Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1
And hitherto of the literal meaning, now besides this there is by the consent of most a mystical sense also of these two trees to be considered for our further instruction. The tree of life represented Christ, the tree of knowledge, the law. For by Christ is life, and by the law cometh the knowledge of sin and of virtue, of good and evil. And as these two trees stood in the midst of paradise, so the Gospel and the Law are in the midst of the Church, and as they which by the Law seek to partake of the glory of God, shall prove this a fountain of misery and confusion to their souls, so if any disclaiming righteousness by the Law seek to Christ only, by him they shall be made to live forever. Thus almost Zanchi. But Augustine speaking more fully of all things here, saith, that by paradise mystically the Church is set forth, by the trees bearing all manner of fruit, the faithful fructifying by good works, by the four rivers, the four Evangelists, by the tree of life, Christ, and by the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man's free-will, allowing to any man also, if he hath any other more fit thing, to bring it forth for the explaining of this mystery, always provided, that it be acknowledged a true history and a faithful narration of things done.
And a River went out of Eden to water the garden, and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads, v, 11. The name of the first is Pison, &c. In that he saith, a river went out of Eden, it may seem, that the four rivers hereafter described were in their original but one and that this arose in Eden. But that the words are not so to be understood, is plain, because the first heads of Euphrates and Tigris are divers. Both, saith Strabo, spring from the mountain Taurus, which divideth Armenia from Mesopotamia, but their fountains are distant one from the other 2500 furlongs, that is 300 miles, but about Babylon they meet, and run both in one channel. Nearchus who was General over Alexanders Navy, saith, that from the first arising of Euphrates to Babylon was 3300 furlongs, as Arrianus writeth, but before it cometh at the city Babylon, it falleth into Tigris in part, and so they running together in a sinuous manner hereby compassing in a plot of Ground, out of which there is but one way to pass, do soon after divide again, and then subdivide; the first division being into two, which seem to be Pison and Gihon, after which they meet again, & then divide again running so into the red sea: thus Petrus Artopoeus hath gathered out of Pliny, Pomponius Mela, and Arrianus. The River of paradise then is here said to be one, because these two a great distance from their fountains come into one, and this their coming into one was in the Country of Eden pointed at, when it is said, a River rose out of Eden; for hereby not their first arising, but their next place to paradise, where they were but one great river, is set forth, and so by their sinuous winding first on the left hand many miles, then turning circularly again on the right, till they came right over against their first beginning thus to wind, this river compassed paradise about, all but at one place, where the going out was. And having fetched this bout, it was parted into four heads soon after that it left paradise, the one of which is Pison, compassing the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold, &c. This Pison hath been generally held to be Ganges in India, from whence such store of gold cometh, as by Josephus, Epiphanius, Augustinus, Hieronymus, Theodoret, &c. Arias Montanus and Vatablus also say, that this was Peru: whence the Spaniards now fetch their Gold, called otherwise Ophir in the Scriptures, because the word translated best is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that whereas we read, the gold thereof was good, by the Septuagint's it is rendered, the gold thereof was de loco peruaim. But it is certain, that Ganges in India cannot be meant by this Pison, because one river here mentioned, viz. Euphrates is well known, and the distance betwixt it, and Ganges is computed to be 70 degrees, every degree according to Ptolemy being 62 miles, and so together 4300 miles, and therefore it is impossible, that if Euphrates sprang out of the river of paradise, that Ganges should spring from thence also, as it must needs do, if it be the same with Pison. Moreover the land of Havilah, which this River is said to compass, is between Palestine and Assyria. For Moses in this history saith, the Ishmaelites dwelt from Havilah to Sur, which is towards Egypt, as a man goeth to Assyria. So also 1 Sam. cap. 15. That opinion therefore touching Ganges is rejected by Peter Martyr, Junius, and Tremellius, Zanchi, and almost all others of later times. But what river then is this Pison? Some say, that it is the same with the river Tigris, or Chiddekel, being in one place called Tigris, but in another, Pasis or Pasitigris, which word might easily be made out of Pison. But Moses saith, that they were four rivers, and not two called by divers names in divers places. Others therefore better say, that it is most probable, that Pison and Gihon were lesser rivers branching out of the other two, and therefore are passed over by Geographers of after times without being named. And hence it is doubtless, that Expositors are put to so much trouble about the finding out of these two rivers in particular, because who so shall travail into those parts, shall find none at this day so called. Yet I am not of their mind, who will have these two rivers not to have any beginning, till that Euphrates having run a certain space of ground from paradise sendeth these two forth, when it cometh to Syria and Arabia: for so Eugubinus describeth them. For Moses here saith expressly, the first was Pison, so that this must needs be the nearest head to paradise, and not Euphrates, and next to Pison is Gihon. Others there are, that going altogether from that which hath been said of these four rivers branching from one that cometh out of paradise, hold, that two of them are divided, viz. Euphrates, and Chiddekel, before the coming of the river into paradise, and the other two after. And whereas the text is against this, because it is said, thence it is divided into four heads, they answer, in the text it is only, thence it was divided, & became into four heads; that is, in the flowing from Edeninto paradise, it was parted into two, & afterwards into two more also; thus at length making four. But reckoning even this way Pison and Gihon shall not be the first and second rivers, but the third and fourth, which is against this narration of Moses. Pison therefore without doubt, was the first branch of that united river, and so the rest followed in order. And surely, when Moses wrote this, these Rivers were well known to the inhabitants of those parts, but since in long continuance of time, these names are obsolete and forgotten: and it is but lost labor to inquire further after them. Haply these two may since by making new channels for them to run another way, have been dried seeing such great works have sometimes been effected by great men, and then it is no marvel, that their names were no more amongst Geographers recorded. Here I wittingly pass over the strange conjectures of some, as that of Rupertus, holding, that all water naturally is salt, but coming through paradise it becometh sweet like milk, and so floweth all over the world, or of others holding, that paradise was all the world, for these are absurd and swerve altogether from the Text. From Havilah, which the first river compassed, it is likely, that the, Caulateans described by Strabo, as dwelling in Arabia, took their name; for from Havilath it is easy to make the name Chavilateans, especially if it be read as in the Hebrew, Chavilah. Touching the gold of that country, we read nothing in other places of the holy Scriptures, but Psalm • 2. 15. only that the countries near to Palestine abounded in times past with gold we may gather from the huge mass of gold, that came in yearly to Solomon, not only by his Navy, but in way of tribute and gifts sent unto him. The Bdellium here spoken of, and the Onyx stone were, the one, according to Pliny, a little black tree like an Olive tree, the leaf like those of an Oak, and the fruit like a wild fig, growing in India, Arabia, Media, and Babylon, and the other, viz. the Onyx stone, had the name from the hail of a man's hand, because it was like unto it, the place where it grew, was also both India, where these stones were with streaks of red and white, and Arabia, where they were black, the white compassing them about like girdles, as the same Pliny saith. The Septuagint translate this, carbunculus, and prasinus, Josephus calleth it a Sardonyx. Now Moses is thus punctual in setting these things down, that we might be assured, that paradise was a place, that had a true real being upon earth, least we should be deceived by them, that would afterwards say, that there was never any such place indeed, but something else was allegorically set forth hereby.
The second River is Gihon, the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. This River is by many held to be the river Nile in Egypt, because that compasseth the the land of Ethiopia, and Epiphanius alledgeth Jeremiah to prove it, where he saith, what hast thou to do with the way of Egypt to drink the troubled water, for this is by the Septuagint rendered the waters of Gihon, but the Hebrew word there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth black, or troubled, and not Gihon. Moreover if the original of Nile be considered, which of old indeed was not known, but since hath been discovered to come from the spacious marishes near the mountains of the Moon not far from the Cape of Good Hope southward, being so contrary to the first rising of these Rivers, which was northward, it cannot possibly be that Gihon should be Nile. As for that argument of compassing Ethiopia, which Nile doth, it is to be understood, that there is an Ethiopia meridionall, and an Ethiopia orientall, the first of which is indeed compassed by the river Nile, but not the other which is the Ethiopia here meant, being near to Arabia and Mesopotamia: of this double Ethiopia see Strabo, and Pliny. Now that the oriental Ethiopia is meant here, is plain, because that lay in these parts, where the rivers here mentioned did run, viz. In Mesopotamia, and Arabia, near to the land of Palestine. And therefore it is often spoken of, as being thus situated, as Psal. 87. Behold Philistia, those of Tyre and of Ethiopia, 2 Chron. 14. Zara the king of Ethiopia is said to have come against Israel with 1000000 men, and Chap. 21. God stirred the Philistines against Joram, who were near to the Ethiopians. And more particularly, the Midianites are set forth to have been those, who are otherwise called Ethiopians: for the wife of Moses, who was of Madian, is called an Ethiopian, but these Midianites, otherwise called Arabians were near to Palestine. Others therefore will have Gihon to be a little river not far from Jerusalem, where Solomon is said to have been anointed King, for both the name agreeth, and Euphrates not being far thence, this might well be a branch thereof. But how then should it compass the land of Ethiopia, when as the beginning of this Gihon, could not but be very near, as appeareth, in that Hezekiah is said to have stopped the upper Fountain of Gihon, against the coming of the King of Asshur, and other springs, that he might not find any water? Yet it may be answered, that this river might pass, as some others do, after that arising from the common head near Paradise, it had run along by Ethiopia through subterranean places, till that it rose up again near to Jerusalem, and at this head, it might at that time be stopped by Hezekiah, and the course of it diverted another way. The first opinion touching Nile cannot stand, for the reasons before alleged, and because that was well known to be a river of Egypt, and therefore Moses would doubtless, rather have called it by the common known name, if he had meant it, and by the compassing of Egypt. The most probable opinion than is, that this river was the Gihon at length, touching upon the land of Canaan, unless with others we shall say thus, that in general only, it is to be held to have sprung from Euphrates but is nowhere now to be found by this name. Touching the third river Chiddekel, which runneth towards the East of Assyria, all consent, that it is Tigris, called Chiddekel, from the sharp taste of the waters thereof, which this word in Hebrew signifieth, according to David Chimhi; Vatablus saith, that some will have Chiddekel to come from two words signifying, rapidum & velox, and Tigris from the swift running, because Tigris in the Median tongue signifieth an Arrow, as Strabo hath it, or from that swift beast called a Tigre, as Isidorus, and Rupertus. But Pliny is for the denomination from an arrow also. lib. 6. c. 27. Euphrates, because it was a river so well known, is only named, in Hebrew it is called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from fructifying, because it overfloweth the banks, after the manner of Nile, and maketh the grounds about it fruitful. It ariseth in Armenia the Greater and passing through Mesopotamia, and Seleucia falleth into Tigris, and after in a part branching therefrom, on the right side it runneth into Babylon, as Pliny saith. But this river and Tigris, saith Curtius, run the one on the one side of Mesopotamia, and the other on the other side, from whence, the country hath the name of Mesopotamia, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And is so fruitful, that men drive their cattle from feeding, least they should fill themselves too much and die.
And the Lord God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress is and to keep it, Before it is said, v. 8. the Lord God put the man in the garden, but not what he should there do, wherefore the same is here repeated again, and his employment is added.
If it be demanded, how the Lord took the man and put him there? It is [Quest.] answered, that either he took him by his Spirit, and brought him into this [Answ.] garden, or by his Angel, taking a body upon him, and transporting him thither, and by his Angel it is most probable, that he walked afterwards in the garden, or God the Son taking an human shape upon him, did all this, and spake with Adam. For an Angel, is Augustine, for the Son of God, Zanchi, to whom I rather subscribe.
If it be demanded, why he was not made in Paradise, but out of it, and then [Quest.] brought in: the reason of it may easily be conceived to be, both that having seen other places, he might be the more affected with the pleasantness of this, so far excelling, and praise God the more for his mercy herein, and also that he might not live in Paradise, as his natural place, but as in a place in great favor given him of God, being therefore the more careful to serve and obey him.
If it be further demanded, what dressing Paradise needed, being doubtless in every part a most complete place of pleasure, and all things naturally [Quest.] growing therein, both for use and delight, and from what he should keep it? It may be conceived, that although everything was then most perfect, yet it was so ordered by the Divine Providence, that the trees without cutting and pruning, would doubtless have grown out of order, and more unfruitful, and the walks, that were so pleasant, without keeping, would have been overgrown, the seedsand corn also, without husbanding the ground, would not still have come up in such abundance, and the beasts of the field, if they had not been kept out, would have come in, which would much have diminished the beauty of that place.
But it will be said, then it seemeth, that man must have labored, although [Object.] he had not sinned, whereas this was imposed upon him, as part of his curse for sin, to live upon the sweat of his brow: To this Saint Augustine answereth. The labor here appointed unto Adam was without all pain, and full of delight and pleasure. For even now, some husbandmen take great delight in the works of husbandry, so that they cannot by any means be taken from them to other things. But then it was much more, when there was no adverse accident, either in the earth or the heaven. For there was none affliction of labor, but exhilaration of the will, when as those things, which God had created, did more fruitfully, and pleasantly come forth by the help of man's labor, that the creation might be more largely praised, who had given unto man the reason to do thus, and ability for so much, as was sufficient for a willing mind, and not that, which the want of the body did compel him, being unwilling unto, &c. Man could not always busy himself in divine contemplation, and therefore to avoid idleness, God appointed him to be daily doing of somewhat, so that to be idle, and to spend the time in doing nothing, is not any part of man's happiness upon earth, but a base and brutish kind of living, and so altogether unfit for such as are endued with reason, of what estate or condition soever they be.
And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou [Note.] mayest freely eat, but of the tree of knowledge, of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day, that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. What the tree of knowledge was, and why so called, hath been already shown, and wherefore it it was interdicted to Adam, viz. That he might be kept from [Quest. 1] the knowledge of doing evil. But hereunto some add another reason, that he might by this interdiction take notice, that he was not absolute, and of himself to do what pleased him, but under the Lord, whose will only, and not his own imagination, was to be unto him the rule of righteousness. For this maketh the doing, or not doing of anything a sin, and a great sin, because it is against the will and command of the Lord, neither, if we will rightly weigh, what manner of sin, this or that is, must we go simply by considering the thing itself prohibited, but the command of God, which is against it, to sleight which is most heinous. To this effect Augustine saith, It could neither more diligently, nor better be set forth, how great an evil only disobedience is, seeing man was therefore made guilty of iniquity, because he touched that thing contrary to command, which if he had touched, there being no command against it, he had not sinned at all.
And Tertullian speaking of this prohibition, saith, This one law did in effect contain in it all the laws of the Decalogue given afterwards, and therefore the breaking of it was a most foul sin, and worthy to be punished with death. For what do all laws of God prescribe, but to love the Lord with all the heart, and a man's neighbor, as himself? Now if Adam had loved God, he would not have done against his will, if he had loved his neighbor, that is, himself and his posterity, he would not by doing against God's will, have brought a woe upon himself and us all. More particularly, if the law now forbiddeth to kill, hereby he was forbidden to kill himself, and his posterity, in soul and body, if to steal, hereby he was forbidden, by stealth to take of this fruit, and then to seek to hide himself, if to covet other men's goods, what was this, but to covet a thing reserved by the Lord, as his propriety, and if to lie, he made himself guilty hereof, by assenting to the Devils lie, when he told him, that he should not dy at all.
The next thing to be questioned here is, how this threatening was verified, [Quest. 2] in the day, that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die the death, seeing Adam lived 960 years after? To this divers answer diversely, some, that a day is with the Lord as a thousand years, wherefore Adam dying before the expiration of a thousand years, may be said to have died the same day. Some, that the meaning was nothing else, but that he should become mortal, a necessity of dying, growing upon him, after this eating, whereas before he was immortal. Symmachus to make this the more plain, translateth it, in the day, that thou eatest thereof thou shalt be mortal. Some, that he did indeed die the same day, in that his body was smitten with corruption, tending to death, so that his life thenceforth was no true, but a dying life, or lingering death. For the daily defect of corruption, saith Gregory, what is it else, but a certain prolixity of death? Wherefore after sin, immediately the body of Adam began by little and little to be dissolved, and corrupted, and to flow to destruction, and from that time death began to have dominion over him.
Some again have held, that these words, In that day, are to be restrained to these, that thou shalt eat thereof, the meaning being nothing else, but what day soever he should presume to eat of this fruit, his punishment should be death, the time when this death should be inflicted, not being set down. Some have understood it, of the spiritual death only, which is a privation of grace Others, that he should have been punished with death presently, had he not repented. And Vatablus saith, that one Nehamides expoundeth it thus, thou shalt die sooner, then otherwise thou shouldest have done. But so it must be granted, that man should have died, although he had not sinned. Amongst all the preceding expositions I prefer that, which restraineth these words, In that day, to these, that thou eatest thereof. For it is not necessary always to understand such a threatening as this, as if the punishment threatened, should be inflicted without any further delay, for there is a plain meaning, being otherwise understood, viz. Thou shalt die, and it shall be in my power, when I please, at any time from thence forward, to take thy life from thee, or if it be understood, precisely of the day, the meaning may be, thou shalt receive the sentence of death irrevocable, for he, upon whom the sentence is passed by the Judge, is now but a dead man, And that this was the meaning, seemeth by the sequel, Chap. 3. 19. Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. Yet Calvin hath another sense, thou shalt be involved with all sorts of miseries both of soul and body. But howsoever if to be destitue of grace, and so to be miserable in soul, be to be dead, to be oppressed with deadly miseries is not, and therefore if this should be admitted, the death through a deprivation of grace must needs be meant, according to an exposition mentioned before, as the chief thing intended. But that this is not so, appeareth both by a speech following after, lest man take of the tree of life, and live forever, &c. verse 22. where certainly the bodily life is meant, and in that Saint Paul speaking of this death incurred by sin, is plain for the bodily death. That Adam should have died presently, had he not repented, is but a conjecture: for if by repenting death were delayed, why might he not by repentance have been altogether set free from it again? That of a day with the Lord as a 1000 years, is far fetched, and needeth no confutation, for although God be so invariable, that he changeth no more in a 1000 years than in a day, yet when a day is spoken of with reference to man, it is nowhere in all the Scriptures so understood. As for the other expositions, if we adjoin them to the exposition here admitted, they may altogether well explain the words more fully thus, whensoever thou eatest, thou shalt instantly receive the sentence of death, becoming thus always from thence forward subject unto it, yea, the stroke shall be begun to be stricken in thy body by infirmities, and in thy soul by my withdrawing of my grace from thee immediately, neither shalt thou escape everlasting death after this miserable life ended. For that man is by Christ upon his repentance and faith set free from this again, hindereth not, but that we may understand it, as absolutely threatened here, seeing there is none exemption herefrom, but there was a necessity of the dying of one man, because God could not otherwise have been just, in expressly setting down this as the punishment of his sin.
But it may be further demanded, how Eve came to be bound by this [Quest. 3] command, seeing she was not yet made, and how she came to have any knowledge of it? for that she knew it, and took herself also to be bound by it, appeareth, Gen. 3. 3. Answer; some there are, that think that Eve was made, before the giving of this precept, although the making of her be recorded after, because Gen. 1. 29. the Lord speaking both to Adam and Eve first giveth them the liberty of all trees and herbs in the world to eat of them, and then after this having placed them in paradise, he reneweth that liberty of eating of all, one only excepted. For that they were made before the liberty of eating of all trees given, is plain, because they are spoken to in the plural number, and this precept here must needs come after that, because if otherwise this had been given first, and that after, this might well have been thought to have been reversed thereby.
And of this mind Gregory seemeth to have been, that he rendereth these words in the plural number that, ex omni ligno paradisi comedite, de ligno autem scientiae boni & mali ne tetigeritis. And the Septuagint's translation is partly in the singular and partly in the plural number: of all the trees thou shalt eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day that ye eat thereof, ye shall die the death. But in the Hebrew and Chaldee, the whole sentence runneth in the singular number only. Others therefore hold, that this precept was given only to Adam before the making of Eve, and by him imparted to her, as concerning them both alike, both because in the order of the history it is thus set down, first the precept is given, and then the making of Eve related, and also because it is not to be thought, but that God would give Adam this precept immediately upon his bringing of him into paradise, least haply some time intervening, he might eat of this tree, before the precept giving. But touching the order of the history, it may be said, as the making of Eve is spoken of after this precept, so it is mentioned before together with the making of Adam Gen. 1. 27. wherefore nothing can certainly be concluded from the order, but only it may be thought, that Moses having set forth the creation of man & woman in general Chap. 1. he falleth in this 2 Chap. to make a more particular relation of the same, & first of the creation of the man, whereunto he addeth his being taken and placed in paradise, the description of paradise and this interdiction, as was most convenient: for these do so follow the one the other, and so hang together, as that they could not well have been severed. Then the relation of the man's creation with the appurtenances being ended, he setteth forth in particular how and upon what occasion Eve was made, not that these things were done just after the words of interdiction delivered, but because now it was a fit time to speak of the woman, that we might have the whole history touching her together, as by this means we have. And if so, Adam might well have this precept given him at his first coming into paradise, and yet withal it might be given at the same time to Eve also, who was not made, as is supposed, after the bringing of Adam into paradise, but before, in the place where Adam was made. I do therefore subscribe rather to the first opinion, the reason brought for, which indeed is unanswered and unanswerable, viz. that the liberty of eating of all trees was given to them both, but this could not be after this interdiction; wherefore they must needs both be before it. Eve then was not made in paradise and Adam out, as many hold: for then she should not have been so much bounden to God for paradise, as Adam, for it would have been her natural place, and idle she might well have been, as not being appointed to do anything about the dressing and keeping of the garden, as Adam was. But both Adam and Eve were made out of paradise, and then brought in together, this most happy place being a further grace conferred upon them, after their making, according to others.
One question more now only remaineth, viz. why the Lord gave Adam [Quest. 4] a precept, which he knew he would not keep, and if both were charged alike herewith, why it goeth in the singular and not in the plural number? Answer; To this it may be said, that God did not give man this precept to entangle him, but because it was fit, that the creature should have somewhat propounded, wherein to obey the Creator, and to show his duty towards him. Now the wonderful goodness of God appeared sufficiently in that he propounded such a precept, as man might most easily have kept. Ob. If it be further said, but God could have preserved him from falling, and why then did he not, if he had so great a love unto him? Answer; Because then it would not have appeared, what man's power had been, when he was left unto himself, even when he had free will, and God's mercy could not have been so much magnified in redeeming man again by Christ. It is true, that man is bound to keep any other from sinning, if he can, because he is under a law requiring this, neither may he do anything, which he knoweth will be an occasion of offending. But God is not under, but above all laws, and therefore it is just with him to do whatsoever he pleaseth in either kind, because otherwise there would be no place for his mercy to shine in the salvation of some, nor for his justice in the damnation of others. And whereas God is said to have forbidden man the eating of this tree in the singular number, it is an usual thing in giving any precept for the Lord to speak but as it were to one. For thus the decalogue runneth, thou shalt have none other gods but Me, &c. seeing all in respect of God's laws are but as one man bound alike, and originally but one, seeing all come of one, and that a man, he being thus the chief That God in speaking of man might mean both man and woman appeareth, by that which is said after their eating; man is become as one of us knowing good and evil. for not only the man but the woman also was now become such. As for that resolution of some, that to Adam the precept was directed, because he was principally bound hereby, so that if he had not eaten though Eve had eaten, his posterity should not have been entangled, whereas contrariwise, although Eve had refrained, yet he alone eating should together with all his have been condemned. I cannot see, how this may be admitted: for in another like case, the virtue of the man or of the wife alone is made alike in respect of posterity, the unbelieving wife is sanctified the believing husband, and the unbelieving husband, by the believing wife, otherwise were your children unholy, but now they are clean: and therefore it may be thought rather, that if one of them had stood, the man or the woman only, it should have been to their children likewise. As for the words, of the tree of knowledge, in the Hebrew, of the wood of knowledge, it is an usual metonymy, the tree or wood being put for the fruit, and in dying thou shalt die, is an hebraisme so common, that it needeth no explication, it being hereby meant, that he should most certainly die.
And the Lord God said, it is not good, that man should be alone, &c. Here beginneth the particular history of the woman's creation, the reason whereof was, because man before this was alone, so as no other sort of creatures was, and being thus he wanted society, neither could he increase, as the rest of the creatures might, which the Lord saith here, was not good for him, and therefore he propoundeth to make him an help. And this being further amplified, first, by relating, how all beasts and fowls were brought to Adam to be named, and that amongst them all, there was not one found, that might be a meet help for him, the manner of making the woman is next declared, v. 21. 22, &c. The Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7. saith, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, this seemeth to be contrary to the words here delivered. But as Cyprian saith, we must distinguish between the times, when God saith thus, the world was empty, and without inhabitants, and therefore the conjunction of man and woman was necessary, for the increase of posterity: but now the world being full of people, a single life is to be commended to all, that are capable of it, that they may be the less troubled in their way to the Kingdom of heaven. The Apostle denieth it not to be good for any man to marry, yet: for he saith, he that marrieth doth well, only in such, as have the gift, he preferreth continency. Wherefore the popish sort debasing marriage so much, and commending the vowing of perpetual virginity, as the only perfect estate, do plainly oppose themselves herein against God, who saith, it is not good for man to be himself alone, never excepting again, but in the case of having the gift of continency. But of this I have spoken more upon, 1 Cor. 7.
I will therefore make, the vulgar Latin readeth it, we will make, but this is contrary to the Hebrew; in that the making of woman is propounded first, and then God maketh her, this showeth the excellency of this work, as the consultation about the making of Adam showeth his excellency above other creatures.
An help meet for him, that is, as Augustine saith, in respect of Generation and nourishing up of children, a man being in all other things a fitter help to man, than a woman, which is true indeed, if we respect the labor of Husbandry, but in household businesses a woman is an help much fitter then a man, it properly belonging to him to go abroad, and to do things pertaining to the fields, and contracts, and political governments, and to her to keep at home, to order and guide things there. The words translated, an help meet for him, are in the Hebrew, an help against him. But the word against, is here put for before, as in many other places is usual, it being hereby intimated, that the woman should be at hand always to her husband, to help and to do for him, as belongeth to her sex. Some, because of these words, against him, have gathered, that the woman was made from the beginning contrary to man, and apt to cross him, and oppose him in many things: but this is a corrupt exposition, for the debates and oppositions between man and wife were doubtless brought in by sin, there being all unity, and good concord before. Others, that the woman is said to be against the man, because there must needs be some contrary between them, as between the agent and patient, seeing if they were in all things alike, and there were no difference, there could not have been any generation. But our English version doth fully set forth the sense of this word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it were over against him, that is so framed, as is most fit and meet for him in every respect, and set over against him, as the object of his delight always in his sight.
The Lord God therefore formed every beast out of the earth, &c. This is not spoken of here, as now done, for the beasts and fowls were made before man, Chap 1. • 0. But by way of capitulation, as other things in this Chapter are spoken of also, that he might thus come to declare their names imposed by man. Whereas here may seem to be a contradiction to that, about the fowls making out of the waters, because they are here said to have been made out of the ground, see the resolution of this upon these words. The word translated, brought, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he made to come: for the Lord did not bring the beasts and fowls, as it were, in his hand to Adam, but by his command made them to come unto him, as to their Lord, for thus at the first the creatures did not shun man, but come familiarly unto him, till that by sin the case was altered. To see, what he would call them, that is, as Zanchi hath it, that Adam might see and behold them, and so consider of fit names to be imposed upon them, according to their several natures, and not that God might see, how he would call them. The fishes were not brought to be named by him, because they could not be numbered amongst those, that might any way be thought to be helps unto him, seeing they live altogether in the waters, and not upon the earth with man, as the beasts and fowls do. From this giving of names, when Adam had seen into the nature of the creatures, so the Hebrews have gathered, that Adam had most exact skill in Physiognomy, for otherwise he could not have given fit names unto them, as doubtless he did, but upon what reason each beast and fowl was called by such or such a name, we cannot now tell, as all confess. And what Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Some, saith Zanchi, will have these words understood, as spoken by Moses, intimating, that even to his time the creatures were called, as Adam had named them at the first, but this is not by him allowed, but he will rather have these words understood, as spoken, touching God, that he approved of Adams naming of the creatures, and that he would have them so called, as he had brought them to Adam to be named. But then the words must in a little different manner be rendered. That what Adam called every living creature, that might be the name thereof, and so indeed Zanchi, and some others, as Vatablus saith, read them, and this sense is most probable.
But for Adam, there was not found an help meet for him. That is, amongst all these creatures, whereof many were made for helps unto him, there was not yet any meet, or that might be set, as it were against him, as being like to himself, in the lineaments and proportion of body, all but wherein there must needs be a difference, in an immortal soul, in the faculty of speaking, and talking together, in helping to breed, and to bring up children, and to manage domestical affairs, and to lie in his bosom, to delight him with the sweetness of the society thereof, and to converse continually with him, which is meant by these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, &c. There are in the Hebrew tongue three words signifying sleep, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Ibn-Ezra showeth, is the least sleeping, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is somewhat deeper, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the deepest sleep of all, and by this word is the sleep of Adam here set forth, wherefore Symmachus translateth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a great and deep sleep, and the Septuagint 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a transe. Why he was now cast into so deep a sleep, divers render divers reasons. Some, that whilst his rib was taken out, he might not feel any pain, as Chrysostom, and Ephiphanius, and Theodoret in speaking hereof reasoneth thus: If Adam had been waking when this was done, he must either have felt no pain, or have felt pain, if none, he might have thought it to have been a phantasy, and not a thing really done, if pain that would have been very hard, and unbefitting the state of innocence before any sin committed. But Zanchi rejecteth this, as a frigid reason, because God could have taken a rib out of Adam, without putting him to pain, as well waking as sleeping, and therefore he yieldeth two other reasons, first, that in his sleep he might reveal unto him, from whence the woman had her beginning, and the great mystery of the Churches being made out of Christ dead and pierced in his side. Secondly, that every man might learn in seeking a wife, to let his affections sleep and to depend wholly upon God's providing one for him, who will if we commit the matter to him, provide better for us than we can for ourselves. Yet I subscribe rather to the first: for although I grant, that God revealed these things to Adam sleeping, as he did afterwards to Abraham, something touching his posterity, when he slept a great heavy sleep, and morally such an use may be made of Adams sleeping, whilst Eve was formed: yet the principal reason of his being cast into this sleep, must needs be, because all sense for the time being thus taken from him, that was a natural way to make a breach in his body, he not feeling any pain in the mean season. Thus also Vatablus and that he might acknowledge the woman to be a gift coming freely from God, and so be the more thankful. For as touching the Revelations in the time of his sleep, God could as well have told him all this waking, as have revealed it unto him sleeping, and therefore no necessary reason of his being cast into such a sleep, can be herein. And to the first assenteth the Master of the Sentences, as the first and chief reason, adding indeed this also as another, that herein there might be a type of the Church taken out of Christ asleep by death.
He took one of his ribs) the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 translated a rib, doth as well signify a side, and therefore some Hebrews have held, that man was made at the first with a double body, an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being both man and woman, back being joined to back, but now one side was parted from the other, woman being made thereof, which they seek also to prove by the consideration of the back parts, which show still, as if they had formerly been joined to somewhat else. Thus also Plato, and this is followed by Eugubinus, holding that therefore it is said in the creation of man. In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them, because the first man was made so, as that he was both man and woman. But this opinion is generally rejected and that worthily, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 although it signifieth a side, yet it signifieth not either a fore-part or a back-part, as it must needs do according to this interpretation. Again, Eve is said to have been formed of that which was taken from man, therefore she was not ready formed before, and wanted only dividing. Wherefore it was not a part of Adams body having already a face, and other lineaments, that God took but a rib out of one side of one side of his body, whether right or left we cannot tell, and if the word be translated side, it is to be taken Synecdochically, the whole being put for the part. But why did the Lord make the woman of a rib of man, and not of [Quest.] the earth or of some other part? Answer; She was not made of the earth, lest man being of a more noble sex should contemn her. She was not made out of any superior part, least she should think to have dominion over her husband, nor of an inferior, but out of the middle part, that man might not debase her, but moderately esteem of her. And out of the side next the heart to show the love, that the man should bear unto her, and so it is probably thought, that it was the left side to show the weakness of this sex. And as the sides are under the arms, so the woman is under the protection of her husband. But above all she was made out of the side of the man to prefigure [Quest.] the piercing of Christ's side with a spear making blood and water to flow out, setting forth the two Sacraments, out of which the Church is erected. But it may further be demanded, what manner of rib did God take, whether the bare bone only, or flesh withal? Answer; He took both, as appeareth by the speech of Adam here following. Th • s now is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone. He took bone and flesh withal, and supplied flesh again, that there might be no breach, so woman partaketh of some of the strength of the man, and man of some of the tenderness of the woman, as Zanchi noteth. It was but one bone that was taken, not two or more out of each side, as Oleaster fondly conceived, holding, that the places to this day, where these bones were taken out, remain soft and fleshy near the paunch, being called for the want of ribs vacuum: for it is said in the text, God took a rib, not ribs, and if Adam after this wanted a rib on one side, it followeth not, that other men who came of him should all want one likewise, no more than, that he, which is begotten of a man wanting a leg or an arm should also want this member, for experience showeth that he doth not. For the making of an whole body out of one rib, this was by adding more flesh and bones in the framing thereof, as God could easily do, that the woman not having all her being of man, but the greatest part of God, man might not insult over her, as being all his own, but be thankful to God for her, and yet because she is but a rib in comparison of man, she must acknowledge the perfection of man above her, she being but as one member to the whole. Hugo de Sancto Victore, and some others hold, that woman was not made of this rib, by adding any other matter to it, but by the extension of the same matter to such a greatness, as might suffice to make her, because otherwise she could not have been said to be made of the rib, but rather of something else, being her greater part. But Thomas Aquinas is for the former, and rejecteth this, because so this rib must be rarified, and then the body of woman would not have been so solid, as now it is, and as for that objection against the former, so the woman could not have been said to be made of the rib, he answereth, that she might well yet be said to be made of it, because that was first taken, although more matter were immediately added to increase it to such a quantity. But this is not worth the contending about.
And the rib which the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman: a woman in hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is man, twoletters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this word signify God, but being taken out, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fire, to show, that if a wife be not godly, she is as a fire or torment to her husband, so Zanchi. In the Hebrew, it is, built he a woman, which hath given occasion to diversity of reasons, why this phrase is here used, and not (formed) as before in speaking of man. But the true reasons are only these two, both because the woman is, as it were an house, containing inhabitants, for so in her womb are children contained, according to Zanchi & Cajetan: and also because as an house is first a rude kind of matter, and then it is by the art of the builder framed into a form, so here a rib is taken, & by a divine art made into a woman, the man, who was made of clay being said by a word proper to things made of such matter, to be formed, but woman to be built, according to Chrysostom. Others say, that this phrase is used because the work of creating mankind was now finished, or man grew now into an Economy, & Zanchi hath a reason also which is taken out of R. Solomon, because the lower parts of a woman's body, viz. her legs and thighs are greater, as made to sustain the building, than those of man: but experience will easily confute this, and for the other, it is coincident with the first.
But here is nothing spoken of the woman's soul. What may be the reason of [Quest.] this? Answer; it is most likely, that this was omitted, as being a thing, that must needs be understood; seeing the Lord had said before, he would make man an help meet for him, such as none other creature was, therefore as in the shape of the body, and in speech she must be more excellent, than other creatures, and like unto the man, so she must be in a reasonable soul also, or else she could not be meet for him. But forsomuch as the breathing of a soul into her is not spoken of, a question hath been moved by some, whether the same soul, that was in Adam were not communicated unto her: but I find it not resolved by any. If I may freely utter my conjecture, I think, that the soul of them both was one, the woman being no sooner made, but she was a living soul, as the flesh and bone of Adam, so his soul being communicated to her also. For the same power, that could make a perfect body of a rib, could as easily withal communicate the soul of that body, out of which that rib was taken unto this new made body. And in conjecturing thus, I do not imagine, that still the soul of each man is communicated to his wife, for no woman more is thus brought into the world in a miraculous manner, but Eve only, and therefore everyone after both male and female hath a distinct soul infused in the womb. Only this building the Lord would have thus to be for a mystery, as the making of one body into two, to set forth that man and wife are one flesh, so this, to set forth that they are and ought to be as one soul in two bodies. And as there is a great mystery in making two bodies of one to set forth the faithful to be as members of Christ's mystical body, so in the communicating of the same soul to two, there is as great a mystery of the unity of the spirit in Christ, and in his Church.
And brought her unto the man. This is generally understood of the marriage of Adam and Eve, and not only, that he moved her, as other creatures, to come to Adam. And Zanchi saith, that he doubteth not, but the Son of God in the shape of a man, after that the woman was made, lead her about the garden to show her the fruits thereof, Adam yet sleeping, and then brought her unto him at his waking, and with solemn Matrimoniall words joined them together. But this is only a conjecture, yet that he joined her unto him, (he being willing after he saw her, and she declaring her willingness by her coming to him) and did not bring her to him only as the other creatures, is plain, because our Savior speaking of those, that are joined together in Matrimony, saith, those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. Wherefore God is rightly affirmed by us in our solemnization of marriage to be the instituter thereof in paradise. And the joining of Adam and Eve together in marriage is well set forth by these words, he brought her to him, to show first, that man is the chief, and that the woman was made for him, therefore she is brought to him, not he to her. Secondly, that the woman ought to come to her husbands house to dwell with him, and not he to hers. Thirdly, that Marriages ought not to be made, but the parties being present, and not in their absence, or the one having not seen the other.
And Adam says, this now is bone of my bones, &c. These words, saith Fagius are generally read by all ours, hac vice os ex ossibus meis, but the Hebrews refer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the woman, and read it thus, this, that is, this woman is now bone of my bones, and this is plainest. But here a question is moved, to what, this word now hath reference? Some say to the narration going before of all the creatures upon earth brought before Adam, as if he had said, hitherto I have seen no creature meet for me, because they are all unlike unto me, but now I see one meet indeed, even flesh of my own flesh, &c. others refer it to other women that should afterwards be born into the world, as if he had said, this, that now is made, is taken out of my body in an admirable manner, but such women, as shall come into the world afterwards, shall not be brought forth in this manner, but ordinarily by generation. The first doubtless is most genuine, and this far fetched. How Adam came to know this, seeing he was asleep, when it was done, may easibly be conceived by God's revealing of it unto him in his sleep, she shall be called woman, the word woman in hebrew is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying man, as if it had been said man's female.
Therefore shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife. Some will have these words taken as a law, and as a law made by God, although uttered by Adam, because our Savior Christ speaketh of it, as a law from the beginning, urging it against divorcements. And in this law they will have three laws comprehended. First, for the taking of a wife by everyone, that is fit for generation, and hath not the gift of continency. Secondly, for cohabitation. Thirdly, for the giving of mutual due benevolence by being coupled unto her for generation. Now although I acknowledge that, which is here said, to be of God, as it must needs be, because Adam was asleep, and knew nothing of these things, but as God by his Spirit revealed them unto him, thus making a Prophet of him, as Chrysostom observeth, yet for the law herein set down, I cannot see, how it should be for anymore, than cohabitation, and cleaving to his wife in affection, all others being neglected, in comparison of her: namely, for such as have wives. But for such as have none, it is left to their own liberty to marry, or not to marry, as they are moved in their own minds. It is true indeed, that by the law of God everyone ought rather to marry, than to yield to fleshly lusts, swaying him to incontinency: but for such, as will not be swayed hereby, but subdue them, it is free to use a single life. For if this were a precept, it must either at some time be abrogated, as it never was, or else virginity could never have been preferred, as now it is, before marriage. For this, he shall leave father and mother, the Rabbin's have, following the Chaldee: he shall leave the bed of father and mother, &c. expounding it as a law against all incestuous marriages, and these words, he shall cleave to his wife, against adultery, sodomitry, and buggery. And they shall be one flesh, Man and wife are said to be one flesh: First, for their living together, as one upon the same means being common to both. Secondly, for their mutual power over the bodies of one another. Thirdly, for the fleshly issue that cometh from them both: The Septuagint's read it, they two shall be one flesh, and so doth the Lord repeat it, because two only, and not more can be one flesh, by God's first institution. He that joineth himself to an harlot, is hereby said to be made one flesh with her, because he is in the fleshly copulation joined unto her, having now lost the power of his own body, and made it over to her, which approveth the thing before spoken of their being made one flesh, by the mutual power over one another's body. Verse. 25. And they were both naked, and were not ashamed. These words are added to show the innocence and freedom from sin in our first parents. For even as little children are naked, and are not ashamed, for want of judgment, what is comely, and what is filthy, so Adam and Eve, although they were of ripe judgment for their innocence, were not ashamed, as appeareth, because having sinned, it is immediately said, that they were ashamed. By sin then it is brought about, that [Note.] many hath need to be ashamed, which showeth, what a filthy and shameful thing sin is. So that now to be ashamed, is rightly held to be a sign of grace, and of an heart not obstinately set upon sinning, but touched with repentance, contrariwise, to be impudent, and brazen faced, is a sign of an heart hardened in sin. Hence cometh the nakedness of the Americans, a most rude and barbarous people at this day, some of them in some parts having nothing upon them, to cover so much as their privities, and hence that Sect called Adamites blushed not to go naked, men and women together, as Epiphanius showeth, after the manner of Adam. But to return again to Adam and Eve, they loved doubtless without lust, using their members of generation, as reason willed, and not having the heat of lust in them blinding reason, and immoderate delight, as at this day. For as God had made their bodies such, that they might have lived ever free from corruption, why may we not think, saith Augustine, that before sin they could so command over their genitall members, for the procreation of children, as they did over other members, which the soul moveth in any work without any trouble or itching of pleasure? For if amongst the most minute creatures there be some, as the Bees, which do work the generation of their young, as Wax and Honey, why should it seem incredible, that God made our fist parents such bodies, as that they could as easily command over their genitall members, as over their feet to go, and their hands to do this or that, and to sow without ardour, and to bring forth without pain? And if so, there was no reason, why yet they should be ashamed. Some there are and those ancient and learned, who have held, that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, man should not have had issue by the carnal knowledge of his wife, but some other way after the manner of Angels, but is well confuted by Thomas Aquinas and others, because the genitall members were so formed at the first, and therefore generation must needs be hereby, and because the Lord commandeth them being made to increase and multiply, teaching Adam to say, that they were one flesh, which the Apostle showeth, is by carnal copulation, so that by this means, it was the Lord's will even at the first, that they should increase and multiply. The only difference then was, as hath been already said, they had not in them that heat of lust overcoming reason, but by the moderation of reason did that, which pertained to generation, as well as any other action.
CHAP. III.
NOw the Serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, which the Lord God had made, &c. A great question ariseth here, how that, which is spoken of the Serpent, ought to be understood, whether it were a Serpent indeed, or the Devil in the Shape of a Serpent? To this divers answer diversely. 1 Some, that it was a true Serpent, having at the first the faculty of speaking, as man and woman had, although for this it were deprived thereof, and poison instead of speech fixed to the tongue, and as the Serpent, so they say, the rest of the beasts lived in good agreement together, having the use of speech, neither did the Serpent go upon the belly, but erect, until that for man's sin, to which it tempted him, it was thus punished. And the reason, why the Serpent sought to make him sin, was the envy thereof, at the man's excellent estate, wherein he should have remained, if he had not sinned.
2 Some, that the Serpent could not speak ordinarily, but by the Devil it was obtained of the Lord, that it should speak at this time to tempt them, as sometime he obtained liberty to tempt Job. Thus Moses-Barcephas saith, that Ephrem Syrus, who was of the same time with Basil h • ld, and so his faculty of speaking was but like to that of Balaam's Ass.
3 Some, that it was no true serpent, but the likeness of a Serpent, wherein the Devil came to Eve.
4 Some, that the Devil spake in the Serpent, the Serpent itself not being able to utter any voice, for the Devil could use what beast he would, as his instrument to speak and to reason thereby, that instrument so used in the mean season not understanding, what is said, as in men, that are wrapped with an evil spirit. And this seemeth the more probable, because Serpents are still moved strangely at incantations, which are of the Devil, above all other creatures, not that they understand them, but by a diabolical power, as Augustine reasoneth. And this is most generally followed by the ancient Fathers, and by the Commentators of these times, R. Menahem saith, it was the unclean spirit Samuel in him, and likewise Eliezar.
5 Lastly, others hold, that neither any true Serpent here spake, nor the Devil in a Serpent, neither that any audible voice was heard, or shape seen, but that this temptation was only a motion suggested by the Devil into the mind of Eve, because it is usual in the holy Scriptures to seak of the Devil by the name of the Old Serpent, and the Dragon, and of Behemoth.
I would willingly now, having related the divers expositions, go with the common stream of expositors: for there are many considerations inducing unto it, as that nothing had the faculty of arguing rationally, besides the Devil, except God, Angels, and men, and therefore it seemeth, that it could not be a mere Serpent, but the Devil in the Serpent, and that the Devil is said to have been a liar, and a murderer from the beginning, which could not have been spoken, unless he had been the agent in this temptation, and in another place it is expressly said, through the envy of the Devil, came death into the world. Lastly, he is called the old Serpent, the Devil, as noting this Serpent here spoken of. Yet there are two things, both or one of which, I think unanswerable, that may be objected. First, that the Serpent is said to be more subtle, than any of the beasts, which must needs be understood, as a preparative to the ensuing relation, and so that through his subtlety and cunning, and not only by the Devils using him, as an instrument, the woman was deceived, to which effect also the Apostle speaketh, 2 Cor. 11. 3. For to what purpose had it been to tell of the Serpents subtlety, unless this communication had proceeded therefrom, and not from the Devils altogether, seeing the simplest of the beasts might as well have been used, as an instrument of temptation, as the most cunning? Neither will it help, that some say here, that it is not meant that the Serpent in itself was the subtlest, but the Devil in the Serpent: for Moses compareth not Devils with beasts, but one beast with another, amongst which the Serpent is said to be the most subtle: For if he had meant it of the Devil, he might better have said, more subtle, than either the beasts or the man, which God had made, because in subtlety the Devil being a spirit exceedeth all.
Secondly, this temptation being ended and man seduced, the author thereof, the serpent being found out, he is cursed to go upon his belly, and to eat dust, being in this debased more than any beast else, when as in some respects, he was more excellent at the first. Now it cannot be just with God, thus to punish a creature, wherein there was no fault, as it must needs be confessed that he did, if the Serpent in this action was a mere patient, and these speeches were forced from his mouth by the Devil, he not knowing, what he said. For as that man is faultless, whom the Devil possessing useth, as aninstrument of blasphemy, he not knowing what is spoken by him, so the Serpent, if the Devil only spake in him and by him, he conceiving nothing must needs be without fault also, and so this punishment could not justly have been inflicted upon him, whereas this punishment is justified by Calvin and Musculus, because the Lord hath power over his creatures, to deal with them for his own ends, as seemeth good unto him, and therefore this dumb and unreasonable creature being made an instrument to pervert man, whereas hemade all things to serve him, he might justly, to show his horror of sin, that man might be the more affected, strike him in this manner, as a father breaketh the sword wherewith his chlilde was slain. I grant that this reason may satisfy indeed, for punishment inflicted without a reason rendered, but here the cause is expressed, because thou hast done this thing, and so no liberty is left to excogitate any other reason, and to this the serpent might have answered, I did not, but the Devil spake in and through me, if he had been a mere paient. He did it then voluntarily at the Devils instigation, as he now biteth the heels of men, or of cursed corruption, wherefore I cannot for my part subscribe to this exposition, and much less to any of the other four. For the first is most improbable, because if all the beasts could have spoken familiarly at the first, there had been no reason to deprive them all of speech for the fault of one, and it is strange, that even this one should be herein punished, when as his doom toucheth it not, but only going upon his belly, and eating of dust. Touching the second, it is not likely, that the Serpent would have been so pliant to the Devils mind, a liberty of speaking being obtained, as to use it to seduce man, whose subject he was made, and not the Devils, especially all things in the terrestrial creatures, being now very good and right, and so no leaven of malice or envy against man, being in any of them. Again, had God granted the Serpent liberty to speak thus, he had not faulted, and so had been unworthy of punishment therefore. For the third, it cannot stand, because then a phantasme, and not the serpent should have been punished, and the thing being done, for which the Devil took this shape upon him, he would have immediately deposed it again, and not have been found in the same, when the Lord came to punish the author of this mischief. And for the fifth, it perverteth the truth of the history, and turneth it into an allegory, and if we may so do for this particular, Origen like, we may do so for all things preceding, and so this whole narration of the creation shall be nothing certain. Besides, it is proper to the Serpent literally understood, which is after set down for the punishment thereof, and not to the Devil, whose suggestion only, if this had been, he only should have been rebuked. These objections against all the expositions hitherto brought, being considered by some, they have thought the doubt of this place indissoluble, what therefore, if we shall essay the resolveing of it another way, by taking something from one of them, and something from another, thus? A very Serpent this was, and full of wit and subtlety, but naturally without the faculty of speaking, neither did he of himself apply his mind to seek the hurt of man, his Lord and master, but the Devil persuadeth the Serpent to this out of his envy, and finding him tractable, as he could easily gather by any little sign, he helpeth his tongue to speak, and putteth words into him, instructing him, how to take the opportunity, and at that time the Serpent was a goodly creature and went upright, so that the woman being but newly formed and not knowing, whether it were an usual thing for Serpents to speak or no, might well without suspicion enter into communication with him, as a fit companion to parley withal. If it be doubted here touching the wit of the Serpent, because this is proper to a reasonable soul, such as beast had not, but man and woman only, it may be said, that the Serpent had not indeed such wit as man, but was the wittiest of beasts, and in some things is so witty and subtle, as that he may put man nowadays to school: for so the Lord saith. Be ye wise as serpents, and innocent as doves, which we may well oppose against all authorities of Philosophers, who write of the Serpents subtlety, as if it were not so great, as that of some other beasts. For be it, that what Moses saith here of the Serpents subtlety, may be evaded, by saying, that he meant it of the Devil, yet that which is spoken by Christ of the Serpents wisdom, I am sure cannot be thus evaded, wherefore the Serpent doubtless is most intelligent for a beast, to this day. If it be doubted touching the erect going of the Serpent then, because as man having sinned was not changed in any natural faculty of the body, to be apparently divers from that, which he was before, so it is not likely, that the Serpent should be changed, the very doom pronounced may resolve it. For why should this be denounced, as a curse for that thing done, if it were so before? And it is no good arguing to reason from man to the Serpent, for to each of the three offending is assigned a divers punishment, so that although in man there were no alteration in respect of the figure of his body, yet there might be in the Serpent. But that the Serpent could not ordinarily speak, besides that, which hath been said to this already, it is probable, because the Lord having questioned with the man and the woman about their sin, as speaking to those, that could answer him, when he cometh to speak to the Serpent, without all questioning he proceedeth to judgment. Objections more against this exposition, how any may be made I cannot see. And thus the Devil appeareth to be guilty by moving the Serpent, and helping him to speak, and the Serpent guilty by being drawn by the Devil to use his wit to so bad a purpose, and so worthily judged, and so we see, for what end the Serpents subtly is spoken of before the temptation. And if any man maketh a question, how the Devil could help the Serpent to speak? I answer, as the Angel sometime helped Balaam's Ass to speak by opening his mouth, and as the horse of Achilles spake and foretold him of his death, according to Homer, and as the river Causus spake to Pythagoras, according to Porphyrius saying, Salve Pythagora, which examples with some others are brought by Cyril, lib. 3. cont. Julian. Thus I have been bold to adventure my imagination amongst others, and if any yet shall be able to bring better, or to confute this, I shall be ready to recant and to subscribe unto him.
Other things here are not so hard to be resolved: for if a question be made, why the Serpent came rather to the woman, then to the man? it is easily answered that she was the weaker, and so the more easy to be persuaded. And thus Augustine, He began with the woman, the inferior part of that human society, that he might come by degrees to the whole, thinking not the man to be so credulous, or that he would err by being deceived, but in yielding to the error of another.
And herein others consent also. But how doth the Serpent begin? Hath God indeed, or yea hath God said, a speech, that seemeth to hang to some-what spoken before, was there not then some communication between the Serpent and the woman before this? Ans. Rabbi, David, Chimhi saith, that certainly some speeches were had between them before this, the Serpent calumniating God in other things, as not dealing so well by them, as he might have done, and Fagius saith, that the Hebrews constantly hold, that the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used is never wont to be placed at the beginning of a speech, but after some things spoken before, being as much in effect, as quanto magis, or as Vatablius hath it, multo magis miror, much more do I wonder, that God [Quest.] should forbid you to eat of the Trees in the Garden. The Chaldee Paraphrast hath it, is it true, that God, &c. And this seemeth to be rightest unto Calvin, but it is most generally held, that some speeches were had between them before, as an introduction to this, whereby the Serpent sought to work in the woman an hard opinion touching the Lord, and this seemeth most probable, because it had been strange for him to have begun thus abruptly, and the woman might so have well suspected his plot.
Touching the question hath God said, ye shall not eat of every Tree of the Garden? This is understood by some, as if the meaning were, is there someone Tree, which God hath forbidden you to eat of, or doth he not without difference allow you to eat of everyone? by others, as if he had said, Hath God forbidden you to eat of any of the Trees in the Garden, or is he possessed with such envy against you, that he will not have you to eat of any of these delicate fruits but that you must seek your food else-where, out of the Garden? Calvin mentioneth both these, and confirmeth them, but rather approveth the former, and so 〈…〉 h Musculus, saying, that the Serpent did herein seem to be more for the good of man, then the Lord, in that he made a show, as if needlessly he had forbidden them the eating of any Tree, but by Evahs answer, the other exposition is rather approved: for she defendeth God's liberality in allowing all the Trees unto them, but one only, which she needed not to have done, but might rather have shortly answered, yes, there is one Tree that he hath forbidden us to eat of. Some note here, that he would make her believe, that God did not say so, but she was mistaken, because then some reason could have been rendered of this prohibition, and according to this the vulgar Latin readeth it, why hath God said, &c. But it is better to understand it, as a simple inquiry into the thing, his purpose being, by and by to strike at her faith, in telling her against God's express word, ye shall not die at all.
And the Woman said, we may eat of the trees of the Gaoden, but of the tree in the midst of the Garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it least ye die. Rupertus saith, that Eve sinned in thus speaking three ways. 1 In that she made the commandment stricter then God had made it, he having forbidden only to eat, she saith, he forbad also the touching of it, so that first she sinned by adding. 2 By diminishing, in that God having said, ye shall surely die, she saith, least ye die, as doubtful. 3 By changing, in that God having forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she saith not so, but of the tree in the midst of the Garden: That this precept was given both to the man and to her together. I have already shown, so that I shall not need to inquire here again, how she came to know thereof. Some hold, that Adam told her of it, and that in these words, as Ambrose showeth, and some that God delivered it in these words to Adam, but that Moses not having setit down thus precisely before, now doth it in these words of Eve. But the Father approveth of none of both these, neither are they to be approved of, not the first, because God spake himself to them both, nor the second, because so Moses should have imperfectly related the Commandment, which it must be far from us to think. Eve therefore as the same Father saith, began even now to sin in thus saying, for she shown a mind already exasperated against God, in making his command more grievous then it was, even as a woman, as one compareth it, who being forbidden by her Husband to go abroad to other folks houses, where there may be suspicion of incontinency, to aggravate her Husbands austerity, telleth her Neighbors, that she is forbidden so much as to set her foot out of doors, or to look abroad,
Now to add to God's Commandments, or to take ought there from is a sin, and threatened with judgment, and therefore Eve sinned herein; Moreover, she sinned by unbelief, because she made it doubtful, whether in eating they should die or no, when God had so expressly threatened death. Lastly, it was a fault also in her, that there being two Trees in the midst of the Garden, she spake so indefinitely of this by that circumstance, and not as it had been described unto them, the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in the Lord's words, as if she could not well tell, whether of the two was prohibited, by which some advantage was given to the Serpent to proceed with her. But Calvin excuseth Eve, holding, that she was in no fault, till that in the end of her answer she spake doubtingly: for first, in saying that a liberty was granted them to eat of all the Trees, except one, she magnifieth the bounty of God, and then in saying, that they might not touch, that Tree, she expresseth a pious affection to God's Law, being averse from the least degree of entering upon the breach thereof. But howsoever the first part of her speech may be well construed, yet upon the reasons before alleged, it is more probable, that she faulted immediately, and that which is turned to the magnifying of God's bounty in her answer, may be better understood, as a simple relation of the truth, she yielding what she must needs, but presently casting such an aspersion upon God's bounty, in that she saith, he forbad them to touch one Tree, as that, all being considered together, God was little beholding to her for that which she spake of the Trees by him allowed.
Then the serpent said to the woman, ye shall not die at all: But God knoweth, that what day ye shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, &c. The woman having answered doubtingly, the Serpent now taking advantage hereby, is bold to • e • her, that they shall not die at all, so that, if there be in us the least doubting of God's Word, the Devil will attempt presently to root all faith quite out of our minds. All the speech of the Serpent here is a most gross lie. 1 That that they should not die. 2 That God in policy forbad the eating of that Tree, as whereby their estate should be bettered, as impatient of compeers. 3 That the eating of that Tree would open their eyes and make them more happy. 4 That as he said, so God knew all this to be true, but concealed it from them. And what he indeed, he would make the woman believe that God was, viz a liar, in that he said, they should die, when they should not, as he knew well enough, and envious, because he would hereby keep them from, rising in dignity. But in all this he speaketh so, as that he is altogether ambiguous, so that every passage may in some respect be justified to be true. For, 1 they should not die the bodily death instant. 2 They should be as some gods, or angels, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometime used, viz. evil angels. 3 Knowing good and evil, but to their cost. 4 God also knew all this. The Devil not long before had aspired to be as God, and hence came his woe, wherefore he seeketh to entangle the woman in like manner, but as one saith, She might easily have replied, if eating of this Tree will make one like unto God, do thou (O Serpent!) eat first of it, and as I see it take effect in thee, so I will do. The words, ye shall be as God's, the Chaldee Paraphrast rendereth, ye shall be as Princes, others, as Angels, and the tempter might mean it so, as the angels that fell, from their great knowledge called Daemones, and from their power principalities, although the woman understood it of the blessed Trinity. But I prefer that of Calvin and others understanding it, as meant of God, thus he made her believe, that they should partake of the divine nature.
Then the woman seeing, that the Tree was good to eat of, and pleasing to the eye, &c. took of the fruit thereof, &c. When the Serpent had thus tempted Eve, she looketh upon the Tree with more serious consideration, whether that which God had said, or that which the Serpent had said, were most likely to be true, and seeing it to be a goodly Tree and the fruit pleasant, and withal weighing that, which had been spoken by the Serpent of getting knowledge by eating thereof, she taketh of the fruit and doth eat. To this effect, Rupertus saith, She saw, that is, she considered and diligently beheld, and more curiously attended, and would herself be judge of those things which she had heard both from God, and from the Serpent, but those inward eyes, wherewith she should have judged of this, were hindered by the lust of the outward eyes, that they saw not a double death about to be brought upon her by this eating, not by the nature of the Tree, but by the transgression of the Commandment. And thus seeing nothing dreadful, but all things desirable, she thought that more true, which the Serpent had said, then which God had said, and thus by a sacrilegious temerity she took of the fruit and did eat. For by the eye, as by a window, sin is let into the soul: By the senses of the body, as Gregory saith, As by windows, the soul looketh upon outward things, and by looking, lusteth after them, whence it is, that Jeremiah saith, death hath ascended by the windows: Jer. 9. 21. For the soul being invisible cannot be moved with things corporal, but because being in the body, it hath the senses thereof, as certain poares, whereby it goeth out. The Seeing, Hearing, Tasting, Smelling, and Touching, are certain ways of the mind, whereby it goeth forth and lusteth after those things, which are without the substance thereof. From this example of Eve, we learn to refrain our eyes from seeing, if we would keep our hearts from lusting. There are here three [Note.] degrees, first, her intentive beholding of that, which before she feared to touch, or once to consider, whether it were good to eat of it or no. Secondly, her delighting in it being seen. Thirdly, her judging of it, according to the Serpents suggestion, to be a Tree desirable to get knowledge, thus proudly beginning to conceive that she should now upon the eating hereof be, as God, knowing good and evil. And by these degrees we offend to this day, by the lust of the heart, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. We look and consider, then are delighted and apprehend more pleasure or good to come by the acting of that, to which we are moved, and so adventure to do the thing forbidden. Targum Onkeli, as Fagius hath it, readeth the last words here, quod sanitas esset oculis, which is an Adage amongst the Chaldees, as if it had been said, to feed the eyes, whence some have gathered, that it was medicinal to the eyes: but the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to get understanding, and this answereth better to the temptation preceding, and therefore is to be preferred.
The sins of Hevah in all this were first Pride, in that she palpably aspired after an higher condition. For, as Augustine saith, No sin can be, but where the will is depraved, and the will is first depraved by pride, and pride is nothing else, but an appetite unto perverse celsitude, and this perverse celsitude is, leaving that principle, viz. God's will, to which the mind ought to cleave, and becoming after a sort a principle to himself. Secondly, discontent at the Lord's prohibition, as being made to keep them from coming to a better estate. Thirdly, lying, because she said God forbad to touch that Tree, which he did not, Fourthly, an adding unto, and altering of the word of the Lord. Fifthly, infidelity, in that she first spake doubtingly, and then fell altogether from the faith. Sixthly, intemperance, in that she yielded to her appetite further, then was allowed. Seventhly, disobedience. Eighthly, she laid a stumbling-block for her Husband, enticing him to eat also. Touching Adams eating, Calvin saith, it is a common received opinion, that Adam ate not at the enticement of the Serpent, but only of the woman being won by her flattery, but not deceived as she was, for which also that of the Apostle is brought, the man was not deceived but the woman: but this is spoken only comparatively, in regard of this, that she was the first deceived. For afterwards, the Lord speaketh of the man, as being drawn by the same persuasion, because the man is become as one of us, upbraiding him, that he thought by eating to become as God. And the same Apostle elsewhere is plain, for the man being the fountain of sin to us all: hitherto Calvin, who also conjectureth, that Adam was absent from his wife, when the Serpent tempted her, but came when the colloquy was now ended, and so she told him, what the Serpent had said unto her, he being entangled by the same means that she, was, although some from this word with her, guess, that he was present at the temptation. But this were a forcing of the words, there being no more meant hereby, but that as she had eaten, so he being thus persuaded, ate of the same fruit together also. Saint Augustine seemeth to be of a contrary mind to this of Calvin, holding, that Adam ate, not being deceived, but persuaded by the woman, when as he knew he should offend in so doing. For as Solomon, saith, he was brought to serve Idols, not being seduced by error, but forced by women's flatteries: and as Aaron consented not to make the golden calves being induced, but gave way hereunto being forced, so it is to be thought, that Adam believed not her, as being seduced by that which she told him, as thinking it true, but obeyed her by a social kind of necessitude, and thus he sinned wittingly, that he might not be parted from her, to whom he had been joined, no not in the communion of her sin, & therefore he was no less guilty then she. Yet herein he might be deceived, in that having no experience yet of God's severity, he might think this sin venial, and happily he might think, that it would be a good plea for him, The woman whom thou gavest me, did give unto me, and I did eat. And all this, Augustine groundeth upon that saying of the Apostle, the man was not deceived, but the woman. Moreover, it may be thought that he considered, how she having eaten, was yet alive, and not smitten with death, as it was threatened, and therefore he might think, notwistanding the Lord's threatening of death, to escape. But Ambrose holdeth, that Adam was deceived, as well as Eve, thinking by eating, to become like God, which he proveth from the words of God unto him, Adam is become, as one of us; as if he had said, thou thoughtest, that thou shouldest have been like unto us, therefore, because thou wouldest have been what thou wert not, thou hast ceased to be what thou wast. And touching that place of the Apostle, he saith, as Calvin, That the woman is said to have been deceived, and not the man, because she was deceived first, and was the author of errrour to her husband, and not he to her. Prosper, likewise saith, That Adam lost his faith, because he believed the words of the Serpent more, than the words of God, and with Ambrose, agree Epiphanius also, Heraes. 38. and Hilarius, Chap. 3. in Matth. and many others, and to this do I rather subscribe, and he might well be deceived, because he was more strongly tempted, seeing her eat before him, and yet not smitten with death, and because there was not only the beast his subject, but the woman, his fellow to persuade him, as Chrysostom reasoneth, who also brought of that fruit unto him in love, because she would have him partaker with her of the same felicity. And in this sin of Adam, as in that of Hevah concurred many sins. 1 Pride, in that he aspired to be like unto God. 2 Infidelity, 3 An inordinate love of his wife, in that he was moved more hereby, then by the love of God. 4 Intemperance. 5 Curiositie to try, what lay hid in that fruit. 6 Ingratitude for the liberty of eating of all other trees granted unto him. 7 Disobedience to the express commandment of the Lord. But if the question be, whether of them sinned most? I answer, in some respects Eve, and in some other Adam. The sin of Hevah was greatest. 1 In that she began unto him, in which respect it is agravated so by the Apostle, that Adam is said not to have been in the transgression in comparison of her. 2 In that by her flatteries and enticements she drew her husband to sin, for this is to become not only a sinner, but an instrument of Satan, yea, a very Devil, for so much as he hath this name, because he is a Tempter. The sin of Adam was greatest. 1 Because he was wiser, and more able to resist temptations then the woman. 2 Because he was more obliged to God for greater benefits bestowed upon him, and therefore he ought to have been more observant of God's commandments. 3 Because he was the head of the woman, and so should have instructed her wherein she was ignorant: have reformed her wherein she was erring, confirmed her wherein she was weak, and erected her wherein she was fallen. But yet forsomuch as the Apostle aggravateth the woman's fault, as greatest, it must needs be yielded, that not Adam, but she sinned most, for which cause also she was most cursed. But yet in time God had again mercy upon her, to honor her by making her the instrument to bring forth another Fruit unto us, whereby we may be saved. And as for Adams wisdom, although it were as great, as any man's natural wisdom could be, yet he wanted hitherto all experience, so that to avoid dangers, and traps set for him, he had not that knowledge and understanding, that the servants of God, that are grown to any antiquity, now have.
Touching the time, when these things were done, all are not agreed, because it is not set down, and so cannot by any man be certainly determined. Some have held, that they lived as long in Paradise, as Christ did upon earth: some as long as he fasted, viz. Forty days, his fasting being an expiation of man's intemperance, some till the eighth day after their creation, viz. upon the Friday, and so the time of the coming in of sin into the world, and of the expiation of sin by Christ's death doth well agree. Some that they fell and were cast out upon the Sabbath day, and some upon the same day, wherein in they were created, for which opinion many ancients have stood, as Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Cyrillus, Ephrem, &c. Maimonides a Rabbin saith, all our Wisemen hold, that this whole matter was done upon the sixth day, for they say, that Adam was created the first hour of the day without Paradise, and brought into Paradise the third, sin the sixth, was found out by the Lord the ninth, and cast out in evening, before the sun setting, and if so, the second Adam, Christ in suffering did notably answer to that which befell the first Adam. For upon the same day Christ suffered, the first hour of the day he was arraigned, and abused, the third hour he was condemned and led away, the sixth hour he was crucified, the ninth hour he gave up the ghost, and finally, before the same day fully ended, he brought man into Paradise again, viz. The thief upon the Cross. The authors of this opinion argue also from the malice of Satan, who would, doubtless, immediately attempt their destruction, from this time being most fit, before they were more confirmed, and from the Serpents question, hath God forbidden you to eat of the trees of the garden? Whereas, if he they had stood, till they had eaten of other trees, he could not have propounded it so. Others yet are of opinion, that they fell not the same day, but stood some longer time, but how long they say not, & as a ground hereof, they urge the many things done upon the sixth day, as first, the making of all earthly creatures, then the making of man, the casting of him into a sleep, the forming of woman, the bringing of the creatures to him, and the bringing of the man into Paradise, and placing him there, for all which, so much time was requisite, as that none could remain for temptation, falling and ejection out of Paradise: again, it is improbable, that so soon as they were made, the Serpent would begin to tempt them to eat, eat, because there must some time come between; first, that they might be hungry, as he waited, till Christ was hungry, before that he began to tempt him to make bread of stones. Of this opinion therefore was Josephus, Basilius, Damascene, who said, that the Devil observing the Serpent to come often to, and to converse with Adam and Eve, and to converse daily with them, chose him, as a fit instrument to deceive them. And Augustine saith, that howsoever they stood not long, yet they continued more then one day in Paradise Amongst all these opinions, that of their abiding in the Garden 33 years, or 40. days is most improbable, because the devils envy would certainly not suffer them to go untempted so long; nor yet would he suffer them, until the eighth day, and upon the day, wherein they were made. I cannot think for the reasons already alleged, that they fell, and seeing there was a space between their falling and the Lord's calling them to an accompt therefore, wherein they gathered Fig leaves and sewed them together, and in the evening, as being a good space after, it is said, that God came into the Garden to call for them. And upon the Sabbath day, which was the next, it could not be, because at that time it is most likely, that they were wholly intent to divine contemplations, and would not have admitted of any parley with the Serpent, and moreover it is said, because the Lord rested then, he sanctified and blessed that day, which would not have been said, if he had done this work of cursing, and ejecting man out of Paradise. It remaineth then that this was done upon some other day, and because no reason can be yielded, why it should not have been done the next day after the Sabbath, for my part, I hold that it was the day. They making themselves ready then in the morning for the work of the Garden, and to this end gathering food, Adam in one place and Eve in another, the Serpent cometh to Eve, and persuadeth her to eat of the Tree of knowledge also, from which she had hitherto refrained. And thus the allegory will hold as well from Adam to Christ, as any other way, the day of Adams fall and dying being the day of Christ's rising from death to life, and as he fell the third day after his creation, so Christ rose the third day after his being made a sacrifice for sin.
If it be objected, the Serpent could not have said, as he did, hath God said, ye shall not eat of the Trees of the Garden? if they had eaten of them formerly: [Object.] I answer, he might question thus very well, notwithstanding, as seeming to think, that although they ate of some, yet they did herein more then was allowed them. For the answer of Eve seemeth to make it plain, that they had not hitherto gone without eating, but had eaten of other Trees before, and used so to do a day or two at the least: for, she saith, we eat of all the Trees in the Garden, but of the Tree in the midst, &c. And their eyes were opened, and they knew, that they were naked, and sowed Fig leaves together, and made themselves Aprons. Some Rabbins of the Jews have upon these words taught, that our first Parents were blind, till now, but this is absurd; for they saw one another, and Adam beheld the creatures to give them apt names. They were not therefore their bodily eyes, but the eyes of their minds, that were opened. Musculus speaking of these two kinds of eyes saith, that the opening of the bodily eyes in the holy Scriptures is three ways to be understood. 1 Of blind to be made to see, 2 When as a man saw not before some things before him, although he saw others, is made to see these also, as Balaam, whose eyes were opened to see the Angel that stood in his way, whom he saw not before. 3 To be made to know that, which a man seeth, as the enemies of Elisha, who being led into Samaria knew not that it was Samaria, till their eyes were opened, & the two Disciples, that travailed towards Emmaus, knew not Christ, whom they saw, to be Christ, till their eyes were opened. Again, the opening of the eyes of the mind is three ways also. 1 By the preaching of the word, to be enlightened in the truth: 2 By miseries and adversities, to be brought to see into our sins. 3 When we have sinned, to be touched in conscience, therefore, as Judas was, and thus the eyes of Adam and Eve are said to have been opened. And to this agreeth the teaching of St. Augustine who saith, that they were not blind before in their bodily eyes, but knew not, what the grace, which they had, was, whereby their members were kept from rebelling against their mind: but now this being removed, a kind of impudent novity came upon them to be attent unto, and to look upon the members of one another to lust, and so to be ashamed, they saw also the good which they had lost and the evil that they fell into And yet Rupertus cometh nearer to the same, saying, that this opening of their eyes was a demonstration, and agnition of great confusion, that they were spoiled of the honor, wherein they were created and made like unto the beasts for sensual lust, and so they could not but be greatly ashamed, and seek a covering: For whatsoever is ordained of God being pleased or angry, man's nature cannot be ignorant of, and therefore as he cannot but have reason, which God being pleased hath given unto him, so it is impossible for him to be ignorant, that the passion of concupiscence is a thing to be ashamed of. And Artopoeus more fully saith, this opening of their eyes was the seeing of their conscience, when as the guilty mind saw the greatness of the sin committed, and the horrible sequel of all punishments and evils. Thus also Calvin and others. Their eyes then were opened, not as the Serpent promised, and they expected, to the filling of them with more understanding, and to the making of them more excellent, but it was a miserable kind of opening of their eyes to see their own folly and shame, for now in their conscience they saw a most horrible sin committed by them, and the vengeance of God hanging over their heads therefore, they saw themselves out of the state of grace, which before had been, as it were, a most comely clothing unto them, so that to have their privy parts seen then, was no more to them, then to have their hands or face seen; lastly, they perceived a sensible alteration in them, they not having before any violent passion of lust carrying them to the mutual desire of carnal copulation, but being able herein to do, according to the dictate of right reason, yet now feel carnal lusts abounding in them, as in the brute beast, the reins of reason being shaken off, all which being seen, they were filled with shame and confusion, and so sought to cover and hide themselves, and specially those parts, which were now most violently carried to sinning, and over which now reason began to have the least command. We may here see, as Calvin well noteth, what the power of a guilty conscience is, when there are no witnesses to accuse and no Judge appearing to condemn, that alone doth the part of all, when Hevah had eaten alone, it is not said, that her eyes were thus opened, but when Adam had eaten also, the conscience is not presently opened, but some time after the sin committed, and yet not then to repentance, neither in many, as it was not in them. For their sewing of Fig-leaves together, almost all Expositors generally hold, that they took not of these leaves rather then any other, because they were the leaves of that Tree, of which they had eaten, and so nearest at hand, but because they were very broad and fittest for a covering. For the mystical things set forth hereby, divers speak diversely. Irenaeus saith, that hereby they shown [Note.] their penitency, in that they took and applied Fig-leaves, which were rough and pricking, and did more then others, rebuke the petulant force of the flesh, so that they used these, as a bridle of continency, fearing the coming of the Lord to punish them for their sin, and thus they would have gone always, had not the Lord in mercy taken them away and given them skins instead thereof, which were more soft and smooth. Augustine also seemeth to incline to this, that Fig-leaves did hurt and afflict them, but that they did not therefore make choice hereof, but ignorantly took of them, purposing nothing but to cover themselves therewith, and yet thus it was signified, that they deserved such a punishment. But that they took Fig-leaves for chastisement is contrary both to Augustine, and Ambrose, and Calvin, and all other Expositors, who do generally interpret this fact, as a sign of impenitency, seeing that to repentance, the laying open and confessing of sin to God is most necessary, and therefore to cover and hide it, being here set forth, argued an unrepentant heart yet in them. Ambrose from hence draweth an allegory touching those, that excuse and hide their sins, saying, Adam took of the Fig-leaves, when as he should have taken of the fruit, so the just take of the fruit, and sinners of the leaves, The fruit is Love, Joy, Patience, Benignity, Modesty; Continency, he had no fruit, that had no joy, he had no Benignity▪ that transgressed the Commandment, he had no continency, that refrained not to eat the fruit forbidden: the leaves are excuses, when a man transgresseth and is made naked and filthy to himself, he will cover himself with certain Fig-leaves, happily with certain vain and umbratile speeches, which with made lies, he sewing together, and adding word to word, maketh a covering to hide the conscience of his mind & fact, as by saying, that the Devil tempted him, or he was led by the flesh, or some other was the author to him of his sin, or else he will bring examples out of the holy Scriptures, of the best that have faulted likewise. The Master of the Scholast History saith, that Fig-leaves being bruised, and the juice of them taken, and the flesh of man being anointed therewith, there is presently stirred up a certain voluptuous itching, and therefore he saith, the lustful motions of the flesh beginning after sin, were signified by their using of these Fig-leaves. I think with Augustine, that whatsoever end God in his Providence directed them to in this action, yet they intended nothing else, but to take of such leaves, as were most large, and fit to cover their privities, whereof they were, & might well be now ashamed. Now God's ends, notwithstanding, were such, as have been already touched. First, to show the shameful foulness of sin, in that they make haste, having sinned to get them a covering, as being much ashamed. Secondly, the way of sinful man, being without guidance of grace, whereas having sinned, he should, to be delivered again, confess it to God, he contrariwise hideth it from God, as much as he can. Thirdly, the foolish conceit of a sinner, he thinketh, that having done evil; he may hide it yet, and so not be found out to be punished. Fourthly, that all excuses that can be brought for sin, are but the sewing of Fig-leaves together, that is, mere vanity. Fifthly, that for the pleasure of sin, galling and piercing with pain is due, man himself that sinneth, being made judge in this matter. They made them breeches, The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth any kind of thing, that girdeth about, but it is generally taken by all for a covering of the privy parts, and hence all their posterity, even in the most barbarous countries, where they go naked, have taken this custom up, as it were, by an instinct of nature to cover these parts. But why these, rather then any other? why not the eyes and the hands, that were instruments of this sin? To this Calvin answereth, that it was enough to set thus a brand of the shamefulness of sin upon any part of the body, & yet herein a respect was had to the parts most corrupted, that they specially should be thus branded, and that hereby a demonstration of the shamefulnes of sin should be made forever. Julius Pollux telleth of three parts, that women were wont to cover, 1 Their breasts with a thing called fascia. 2 Their belly with a thing called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 3 Their [Note.] privities. And this may serve to shame Gentlewomen now a days, that in the midst of this light will go with open breasts.
And they heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in cool of the day, &c. A great question is here made, how the Lord is said to walk in the Garden, and what voice this was, which they heard? Some pass these things over, as spoken after the manner of men. But the Lord did doubtless appear in these times in a bodily shape, conversing familiarly, and talking with man, as one man talketh with another, as I have shown before, when God gave the command, not to eat of this tree. Fagius saith, that some refer walking to Adam, as if he walking in the Garden, had heard the Lord's voice. For the voice heard, I do neither hold with those, that think this to have been the voice, whereby he called to Adam, for he fled from this voice, but at that he came forth, nor with those, that think it to have been some mighty wind, who also apply, that which followeth, in the cool, or the wind of the day, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, hereunto, as if that were an expression of this voice, what was meant thereby: For although the Lord coming by Elijah, a mighty wind went before, yet the thunder and not the wind is called the Lord's voice, and when the Lord hath come at any time with a wind, it is expressed, as when the Holy Ghost came upon the Disciples, there was a rushing heard, as of a mighty wind, wherefore no such thing being expressed here, I rather hold with them, that are for the sound of the Lord's walking, because amongst the Hebrews any sound is called a voice, as the the sound of thunder, the sound of waters, the sound of a trumpet, &c. They heard then the voice of Lord walking is, they heard the sound of him walking. And they were afraid, that is, out of the guiltiness of their conscience: For I do not think that God as yet appeared in any terrifying manner as some have delivered, because yet he speaketh familiarly to Adam as not taking notice of anything done amiss. In the cool of the day, these words are by divers rendered diversely, by Aquila, in the wind of the day, by Symmachus, in the spirit of the day, by Theodotion, in the spirit, which is to the cooling of the day, in some Latin translations, in the evening, in others, after noon, of all which Jerome speaketh. The Chaldee Paraphrase saith, at the rest of the day, when the heat is over, Uatablus, ad auram diei, at the air of the day, or, ad ventum diei, post meridiem. Fagius, according to this last, saith, that the wind of the day is spoken of to describe the evening, when as the wind in those hot parts was wont to begin to rise. Calvin differing from all others, after mention made of the readings of some, taking the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a part of heaven, and of others, noting a time least obnoxious to terrors hereby, which they say is spoken of, to show the terrors of an evil conscience, in that they now feared, as the Psalmist saith, where no fear was, he saith, that the air of the morning to be understood, not of the Evening, which would have been improperly called, the air of the day, and he saith, at the rising of the sun a wind cometh withal being thereby stirred up. Herein I cannot subscribe to this learned Expositor, because so Adam should not have been so much as adjudged to death, in the day of his eating, as he must needs be, according •• God's threatenning, if, as he saith, he had been let alone to sleep in his sin all night, and the Lord had not come to find him out till the morning following. I do therefore with others, rather understand the air, or cool of the evening, when; the sun being ready to set, vapors arise, and specially because in parts near the Sea, such as Canaan was, a wind is wont then to arise, wherefore the Jews used this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for in the evening. And at this time, God cometh to find out man sinning to judge him, to prefigure his coming, by taking flesh to deliver him as it were, in the evening of the world, as Irenaeus noteth. And Adam and his wife hid themselves, &c. This fleeing away of our first parents from God's presence is generally expounded of their fleeing, through the terror of an evil conscience after sin committed, into the thickest and most obscure place of Paradise, hoping, that although their Fig-leaves could not hide them, yet there they might lie close, and not be seen of the Lord, who they feared, now came to take revenge upon them for their wickedness. So foolish doth man grow, when his understanding is darkened by sin, that he thinketh, his wickedness may be covered, and [Note.] he may be concealed by some means, or at the least he hath no mind, but of fleeing from God, & not of coming to him to crave pardon. But all this is vain, since there is no hiding of anything from his Al-seeing eye, as David teacheth. The cursed fruits of sin then are many, first, the opening of the eyes to see the horror of sin. 2 Nakednesse, by being stripped of all the goodly ornaments of grace, see Exodus 32. Hosea 2. Revel. 3. 3 Shame and seeking to means, wherein there is no help of the shame that cometh by sin, see Rom 6. Ier. 33. 4 An accusing conscience turning now to be utterly against the man, in whom it is. 5 Terror and trembling that ensueth hereupon. One observeth hence, that a sinner having sought to excuse his sin, one way resteth not, but still deviseth new ways to hide it, when leaves will not suffice, he fleeth to whole Trees. This is that, which cometh of sin, they that do evil hate the light, but the just love it, and are delighted in God's presence, being merry [Note..] and cheerful through a good conscience. St. Augustine speaking upon this saith, that sinners being troubled in conscience do like mad men through over much shame and fear, they know not what, something yet being signified hereby, which others may afterwards make a profitable use of. Amongst all Expositors, Iecrnaeus alone will have this done by way of penitency and humiliation. For Adam fled, saith he, not as though he could go from God, but being confounded, because he had transgressed, he thought himself unworthy to come into his sight, and to have conference with him. But because to do thus is of grace, whereof Adam was now altogether destitute, it is not to be thought, that he did it in humility, but through terror, as hath been said. That of the Psalmist is here elegantly applied by Rupertus. God awoke out of sleep as a mighty Giant refreshed with Wine, and smote his enemies on the hinder parts. He was gone, as it were to take his rest a little in the heat of the day, at what time the Serpent cometh, and seduceth Adam and Eve, but as a man in the cool of the evening cometh forth, so doth he, and smiteth the Serpent, as a man doth his enemy, to slay him, by damning him everlastingly, but Adam and Eve, as a man doth his son or his servant, to bring them waxing proud to humility, which is the way to salvation.
And the Lord God called to Adam, and said, where art thou? Here the Lord inquireth not, in what place Adam was, as being ignorant, for he knew that very well, but in what state, to what have thy sins brought thee, that thou shouldst flee from thy God, whom thou soughtest before? as Ambrose speaketh. It is, as Ocolampadius hath it, as if he had said, into what pit hast thou cast thyself, whither hast thou run head-long? from what felicity art thou fallen? And yet it may be said, that the Lord inquired here of the place, although not ignorant of it, as if he had said, how happeneth it, that thou keepest not, where thou wert wont to be, in open places, but fleest into thickets? For although the Lord knew all things well enough, he dealeth yet by interrogations, that man and woman might for their sin be out of their own mouths condemned. Thus he inquireth afterwards about their eating, when he knew it, and I see no reason, but that he may be understood as well here, as inquiring about the place where he was. Yet, as he doth inquire of this, so he doth it by way of inviting him to come forth, and not to be so desperately fearful, as a Father, that seeketh up his prodigal son. For the manner how the Lord spake, whether internally to the mind or externally to the bodily ear, St. Augustine saith, that although before he might speak spiritually to him, yet now it is rather to be held, that he spake appearing in a bodily shape, and Gregory likewise, that he spake by an Angel assuming a body, as also at sundry other times. For when God speaketh by himself, saith the same Father, he speaketh only to the mind by an internal motion, and the heart is taught his word without letters and syllables, because his virtue is known by an intim kind of sublenation. It is a speech without noise, that openeth the hearing and yet knoweth not, how to hear a sound. It was not so with Adam now, but he heard a sound of words, and thereby was brought out of his lurking place.
And he said, I heard thy voice in the Garden, and I was afraid, and hid my self, because I was naked. Some here upon conjecture that Adam and Eve then first made them Breeches of Fig-leaves, when they heard the Lord's voice: but this is false, both because that is plainly recorded to have been done so soon as they had eaten, seeing their own nakedness, and also because there was no time, now upon the sudden, for such a business. They did therefore now only hide themselves being ashamed to be seen naked of the Lord.
But had they not heard the Lord's voice before, and yet kept their standing, or could they not have recounted, how both they and all creatures were made naked? why then were they now ashamed of this? Luther saith, that they shown their folly herein, to plead this as the cause of their fleeing, which simply in itself could be no just cause of fleeing. And such fools are [Note.] all sinners, they look not to their sins to be ashamed, but to some outward ignominy, or blemish coming hereby, to be grieved and ashamed for that. But how is it, that they were still ashamed, having covered their more shameful parts with Fig-leaves sowed together? This showeth, that when man hath done what he can to cover his sins, and to be justified here, from by his own righteous actions, so that for a time he resteth herein, yet this will not always hold, but the time shall come, namely, at the last day when God cometh to judgment, that he shall find and feel all this to be nothing worth, because dread and terror shall remain unto him notwithstanding, if he hath nothing else to be a defense and covering unto him.
And he said, who told thee, that thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the Tree? &c. The Lord, doth hereby obliquely confute and reprove that which Adam had said: for he added to his former sin by laying the fault of his being ashamed upon God, who made him naked. And so it is, as if the Lord had said, thy nakedness is not the cause of thy fleeing and hiding thyself: for then I had created thee with some great blemish upon thy body, and thou shouldest have been ashamed to stand before me so soon as thou wert made, but this was not so, for they were then both naked, and were not ashamed, as was declared before. Hast thou not therefore sinned by eating contrary to my command? and thus the Lord speaketh, by way of question, and not plainly charging him, because he would wring an accusation of himself out of his own mouth, who did not hitherto ingeniously acknowledge his sin, but sought by all means to hide it.
And the man said, the woman, that thou gavest to be with me, gave me of the fruit and I did eat. Adam hereby layeth the fault of his sinning upon God, by saying, the woman whom thou gavest me, thus still agravating his sin more and more, and when the Lord cometh to question with Hevah, she doth likewise: for she saith, the Serpent beguiled me, as if she had said, if thou hadst not made a Serpent to be here with me, I had not eaten. Where upon Gregory saith excellently. They, Who had heard from the mouth of the deceitful Serpent, ye shall be as gods, because they could not be like unto God, to make up the heap of their error, attempted to make God like unto themselves in faulting. And thus whilst they go about to defend their guiltiness, they add hereunto, and being sifted it becometh, more heinous, then it was being committed. But the Lord, as the same Father hath it, dealt more graciously with them, he questioneth with them about their sin, as willing to bring them to repentance, that they might yet be saved, whereas coming to the Serpent, for whom there was no revoking to be pardoned, he is not once asked touching his offense. And here we may observe by what degrees man proceedeth to this day in sinning, as they are set forth by divers, but one, mellifluous Bernard, shall speak for all. There are four degrees of sinning, saith he. 1 The inward consent. 2 The outward performance. 3 A custom. 4 A defense or excusation: The increases of sin, Job mystically deploring saith, why died I not in the womb, or so soon as I was come forth: why was I sustained upon the knees, or suckled with the breasts? For, first, sin lieth hid in the thought. 2 It cometh forth into Act. 3 It is confirmed by custom. 4 It is suckled and nourished by excusing and defending. And by this excusing Gregory saith, man hideth not, himself from God, but God from him: for as Lazarus is bidden, not to revive but to come forth, so to the end that we may be delivered from sin, we must come forth of ourselves by confession, but by denying we keep God as it were, aloof from us, so that although we cannot be hidden from him, yet the light of his countenance is hidden from us, neither can we have any comfort thereof. Besides the fault, that was in Adam in respect of God in thus excusing his sin, there was a great fault against his Wife, in this thus saying, as Bernard also observeth. Consider we, that as indulgent, as Adam was to his wife in sinning, so cruel was he against her in undergoing the punishment. For by transferring the fault from himself to his wife, he would also have transferred the deserved punishment to her alone. O perverseness! doest thou refuse to undergo punishment for her, and refusedst not to sin with her? Thou wert pernitiously merciful, whereas thou oughtest to have been severe, but more perniciously cruel, wherein thou oughtest to have been merciful. For we ought never to sin for others, which is a point of injustice, but we ought willingly to bear the sins of others, which is a point of mercy. We may see here the case of a sinner, having offended once, he stayeth not here, but proceedeth to add sin to sin, without end or measure. He hateth the punishment due to him therefore, and so hateth God the author thereof, and spareth not to break out into blasphemy against him, and into cruelty against those, that are any way an occasion of evil unto him, although most nearly linked unto him.
And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done? and she said, the Serpent beguiled me and I did eat. Calvin saith, that these words, what hast thou done? are rather to be turned, as the speech of one admiring, how cometh it to pass, that thou hast done so foul and so heinous a thing? He examineth both the Delinquents, before that he proceedeth to punishment, as good Magistrates ought to do. But as the Man, so the Woman excuseth herself, and layeth all the fault upon the Serpent, and consequently, upon him that made him so subtle.
And the Lord God said to the Serpent, because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all Cattle, &c. upon thy Belly shalt thou go, and Dust shalt thou eat, &c. He questioneth not with the Serpent, as he had done with them, because the Serpent could not answer, and was uncapable of repentance, an occasion whereof the Lord gave to them in mercy by questioning with them about their sin, since he sought thus to drive them to the confession thereof, playing the part herein rather of a Physician, then of a Judge. The Serpent is first punished, because the first that offended. But here it is demanded, whether the Serpent indeed were he, whom the Lord meant, or the Devil, because the Serpent wanted reason, and so had done what he did, only as an instrument, so that it may seem unreasonable to punish him, and for the punishment here spoken of, going upon the Belly, &c. How can this be said to have befallen the Serpent, as a punishment, which was natural unto him from the beginning? To these things divers answer diversely. Some, that the beast called a Serpent only is here meant, and not the Devil, because he is plainly thus described, and it agreeth to him and not to the Devil to go upon his Belly, and to eat Dust, and that before this, the Serpent went upright, but now was made to go thus, as the Devil for his sin was turned from a glorious angel to an unclean spirit, and Lots Wife into a Pillar of Salt. And more over, that the Serpent wanted not reason, as some say, or if he did, yet God might justly punish him thus, partly to vex Satan, whose instrument he was, partly to show his hatred of sin, as other Beasts and Fowls were drowned in the Flood for the sin of Man, and partly that man might be more affected in seeing this punishment inflicted upon a beast for their offense, as others say. By this exposition, how far forth I have been led, see before. verse 1. Yet I do not think, but as the Devil had an hand in that, which the Serpent did to seduce Man, so although first and literally the Serpent be meant here, yet mystically the Devil is meant also, as Calvin and others consent, even as when the brazen Serpent is spoken of, those things, that were done thereby were truly done by that Serpent, but mystically Christ Jesus was set forth hereby. But what is meant here literally and what mystically? Literally the Serpent goeth upon his Belly drawing all the rest of his body after him, and to show his baseness more, licketh up the dust, as none other beast doth, for they live upon the fruits of the earth, as God at the first appointed. Moreover the Serpent, with whom the woman was so familiar before, is now at greatest enmity with the woman, & her seed, of all other beasts of the field, and again, the woman and hers do most hate Serpents. Men indeed do also generally by an instinct of nature hate Serpents above all, and kill, and destroy them, wheresoever they find them, but women specially are set against them. And it is remarkable, which Ferus hath, that if a woman with her naked foot presseth the Serpents head but a little, he dieth forthwith, but if he biteth, but her Toe first, she is poisoned and dieth, which is the more admirable, because, if a Serpent be stricken many blows on the head, he is hardly killed otherwise. Lastly, Serpents lie lurking in the Grass, and are still ready to bite at our heels, and to poiso nous, but we strike at their heads and so kill them up. Mystically the Devil goeth upon his Belly, saith Gregory, or upon his Belly and Brest by Cogitation, and Luxury, whereby he doth rule over men's hearts, because Luxury followeth those, that are given to the appetite, and he eateth dust, that is wicked men, whom he hideth in the belly of his malice, and thus he is refreshed, as by meat, whilst he is delighted in their evil works. Wherefore he is compared by Saint Peter to a Lion, that goeth about seeking, whom he may devour; and thus Rupertus, and some others of the Fathers also, For his enmity against us, it is notorious, if by the woman and her seed we understand the godly, of whom Christ, that came of a woman is the head, and by the Devils seed, the wicked, of whom the Lord saith to the Jews, ye are of your father the Devil. For as betwixt Cain and Abel deadly enmity began, so it is still and will be continued betwixt the wicked and the godly throughout all generations, as is partly touched, Gal. 4. and St. Augustine setteh it forth at large in speaking of two Cities, the one of God, and the other of the Devil: but the comfort is, that in the end the victory shall fall to the godly, which is set forth by the head and the heel, whereof the one, that should be smitten, is superior, and the other inferior, so that hereby is set forth, that the godly shall at last be superior to the wicked, and their father the Devil, and they shall be made inferior, whatsoever dominion they attain to in the mean season. Gregory hath another elegant application of this saying. For as the heel, saith he, is the end of the body, so by the heel is meant in this place the end of our actions. When the old enemy striketh not in the beginning of our intention, nor in the journey of our actions intercepteth, he layeth worse snares in the end, which he doth the more eagerly attempt, because he seeth that only left for him to assault. To observe the head of the Serpent is to behold the begiunings of his suggestions, and utterly to root them out from the entrance of the heart with the hand of solicitous consideration, who notwithstanding being thus put back attempteth to smite the heel, because although he striketh not by his suggestion the first intention, yet he essayeth to deceive in the end. But if once the heart be corrupted in the intention, the middle and the end of the following action is securely possessed by the subtle adversary, because he seeth that Tree, which he hath vitiated with the tooth of his poison wholly to bear fruit for him. But by the seed of the woman is generally understood Christ Jesus, as Calvin noteth, but disliketh, because the word Seed is a Nown Collective, more being meant hereby, and not one only, and because a perpetuity of enmity is here set forth Generation after Generation. And therefore he rather understandeth here by mankind, that is, so many, as are faithful, who notwithstanding because they are not superior to the Devil and his Instruments in themselves, must be considered in their head Christ Jesus, in whose triumphing over Satan they triumph also, whereupon it is, that the Apostle saith, God shall, shortly tread Satan under your feet: with Calvin agree many other of our most learned writers, and both Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory, and other of the ancients, when they speak of this, apply it unto mankind, amongst whom some always are found fighting against and overcoming the Devil.
Some understand Lucifer by the Serpent and other evil spirits that fell with him, by his seed: if we understand them and wicked men also, as Musculus doth the sense will be more full. But by the seed of the woman certainly, as when Abraham's seed is afterwards spoken of, Christ specially is meant, so by the woman's seed in this place. For otherwise there had been nothing to intimate Christ to come, by whom mankind hath redemption and deliverance from sin, till the days of Abraham, and so neither could our first Parents for the want of the knowledge of him, nor any of the ages succeeding, til Abraham's, have been saved. It is a truer tenet therefore, which is held by most, that Christ, who was to come of a woman, by his death should strike the head of the Devil, and destroy it, that is, the power of sin and death, which he had over all, is meant in this place. And so that saying, the Lamb of God slain from the beginning of the World, is verified, because even now he was mystically promised to be slain, for the subduing of Satan, and by his virtue it is effected, that the Devil can do no more to him, but nibble at his heel, that is, by his cursed instruments persecute, and for a short time take his bodily life from him, and all his power is against the body only, and the flesh, and not against the soul, and the mind in any of his faithful members.
And thus it appeareth, that no sooner had man sinned, but a Savior is promised, and therefore in all ages from the beginning of the world Christ hath been preached and set forth, which Saint John also affirmeth, and the Apostle Paul somewhat more obscurely, saying, jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also forever. And in particular sometimes, as here, to come of a woman, as Esa. 7. 14. Jer. 31. 22. And Evagrius saith, that Jeremiah gave the Egyptians this for a sign of the falling of their idols, when a Virgin should bear a Son, for which cause they kept the image of a Virgin, with a child in her arms, in a more secret part of the Temple, in the Targum Hierasol. The seed is exponded of the King Messiah, and R. Menahem saith, all souls are unclean through the corruption now entering, and so must needs die, till the Messiah cometh, As some therefore are for the beast, called the Serpent only, as meant here, so others are for the Devil only, as the subject of this curse, making the speech altogether allegorical, as Augustine, Beda, Rupertus, Hugo de Sancto Victore, &c. Because the Devil is commonly set forth by the name of a Serpent, and there is something analogical to be found in him, to those things which are in base Serpents. And whereas one word is only used, upon thy belly shalt thou go, they have two, upon thy breast and belly, by the breast understanding pride, or folly, or the cogitation of evil, because the breast is the seat of these, and by the belly, the putting of the same in execution, as hath been partly touched before. But a Serpent properly understood hath been so plainly described, as that this exposition can by no means be admitted, and as for the Devil, he was accursed before this Lastly, others therefore first, and literally understand the serpent, & mystically the Devil, according to the discourse already made hereupon: but that they differ from us in two things. First, in that they will not have any allegory in the former words, upon thy belly shalt thou go, &c. But only in the latter, I will put enm • ty betwixt thee and the woman, &c. Secondly, in that they censure the opinion of the Serpents going erect before this, and that touching his having any subtlety to deceive, because then one kind of serpents only should have been thus punished and not all. But touching the first, I oppose the authrity of so many ancient Doctors, and that of the same judgment there must needs be in all likelihood the same reason of mystical expounding, and not of one part of it only, because it is no pain, but a pleasure to the Devil to devour men, and to rule in their breasts and bellies by evil cogitations and actions. Touching the second, I have said some what before, specially, that if the Serpent went thus in times past, it could be no punishment, and besides the Authors there alleged, I may here also cite one of the most orthodox and sound; Chrysostom, who speaking of this thing, saith to this effect. As I cast the Devil down from heaven, who wrought by thee, because he would be wiser, then was meet, so I command, that thou also from henceforth go in another figure or form, creeping upon the ground, and being fed therewith never once looking up anymore. As for the objection, that all kinds of Serpents should not then have been thus punished, it is easily answered, that God hath sovereign power over all creatures, and therefore although one kind of Serpents only ascended, out of the detestation of the fact, he might as well punish all kinds, as all the living things of Amalek for the sins of the men therein. But be it, that Serpents went all upon their bellies before this, yet there was no enmity betwixt them & mankind, how then happened it, that they should all sorts alike be now hated of men? for herein I am sure they participated with that kind, which was made an instrument to work the woman to sin, and thus much Pererius, who is for, and if in this, why not in the other, confesseth their gate also. The reasons, I confess, which are brought to justify the Exposition opposed, that the Serpents manner of going, howsoever he went upon his belly before, yet now only it became a punishment unto him, are of some force; As first, that the nakedness of man was before sin, but after sin committed, only it becometh shameful, mand was by nature at the first mortal, viz. So that he could die, and there was a natural antipathy betwixt man and Serpents, but both this was restrained by the Lord from breaking out, till now, and death was kept away from man: and why then might not the Serpents going upon his belly be natural, and yet now be made a punishment. Secondly, the Rainbow cometh of natural causes, and yet the Lord saith, after the Flood, that he set it for a sign, when as indeed it was before: so the Serpent might be thus appointed now, being yet such before also, upon thy belly shalt thou go, is no more, saith Calvin, then as if the Lord had said, d • est thou thus lift up thyself to bring down man made after my image, and a Lord over all Cattle? thou shalt no more exalt thyself in this manner, but shalt go upon thy belly, &c. like a base creature as thou art: for the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Serpent in the time of the restauration of all things to their perfect natural condition, saith, that the dust shall be food to the Serpent. But this place of Isaiah ought not to move us, because although other creatures be reduced to a better condition, yet it is contrary to the doom against the Serpent, to have his case ever altered, and for the other reasons, if there were any necessity to follow that Exposition, they might serve in some sort for the justification thereof, and yet of nakedness, the Lord doth not say to Adam and Eve, for this cause ye shall go naked, as he doth to the Serpent: Thou shalt go upon thy belly, because thou hast done this thing, so that whatsoever man's nakedness was now unto him, yet for so much as it is not an express punishment, as this of the Serpent was, the reason holdeth not so well from the one to the other: for any enmity in any measure in any beast at the first against man, I cannot see, how it may be affirmed, because all things made by the Lord were very good: Lastly, although the Rainbow was before, yet it was not set for a sign, so that this was plainly a new matter, whereas no such thing is expressed touching the Serpents going upon his belly, that his baseness should henceforth appear by this, and therefore the similitude betwixt these two doth not well hold, to prove that the Serpent might go upon his belly before. And if the Serpent had been in the same state before, and nothing had been newly imposed, here had been a less punishment for the Serpent, than for man, to whom a new vexation was added, besides that of his nakedness becoming shameful, and so a vile beast, the beginner of all the mischief should have been less than he. There is one ancient, Dydimus, who saith, that the Serpent at the first went upon his belly, but was erected by the Devil, that he might in this form come & parley with the woman, but now he is again cast down by the Lord: but because this were no punishment great enough for so great an offense, to be brought only to that state, wherein he was created, this cannot by any means be admitted. Having thus cleared the greatest question of this Text, little more remaineth to be said for the full understanding of all things. Because thou hast done this, (saith the Lord) thou art cursed above all cattle, that is, because thou hast been the author and persuader to so great a sin, whereas the earth, the Mother, and all other cattle, the children thereof shall bear a curse therefore, being subjected to vanity, thou shalt be cursed above them all: for upon thy belly shalt thou go groveling; as thou didst talk to the woman of an high condition to be attained by eating, thou shalt be made low enough, and Dust shalt thou eat: whereas thou didst cause the woman to eat pleasant fruit, thy food shall be most course and unpleasant, and in the holes of the ground and in the Dust shall be thy habitation, as by tempting to sin, thou hast brought mankind to that, that he must return to the [Note.] Dust and to the grave: where we may note, how sin is punished in the kind, and so it was both in the woman and in the man also. I will also put enmity betwixt thee and the woman, &c. That is, instead of the wicked amity and familiarity, that hath been betwixt you, there shall henceforth be deadly enmity, not that it shall not be so betwixt the Man and the Serpent also, but the woman and her posterity are singularly spoken of, because it was with the woman and not with the man, that the Serpent had conversed in so much seeming love. That amity, which is in sin amongst the wicked shall not [Note.] long hold, but be turned into the greatest enmity. And mystically by the woman we may understand the Church, for thus she is set forth in the Revel. 12. And by her seed Christ, and by the Serpent and his seed all the Devils in hell and wicked men, because no one thing is more adverse to another, then Devils and wicked men to Christ and the Church, and they to them. He shall break thine head, and thou shalt bruise his heel; in the vulgar Latin it is, she shall break thine head, which is false and blasphemous, and yet it hath passed from time to time, as Calvin noteth, without correction, being applied to the Virgin Mary: whereas the words are commonly read with some variation, He shall break thine head, and thou shalt bruise his heel, and in the vulgar Latin, tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus, the same Calvin noteth, that in the Hebrew there is no difference, but the same word coming of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is used in both places, which cometh from the same root with that, which signifieth a Serpent, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and it signifieth to crush or to break in pieces, conterere, whereby therefore he turneth it in both places. Ille conteret caput tuum, & tu conteres calcancum ejus: They should mutually do the greatest hurt, that they could, the one unto the other, but the man, according to the erect stature of his body, should strike at the head, and so more deadly, and the Serpent lying low, at the heel, not to do the man so much hurt. In the Serpents head lay the subtlety, from whence that temptation to sin came, and therefore that specially should by man be stricken at as most hateful, and so we should specially look to the root of sin within us, viz. evil concupiscence, to subdue and mortify it, and the heel the Serpent strikes at, because lying under the feet of men, and able to reach no higher. Mystically Christ dissolveth the power and head-force of Satan, and Satan hurteth bim, what he can in his inferior part, the body, whilst he was here, and in his members in respect of the body, and of the flesh, but as it did not him, so it shall not put them to any great detriment, but only such, as shall turn to their greater future advancement.
And unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy Conception, &c. Here three doubts offer themselves. 1 How the multiplying of the woman's Conceptions is spoken of, as a punishment of her sin. 2 Whether to bring forth with pain be not natural, because it is another punishment here inflicted, and the causes of pain in women seem always to have been the same. 3 How this is to be understood, that the woman's desire should be subject to her Husband, and that he should rule over her? Touching the first, some say, that by her Conception is to be understood the time of nine Moneths, that she should now go, before her deliverance, whereas if she had not sinned, she should presently after conceiving have been delivered: but this is absurd, it being always requisite in nature, that the young should stay in the womb a certain time, before it cometh out. Others therefore by conceptions here understand both those of the body and mind, which are accursed in that they are the Conceptions of death, till that they be again delivered by Christ, yea most, say some, of those, that are conceived, be vessels of wrath; but this is little to the purpose, seeing not most but all the Conceptions of women are here spoken of, and in conceiving such as shall perish, there is no sensible pain in that respect, because they that conceive such, know them not, whereas here the pains felt in conceiving and bringing forth are meant. We must not therefore thus expound it, nor yet as some do, by the pinching with want, that is to some in having many Children, or by the grief that is when they prove naught and unruly, nor by the many abortives, nor yet by the deformed, which are some-times brought forth. For these words are plainly expounded by the words following: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: so that I will multiply thy sorrows and conceptions, is no more but as if he had said, I will multiply the sorrows of thy conceptions, it being usual in the Hebrew tongue to put two Substantives together with a Conjunction copulative, when as the latter of them is to be rendered by the Genitive case.
Touching the second, although the woman should have conceived, as [ 2] now she doth, and have brought forth children the same way, , that is, by a passage too narrow, for which cause there must necessarily at that time have been a dilating thereof, yet, had she not sinned, it should have been without all pain and grief. This is by Augustine excellently set forth thus; When the fruit of the womb had now been brought to maturity, it should then have come to pass, that the Mothers bowels should have been so far forth loosened, that they should have given a fit passage to this fruit without the pain of the Mother. So that God at the first had ordained children to come forth, as it were by the enforcement of maturity, and not by the strugglings and painful laboring of the mother. But now, by multiplying I will multiply thy sorrows, saith the Lord, that is, by an Hebraism, I will certainly fill thee with many pangs, both in conceiving, bearing in the womb, and in bringing forth. In conceiving, the tenth day, saith Pliny, there are pains in the head, darkness in the eyes, and sickness in the stomach, the fortieth day there is a change of the color, although it be better for Males, worse for Females, the ninetieth, when the child beginneth to stir, and the hair beginneth to grow, there is much languishing of the members, and specially every full of the Moon, and after all this the smell of a Candle put out, causeth abortion, and yauning death in the very travail, so that it pitieth me, and I am ashamed to think, how frivolous is the beginning of the proudest of the creatures. In bringing forth, how full of pangs women are above all creatures, both experience teacheth, and the holy Scripture speaking hereof, as the greatest of all pangs, confirmeth.
Lastly, for the woman's desire being subject to her Husband, some expound [ 3] this, as being the same with that, which is set forth in the next words, he shall rule over thee, as if he had said, thou shalt no more be free, as hitherto thou hast been, thy subjection to thy Husband being nothing voluntary and free, as it was before sin, as God made thee for an help unto the man, and he being then towards thee in every respect, as an Husband ought to be towards his wife, that together ye might have, as loving yoke-fellows, always led a most sweet and pleasant life: but now thy subjection shall be necessary and constrained, there being no further liberty left unto thee to do what thou wilt, but what he alloweth or appointeth, although happily he may now be churlish and harsh. Some again expound it as a different thing, as Artopoeus remembereth, but he followeth the former, viz. as if by desire were meant the woman's affection, which should still be most earnest to company with her Husband, notwithstanding all her pangs by his means formerly suffered. For as if all her sorrows in child-bearing formerly had, were forgotten, she soon after desireth the company of her Husband again, and accordingly Symmachus turneth it, Ad virum appetitus tuus, and the Hebrew word here used, properly signifieth desire or lust, and of this it is by the Hebrews understood. Some again, as the same Artopoeus saith, expound it of help, which the weak and infirm woman desireth of the man.
Amongst these, I prefer the middlemost: for it seemeth to be an addition to that of her sorrows, that having suffered them sometimes, she should seek to bring them upon herself again and again, not being able by reason of this malediction laid upon her, to do otherwise. For thus the woman is here punished two ways; both in that she is put under the dominion of the man, and also in that her very affections are subjected to him, whereby a preparative is made to the renewing of her sorrows again: whereas, if it be expounded according to the first, as Chrysostom also and Rupertus expound it, and many others, the punishment will be but single, and the word, desire or lust, doth not so well agree either to it, or to the last. The Septuagint turn it, Ad virum erit conversio tua. Whereupon Chrysostom saith, thou hast turned after the Serpent, whilst thou wert equal to thine Husband, and hadst together with him principality over the creatures: wherefore seeing thou couldst use thy liberty no better, thou shalt now turn after him, and he shall rule over thee. Thou didst then without fear rush headlong into danger, because thou couldst not then rule thyself better; I will now have thee to be ruled by him, wherefore as the body is ruled by the head, see that thou henceforth sweetly acknowledge and follow him thine head. Many think, as was touched before, that the woman was under the man from the first, but then freely, finding no pain therein, but now to her grief oftentimes and trouble. But Chrysostom is against this, and by the Text it seemeth that inferiority came in only by sin, yet for so much as she was made for the man, as Saint Paul teacheth: I must needs rather assent to those, that are for a kind of inferiority before, but altogether differing from that which now it is: yet the man is not now to rule over his wife, as over his servants or children, but as over his most dear and beloved companion, his ruling over her being mixed with a giving of honor to her, as is commanded, love as of his own flesh, moderating in all things, and bitterness by striking, and by Lord-like speaking, as is used to other inferiors, being put away. And for the woman, whatsoever Husband she hath, let her learn with patience to be subject to him, as the Lord hath appointed, opposing obedience to her Husband, and patience, as the chief of virtues, to that disobedience of the first woman unto God, as the chief of vices, and so she may have comfort yet of being one day exempt from this subjection, and restored to an equality with the man in Dominion and Glory in the Kingdom of Heaven, as the Apostle hath plainly taught. As for those women, that marry not, but live always Virgins for the Kingdom of Heaven, they are by their continency freed from his subjection and sorrow, which is only to the married, and yet not altogether, because they come of Hevah, that sinned: for they are troubled with their monthly flowers, and are restrained from that authority which men have: for I permit not the woman, saith the Apostle, to teach, or to usurp authority, &c.
Now the punishment here inflicted upon the woman smiteth with her sin. In that she was carried by pleasure to eat; wherefore she is first adjudged to pain. 2 In that by eating, she brought death upon herself and her children, therefore at all times of her bearing children she should suffer pangs like to the pangs of death. 3 Because she by her flattery drew her Husbands desire also to this cursed fruit, and contrary to her condition as his Master taught him to sin, therefore her desire now should be to him, and he should be her Master, and ever after rule over her.
And to Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, touching which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat thereof, cursed is the ground for thy sake, &c. As the earth was made principally to afford food & habitation to man; so man having sinned, it is justly accursed unto him. The old translation, saith Calvin, hath it, Cursed be the ground in thy work. Being deceived by the similitude of the word, to that which signifieth to till the ground, for it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to till the ground, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for thee is written with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And cursed is the ground by sterility of good things now befalling it instead of fertility. And yet it is not so sterill of good fruits, but that it bringeth forth abundance of them still, but much labor of man is now required for this to extirpe briars and thorns, and other noisome redundancies meant hereby, whereunto it was not liable from the beginning. So that the earth was now changed in this, that before it yielded all things only profitable of the own accord for man's use, there being no need, that he should labor, but moderately, and with pleasure rather, then pain, as hath been already shown; but now Briars and Thorns, and the like begin to over-spread the ground, to the choking of Corn and Grass, and to the hindering of good fruits, inso much, as if man toileth not upon it continually to keep the ground clear from these, he cannot have sustenance therefrom. Some hold, that Thorns and Briars grew upon the ground before, but now more abundantly: but so the ground would in time have been overspread with them, although man had not sinned, and he must have toiled in cleansing the ground, which is absurd. This then cometh now, first of the curse upon sin: Thorns also and Thistles it shall bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat of the herb of the field. The last words here Calvin saith, some understand, as if man were now restrained from all other food, but herbs with the beasts, but this he taketh to be too strict an Exposition, understanding it rather, as some restraint of the plenty, wherewith he was fed before, so that he had need now to seek a supply by herbs, or as a comfort, that yet he should have herbs to feed upon, as at the beginning. Ferus understandeth the earth here, as opposed to Paradise; the herbs of the cursed earth, for those of the blessed Paradise, being base in comparison of them. To me the words seem neither to be restrictive at all, nor yet such, as tend to comfort, but only, as if he had said, although the ground shall be full of briars and thorns choking the herbs of the field, yet thou shalt not any new way be fed, but with these herbs preserved to grow, and gotten with much labor & difficulty. For as he speaketh of herbs, so he speaketh v. 19. of bread, In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread, &c. whence it is plain, that he restreineth him not to grass only, neither did he mean, that herbs should be used, as a supply more now then at the first, but in the want of corn, because then he appointed for the food of man, herbs and fruits of trees also; and least of all can it be conceived, that in punishing him he would speak any comfort unto him. The laborious life, that man should henceforth lead then, is hereby set forth, which is further expressed by speaking of his sweat, and with such travil and labor should he get his living, till that he returned to the dust: for, Dust, saith the Lord, thou art, and to the dust shalt thou return: and withal, his base food, with which he should be sometimes glad to satisfy his hunger, was meant, viz. grass with the beasts, to which Nebuchadnezzar was afterwards adjudged for his pride, Dan. 4. For at the first herbs bearing seed, and fruits were appointed for man, and grass for the beasts, Ch. 1. 29. 30. How man was made out of the dust was shown before: now having sinned, he must die, and his body be resolved to dust again, although his spirit goeth to God, that gave it, as is taught, Eccl. 12. 1. But the body only is spoken of here as Dust, to beat down the pride of man, wherein he had gone so far. Of this resolving to dust the time is set down only indefinitely, to make man always to be thinking upon it, and preparing for it, as being a thing, that shall certainly come, but how soon he cannot tell. The punishment of man consisteth in three things: First, the ground is accursed to him, to bring forth briars and thorns, as he had abused the delectable Trees and pleasant fruits (which it brought forth before) to intemperance, not keeping to those, unto which the Lord had restrained him. 2 The getting of his food is made laborious; as the fruit of which he ate, came to him without all labor, being brought and given to him by his wife. 3 The sentence of death is denounced against him, whereas he expected hereby to have been made as the immortal God.
And Adam called his wives name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. There is a question here amongst Expositors, To what time this is to be referred, because it seemeth unreasonable, that the man so soon as he was smitten with the sentence of God's judgment, should turn himself to his wife, the cause of this mischief, and give her so high and magnificall a title, yet some will have it done in that order, wherein it was set down. For Adam conceiving now by God's sentence some hope of living still, yea not believing that he should die at all, doth thus proudly in contempt of God call his wife, life, so Rupertus: but others, that he called her thus in respect of that, which the Lord had foretold of her seed, that it should break the Serpents head, meaning that Christ should one day come of her, in whom alone we all live: others again, that he called her thus by a bitter irony, because she brought death to all men, as the furies of hell are in Greek called Eumenides, easy to be entreated, by a contrary name, when as they are inexorable. And there are not wanting, who think Ave, the word used by the Angel to the Virgin Mary, here aimed at, being made out of this word Eve by a little alteration. Lastly, some hold, that he gave her this name▪ as who would hereby celebrate God's mercy in prolonging their lives, who had deserved to die presently. And this, I take it, cometh nearest to the right reason: for Adam having heard the Lord to speak of her conceptions and bringing forth of children, and before that, of her seed, which should break the Serpents head, could not but in the midst of his perplexities be somewhat comforted, hoping of good that should yet come by her, tending to life and to the propagation of mankind, as there had come evil by her to make him and them all subject to death; and therefore rousing up his drooping spirits, he settleth a name upon her suitable to that, which hath been said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 living, that whensoever this name should be mentioned, God's mercy might be remembered in making her fruitful, though with great pain, and fruitful to bring forth such a living seed, as should at length subdue the Devil. Others expound it, as if it had been spoken by the Preterpluperfect tense, and so remembered here only, but that he called her thus before. I rest in the former, as most excellently agreeing; Because she was the mother of all living, that is, of all men living when Moses wrote this, and of all that should be to the worlds end. This denomination then is authentical, because Scripture, and so the denominations made by some Hebrews are but vain imaginations, as those two remembered by Fagius, the one, that she was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , life, to set forth her corruption, misery and mutability, as it is with this life, the other, that she was so called by the Chaldee word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying to tell, because she inconsiderately told her Husband of the Serpents speech, whereby he was seduced. Ferus besides the good sense, in which he saith this may be taken, premiseth another, as if Adam did this out of stupidity, not regarding God's threatening of death, and saith, this his naming of her is mentioned here, to show his Dominion over her, according to the sentence, v. 16. For thus his dominion over the creatures was before set forth, Ch. 2. 19.
Unto Adam also and his wife the Lord made Coats of skins, &c. These words, saith Fagius, are diversely read; by the Chaldee Paraphrast thus, The Lord God made for Adam and his wife Vestments of honor upon the skin of their flesh: by others, Coats taken from the skin, that is, of Wooll. But both these are from the purpose; for neither doth Moses speak of their skins, but of the skins of beasts, nor of that which grew upon skins, but of the skins themselves. Origen, Gregory Nissen, and some other Ancients, because it is absurd to hold, that God wrought upon garments to make them, after the manner of a Taylor, understand this only allegorically, that he clothed them with mortal bodies full of many miseries. But August. and Chrysostom, and others that are more sound Expositors, understand it literally first, howsoever some after the literal sense add a mystical understanding also. But so a great question ariseth, both whence these skins came, and how it is said, that the Lord made them Coats thereof, and to what end? For to have skins, some beasts must necessarily be killed, and so some kinds of creatures must have been wholly destroyed again soon after they were made, if there were made but two of a kind at the first, as is most likely. Again, for the Lord's making them Coats, how may that be thought of, seeing he is not like man to sew and to make Garments? Some answer, that they were not skins, but barks of trees; but those were unfit for such a purpose, and the word translated skins doth nowhere signify such a thing. Others therefore say, that more beasts were made of every kind, and that they were the skins of some of these being killed not for meat, but for the use of Garments. And as for the Lord's making them, some say, that he did this by his word, as he did other things, and some by teaching them, the necessity of their naked bodies, now urging them to it, to kill of the beasts and to make them of their skins, or that he did it by the ministrey of Angels, as Hugo de Sancto Victore But what need is there to dispute of the Lord's doing herein? He could by his power have skins without killing of beasts, clothing the beasts again with new skins immediately, as ordinarily the Serpent putteth off the old skin sometime, and a new then succeedeth, and these skins he could by his word immediately make into Coats, and put them upon their bodies, yet I rather think, that they gave them the wit; thus to clothe themselves: Touching the cause why, he saw that they had sewed Fig-leaves together, and yet were not sufficiently clothed, and that now their need was great of clothing to cover their shame, and to keep them from many injuries of the weather and other occurrences; wherefore, although he were greatly offended with their sin, yet out of his infinite goodness, whereby he maketh the Sun to shine, and the Rain to fall upon the just and the unjust, he would provide thus for their present necessity, teaching them hereby, how to clothe them and theirs afterwards. That God put it into their mind to take skins and make themselves coats, and this was his making of them, is the more probable, because they of their own heads made themselves Aprons of Fig-leaves; but now being better taught by God; they made themselves Coats of skins.
In that the skins of beasts are taken to clothe man, his degenerating to a condition, like that of a beast, is figured out, after his eating, contrary to his expectation, which was to be made like God, as the Psalmist partly teacheth. For now in his lusts he became like a beast, and in his affections, and mortality before his nakedness put him in mind of his sin, now his clothing. So that they do altogether pervert the use hereof, that turn it to pride and vain glory as if a Thief condemned to die, should yet for a time be spared, and for penance be made to wear an Halter continually about his neck, and having done so a while, in time adorn it with Silver and Gold, and silk, and so wax proud thereof, as Musculus hath it. Again, this was done to teach man frugality in his clothing, as both Elias and John, that we set for patterns to others, took it, clothing themselves likewise in skins. Some will have the use of them being skins of dead beasts also, to singifie, that death is man's due, that he might always think upon it. Lastly, the providence of God over men being sinners is here set forth, that we may always trust to be provided of necessaries, although we be a sinful generation. And mystically, that man cannot by anything that he can do, cover the shameful nakedness of his sin, but God only doth that, as Ps. 32. so Ferus.
And the Lord God said, Behold; the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, &c. In that these words are used after the judgment given against man, and this clothing put upon him, it is plain, as all Expositors agree, that there is an Irony in them, as if the Lord had said, do all ye, that read or hear of the state, to which man hath brought himself by his aspiring, see and consider, how like unto God he is now become by his knowledge of good and evil; of naked and not ashamed, he is become shamefully naked; of a laborer upon pleasure, he must now necessarily labor with great toil and pains, and of one in the likeness of God, he is made like a beast, with a beasts skin upon him: loe all this, like a wretch, hath he brought upon himself. Knowledge indeed he hath, which before he wanted, that is, he knoweth now experimentally, that it was a great sin to eat of this Tree, and this is all the likeness to God, which he hath thus attained to in the knowing of good and evil. Like one of us, is generally understood, as spoken of the Trinity, although some think otherwise. Now, therefore, l • st he put forth his hand, and take of the Tree of life, &c. This speech is eclipticall, and thus to be supplied, Now therefore let us put him out of the Garden, and keep him out forever, that he may not at any time take of the Tree of life: which is spoken, not as if man could use any means to live forever, whether God would or no, contrary to his decree, but as noting, that he would be ready to do this, if he were not kept from it, and therefore the Lord having adjudged him to die, hasteneth to deprive him of the means of prolonging his bodily life unto eternity. Whence we may note, that man having by sinning exposed himself [Note.] to the danger of death, spiritual and temporal, is not so much affected with the spiritual, but with the temporal, and so chiefly intendeth the seeking of deliverance therefrom. And again, that where God taketh away the means of life for sin, from such as have formerly had them, they are certainly thus excluded from life itself. But Ferus saith, that God's expelling of man, that he might not eat of this Tree and live, was in great mercy, because if he should live here now always, he must live miserably, and through that desire which he hath of this natural life, he would be well pleased with it, never seeking after a better: wherefore, in mercy, he is kept from eating of this Tree, that he might seek for the best life.
And he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming Sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of life. Divers expositions are by divers made upon these words, but first, it is to be understood, that the Septuagint read them somewhat otherwise thus. And the Lord c • st out Adam, and placed him before Paradise, and set Cherubims, &c. But both in the Hebrew, and the Chaldee Paraphrase it is read as before, yet no man doubteth, but that Adam was set to till the ground near Paradise, that seeing the place, from which he was cast out, •• d the pleasures thereof, he might be touched with the more penitency. But for the meaning of these words, some expound them only Allegorically, as if hereby were set forth two sorts of things, that hinder us from obtaining of eternal life, against which we must continually fight, the first invisible, such, as are the internal spirits, of them it is spoken, Eph. 6 12. the other sensible, both pleasures set forth by a flame, and terrors, set forth by a Sword, so that we are hereby taught, that we must by force and violence, as it were, fighting and warring take the Kingdom of Heaven, or else we shall never attain unto it. Now although that which is here said, may thus be profitably applied; yet this being a true History, the literal sense is first and chiefly to be respected. But for this, some will have by the Cherubims and the flaming Sword the torrid Zone understood, because that burneth, as a flame, and the Sun, which is the cause hereof, is moved by the Angels of God: but this is a thing natuiall and so not now set, but where it was from the beginning. Others think, that a great quantity of fire was made by the Lord to break out of the earth at the entrance of Paradise, and made a continual flame there: but what then were the Cherubims? Others understand it of the fire of Purgatory, through which all must pass, being herein purged from the remainder of their corruptions at the last day, before that they enter into the Paradise of God: for thus that of the Psalmist is verified, We have passed through fire and water, that is, the water of Baptism, and this fire, wherewith Christ shall Baptize all his at the last day, as it was said by John, He shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, and he shall thoroughly purge his floor. Thus Ambrose. and Rupertus likewise compareth this with the fire spoken of, 1 Cor. 3. 13. in which the Cherubims shall distinguish through their fullness of knowledge, as the word signifieth, betwixt the good and the bad, and then and not otherwise the tried thus shall have entrance into Paradise given them. But these things are altogether from the purpose; because not Heaven, but a Paradise in this World; and not eternal life in another World, but a corporal life in this is here spoken of: and so to expound it thus, is to turn it into an Allegory, which hath been already taxed.
Theodoret saith, that these Cherubims, and flaming Sword were some mighty terrifying visions, which were made to appear there, that man might not dare anymore to come near the entrance of Paradise, because, if they had been Angels indeed, they had been invisible, and the terror had not been sensible; and by Cherubims it is usual in the holy Scriptures to set forth whatsoever is endued with great power. And this doth not much differ from the common received opinion, that these Cherubims were Angels appearing like men with bright Swords in their hands, bandied hither and thither, at the sight whereof any man would be afraid to come nigh. Yet the word Cherub signifieth a similitude, although the Angels; because they have appeared oftentimes in likenesses, are so called, and sometimes Seraphim. I hold rather with Theodoret, that they were not Angels, but terrible similitudes, like unto armed men, through which yet it was impossible for man to pass without certain destruction, because the Angels are God's Messengers, not fixed to any place upon earth, but passing and repassing, as God thinketh good to employ them in any service. The thing generally set forth hereby is, that man should not by any means after this live in the flesh forever, [Note.] although to the faithful after this life ended a spiritual life everlasting is restored by Christ, to take place after the resurrection. But through the terrors and striving with death we must come to this, and to have part in Christ the true Tree of life, there are always set to stop our passage dreadful apparitions of fire and sword, wherewith we are subject to be persecuted, and of spiritual temptations inwardly affrighting: but through them all must we break, by the strength of faith resisting the Devil, and not setting by our lives, so that we may win Christ, and through him live forever in the world to come. It is a strange conceit of some here, that these Cherubims were set, as to keep man, so Devils from entering into Paradise, lest they should take of the Tree of Life and bring it to man: for both the Devils nature is such, as that he could not only by the entrance, but any way have come into Paradise, seeing he is a spirit, and his envy against man is such, that he would never give him anything to live, but if he knew any means to bring him to his death with the most speed, he would certainly have given him that rather: R. Menahem saith, although man be yet excluded from the Tree of life, yet it standeth not in vain; for the men of the resurrection shall eat thereof, and live forever: but hereby Maimonides showeth that the enjoying of everlasting happiness, and not eating properly is meant; for our wise men, saith he, have taught, that in the world to come, there is neither eating nor drinking, nor sitting, nor lying, nor sleeping, but wearing of Crowns, and the fruition of the Glory of God forever.
CHAP. IV.
ANd Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord, &c. When Adam went into or knew Eve first, whether in Paradise, or not till he was cast out of Paradise, may justly be inquired here, because so soon, as they were made, they were bidden to increase and multiply, and therefore it may seem improbable, that Adam would not presently obey the Lord's command, by going into his wife to this end and purpose. But his stay in Paradise was so short, and there were then such other occasions to take up Adam otherwise for a time, as that it is generally held, that he knew her not, till after his ejection out of Paradise, according to the order here followed by Moses. And herein it is to be held, that God moderated by his special providence foreseeing the fall of our first [Note.] Parents, that not one man might be begotten in Paradise, as none was made there, and so none should be able to challenge a better place, as his birthright, then the common accursed earth, and if he atteineth to better hopes, of an heavenly Paradise to be hereafter enjoyed, it is to be ascribed altogether to the grace of God, and he only is to be magnified therefore. For the phrase, Adam knew his wife Hevah; because it is so modest, some observe, that the Hebrew tongue is rightly called the holy tongue; because nothing obscene is spoken therein, and that the coming together of man and wife is spoken of by this word knowing, because the seed of generation cometh from the brain by the Spina dorsi, which is the seat of knowledge: or, as others, because reason ought to moderate in this action. Notwithstanding the order followed by Moses, and reasons formerly set down evince, that this was not done, till after their fall, yet some Hebrews translate these words by the Preterpluperfect tense, as if Adam had known Eve immediately after her creation: but this were to hold him to have been, as apt then to be inflamed with lust, as young men nowadays are, which abhorreth from all right understanding. For the time, when Cain was begotten, it is not set down. But a counterfeit Methodius, as the Master of the Eccles. History relateth, saith, that it was revealed to him being in prison for the Gospel, that our first Parents lived in Virginity 15 years after their fall lamenting their sin, but after that coming together they had Cain and Calmanan, his sister, and 15 years after that, Abel and Delbora his Sister, and that Cain slew Abel, Anno Mundi 130. whose death they having lamented 100. years, after that had Seth. But who can doubt at the first hearing of these things, but that they are fabulous, seeing both their mutual love, and the necessity of the world being then emdty of men, would not doubtless suffer them to contain, for any such time, and according to this Sheth was not borne till Anno 230. of Adams age, whereas Gen. 5. he is said to have been born Anno 130. This was therefore the invention of some Frier rather to magnify Virginity, as amongst them, that saying of Jerome upon this, that Adam is not said to have known his wife, till his ejection out of Paradise, is highly extolled, Virginity filleth Paradise, but Marriage the Earth. Hevah having brought forth a Son calleth his name Cain. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to get any kind of way, and not only to buy: it may be translated also, saith Vatablus, I have possessed, but the common translation agreeth best, Cain from getting, because of the next words, of the Lord, or from, with, or by, or to the Lord, as divers read it, as if she meant either, that it was God's blessing towards her, when she had deserved to die, to live to have a son, or as if she meant to dedicate him to the Lord, or made account of him, as the seed promised to break the Serpents head, but they, which understand the words so, read them, I have gotten a man of the Lord, meaning an extraordinary and singular man. I doubt not, but Hevah rejoicing much looked up to God, and thankfully beheld this her son, as his great blessing, and by speech and the name giving expressed her self herein.
Again she brought forth his Brother Abel, &c. These two, saith Vatablus, were twins, and the manner of Moses his telling of this Abel showeth no less, because he saith not, Adam knew her again, and she conceived, but having brought forth one, she soon brought forth his Brother; and it is most likely, that then the woman was so fruitful, that she commonly brought twins. For the name, no reason is rendered hereof, as of the name Cain, but the word signifying vanity, or misery, or mourning; some have thought that she called him so, as if she thought him superfluous, and that her trouble should be but increased by having him, and because Abel was a good man, they tax her for giving him such a name. But both Calvin and other judicious Expositors reject this, as improbable: for how could she possibly, being but even now so joyful for one son, when another came forth to vilipend him? especially, seeing in that time of the want of men, the more were borne, the more joy must there needs be. He is not then thus called, as vain and needless, but rather Hevah beginning to think now, that many in time should come of her, and be subject for her sin to much vanity and misery in this world she calleth him by this name for admonition both to him and to all posterities, to make none other account of their estate here then as vain and transitory. Ferus saith, that she called him so; either because the murthering of him should cause much sorrow to her, or because she brought him forth with much sorrow, or lastly, because he was the first of the blessed mourners, Matth. 5. Abel was a shepherd, and Cain an husbandman: both necessary callings, and no doubt, but to these they were set by their Father Adam, whereby his care is commended, and these callings especially, as most needful and honest to all generations, thus then they both began well.
And in process of time Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to the Lord, &c. It may be questioned here; wherefore Cain and Abel offered, and who taught them so to do? many think, that Adam taught them, and that he was commanded by God: but Chrysostom saith, that they had none instructer to direct them herein, but their own conscience. I think, that although by the light of nature they might conceive, that all coming from God, it was meet, that something should be brought, as a gift to God again in way of thankfulness; yet they could not, without instruction, understand the end of sacrificing; which was to set forth, that necessarily an oblation must be made, blood must be shed, and there must be burning of the creatures in the fire for the expiating of sin, and to be delivered from the fire of God's wrath by sin deserved: and yet that this was not done merely by the sacrificing of beasts and such things; but by Christ set forth hereby, who was afterwards to come into the World, to be offered upon the Cross, to have his blood shed, and to be put, as it were, into a burning fire of extreme passions, as he was; when being in an agony he sweat so wonderfully. For how could it possibly enter into the heart of man without instruction, that a stinking fume made with the fat of a beast could afford pleasing smell unto the Lord? and how can it be thought, but that Adam did so before them, although it be not recorded; because there was none occasion, as here, that the cause of Cain's enmity against Abel might appear, since it pleased the Lord to have the history of the things happening between them two to be recorded? And if Adam sacrificed before, he did doubtless teach his sons to do the like; and God set him a work at the first so to do, that, as he had made a comfortable promise of the woman's seed to come, that should break the Serpents head; howsoever he was shut out from the Tree of life, yet he might have something continually before his eyes, figuring out this seed to come, and to suffer for the expiation of all his sins. Some observe, that amongst all the Patriarchs, Adam's sacrificing and Isaac's is passed over in silence; of which they render this reason: Adam was the fountain of sin, and therefore God would not have him set forth, as the fountain of piety also; and Isaac was himself a figure of Christ, in that he was taken to be sacrificed, and therefore he is not propounded, as sacrificing beasts, then whom he was a far more excellent type: but the best reason hath been rendered before, there was none occasion to speak of their sacrificings, and therefore they are not set forth, as those of others be.
In process of time: In the Hebrew this is, in the end of days 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is commonly taken for a year consisting of many days, at the end of the year, or after certain years, as one hath it. But (at the end of the year) agreeth best, because it is likely, that every year, when they had reaped the profits of that year, they offered some of them to the Lord, who sent all, thus days are put for a year, Levite. 25. 29, 30. compare Exod. 34. 22. with 1 Sam. 1. 20. and afterwards it was commanded at the end of the year to bring offerings to the Lord, Exodus 23. 16. and from hence it is certain, that the custom of sacrificing came in use amongst the Heathen, and not by a natural instinct; but God having taught the first man to do thus, they held this custom still, though not to God, but to Devils, when they had degenerated to Idolatry.
But whither did they bring their offerings? some say, to the place of public meetings, to the worship of God unto Adam, who was then the only Priest of God, and offered them for them. Saint Paul to the Hebrews, saith: By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice, than Cain: whereby it seemeth rather, that each one then offered for himself: but to this it may be answered, he is said to offer, who bringeth the thing offered, although it be laid upon the Altar by another, as Solomon is said afterwards to have offered a thousand burnt-offerings, but it is certain, that it was done by the Priests hands, and it is not to be doubted, but the God of order would have an order held in his service from the beginning, and therefore the eldest of the family being the Priest, Adam now was he, and it is most likely, that their offerings were presented by his hands. Maymony saith of the place, It is a tradition, that it was the same where Noah built his Altar, and Abraham prepared to offer up Isaac, and David offered to stay the pestilence, 1 Sam. 24. and Solomon built the Temple.
Now in telling of Cain's bringing of his gift, Moses speaketh not so magnifically, as of Abel: for Cain, he saith, brought of the fruit of the ground: something, as is thought by most, which came next to hand, not making choice of the best, but Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of though fat thereof, that is, the principal, and amongst them of the fattest, for this see the Laws made afterwards, Levite. 3. 16. and 7. 25. yet, as some note, this was not the thing, that made Cain's sacrifice to be neglected, and Abel's accepted; but, as was said before, the faith and piety in the heart of the one, which was wanting in the other. Abel was a good man, and so his heart was right towards God, when he brought his offering, but Cain was wicked. And although Hypocrites, whose hearts are evil, do sometimes make as glorious a show outwardly, as the best, yet it was not so here: for Abel excelled every way, the last was first, and the youngest excelled the eldest. See here, it is no certain true piety to do the duties of God's worship, w • cked Cain offereth as [Note.] well as righteous Abel: and to bring somewhat to God, but not making a conscience to bring his due, of the chief and best out of a free and liberal mind is to serve him like Cain, it ever argueth an heart not right. The word translated offering here, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which read Levite. 2. but it setteth forth any kind of oblation, coming of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to bring, to comfort, to please, or to rest. And God had respect to Abel and to his offering, &c. He was well pleased therewith, as the Chaldee Paraphrast hath it, and praised it, and so made it known to be pleasing to him, as Chrysostom saith, but how or by what means Cain knew this, I find none to have declared, but Jerome, who saith, that fire coming down from the Lord, burnt up Abel's offering, but left Cain 's untouched: and according to this Theodotion translateth it; inflammavit Dominus super Abel. The person of Abel is first accepted, and then his offering: so that as the state of the man is, so is that accepted of, or not accepted, which he doth in the service of God, as Calvin noteth; and therefore, till a [Note.] man be justified by faith, which maketh God to be well pleased with him, his actions cannot please God. And hereby we may see, that although God would have his servants bring sheep and other such like things unto him, yet he never delighted in these things, but the faith and integrity of the heart of the offerer was that, which pleased him, as Chrysostom reasoneth: those smells were not pleasing in themselves, but being perfumed with the sweet smell of an holy and sanctified spirit. Lastly, from hence also, it is manifest, that the Lord appointed these offerings to be made, because otherwise Abel himself could not have brought one in faith, seeing the ground of faith is God's Word. For that opinion of God's answering Abel by fire, it is not improbable; because we know he hath often shown his acceptance thus at other times, as Levite. 9. 24. Judges 6. 1 Chron. 21. 2 Chron 7. 1 Kings 18. and yet Musculus and Calvin are altogether against it, holding rather, that in time God's favor appeared by some outward blessing
And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. There were two things that moved Cain against Abel: first, that he being his elder Brother; secondly, offering first, yet Abel was preferred before him; so envy wrought afterwards in Josephs brethren against him, and it is an evil affection, that commonly worketh upon occasion of another's preference. Fagius observeth, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here used to set forth Cain's wrath, is but one word of eight of the same signification; and yet the most significative showing one all on a fire with anger. And this bewrayed the great pride of his heart, and that he thought most highly of himself and basely of his brother, as some note, as if he were greatly wronged, when as he was most worthy. For had he been humble, instead of being thus ill affected, he would, as Chrysostom saith, have thought, that there was something amiss in him to have searched it out, and to have been moved with penitency therefore. But the Lord, to show, what he expected he should have done, calleth to him, Why art thou angry? &c. as he had sought to bring Adam to repentance by calling to him, Adam, where art thou? so he doth to Cain. How is it that thou considerest not, that I see into every man's heart, and therefore not finding thee to have come with a right heart to offer unto me, I have shown thee no sign of favor. The fruit of the ground, which thou hast brought, is nothing to me, but a faithful and humble heart, with this Abel came, but thou not, which should have affected thee with grief and sorrow, and have beaten down this pride in thee, and if yet thou wilt repent and be humbled, I shall be ready to receive thee to grace, and thou shalt still hold thy birth-right over Abel, but if not, be assured, that judgment is not far from thee. To this effect Chrysostom paraphraseth upon these words. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? but if, ill, sin lieth at thy door, and his desire shall be to thee, and thou shalt rule over him. In the Hebrew, it is a little otherwise: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be forgiven? and his society shall be to thee, but do thou rather rule over him, as Jerome hath translated it. The Chaldee Paraphrast, If thou amend thy works, shall it not be forgiven thee? but if thou amend them not, thy sin is kept to the day of judgment, that thou mayest be punished therefore. The Septuagint's translation, Hast thou not sinned in not dividing rightly, although thou offerest rightly? Be quiet, his turning shall be to thee, and thou shalt rule over him. And this is followed by Chrysostom, and by Ambrose, August. and many of the other ancients likewise. And they labor much in expounding these words: Hast thou not sinned, although thou offeredst rightly, by not dividing rightly? Saint August. saith, A man offereth rightly, when to God, but divideth not rightly, when he disceneth not rightly the time, the place, the things that are offered, the person offering, or to whom, or those, amongst whom the offering is to be distributed to feed upon it. Now Cain divided not rightly, because he used not right discretion, offering his gift unto God, but not himself, because, as John saith, his works were evil, and so whatsoever gift he brought unto God, could not be accepted: to this effect, August. in many more words. And Ambrose seemeth to lay the fault of his division in the time; because he did not first and before all things offer to God. And touching the other words, be quiet, his turning shall be to thee, &c. they will not have them understood of Abel, but of his sin: against the understanding of them of Abel, Augustine is so far, as that he saith, absit, God forbid. And therefore he expoundeth it of his sin, the turning of this sin shall be to thee, &c. that is, take it upon thyself, and lay not the fault in any other, accuse thyself therefore, and in so doing, and humbly confessing, thou shalt bring thy sin under and get the mastery over it, whereas otherwise it will have the dominion over thee. But Ambrose in a different manner. Be quiet, say nothing to excuse thy sin, but rather stand mute as ashamed, thy Brother is in no fault, that thou shouldest be wroth with him, but thyself only, thou hast been to thyself the author of offending, and so mayest rightly be called the Prince of this sin. Thou hast not been drawn unwittingly or against thy will, but wittingly and willingly thou hast run into this mischief. Rupertus speaking upon the same words saith, Because thou hast a purpose in thy mind to do a work of sin, behold I tell thee, before thou doest, that when thou hast done it, thou mayest not excuse thyself of ignorance. Knowest thou not, that if thou doest well, thou shalt receive, and if ill, thou shalt receive too, for sin will by and by be at thy door, that whithersoever thou turnest thee, and whatsoever thou doest thence forward, it may be a Companion to thee in the journey, and a Prince in the work, and then truly it shall be above thee, and rule over thee, because he that commiteth sin, is the servant of sin. Now before thou dost it, whilst it is yet in thy desire, the desire thereof is under thee, and thou mayst master it, as a King not yet crowned is under the people, so that they may refuse him, if they will.
After the same manner also Bernard, showing from hence that a man needeth not to yield to temptations, unless he will, but may be Lord and Master over them: but he conculdeth by an Epanorthosis, But what are we, or what is our strength to resist so great temptations? This is that indeed, which God seeketh, and to which he endeavoreth to bring us, that seeing our own want, and that we have none other aid, we might in all humility flee to his mercy. They that are for free will, do greedily lay hold upon this place, and upon such Expositions, but very vainly, because, although it be thus understood, God doth but, as Bernard saith, hereby teach us what we should do, that finding ourselves unable we might flee to him for aid, saying as Augustine hath it, Give Lord what thou biddest, and then bid what thou wilt: for according to the Hebrew it is, do thou rule over him, teaching, what he should do, and not what he was able to do without grace; of sin, according to the foregoing Expositions, and not of Abel, as amongst many it is commonly taken, Vatablus saith, almost all Expositors understand this, yet Calvin rather followeth Chrysostom, understanding it of Abel; because the Pronouns his and him, are of the Masculine Gender are in • Hebrew, and not of the feminine, as sin is. And indeed as we read the words, any man would take them, as spaken of Abel. But when I consider, that in the whole speech of the Lord, nothing is said of Abel, but against Cain's envy and malice, and that there was no reason thus to puff up a wicked man too proud already, and to subject a man better unto him, contrary to the course taken with others, as with Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, David and Eliab, &c. I think it unreasonable to expound them of Abel, and therefore do rather prefer that of the most, as if the Lord had said, why dost thou thus senselessly boil with malice in thy breast, against thy Brother, by thy downward look bewraying, that thou meditatest upon some great mischief against him, shere is no just cause of being thus incensed against him, but to turn all thine anger against thyself; because although thou hast brought me an offering, yet thy heart was not right, neither hast thou therefore done well: for hadst thou come with a good and humble heart, thou also shouldst have been respected. But neither hast thou done so, and now instead of turning and craving pardon, which I expected thou shouldst have done, I see thee in thy mind plotting the murthering of thy Brother, which if thou proceed to do, adding so great an evil to thy former wickedness, thy sin will become most hemous, and then vengeance stands ready at thy door to light upon thee, (for thus sin may rightly be said to be at the door, when some great judgment is ready to be sent upon the sinner for the same:) subject this rebellious malice then unto thee in time, and suffer it not to get the dominion over thee, as it will certainly do, and bring thee to confusion, if thou proceedest in this thy mad mood, but quell and keep it under, and so get the dominion over it. For these words, the desire to thee, are by the common use of the Hebrew tongue put to set forth subjection, and the word, rule, is of the second future, which is in the force, of an Imperative. So that according to this sense, I would render the words thus, and they will well bear: therefore subject it unto thee, and do thou rule over it. As for the Masculine Pronoun, which seemeth to hinder from thus expounding it, we may take it, as a neuter, which in the Hebrew is all one, for this thing, and so it may as well have reference to that which Cain was then led by, as to any man.
As for the difference amongst Expositors about these words, shalt thou not be accepted? some understanding them, as if he had said, shall not thy countenance, which is now cast down, be lifted up again, thou being made glad and cheerful? others, shalt thou not be remitted or pardoned? others, shalt thou not be accepted and had in honor also, as well, as thy brother Abel? All these varieties arise from the various significations of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here used, which, as Vatablus noteth, is sometime put for elevare, or attollere, sometime for parcere, or remittere, and sometime for suscipere, or acceptare. The reader may follow which he will, I but I do with Calvin, as we commonly read it, prefer the last. Ferus saith that some expound the words thus, should his desire be subject to thee, and wouldest thou rule over him in matter of conscience, that he should follow thee in doing ill, and be no better then thou art? Now one doubt only more remaineth here, How the Lord spake unto Cain? To this Calvin briefly answereth, even as to Adam before, and as he used to do in those first beginnings, assuming some shape, and so speaking unto men, before that the Ark of the Covenant was set up and the Oracle, at which [Note.] they afterterwards received answers. Let the speech of the Lord to Cain be an admonition to us all, when things succeed better to others, then to ourselves, whereupon we are ready to be discontented, or when we are in any want, or any way dejected, to consider that we have not certainly done well, but there is some evilin us, which must be repented of & reformed, and so we shall be restored again: but if we will not thus consider, our state will still grow worse and worse, greater judgments lie at our door, as who do carry ourselves unworthily in not mastering our unruly affections, but suffering them to get an head over us and to bring us under their dominion.
And Cain talked with Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, &c. If it be rendered word for word, it is, Cain said unto Abel, but it is not set down, what he said, only the vulgar Latin addeth, prodeamus foràs, the Greek hath it, into the field, and so Ambrose readeth it, but in the Hebrew and Chaldee there are no such words. Jerome thinketh, that Cain told him, what the Lord had said unto him, others that he spake flatteringly, till he saw his opportunity to strike him. No man can tell certainly, what he said, and therefore that must be left doubtful. It is most probable, that he spake so unto Abel, as that he might least suspect, what he went about, that taking him at an advantage, he might strike him unawares the more deadly: for when one man will not speak to another, it is plain that he hateth him, wherefore in speaking he feigned to be in love and charity with him, and not in any hatred. Some Hebrews say, that he spake unto him in a quarrelling manner, after which they went to blows, and Abel having overthrown Cain spared him, but he rising up again killed Cain, because it is said, He rose up against him. But this is frivolous, for this phrase doth not always employ one being down before, but simply an hostile invading and setting upon another. Ferus addeth further out of the tradition of the Hebrews, that Cain said to Abel, there is no judgment to come, nor reward in another life, which Abel gainsaying he fell out with him, &c. And no better is that of theirs touching the kind of death, to which he put him, viz. by biting and tearing him with his teeth. It is more likely, that he struck him unawares with some cudgel, and thus shed his blood. And when he had done, Josephus saith, he hid his body, thinking that it should never be known. And to all the wicked maligning, persecuting and slaying the godly, is Cain thus made a ring-leader, it being the [Note.] common case of the godly to expect such usage at the hands of the wicked ever, whilst this world lasteth.
And the Lord said unto Cain, where is Abel thy brother? Luther saith, that some will have this interrogation propounded by his parents, but is plainly made by the Lord, with whom it was no unwonted thing to speak to men of old, good or bad, by a lively voice, as since he hath done by his Word. The Lord showeth himself here to be a discoverer of murder especially, above other sins, and that how secretly soever it be done, it shall not go unpunished. He inquireth not, where Abel was, as being ignorant, but as before of Adam, touching his eating of the forbidden fruit to wring out of him a confession of his own sin. But Cain is so far from this, that he both denieth to know, where Abel was, and also carrieth himself most unreverently towards the Lord, saying, Am I my brothers keeper? Showing himself hereby to be grown to the greatest height of sin that could be. But the Lord suffereth him not to go on thus, in facing out the horrible sin, which he had committed, but bringeth testimony against him, saying, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brothers hloud crieth to me from the earth. In the Hebrew it is, the voice of bloods, whereupon the Hebrews, as one noteth, say that it is meant of the seeds of generation, which should have come from Abel, for these being thus prevented cried. But he saith better, who expoundeth it by the drops, that are in blood, everyone of which crieth against a murderer. A voice is ascribed to blood-shed by a Prosopopoeia, to set forth, how that, when sin is committed, [Note.] and no sound is heard thereof anymore amongst men, yet there is a loud cry made hereby in the ears of God for revenge. The stones and the timber out of the wall crieth against him, that buildeth his house by deceit, and the sin of the Sodomites committed without noise in the dark, cried up to heaven. When a man is dead by wicked hands, so that he can speak no more, yet his blood crieth, especially the blood of God's Saints, which is most dear in the sight of God: For he careth for them not only living but dead, which may be a comfort against the fear of death any way.
Now therefore thou art cursed from the earth, &c. In that God pronounceth Cain cursed from the earth, but not from heaven, one saith, that some hold, that this was thus spoken to keep Cain's posterity from despair: but the simple meaning is rather, as others have it, the earth was polluted by bloodshed, and therefore the Lord would that Cain should first have his punishment from the earth, this one act of murder so tainting the ground to him, as that he should toil in his husbandry, as his calling was, but have little store of fruit, and this should be a perpetual punishment unto him. But Chrysostom and others seem to make these two distinct punishments, one upon his soul, cursed art thou of all upon the earth, de terra: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 setting forth others upon earth also above all whom he was accursed, as the Serpent before above all beasts, to whom he was most like, first, in that he sought out of envy by fraud to destroy Abel, a most happy man for that faith and piety in him, as the Serpent sought to overthrow Eve being in a most blessed condition. 2 In that he was to this end an instrument of the Devil, and his first instrument amongst men, as the Serpent amongst beasts: the other punishment upon his outward estate, it shall not henceforth yield • nto thee her strength, that is, any great, but a poor increase. And unto these is a third added in his body, a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be on the earth, thou shalt go sighing and trembling, saith Chrysostom, because thou hast abused thy bodily strength unto so foul a murder, that others seeing the trembling of thy members, and thy continual most sorrowful life far worse then death, may forever fear to do the like. But there are two words used, one from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying to wander, the other from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifying to flee, so that out of an inward terror rising from a guilty conscience, he should always be unquiet and fear, either when he saw any man, or was solitary. For simply to wander and to flee is no curse, it being the common condition of the godly, but they having God everywhere with them, are still joyous and comfortable; Cain having God against him in all places, could not but be ever full of horror: a good conscience in them is a continual feast, an evil conscience in him a continual rack, yea when he had built a city and dwelt therein. Thus Calvin. So that the translation of the Septuagint followed by Chrysost. trembling and sighing, setteth not forth so much the proper meaning of the words, as the effect of the curse inwardly. By Cain's reply, Thou hast driven me from the earth, it seemeth that to be cursed from the earth is to be restless in any part of it. Rupertus notably maketh a comparison here betwixt Cain killing Abel, and the Jews killing Christ. For as the earth received Abel's blood, so the intelligible earth receives Christ's blood, that is, the faithful; and as Abel, blood cried, so Christ's blood speaketh, for it speaketh better things, then the blood of Abel, for that spake to accuse one, this to excuse many; as Cain tilled the ground, but had none increase, so the Jews til the spiritual ground of the Law and Prophets without profit; and as he was made a vagabond, so are they to this day. Adam was not thus accursed, for to him, Cursed only, is the earth, saith the Lord, for thy sake, but to Cain, Cursed art thou, &c. A man being deceived and sinning, may by repentance yet be exempt from God's curse, but the malicious, blood-thirsty and deceiving are so involved in the curse, as that they are seldom ever exempted again.
And Cain said to the Lord, My punishment is greater then I can bear. v. 14. Behold, thou hast driven me this day, &c. These words are read three ways, first, by the Hebrews, as an interrogation, Is my sin greater, then can be pardoned? 2 In the Septuagint and vulgar Latin, My sin is greater, then can be pardoned. 3 My punishment, &c.