A Treatise of Paradise, Chapter 45 – Chapter 48
CHAP. XLV.
What kinde of ſerpent that was, which tempted Eue.
IOſephus in his firſt booke of Antiq. & chap. 1, holdeth that, as it was a true, and naturall ſerpent, which tempted our firſt fathers: ſo it was naturall vntounto it to ſpeake, vnderſtand, yea, and to goe vpright like vntounto man: and that vnderſtanding mans felicitie, moued with enuie, hee ſought his ouerthrow; malicioſe perſuadens mulieri, vt de arbore ſcientiae guſtaret, maliciouſly perſwading the woman, that ſhee ſhould taſte of the tree of knowledge.
Ephraim the Syrian (as Barſalas relateth in his booke of Paradiſe the 27. chap.) held that the ſerpent which ſpake with Eue was a true corporall ſerpent, and that Satan had obtained of God the facultie of ſpeech to be giuen vntounto the ſerpent for a time; ſo that as in Balaams reprehenſion God gaue the vſe of ſpeach vntounto the Aſſe, for his iuſt reprehenſion and puniſhment; ſo likewiſe here, ſaith Ephraim, God gaue not only ſpeach, but euen intellectuall power, and vnderſtanding, vntounto the ſerpent for a tryall of our firſt fathers obedience.
Cyrillus in his third booke againſt Iulian the apoſtata, and Eugubinus in his Coſmopoeia, are of opinion that this was not a true ſerpent, but that it was the deuill in the ſhape and likenes of a ſerpent, and therefore he was curſed vnderunder the name of a ſerpent.
Neuertheleſſe this opinion ſeemeth not true, for if it had beene a deuill, then would he hauehave left the likenes of a ſerpent after the temptation: as when any Angell doth aſſume for any time a humane ſhape, preſently after hee hath performed his purpoſe, hee putteth of that corporall ſhape: but this ſerpent, euen after the temptation remained in his former ſhape, for after that Eue had beene ſo ſeuerely reprehended for eating the forbidden fruit, preſently ſhe excuſed her ſelfe, and ſaid, the ſerpent deceiued me, then the Lord God ſaid vntounto the ſerpent, becauſe thou haſt done this, thou art curſed aboue all cattell, and aboue eueryevery beaſt of the field, vponupon thy belly ſhalt thou goe, and duſt ſhalt thou eat, all the dayes of thy life. So that the ſerpent retained his former ſhape, euen after Eue had eaten of the forbidden fruit, neither could this curſe be fitly applied to a fained ſerpent.
Caietan in his Commentaries vponupon Gen. thinketh that here by this word ſerpent, is neither ſignified a true ſerpent, nor yet any thing that hath the reſemblance of a ſerpent, but onelyonly the deuill in his owne likenes, who by reaſon of his ſubtiltie, and vehement deſire of mans deſtruction, is often in the ſcripture termed a ſerpent, and therefore he ſaith that this temptation was not externally, by propoſing the forbidden fruit in outward ſpeach, and perſwaſion, but by the inward ſuggeſtion, mouing, and inclining her appetite.
Neuertheleſſe, as this opinion is moſt improbable, ſo is it contrary to the common opinion of the Fathers, interpreters of the Scriptures, and common ſenſe of all Chriſtians; who generally hold, that Eue was tempted of the deuill in a corporall, and true ſerpent, who allured her by externall perſwaſion, and preſent view of the forbidden fruite.
Furthermore the whole text in this place is peruerted by this, and ſuch like allegoricall expoſitions. Neither can there any ſound reaſon bee alleadged, why this place may not be vnderſtood hiſtorically, as the text ſoundeth, and is propounded vntounto vsus: or if not, why may not the ſame be ſaid, and the like allegoricall expoſition be onelyonly admitted of Paradiſe, the trees of life, of good and euill, of the foure riuers, of the creation of Adam, and laſtly of the framing of Eue out of Adams ſide.
The fift, and laſt opinion,Damaſcen. lib. 2 de fide Orthodoxa cap. 10. Auguſtinus de ciuit. Dei lib. 14 cap. 11. & lib. 11. de Gen. ad lit. c. 27. and which I hold to be the moſt true, is, that it was a true and naturall ſerpent, by which the deuill tempted and ouercame Eue, ſpeaking with her in the ſhape and ſubſtance of a ſerpent, not in his owne voice, as who hath none, neither by the hiſſing of a ſerpent, which was not ſufficient for that purpoſe, but with humane voice, ſounding as ſome thinke like vntounto a woman, as moſt accommodate for to deceiue the woman; and this is the opinion of Baſil, Auſtine, Damaſcene, Chryſostome, Theodoretus, Beda, and Rupertus. The deuill (ſaith S. Auſtine) ſpoke in the ſerpent, vſing him as his inſtrument, after that manner that the Deuill could moue, and be moued, to expreſſe the ſound of the words, and corporall ſignes, by which the woman might vnderſtand the will and intent of the tempter: though not ſo that the ſerpent could vnderſtand the ſound of the words, which were ſpoken vntounto the woman: neither is it to be thought, that the ſoule of the ſerpent was tranſformed into a reaſonable ſoule, ſeeing that neither thoſe men, who are poſſeſſed do not know what they ſay, when the Deuill ſpeaketh in them. For although it be the opinion of the vnlearned, that the ſerpents heare and vnderſtand the words of the enchaunters, inſomuch, that they leape out of their holes, and caues by the force, and vertue of the enchantments, yet that alſo is by cooperation with the Deuill. Yea it ſeemeth to proceed by the particular prouidence and permiſſion of God, that ſerpents are moued more by verſes, and enchauntments, then any other liuing creature, which is no ſmall ſigne and token of our firſt ſeduction by the ſerpent: yea euen the deuils reioyce, that as yet they hauehave this power permitted vntounto them, by which they moue ſerpents by mens enchauntments: that after ſome ſort they may deceiue, and ouercome man, who in ſome ſort was occaſion of their fall: the which is permitted vntounto them, for a memorie of the firſt fact, by which the deuill ſeduced mankinde, vſing the ſerpent as an inſtrument of their ſeduction, and vtter ouerthrow, vnleſſe it had pleaſed God to hauehave redeemed vsus by the blood of the Lambe.
CHAP. XLVI.
Whether that which Moyſes ſaith, that the ſerpent was craftier then all beaſts of the earth, is to be vnderſtood of the true ſerpent, or of the Deuill.
SAint Auſtine anſwereth,Auguſtin. lib. 11. de Gen. ad lit. cap. 29. that the ſerpent is ſaid to be craftieſt of all kinde of beaſts, by reaſon of the craftineſſe of the deuill, who vſed him as his inſtrument to deceiue mankinde: like as the tongue is ſaid to bee prudent, ſubtile, wiſe, cunning, or craftie, moued by a ſubtle, prudent, or crafty man.
Neuertheleſſe, this ſeemeth not probable, that the ſerpent is called the craftieſt of all beaſts, by reaſon of the craftineſſe of the deuill, for that either this was for the ſubtiltie, which the ſerpent had of himſelfe; or for that which hee was to receiue of the deuil: not the firſt, becauſe the craftineſſe of the deuill was not inherent in him, neither could the deuill impart any ſuch craftineſſe vntounto him, ſeeing the Serpent is not capable of any ſuch craftineſſe either rationall, or ſenſitiue remaining a ſerpent.
That therefore which ſeemeth more probable is, that the reaſon, why the Serpent is called the craftieſt of all beaſts, was not ſo much to ſignifie his naturall craftineſſe, as to ſhew the order and conformitie of the diuine prouidence in taking ſo apt an inſtrument for the fulfilling of his permiſſiue, will about the fall of Adam, for if we marke it, we ſhall finde, that ſuch is the prouidence of him qui attingit à fine vſus que ad finem fortiter (as the Wiſe-man ſaith) diſponens omnia ſuauitèr, that euen in workes moſt miraculous, and aboue nature, he vſeth thoſe inſtruments for the moſt part, which are moſt accommodate by their owne nature: for although we admit that Wolues, Foxes and Elephants be more ſubtill, wiſe and craftie in their kinde, yet neuertheleſſe we ſhall finde no creature ſo naturally bent by a malicious craftineſſe to hurt man, as the ſerpent is: this therefore was the reaſon why God curſing the ſerpent, ſaid, Gen. 3.15. verſe: I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy ſeed and her ſeed: ſhe ſhall breake thine head, and thou ſhalt bruiſe his heele. Yea queſtionleſſe this naturall inſtinct of the ſerpent is ſignified in that Propheſie of the Patriarch Iacob, of the tribe of Dan, Ge. 39. ver. 17. Dan ſhall be a ſerpent by the way, an adder by the path, biting the horſe heeles, ſo that the rider ſhall fall backward.
CHAP. XLVII.
What was the reaſon why the woman was not afraid of the ſpeech and communication with the ſerpent.
Petr. Com eſter in hiſtoria l. Gen. cap. 21. Bonan. in 2. l ſenten. diſt. 21. Dionyſius Carth. in Gen. allegans Bedam authorem huius opinionis.BOnauenture, Dionyſius Carthuſianus, Bede, and Peter Comeſtor doe anſwere (though not altogether approuing the opinion) that the reaſon why our firſt mother was not afraid to approach and talke with the ſerpent, was, becauſe the deuill had choſen ſuch a ſerpent, as which (in face at leaſtway) repreſented a woman, yea and one moſt beautifull like vntounto her ſelfe: for as ordinarily in all his temptations hee doth craftily accommodate himſelfe vntounto the nature, complexions, and diſpoſitions of the perſons tempted; ſo here hee deemed it moſt fit for the accompliſhing of his deſire in the temptation and fall of the woman, to accommodate himſelfe, as much as poſſibly hee could, to the feature and naturall diſpoſition of the woman.
Yea Baſil in his Treatiſe of Paradiſe, and Ioſeph in his firſt booke of Antiquities, and firſt chapter, doe not much diſagree; for ſo ſaith the firſt, the ſerpent then was not horrible to man, but gentle and tame; neither did he creepe vponupon the ſuperficies of the earth, but did goe vpright vponupon his feet, inſomuch that, as Damaſcene ſaith, hee was more familiar vntounto man then any other creature, fawning often vponupon him with pleaſant circumuolutions of his body: and this was the reaſon why the deuill tooke him for his inſtrument in the fall of our firſt parents.
Neuertheleſſe it ſeemeth moſt agreeable to reaſon, that which Chryſoſtome ſaith in his 16. homilie on Geneſis, to wit, that therefore Eue did not feare to ſee and conuerſe with the ſerpent, becauſe before the fall of our firſt Fathers, all ſerpents and beaſts were gentle, meeke, and ſubiect to mans command and gouernment, ſo that as they had no power to doe any harme to man, ſo neither did they appeare horrible in their aſpect.
Hence ariſeth a new difficultie, for which though wee hauehave no authoritie out of the Scripture, yet ſomewhat we may ſay out of naturall reaſon, and diſcourſe, to wit, what kinde of ſerpent that was, that deceiued Eue; to which Eugubinus anſwereth, that it was the Baſiliske, who as he is the moſt venomous, and king as it were of Serpents, ſo therefore he may bee deemed to hauehave beene the moſt fit inſtrument of the Prince of darkneſſe, for the ouerthrow of our firſt fathers. But this ſeemeth not likely, ſeeing that this ſerpent is ſo deformed, peſtiferous, and noiſome euen in the very aſpect. If therefore I may coniecture in a thing ſo doubtfull, it ſeemeth more probable, that becauſe Eue was ſo delighted with the company of the ſerpent, that it was that moſt beautifull ſerpent Scytile, the which (as Solinus in his 39. chapter ſaith) is ſo gliſtering with varietie of ſpots vponupon her backe, that it maketh men ſtay to behold her beautie, inſomuch that whom ſhe cannot ouertake by reaſon of her ſlow creeping, ſhe taketh them as amazed at her wonderfull beautie; not vnlike vntounto the common and powerfull temptation of women, to whom nature hath denied the force of the body, yet hath permitted her to ouercome by her beautie, thoſe who are moſt powerfull and vigorous in body: whereby wee may ſee that which God doth ſo ordinarily execute by moſt iuſt prouidence; in quo quiſque m… …nè excellit, & excellentia praeſumit, praeſumptione peccans, punitur maximè.
CHAP. XLVIII.
Why the deuill tooke the ſhape of a ſerpent, rather then of any other creature, and why Moſes made no mention of the deuill, ſeeing he was the chiefe author of the temptation.
SAint Auſtine in his 11. booke ſuper Gen. ad lit. cap. 3. anſwereth, that wee are not to thinke that it was in the deuils choice, to chuſe the inſtrument of the temptation, but that it was by Gods particular permiſſion and deſignement, that he made choice of the ſerpent. Yet in his 4. booke de ciu. Dei, 11. chap. hee anſwereth more probably, that the reaſon was, becauſe this is animal lubricum, & tortuoſis anfractibus mobile, operi ſuo congruum; becauſe the ſerpent was a moſt deceitfull, cunning, and craftie creature: for though, as the maſter of the ſentences ſaith, l. 2 ſent. diſt. 21 …he deuill would hauehave come in the ſhape of a doue, that by her innocencie and ſimplicitie hee might more eaſily couer his owne craftineſſe and ſubtiltie; yet God would not permit this, to the end that his malice might be detected with more facilitie, and Eues ſinne be leſſe excuſable. Neither againe was it conuenient, that this ſhape and type of puritie ſhould be depraued by the impuritie of the deuill, ſeeing the holy Ghoſt was afterwards to appeare vntounto the Apoſtles in the forme of a doue.
Now as touching the ſecond point, why Moſes made no mention of the deuill; I anſwer, that he relateth only that which was done, not interpreting the meaning of the fact, and therefore deſcribed that which did appeare outwardly to Eue. Like as in the 18. of Gen. the Scripture making mention of thoſe three which Abraham did entertaine, he called them men, although they were not men, but Angels. As alſo in the 32. chapter, the Angell which wreſtled with Iacob is called a man, becauſe hee appeared in the likeneſſe of man. Yea Paul in the 11. chapter of the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians, imputeth this deceit of the deuill to the ſerpent, and not to the deuill: But I feare (ſaith hee) leſt as the ſerpent beguiled Eue through his ſubtiltie, ſo your mindes ſhould be corrupt from the ſimplicitie that is in Chriſt.