Twelve dissertations out of Monsieur Le Clerk's Genesis ... done out of Latin by Mr. Brown ; to which is added, a dissertation concerning the Israelites passage through the Red Sea, by another hand.

Dissertation IV. Concerning the Temptation of Eve by the Serpent.

I. How differently Interpreters have explained this History: Some affirm that it was a real Serpent. II. Others look upon the whole to be Allegorical; or, III. Pretend that the Devil was signified by that Name: Or, IV. That he informed the body of a Serpent. V. That the manner how Sin entered into the World cannot certainly be known. VI. Another Explication of this Passage. VII. Why the Serpent is called Subtle. VIII. The meaning of the word Naked. IX. Why a Punishment was inflicted upon the Serpent.

I. SOME of the Ancient Jews are of Opinion, that the whole passage in Moses is to be un∣derstood of a real Serpent, which Creature they imagine to have formerly had the Gift of Speech, so that Eve might very well understand him. Josephus in the first Book of his Antiquities, c. 1. pretends, that at that time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all Creatures using the same Language, and consequently being indued with Reason and

Understanding, the Serpent, incited by Envy, tempted Eve to Sin, and among other things re∣ceived this signal Punishment, viz. That he should be deprived of his Feet, and ever after crawl upon the Ground. Aben ezra, and several Rabbins, inter∣pret this place after the same manner. To ex∣plain my self impartially, If Moses had been of this Opinion, he could not have spoken more plainly to the purpose, than now he does: For in the first place, he describes the Serpent to have been the most Subtle of all Creatures: Next, That he employ'd his Subtlety in Deceiving our First Parent, and held a Dialogue with her, as if he had been a Master of Reasoning. Lastly, That his creeping upon his Belly was imposed upon him as a Punishment. Josephus himself could not have more fully explained his Sentiments, than Moses has done.

II. But other Persons, who were Jews likewise, not being able to digest so many unpalatable things, as Speech and Reason attributed to a Brute, and the Serpent's losing his Feet, although Moses seem'd to express as much in the plainest man∣ner imaginable, yet rather than understand him so, they chose to commit Violence upon his words, and betake themselves to Allegory. Philo indeed, in his Treatise De mundi opificio, and elsewhere, denies that these were Fables and Fictions, wherein the Poets and Sophisters take so great a delight. Nevertheless he owns them to be Figurative Documents, that are to be explain'd Allegorically, in order to find out the bidden meaning of them.

And lastly affirms, That it may be rightly con∣jectured, that the Serpent is a Symbol of Pleasure, which Argument he handles more copiously afterwards. Maimonides also Part 2. Mor. Nev. c. 29. supposes, that these Passages are to be expounded by way of Allegory, and some of the later Rab∣bins declare themselves to be of the same Opi∣nion.

III. But others that have a just Indignation to this Libertine way of Interpreting the Scripture, which wholly depends upon the Fancy of the Interpreter, and yet not able with Josephus to follow the literal Sense, have fallen into different Sentiments, none of which labours with fewer In∣conveniences than the two above-cited Opinions. Some Divines of no mean Rank in the Learned World, maintain, that it was not a Serpent, pro∣perly so called, which appeared, but that the Devil was signified by that name, that therefore the Devil is called the old Serpent by the Hebrews, and is thus described by St. John in the Revela∣tions 12.9. The great Dragon the old Serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who seduceth all the Earth. See likewise Rev. 20.2. For this Reason the Devil is called by our Blessed Saviour, a Murderer from the Beginning. And the Author of the Book of Wisdom 2.24. tells us, That Death entered into the World by the Envy of the Devil. See also 2 Cor. 11.3. where the Serpent is said to have deceived the Woman by his Subtilty. But this Hypothesis is easily refuted; for neither can the Devil be called the most subtle Beast of the Field, but in a

Figurative Sense; neither will the Punishment inflicted upon the Serpent, suffer us to doubt, that a Serpent's Body at least appear'd here. To re∣move these Difficulties some conjecture, that the Devil did not put on a real Serpent, but only formed the Exterior Appearance of one. But the above-mention'd Objections are as directly le∣vell'd against this Opinion as the former.

IV. For this reason several Persons have be∣lieved, that the Devil used the Serpent's body as an Organ to act his Imposture by, and that God, to shew his utter Aversion and Hatred of Sin, pu∣nish'd the very Organ by which this Seduction was effected. But if it were so, what occasion was there to say, that the Serpent was the most subtle Beast of the Field. For the Devil might have abu∣sed the most stupid Creature in the World to this purpose with as much Success; for he did not employ the Serpent's Craft, but his own, to deceive Eve.

V. But others observing these and the like Difficulties in all these Opinions, came at last to this Point, as to own, that all we could apparently gather from this Aenigma, was, that the First Pa∣rents of Mankind began to Sin, from whence a Series of innumerable Evils were derived to them and their Posterity. 'Tis indeed certain, that now and heretofore Mankind has been in a State of great Corruption, nor can the beginning of this Infection be carried lower than the Original of the World. But then after what manner Sin en∣tered into the World, so that we might under∣stand

plainly, and without the least Reasons of doubting, all the Circumstances of the first Sin, none but those can signifie to us, who were pre∣sent at the matter, if by any means they could be revived again.

VI. Lastly, Others finding in this History, fre∣quent mention made of Discourses, where none at all seem to have passed, imagine, that the Ser∣pent did not speak, but that Eve saw him eating the Forbidden Fruit, and was seduced, by his Ex∣ample, to eat of it her self. Especially if we consi∣der that this prohibited Fruit, by its beauty, and perhaps by the specious name of Knowledge, might help to induce her, as she was gazing on it. In∣deed the Serpent's Punishment, below v. 14. Thou shalt lick the Dust all the days of thy Life, seems to intimate, that the Serpent had deceived Eve by eating of the Fruit, and because he had occasi∣oned her Ruine by eating of Fruit from a high Tree, therefore he was condemn'd to lick the Juices of the Earth. The Favourers of this Opi∣nion do not deny, but that some Evil Spirit might act his part in this Tragedy, for which reason the Jews not rightly comprehending the meaning of this place, might in after-Ages call him by the name of the Serpent. But as the Sa∣cred Historian introduces the Serpent Speaking, who had no Speech at all, according to the Geni∣us of his Narration, as is plain from the first Chapter of Genesis, where he frequently repre∣sents God Almighty speaking to all the parts of the Creation; so likewise because he was to give

him his share in a Dialogue, by whose Example our first Parents were deceived, he therefore at∣tributes Subtlety to him, which however can be supposed to belong to a Beast, no more than the Faculty of Speaking does. For this reason he is said to have used both Speech and Craftiness, be∣cause, as the Maintainers of this Opinion alledge, he as effectually ruined our first Parents, as if he had seduced them by a crafty artificial Ha∣rangue. And therefore both the Subtlety of the Serpent, and his Conversation with Eve, are con∣sidered by them, not as Circumstances that can be urged, but as some Oriental Ornaments of the History. This was in part the Opinion of Isaac Abarbinel, who denies that the Serpent could maintain any Discourses with Eve, and asserts, That nothing more is meant by this Colloquy, but the Reasonings of the Woman from what she gathered from the Serpents action, and his eating of that Tree. He pretends, that she inferr'd from the Serpent's Example, that the Forbidden Fruit was Wholesome and Nutritive, which Opinion does not well agree with the words, You shall be like Gods; the meaning of which could never be deduced from this single action of the Ser∣pent.

In so perplex'd and obscure a Matter as this is, 'tis the safest way, as I imagine, openly to con∣fess our Ignorance, provided we still preserve the Substance of the History, as 'tis explain'd in the fifth Opinion, but so as not to condemn those that differ from our Sentiments. We are now

at liberty to examine more at large the most remarkeble Particulars of this Relation.

VII. We find in the Sacred Writer, that the Serpent was the most Subtle of the Beasts of the Field Now some are apt to believe, that Moses in this Passage had a Respect to the Craft of the Devil, who either appeared himself, or actually entered into the Body of the Serpent. But what wonder is it, that the Devil should be more cun∣ning than a Beast? And Secondly, How comes he to be reckoned among the Beasts of the Field? Therefore others conjecture, That the Craftiness of Serpents properly so called is here meant, and to this purpose observe, That as they lie hid in the Dust, or under the Herbs, they use to bite the heels of the Animals that pass by: For which reason Aristotle Hist. Animal. l. 1. c. 1. ranks them among the insidious and wily Creatures, and therefore Moses going about to relate the Fall of our first Parents, which was occasioned by the Serpent, after what manner soever it happened, very pertinently observes, that the Serpent is an insidious Animal, and indeed we find the Hebrew word, 1 Sam. 23.22. applied to Men lying in wait, and starting out of Holes. Otherwise, as for what regards Subtlety considered in general, there are several other Animals more cunning than a Ser∣pent, among which Aristotle reckons Foxes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Others are cunning and mischievous as Foxes.

Those that hold this Narration to be wholly Figurative, pretend that Moses prudently makes

mention of the insidious nature of the Serpent, to prepare his Reader for what he was going to tell him, of the Fall of our first Parents. Thus the most ancient Philosophers, both Asiaticks and Graecians, who used to deal in Apologues borrow'd from Brutes, if they are to speak concerning Craft, were wont to introduce a Fox, and to men∣tion him in the beginning, as the most Cunning of Beasts, or else gave some by-hints of his Subtlety. Thus we find in Phaedrus, that,

Dolosa vulpes avidis rapuit dentibus.

The Crafty Fox with greedy Teeth devour'd.

The same Creature is described by Avienus, as capable of acute Discourse, and is called by him Arguta, in his Fable of the Fox and the Leopard. But as no one of tolerable Sense, will infer from this, that the Fox is fitter to hold those Politick Discourses than any other Creature, so they say we lie under no Obligation to ascribe that Opi∣nion to Moses, which Josephus erroneously attri∣butes to him, viz. of assigning both Voice and Reason to Brutes.

VIII. Immediately upon eating the Forbidden Fruit, the Sacred Historian tells us, That our first Parents knew themselves to be naked, that is, They were sensible they had transgressed. Thus in Exodus 32.25. after the Golden Calf was conse∣crated, Moses is said to have seen the People naked; and in the New Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes taken for a Sinner, see Rev. 16.15.

Those that interpret naked in its proper Sense, involve themselves in insuperable Difficulties. When Adam and Eve were alone, they could no more be ashamed of their Nakedness, or discover it if they knew nothing of it before, than when they were in the State of Innocence. But say others, The Fruit of this Forbidden Tree, pro∣voked them to Lust, and some undecent Moti∣ons of Body, which suppose to be true, (although 'tis a Conjecture without any manner of Foun∣dation,) what will they be able to gather from hence? Can a Man's Appetite towards his Wife be said to be Vicious, which Nature it self has implanted upon all Creatures, or could they be more ashamed, because being naked, they felt this Appetite after their Transgression, more than they did before? When only they two inha∣bited the Universe, their Bed under the bare Canopy of the Heavens was equally as Chaste, as if it had been covered with a Roof, and Wall, and Cieling, and Tapestry. 'Tis certain they could never be ashamed of that thing for which they were created, no less than other Animals; neither are we at this day ashamed of it, but before Wit∣nesses, for certain Inconveniencies, which would arise from thence, though it is not so convenient to mention them in this place. I know what several of the Ancients, as well as Moderns, have said upon this occasion, but they are such groundless precarious things, that I will not stay to confute them.

IX. We are now arrived to the last part of our Disquisition, viz. The Punishment inflicted upon the Serpent, which we shall examine in as small a compass as may be. Those that affirm the Devil tempted Eve out of the Serpent's Mouth, do not at all wonder that God Almighty here is said to speak to the Serpent, that is, to the Devil. But others that deny the Serpent to have ever talked to Eve, are of opinion, that God's words here directed to the Serpent, were not for its own sake, which as being destitute of reason it could not understand, but for the Comfort of Adam and Eve. However both are agreed in this. That God might punish the Instrument, by which Mankind was seduced, to express his just Hatred of Sin; as we find a like instance in Exodus 21.28. where an Oxe that had goared a Man or a Woman, so that they died, was com∣manded to be stoned, and his Flesh not to be eaten. One part of the Malediction is, That he should crawl upon his Belly, concerning which, there are two different Opinions. Some, in which num∣ber we find Josephus and several of the Modern Jews, believe, that God deprived the Serpent of his Feet, and commanded him to creep upon the Dust; and indeed if Moses had this in his Thoughts, he could not have express'd himself more plainly concerning it. But others believe it very improbable, that God should make any Alteration in the Nature of a Serpent, merely for the Transgression of Man, and therefore pre∣tend, that what was natural to him, turned to

his Punishment, as Nakedness in a Man, and the Pains of Child-birth in a Woman. Indeed if Ser∣pents had Feet at any time, they must of neces∣sity have more than four, by reason of the pro∣digious length of their Body. But still 'tis diffi∣cult to comprehend, how a thing which was merely natural, and accompanied with no Pain, should be turned into a Punishment. As 'tis no Punishment for four-footed Creatures that they cannot fly, no more is it to those Reptiles that are destitute of Feet, to crawl upon their Bellies. Let the Reader examine which side has the fewest Difficulties, and chuse either this or that Opi∣nion as he sees fit.