible thing being once taken, give virtue to preserve it unto Eternity. And to show, that in this tree there was such virtue, it is said, That by sin death entered, so that, had not man sinned, he had not been subject to die at any time. Yet divers expositors there are, who not resting in this, have devised other reasons, why this tree was called the tree of life, Lignum Vitarum, the Wood of lives, in the Original, by a phrase usually in Hebrew, putting the plural often times for the singular, and the rather it is so here, because of the long continuance of the life, which should have been effected hereby, more than equivalent to many lives, as the lives of men have been since. Some will have this tree to have been only intelligible, either divine wisdom being meant hereby, which is called the tree of life, Proverbs 3. Or Christ the Lord, who is the Bread of life, or heavenly happiness, which is also called the tree of life, in God's Paradise, Revel. 2. Others acknowledging, that there was truly • uch a tree, yet will have it only a symboll, or sign of life received of God which should have continued ever, if man had not sinned. Others, that it had virtue only to preserve life, for certain thousands of years, after which men should have been translated to a more happy estate in Heaven, holding, that God would not put anymore virtue into that tree, than was necessary, and therefore there being a time set, when this life should have an end, it was sufficient, if this tree preserved it till then. But I rest upon the former exposition, being founded upon most certain grounds, and as for the translation of man to an heavenly life, although it should have been so, yet it is not necessary to hold, that then man should have died, but contrariwise, that he should have been taken up alive, and so have proceeded to live forever, and therefore his life should not have been preserved by the tree of life, for a long time only, but here for a long time, and in heaven upon his translation, forever. If it be demanded, whether, if man had not sinned, all his posterity must have had recourse to this tree also, to live forever, and how it could suffice for them all, inhabiting in all parts? It is to be thought, that God would have caused other such trees to have grown elsewhere, as mankind should have been multiplied, it being as easy with him, to cause the earth to bring forth more, as one.

Touching the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there are also divers conjectures, why it was so called. Some because there was virtue in the fruit thereof to acuate and sharpen the wit, to know every good thing, and every evil. Others, because man having eaten hereof knew, that it had been good to have obeyed God, in refraining from this fruit, but that it was evil to eat, and this he knew experimentally, so that by that which followed, they will have the name given to the tree, as the waters Massa, and Meribah, were called from the event, because contention happened there.

Others, because that tree did show unto man, what was good, and what evil, viz. To obey God it was good, but to disobey, evil. For to eat, or not to eat of the fruit of this tree, was in itself nothing, but the command of God, made the eating, or not eating, good or evil. So that this tree being set to teach that only to be good, which is agreeable to his will, and pleasing unto him, and that evil, which is against his will, might well be called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because it was then the only rule, whereby good and evil might be known.

Others, that it was called the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, ironically, because the Devil through his subtlety, made our first parents believe, that by eating thereof, their eyes should be opened, and they should know good and evil. For when they had eaten, God did but ironically say of them, behold man is become, as one of us, knowing good and evil, and if they had indeed attained to this knowledge, the Devil seemetst not to have been a liar, as he is said to have been from the beginning. As for the calling of this tree by this name, before the Devils suggesting of such a motive unto Eve, it is answered, that this is done by Moses, by anticipation, because it stood afterwards as a monument of the Devils dissimulation.

Lastly others, that Adam and Eve were at the first, like little innocent children for knowledge, but by eating of the fruit of that tree, they came to understanding, like men and women, and hence the tree had this name, the tree of knowledge, of good and evil. Fagius saith, that some have held, that this tree was thus called, because after the eating of it, man began to do things with judgment, election, will and pleasure, doing all things before, out of a natural power put into him in his Creation without sin, as the heavens, and the heavenly Orbes do. And one there is, that saith, some have held, that this tree was thus called, because God would hereby prove and try, whether our first parents would do good or evil, by obeying or disobeying. Amidst so great variety of expositions it is hard to judge, whether is the right, but when I do seriously consider the circumstances of this place, that they having eaten of this tree, had their eyes opened, Gen. 3. 7. and God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us knowing good and evil. verse 22. And they knew themselves to be naked now, which they knew not before, I cannot incline to them, who think this to have been spoken ironically, or that God would hereby prove and know, whether they would do good or evil, but that this tree was so called, because the eating of it, did avail indeed, to open man's eyes to see and know, how to do evil, and to forsake the good, whereas before he knew only to do well. And that it was so, appeared by the sequel of their eating, they knew that they were naked, that is, corrupt, and so thence forward, their privy parts especially, should be instruments of most shameful lusts, which made them immediately to seek for means to hide them. Before they knew not, how to lust, how to envy, hate, covet, or deceive, but having by this one sin broken the ice, they are forever after drenched in an ocean of sins, as an hole being made through the roof of an house, or the side of a ship, water cometh in more and more, to the endangering both of the one and the other. They knew, what was good still, but had no power to do it, but evil they knew so, of which they were altogether ignorant before, that they could not now anymore but daily run into it, and spend their thoughts in wicked and vain imaginations, according to that commonly known saying, I see better things, and approve them, but I follow the worse, being the same with the complaint taken up by the Apostle,