Commentary on the Old Testament Volume 1

CHAP. II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly others, that Adam and Eve were at the first, like little innocent children for knowledge, but by eating of the fruit of that tree, they came to understanding, like men and women, and hence the tree had this name, the tree of knowledge, of good and evil. Fagius saith, that some have held, that this tree was thus called, because after the eating of it, man began to do things with judgment, election, will and pleasure, doing all things before, out of a natural power put into him in his Creation without sin, as the heavens, and the heavenly Orbes do. And one there is, that saith, some have held, that this tree was thus called, because God would hereby prove and try, whether our first parents would do good or evil, by obeying or disobeying. Amidst so great variety of expositions it is hard to judge, whether is the right, but when I do seriously consider the circumstances of this place, that they having eaten of this tree, had their eyes opened, Gen. 3. 7. and God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us knowing good and evil. verse 22. And they knew themselves to be naked now, which they knew not before, I cannot incline to them, who think this to have been spoken ironically, or that God would hereby prove and know, whether they would do good or evil, but that this tree was so called, because the eating of it, did avail indeed, to open man's eyes to see and know, how to do evil, and to forsake the good, whereas before he knew only to do well. And that it was so, appeared by the sequel of their eating, they knew that they were naked, that is, corrupt, and so thence forward, their privy parts especially, should be instruments of most shameful lusts, which made them immediately to seek for means to hide them. Before they knew not, how to lust, how to envy, hate, covet, or deceive, but having by this one sin broken the ice, they are forever after drenched in an ocean of sins, as an hole being made through the roof of an house, or the side of a ship, water cometh in more and more, to the endangering both of the one and the other. They knew, what was good still, but had no power to do it, but evil they knew so, of which they were altogether ignorant before, that they could not now anymore but daily run into it, and spend their thoughts in wicked and vain imaginations, according to that commonly known saying, I see better things, and approve them, but I follow the worse, being the same with the complaint taken up by the Apostle, Rom. 7. And according to that, the imaginations of man's heart are only evil continually. So that their eyes were opened, and yet they were more darkened in their eyes, as touching good, and by eating contrary to God's command they laid a foundation to future blindness, when as man by being accustomed to do evil had all sense of goodness taken away, as in those, that for their sins have been given over to a reprobate sense: Or else because the Lord saith afterwards; Man is become like one of us to know good and evil, haply this tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because having eaten of it, he knew the eating thereof to be evil by the fear and shame that immediately pursued him, but that to eat of the tree of life was good, both which it is most probable, that he knew not before, not the first, because although the Lord threatened him, that should eat of that tree, through the illusion of the devil, he believed it not, nor the second, because otherwise he would surely have eaten of that tree first: for now so soon as he had eaten of the forbidden tree, the Lord maketh hast to expel him out of paradise, lest knowing the virtue of this tree, he should put out his hand, and take of this fruit and live forever. That our first parents were ignorant like innocent children before the eating of this tree, is easily confuted: for how then could Adam have given fit names to all creatures? Moreover it doth derogate much from God's goodness towards man to hold, that there being any means to make him come to more perfection of knowledge, he should interdict this unto him, and thus the exposition of Josephus also falleth to the ground. And it is unreasonable to think, that man being endued with a reasonable soul should without the use of reason, before this eating, do all things that he did. But for that of Augustine, it is followed by most, and favored by the Exposition of the Chaldee Paraphrast, where it is thus read, the tree, the fruits whereof they that eat, discern between good and evil, and in like manner it is rendered in the Targum Hierosolymitanum. But because it was called the tree of knowledge, before that man had eaten of it, it seemeth not to have been called so from the event, because then, as the waters of Meribah, it should not have been called so till afterwards, as Zanchi also reasoneth. And again, man is said now to have known as God, Gen. 3. 22. whereas in God there is none experimental knowledge of evil. As for the opinion of an irony first rejected, whereas in favor thereof it is said, that if their eyes had been indeed opened, the devil had not lied unto them, it followeth not, because his lie was in that he said, they should not die at all. Lastly, for Zanchyes exposition, although it be true, which he saith, yet it setteth not forth all here meant. That tree was indeed a mean to know good and evil, to stand in obedience and disobedience, but all circumstances make it plain, that not the beholding but the eating thereof effected this, and that must needs be, as hath been already said.

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.