To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Whether it were a true Serpent that talked with Eve, or not?
Affir. It was a true Serpent, but posses∣sed, [Resp.] and acted by the devil. That it was a true Serpent, appears,
1. Because here is a comparison made,
between the Serpent, and the beasts of the field; if we say the Lyon is more strong then any beast of the field, it is implied that the Lyon is a beast: so when it is said, that the Serpent was more subtile then any beast of the field, it is implied that the Serpent here spoken of, was a beast.
2. The punishment that was afterwards pronounced upon the Serpent, is agreeable to that which we finde by experience ve∣rified on the true natural Serpent, viz. Up∣on thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the dayes of thy life.
3. It will be hard to say, that Satan had power before the fall, in interiora hominis acccdere, to do him mischief by an inward temptation, and therefore he makes use of a Serpent, something ad extra.
Why did the Devil make use of a Ser∣pent in tempting our first parents to sinne?
Because, though the Serpent was a beast, [Resp.] yet the most sagacious, and subtile beast of the field, as in the text, & in the opinion of some, the most excellent creature next un∣to man: wit unsanctified is a fit toole for the Devil to work withal.
Why did not Satan rather appear in the shape of a man, or woman, for so he might have gained an opinion with Eve of more excellency and knowledge, then ap∣pearing in the forme of a Serpent?
'Tis answered by Learned men, that the [Resp.] Devil could not appear in humane shape, whilest man was in his integrity, because he was a spirit fallen, and therefore God would not suffer him to appear in any shape, but that which might argue his imperfection, and abasement, which was the shape of a beast: it is observed, that the good An∣gels can take upon them no other shape, then the shape of a man, the shape of an infe∣riour creature would be unsuitable to their excellent and glorious state: so the De∣vill could not appear in the shape of a man, because he was fallen from that state wher∣in he was created. 'Tis true, since the fall of man the case is altered, yet it is said, the Devill cannot take upon him the shape of a compleat man, but appears with some deformity or other.
Seeing it is cleare by the Scripture, that our first parents were seduced by the De∣vil, the Question is, why we finde no men∣tion of the Devil in this Chapter, but onely of the Serpent?
Some conceive, because Moses herein, [Resp. 1] would conforme himself to the weaknesse of the infant state of the Jewish Church, as formerly he made no mention of An∣gels, so neither here of Satan being a spi∣rit.
Others say, Moses did not write as an In∣terpreter, [ 2] but as an Historian, and there∣fore layes downe the matter of fact, as it was presented to Eve: she saw the Serpent, heard the Serpent, treated with the Serpent, therefore Moses in this place makes menti∣on onely of the Serpent. So he relates unto us the story of Abraham entertaining three men, which were onely in the shape of men, but indeed Angels: yet he so gives us * 1.1 the history, that by the circumstances we may easily gather, that it was not the Ser∣pent alone that seduced our first parents, but the Devil in the Serpent, for the Serpent being an irrationall creature could not speak, at least not so as to discourse by way of question and reply, and therefore must be acted by some being of an intel∣lectuall
nature: now if what had been said, had been good, and holy, we should in reason have ascribed it to God, or a good Angel, but being a Lie, and sinfull, we a∣scribe it to Satan.
How could the Serpent be said to speake?
The Devil spake by the Serpent, as he [Resp.] did afterwards by those that were posses∣sed.
Persons possessed had naturall Organs [Object.] fit for the forming of speech, so had not the Serpent.
'Tis true they had, but the Devil hath [Resp.] spoke in them, whether they would, or not, yea, when their mouth hath been shut, and their teeth set: now as to the matter in hand, it is all one to have no proper Organs for speech, and not to make use of them.
Thus by the eare death is brought into the world; but blessed be God, through Christ life is brought in by the same doore.
How came it to passe that Eve was not
astonished to hear the Serpent speak, and so dreaded to treat with him?
Some conceive, that in the beginning [Resp. 1] it was natural for Serpents to speak: Juli∣an laughs at this conceit, and saith he, Quo idiomate usus est serpens? This I am sure, it was not naturall for the Serpent to speake after this manner, by way of rationall dis∣course.
Some say, that Eve knew that a spi∣rit [ 2] spake in the Serpent, and upon that ac∣count treated with him: but this ties the knot faster then it was, for she might, and indeed she ought, before she entered into a treaty, to consider, why a spirit good or bad, should make use of such an instru∣ment.
What if it should be asserted, that Eve did not know but that other creatures [ 3] might have a faculty to speake as well as man?
Was knowledge imperfect in innocen∣cy? [Object.]
Say some, It is probable Eve had lesse [Resp.] knowledge then Adam, and yet had as much as was required to the perfection of a woman, and that state and condition that God had placed her in: It was not necessary for her to know things by their
causes, and to understand the naturall pro∣perties of all the creatures, but she was skil∣led in those things that concerned her family, and related to her husband and children.
The state of innocency was free from [Object.] all kind of evill both of body and minde: error is an evill of the minde; now if Eve did not know but that other creatures might speak as well as the Serpent, she was in an error.
There is a twofold ignorance: [Resp.]
1▪ Ignorantia pravae disposi••ionis, when we are ignorant of that we are bound to know, and this indeed was repugnant to the state of innocency.
2. Ignorantia purae negationis, which is when a person barely not knowes a thing; this the Learned call Nescience: this was not re∣pugnant to the state of innocency. Christ as man might be said Nescire, not to know some things, viz. the day of judgement, and yet Christ as man was without sinne, so children in the state of innocency should not have known so much as men, yea, for ought I know, Adam himself might have attained to a greater measure of know∣ledge by experience.
3. Though I have high thoughts of those
learned Authors that are of this perswasion, yet dogmatically to affirme that Eve was created with lesse knowledge then the wo∣men of after-ages have attained to, is an as∣sertion hard of digestion to my understan∣ding &c.
4. It is likely therefore Eve was some∣thing astonished at first at the speech of the Serpent, but being desirous to heare what the Serpent would say, the understanding of a rationall creature being as much delight∣ed with knowledge, as the stomack with meat, engaged in a treaty with the Serpent, which was the occasion both of her sinne and punishment.
Why Satan setteth upon the woman, and not upon the man?
1. Because the precept was given to Adam by God himselfe, say some, Adam [Resp. 1] had the precept from God immediately, and so had deeper impressions of it in his soul then Eve that had it by tradition from her husband.
The woman was the weaker vessell, and the Devil delighteth to set upon us [ 2] where we are weakest, as he set upon Christ
when he was an hungry: the Devill will be sure to force us there most, where we are least able to resist.
Adam would sooner be seduced by his [ 3] wife then by the Serpent. Saul knew what he did when he married his daughter unto David, I will give him her, said Saul, that she may be a snare to him: snares are tied fast * 1.2 with a false lovers knot: motions of a wife either to good or evil, are very taking on an husbands heart.
To enhance the sinfulnesse of Eves sin; if the Serpent had tempted Adam, and [ 4] Adam Eve, more might have been said by her, by way of excuse: As Adam said, The woman thou gavest me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat; so might Eve have said, The man thou gavest me to be my head, my governour, gave me, &c.
Whether the woman sinned, in saying, neither shall ye touch it?
Some conceive she did: say they [Resp. 1]
1. She endeavours to cast a reproach upon the wayes of God, as if they were too severe, and strict: as if a woman were forbidden by her husband to go out of the
house and she being angry therewith, when questioned about it, should say, that her husband would not suffer her to stirre out of her chamber.
2. She adds to the command of God, God saies, Ye shall not eat, and she saies, Ye shall not touch.
Others conceive she did not sin; and [ 2] that she did only explaine the precept that God had given them: then the meaning is this, thou shalt not eat of the fruit, yea, thou shalt not take the fruit into thy hand with a purpose to eat thereof; the least motion, and tendency to sin is sinfull, Nemo repentè fit turpissimus.
As for that which is spoken on the other side, it doth not, as I conceive, presse much upon the reason and understanding of a man: For the first, it is but said, not proved; and for the second, to explaine a precept, is not to adde thereunto.
Whether Eve spake doubtingly con∣cerning the threatening, and the fulfilling thereof, when she said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die? [Resp▪]
It is the Opinion of those vry Learn∣ed,
that from this pharase it cannot clearly be demonstrated, that Eve doubted con∣cerning the threatening: for,
1. The Septuagint turne the words abso∣lutely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
2. The Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pen, doth not alwaies note dubitation, as, I the Lord do keep it, I will water it every moment, lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day; where there is * 1.3 not implied the least doubt, whether the Lord would keep it or not.
And truly I conceive, hitherto Eve can∣not be blamed.
The Serpent sayes to the woman, Ye shall be as gods: which words imply that Ambition was a main ingredient in the sin of our first parents: now the question is, how the desire of being like unto God could be a sin, when God created man in his own likenesse?
For the answer of this question, we must [Resp.] consider, that God hath two kind of Attri∣butes, his Communicable, and his Incom∣municable.
Wicked men strive to be like him in his incommunicable attributes, as worship, ho∣nour,
and glory, and to be loved, and feared above all, in self-dependance, &c. Good men strive to be like him in his com∣municable attributes, holiness, mercy, love, patience. The image of God after which man was created, did certainly consist in the participation of those attributes which are communicable Good & bad strive to be like God; the one will be like God in power and glory sicut altissimus; the other in holi∣nesse and righteousnesse, sicut sanctissimus.
Whether the woman sinned before the eating of the forbidden fruit?
Aff▪ And that appears by ver. 6. And [Resp.] when the woman saw the Tree was good for food, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she saw the tree before, but now she saw it to be good for food, which clearly shewes her judgement to be tainted. How many thousand soules have died of the wound of the eye?
What was the first sin?
Some conceive, as the Popish Writers, [Resp 1]
that pride was the first sin: certainly it was a poysonous ingredient in the transgression of our first parents.
Others, as Protestant Writers, that unbe∣liefe [ 2] was the first sin; by unbeliefe they understand a defection, or a putting off from the command of God.
Reasons given by us for our judgement herein, are such as these.
1. The sacred History favours us in it; first the Devil solicites the woman to doubt of the truth of Gods Word, Ye shall not surely dye, and then to pride, for God doth kn••w, that in the day you eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
2. It is impossible for the soul to rise up against that command, which at pre∣sent it peremptorily and resolvedly purpo∣ses [ 3] to observe: pride and obedience •• dia∣metro pugnant, therefore pride could not in order of Time be before disobedience to the command.
3. Faith is the grace, by which first of all we are united unto God, and so probably unbeliefe the first sin, by which we depart∣ed from God.
Rom. 5. 19. The first sin of man is cal∣led disobedience, For as by one mans disobe∣dience [Object.]
many were made sinners, so by the obedi∣ence of one shall many be made righteous, now if the first sin were unbeliefe, neither tru∣ly nor properly did the Apostle call it dis∣obedience.
Verè et propriè, Truly and properly [Resp. 1] ought not to be confounded, many things are not said properly, which notwithstand∣ing may be said truly.
Unbeliefe is comprehended under diso∣bedience: [ 2] certainly a slacking of the bent of the spirits of our first parents to that which is good, a departure from the Word of Gods Command, as to the inward man may be called, without impropriety of speech, disobedience.
We say the end is first in intention, and [Object.] last in execution; we think of the end before we resolve upon the means, therefore it first came into Adams thoughts to be like unto God, and afterwards he resolved up∣on a departure from the command, as the means tending thereunto.
We are to distinguish between election [Resp.] and seduction; between a choice that is made by a man from the dictate of his own spirit, and a choice made from the per∣swasion of another: indeed in election, we first think of the end before we resolve up∣on
the means; but in seduction, or choice upon perswasion, we first set upon the means, without consideration of the end, as a man may first be perswaded to take a convenient delightful walk, and afterwards may be told whither it will bring him, as Isaac was perswaded by his father to go a∣long with him, & did readily assent, though he did not know what his fathers ends might be, in perswading him thereunto, as Isaac had high thoughts of his father, and what he said, so Eve of the Serpent.
But you will say, According to this ac∣count, [Object.] in cogitancy or inconfiderateness was the first sin.
Incogitancy is a part of unbeliefe, viz. a [Resp.] carelesse letting go their hold from that word which God gave our first parents to observe and keep.
It is said, that the woman did eat and gave also unto her husband, the question is whe∣ther she spake something, when she tender∣ed the forbidden fruit to her hus∣band?
'Tis likely she did, and that she told him [Resp.] he should be like unto God, if he would eat
of that fruit: As appears by the holy jeere, if I may speak it with reverence, that God puts upon the man, Behold, the man is * 1.4 become as one of us: God would not have said this concerning man, if being as God had never come into his thoughts. Quod De∣us loquitur cum risu, tu legas cum fletu.
Whether Adams or Eves sinne was greater?
There are some that set themselves to [Resp.] extenuate Adams sin, as if he did eat the forbidden fruit, not that he would be like unto God, but purely upon the Account of gratifying his wife.
But I conceive it dangerous to go a∣bout such a work as this is: if you handle nettles gently they will sting so much the sorer.
But for the solution of this question, con∣sider, there was something that aggravated Adams sin, and something that aggravated Eves.
Adams sin was greater then Eves in this [ 1] respect, because he was her head, and go∣vernour: and truly this consideration accents sinne, and makes it exceeding sin∣full.
Eves sinne was greater then Adams, be∣cause [ 2] she was first in the transgression, Prop∣ter quod aliquid est tale, id est magis tale. &c.
And truly I conceive, it would not have been an easy matter to have deter∣mined whose sin had been greater, had not God done it, as it were to our hands, by inflicting a greater punishment on Eve, then on Adam.
How man created after Gods Image, in righteousnesse and true Holinesse, could fall into sin? or how Adams understand∣ing being in vigore viridi could be entang∣led in such a snare and deluded with such a miserable fallacy?
For the answering of this perplexing [Resp.] question, consider,
1. There is no created good per essen∣tiam, but per participationem, and therefore may possibly fall from its goodnesse. God is essentiall holinesse, essentiall goodnesse. A man may be a man, and yet unholy, be∣cause holinesse is a quality in man, and not his essence. But goodnesse and holinesse in God is his very nature: and therefore if
you deny the holinesse, or goodnesse of God, as much as in you lyes, you put God out of the world; Aug. Cujus participatione justi sunt, ejus comparatione nec justi sunt. Man who is justby participation from God, is not just in comparison with God.
2. Sinne is an irregular act, and it is possible for any agent to act beside the rule, unlesse the will of the agent be the rule ac∣cording to which it acts. And therefore all intelligent beings, consider them as to their natures, may sinne, except God him∣selfe, because his will alone is the rule of his own actions. The reason why the Ar∣tificer sometimes works irregularly is, be∣cause his hand is one thing, and his rule is another but if it were possible for his hand to be his rule, he could not work a∣misse.
3. Though our first parents were created holy, yet they were created mutable; and although they had not an inclination to sin, for that pronita•• ad malum non fluit ex principilis, naturae integrae; it would be too injurious to the God of nature to imagine he should frame evil: yet they had a power to sin if they would.
4. The Learned conclude, that the un∣derstanding of Adam was defective in its
office by a negligent non attendency, and so sinned against God: yet so as that this negligence did not go before the first sin, but was part of it.
In this verse you read that Adam and Eve both sinned, and yet the Apostle tells us, that by one mans disobedience many were made sinners? * 1.5
The Apostle speaks of one man, because they two are one flesh. [Resp. 1]
Adam being the superiour, and one that [ 2] should have ruled and guided his wife, and not his wife him, the breach of the Law is attributed unto the man.
Whether the Church militant be al∣wayes visible?
Neg. From this very text, when Adam [Resp.] and Eve were excommunicated from the presence of God, and cut off from the Or∣dinances, where was then the Church visi∣ble?
You may as well say the invisible [Object.] Church was cut off.
Neg. The Angels belonged to the invi∣sible [Resp.] Church.
But Adam and Eve were not a Church, [Object.] two cannot make a Church.
Neg. Paul calls a family a Church, as, [Resp.] Greet the Church that is in their house. Salute * 1.6 the brethren which are in Laodicea, and * 1.7 Nymphas, and the Church which is in his house. Now we know, two, viz. a man and his wife, may constitute a fami∣ly.
It is said that the eyes of them both were o∣pened, and they knew they were naked. Did not they know they were naked be∣fore?
Yes, questionlesse they both saw, and [Resp.] knew they were naked before they had sinned, else why is it said, The man and his wife were both naked, and were not asha∣med? * 1.8 but now they saw it with shame, which they did not before; sin and shame are twins, and came into the world together. As there was no palenesse to be seene in the state of innocency, no tremblings, no shiverings, no tears, no sighs, no blushes: so not the least tincture of shame. Paradise had so much of the Lilly, that it had nothing of
the Rose; the nakednesse of creation needed no Covering, nakednesse was then an Or∣nament; man was richly attired when he had no garments.
Why our first parents made themselves aprons of figge-leaves rather then of the leaves of any other Tree?
Some conceive, that the tree of know∣ledge [Resp. 1] was a figge-tree, and that he took the leaves of this Tree to cover his naked∣nesse; but it seems to be unlikely, that when by wofull experience they had▪ contracted and brought upon themselves so much mischeife by eating of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge, that they should repaire to the same tree for leaves, to make themselves aprons.
They sewed figge-leaves together, be∣cause [ 2] they were fit for that purpose for which they intended them, the leaves of that Tree being broad in our own Coun∣trey, and questionlesse in the East, especi∣ally in Paradise, broader then ours
How are we to understand that passage,
And they heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the Garden?
We have often mention in the Scripture [Resp.] of the voice of God. The thunder is cal∣led the voice of God.
The voice of the Lord is upon the waters, * 1.9 the God of Glory thundereth. Sometimes the Word of God, though it be delivered by a man, is called the voice of God; Samu∣el also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to an∣oint * 1.10 thee to be King over his people, now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
The Learned conceive, that the voice of God in this place is not to be taken for a sound, or a noyse, but for an articulate voice: but now whether this voice was formed in the aire, As at the time of the Baptisme and transfiguration of our Savi∣our; or whether it was formed in some bo∣dy, God at that time assuming the visible shape of a man, is not very cleare; yet the latter seems to be probable.
1. He deals with man by way of judiciall processe as a man, first he calls him to an account for the crime he had committed, and then pronounces sentence against him.
2. Ye read of the Lord God walk∣ing in the garden, which seems as it were to point toward this opinion.
'Tis said, They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden, and yet it is said, in Jeremiah, that the Lord filleth heaven and earth. * 1.11
The Divine essence fills heaven and [Resp.] earth, and yet that visible forme whereby God manifests his presence, may be cir∣cumscribed to a place, and so it was in this Case.
It is said, they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, and yet the Psalmist * 1.12 sayes, Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence, &c.
'Tis true, we cannot hide our selves from Gods presence, yet we may from that vi∣sible [Resp.] forme that God appears in for the present, and possibly this may be the meaning in this place, &c.
In vaine doth the sinner endeavour to run away from God and the terrours of Conscience. This is just as if the wounded Deere should go about to run from the deadly Arrow that sticks in his side; this is like the fish, which swimmeth to the length
of the Line with the Hooke in its mouth. The best way to run from God is to run to God, viz. from his wrath to his mercy. To close and get in avoids the blow: when a storme arises the Mariner puts forth to sea.
God calls man, Adam, where art thou? and yet in Jeremiah, Mine eyes are upon all their wayes, neither is there iniquity hid * 1.13 from mine eyes.
Non interogat ut ipse sciat, sed ut homi∣nem [Resp. 1] scire et agnoscere faciat: God doth not propound this question to Adam that he might know, but that man might know that he did know.
Non est vox ignorantis, sed ad judicium [ 2] citantis: It is not the voice of one that desired to be informed, but of a Judge cal∣ling man to an account for the transgres∣sion of the Command.
Why doth not God call Eve by her name, as well as Adam, they having both sinned?
Some say, to note, it concernes the hus∣band [Resp.]
to take heed not onely of what is done by himselfe, but also by his wife, or family; he may be called to an account for it.
It is said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, did not Adam feare God before?
Yes, but he feared him before with a [Resp.] sonne-like filial feare; now with a base un∣worthy servile feare: He feared him be∣fore, because of his goodnesse, now he fears him because of his vengeance: so when the image of God is repaired,
The people of God have not a slavish, wiredrawen, and compelled affection to∣wards God, but their affections freely melt and drop towards God, as the honey drops out of the Comb; feare, and love must be mixed, and tempered together; in∣deed they do not well asunder, as if a man would make the most perfect beautifull colour, he would temper the purest white, and the fairest red together; such is that for which the spouse giveth her beloved the Commendation, that he was candidus et rubicundus, white and ruddy, feare without love would set us in the forlorne hope, and
precipitate us into despaire; and love with∣out fear, would make us wanton and se∣cure; therefore there is not onely magni∣tude, but pulchritude in God; he is not one∣ly great to cause us to feare him, but he is good to cause us to love him.
The man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the Tree, and I did eat. And yet the Apostle saith, * 1.14 That Adam was not deceived, but the wo∣man.
The Apostle may speake of the man∣ner [Resp. 1] of the seduction of our first parents, Adam was not deceived, viz. by the Serpent, but the woman.
The Serpent deceived Eve, but Eve [ 2] could not in propriety of speech be said to deceive Adam: for that person may be said properly to deceive, who perswades to something false, and injurious animo fallen∣di, with an intention to wrong another, and in this sense the Serpent may be said to deceive Eve. But Eve had no thoughts of over-reaching her husband, therefore A∣dam was not deceived, but the woman.
Why the Serpent was not examined by God as well as the man, or woman?
The examination of the man and wo∣man [Resp.] was in order to their repentance, and so by Consequence in order to their salva∣tion, but God would shew no mercy to the Serpent.
Upon whom this curse was pronounced, upon the Serpent or Satan, or Satan, and the Serpent?
Some would have it onely spoken of the [Resp. 1] brute Serpent, and the Jews are very zeal∣ous in the maintaining of this asserti∣on.
But if this were a truth, then it would follow that the brute creature that Satan made use of, should be punished; but Satan himselfe, who was the principall actor in tempting our first parents to sinne, should escape unpunished
Some would have it onely spoken of [ 2] the spirituall Serpent the Devill, because the brute was onely passive, and abused by the
Devil, for the calling on of his sinfull de∣signes.
But neither can this be; for if this curse had not beene pronounced upon a true Serpent, why should this Serpent be reckoned amongst the beasts of the field? And why doth not Moses make mention of Satan, in this whole Chapter.
Some would divide the controversie, applying the first part of the curse in the 14. verse, to the brute Serpent, and the [ 3] latter in the 15. verse to the Devil, the spi∣ritual Serpent.
But neither can this be; for,
1. The subject the Spirit of God speakes of, is not changed, but the same in the 14. and 15. verses. ver 14. The Lord said to the Serpent, Thou art cursed above all cattel. And, verse. 15. I will put enmity between thee and the woman. &c?
2. It is cleare, that the words in the 15. ver. without any straining are applicable to the brute Serpent: viz. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heele; you know the Ser∣pent being a creature going upon his belly is obnoxious to be tread upon, and to have his head bruised; but being not able to reach mans head, it is said of the Serpent, that it should bruife mans heels.
Some conceive that the curse was pro∣nounced [ 4] both upon the brute Serpent and the spirituall Serpent, and this I hold to be the Truth: the Devil when he beguiled man, came not as a naked spirit, but in the shape and figure of a Serpent: and there∣fore that his punishment might be suitable and answerable to his offence, he was to re∣ceive his doome likewise under the figure of a serpent.
Whether Satan was not under the curse of God before this was pronounced?
Affir. but, [Resp.]
1. After he had tempted man to sin, his curse was augmented.
2. In this verse God declares the curse pronounced upon the Serpent to be irre∣pealable: Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the dayes of thy life.
We may observe, that there is a great difference between the sentence prenoun∣ced upon the man and woman, and the sentence pronounced upon the Ser∣pent.
1. You have a curse pronounced
upon the Serpent, but none upon the person of man or woman.
2. The punishment inflicted upon them is temporall, but the punishment inflicted upon the Serpent is eternall: which is noted unto us by that expression, All the dayes of thy life, viz. as long as Satan hath a being.
How it could be just with God to pu∣nish the brute Serpent being an unreason∣able creature, knowing neither good nor e∣vil, and had no will to sin, but spake meer∣ly as it was acted, and possessed by Satan?
Why should we question the justice of [Resp. 1] God here more then in Adams Censure, vers. 17. where the whole earth was cursed for Adams sake? what had the earth done? or how was it guilty of Adams transgression? And afterwards we read And behold, I, even I do bring a flood of waters on the Earth to destroy all flesh: * 1.15 How were the beasts, the creeping things, the fowles of the Aire partakers of mans wickednesse?
God cursed the Serpent, as well as Satan, [ 2] because Satan made use of the Serpent, as his instrument to tempt our first parents
to sin against God; God was so displeas∣ed with sinne, that he would curse not on∣ly the principall cause of it, but the instru∣mentall also; so in other cases God doth not onely punish the offender, but the instrument made use of in the com∣mitting of the offence; As if a man de∣fil'd himself with a beast, if a man lye with a * 1.16 beast, he shall surely be put to death, and ye shall slay the beast. We may see this in a Case where there is no dispute; when a man hath committed murder, his body suffers; now what is the body, but an in∣strument the soule makes use of? The hand cannot move otherwise, then as it is acted by the soul, yet this would not be a plea in humane Courts: Oh see the vilenesse of our hearts! we can reason against God, when in the very same case we dare not reason against man.
Whether the Serpent went upon his bel∣ly before the curse?
Some conceive that it did, but that [Resp. 1] this was made ignominious, and cursed to him after the fal of man; and they illustrate this two manner of wayes.
1. Nakednesse was naturall to man at first, and yet afterwards he was ashamed of it, and it became his punishment.
2. Briars and thornes were created be∣fore mans fall, but afterwards became a curse.
But to both these instances we may give this answer:
1. That nakednesse simply considered was not the cause of mans shame, but nu∣ditas turpis. Adamus videns faedos, et inordinatos membrorum motus, pudefactus est.
2. For briars and thornes, consider them in puris naturalibus, in their pure naturalls, and so they did not become a curse; but as after the fall, they grew out of their proper places, and were blended and mix∣ed with the fruits of the earth, for the pu∣nishment of man, &c.
Therefore others conceive, that the [ 2] Serpent did not go on his breast till the curse, but had a body erected as man hath: and they render these reasons amongst o∣thers.
1. We know the more excellent, and sub∣lime the nature of a creature is, the more it raiseth it self upwards; the more ignoble and base, the more it falls down-ward; this
we see in the Elements; the fire the most excellent, & operative of the four, raiseth it self above the rest; the earth the most unactive and basest of all, the low∣est.
2. As there is this difference amongst e∣lements, so among living creatures; the basest is the most creeping, as wormes, &c. whilest the noble Lyon advanceth his head and breast, so farre as the frame of his body is capable; so man being of all creatures most excellent, is therefore of all others most advanced in body.
Os homini sublime dedit coelúmque tueri Jussit.—
The Serpent therefore being of a sub∣lime nature, insomuch that the Scripture sayes, it was more subtile then any beast of the field, the frame and shape of his bo∣dy was suitable thereunto.
In what sense we must understand this phrase, Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life; when we find, that Serpents feed upon herbes, and devour other creatures also?
These two phrases, Upon thy belly shalt [Resp.] thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, ought to be
joyned together in the opening of this Scripture, the one ought to be considered as the cause, and the other as the ef∣fect.
So that eating dust in this place is not so to be understood, as if the Serpent should live, and feed onely upon dust; but that the Serpent going upon his belly, should be forced to eat dust, viz. take in dust into his mouth whether he will or not: the Learned phrase it thus, Haec verba non re∣feruntur ad alimentum, sed ad incommodum, et velut coactam terrae in os receptionem.
Against this Exposition some object, [Object.] and say, that we have a promise concern∣ing the happy and peaceable condition of the Church in the latter dayes; and a∣mongst other things it is said, The dust shall be the Serpents meat: The Wolfe, and * 1.17 the Lambe shall feed together, and the Lyon shall eat straw like the bullock, and dust shall be the Serpents meat.
These words are not to be understood li∣terally, [Resp.] but allegorically, as the very expres∣sions in the text clearly intimate: and when it is said, The dust shall be the Serpents meat, the meaning is no more but this, that in those dayes man shall not need to feare hurt from any creature: the Serpent it selfe
shall be confined to his dust; and shall not be able to prejudice man in the least.
Seeing this sentence was pronounced both upon the brute Serpent, and the spirituall Serpent, the question may be, how this phrase, Upon thy belly shalt thou go, & dust shalt thou eat, can be accommodated unto Satan?
Per analogiam, in a spirituall sense we [Resp.] shall finde that the Scripture makes use of such expressions as these are, to note unto us, the lowest, and most ignomini∣ous debasement; when God threatens hea∣vy judgements against Jerusalem, mark how he phrases it, Thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, thy * 1.18 speech shall be low, out of the dust, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. The Spirit of God seemes to allude to the car∣riage of a poore captive taken in warre, and lying prostrate at the feet of the Con∣querour, hardly daring so much as to whisper out of the dust: You may finde also expressions something like to these, Esay 49.23. Lam. 3.29. Mic. 7.17.
So then these expressions signifie the
debasement of Satan from his primitive excellency. A wonderful stoop indeed this was, when that which was advanced as high as heaven, was made to fall down as low as hell.
It is the observation of a learned Au∣thor, that as food is made use of for the repairing, and preservation of nature, so the goodnesse or badnesse thereof doth make the temper of the body bet∣ter, or worse: hence according to the degrees of excellency in the creatures, their food is finer, or courser. Plants suck moisture from the earth, beasts live upon plants, man of beasts, fowle, and fish: so that this expression, Dust shalt thou eat, notes unto us, the lownesse, and basenesse of the Serpent.
What is meant by the woman in this verse?
It seemes to be that woman, with whom [Resp.] the Serpent had treated, viz. Eve: as if God had said Seeing thou hast by a trea∣ty with the woman, tempted her to sinne, I will put enmity between thee, and the woman.
Now the woman is mentioned, and not the man, not because God had not put enmity between the man and the Ser∣pent, as well as the woman and the Ser∣pent, but because Eve was immediately seduced by the Serpent, the man by the perswasion of his wife.
Whether we may not with the Church of Rome, expound the woman of the Vir∣gin Mary?
Neg. And amongst others this reason [Resp.] may be rendred, The enmity the Spirit of God speaks of in this verse, was imme∣diately to follow the curse: now the Vir∣gin Mary was not borne many hundreds of years afterward.
But God speaks in the future tence, [Object.] I will put enmity between thee and the wo∣man, &c.
God speaks in the future tence, when [Resp. 1] he pronounces that other part of the curse upon the Serpent, Vers. 14. Upon thy bel∣ly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat: now this curse immediately followed upon the sentence, and why not the other?
God speakes in the future tence, to [ 2]
note the duration, and continuance of this curse.
What is meant by the Serpents seed?
This cannot be expounded, but in a [Resp.] spiritual sense, for daemones propriè semen non habent, nec gignunt sibi similes: there∣fore we are to understand by the Ser∣pents seed, the reprobate wicked world: They which imitate God, and obey him, are called his seed, or his children in the Scripture, as, Be ye followers of God, as dear children: so they that imitate the * 1.19 devil, and obey him, are called his seed, or his children, as, Ye are of your father * 1.20 the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He that committeth sinne is of the devil. * 1.21
What is meant by the seed of the wo∣man?
First, and principally Jesus Christ. [Resp. 1]
It implieth all the Elect, viz. all Eves [ 2] seed, that should not become the seed of the Serpent.
By the seed of the woman can be [Object.] meant onely Christ, who was so the seed
of the woman, that he was not of the man.
'Tis true Christ was born of a Virgin, [Resp.] and was so the seed of the woman, that he was not of the man: but yet that by the seed of the woman, Christ singularly, and individually should be meant by the Spirit of God in this place, is not suffici∣ently demonstrated by this phrase: and the reason is this, because such persons as have been conceived, and born in an ordinary way, have been called the seed of the woman, or that which amounts thereunto: so, Adam knew his wife again, * 1.22 and she bare a sonne, and called his name Seth, for God, faith she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew: there you have Eve calling Seth her seed: so the wicked Jews. are * 1.23 called the sonnes of the forceresse.
How is this particle it, to be expound∣ed, It shall bruise thy head?
Some, and those very learned, though [Resp. 1] they expound the seed of the woman col∣lectively, and take it for Christ and his Church, this particle notwithstanding, say
they, referres unto Christ singularly, and individually considered.
Their reasons are three,
Say they, the Septuagint renders it [Arg. 1] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and though the Greek word which is used for seed, be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet the pronoune relative is of the mas∣culine gender 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; now if it had been to be taken collectively as the seed of the woman before, it would have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
But we must consider, that both in La∣tine, [Resp.] and Greek Authours pronouns many times agree rather cum re, then cum voce: and so it is in this case: by the seed of the woman, though we do not say, is meant Christ onely, yet we say Christ principally, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 clearly re∣lates to Christ: now that in Latine, and Greek Authors, pronouns do not on∣ly convenire cum verbo, but sometimes cum re, appears: Terence hath such a phrase as this, Ubi est scelus qui me perdi∣dit? And as for the Greek, frequent in∣stances we may finde in the New Testa∣ment: * 1.24 as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.25 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And so in Luke, where the noune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the masculine gender, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the neuter.
It is opposed to one individual Serpent, [Arg. 2] it shall bruise thy head.
The seed of the Serpent is implied [Resp. 1] there, though not expressed for as the Serpent not alone, but with his seed shall bruise the heele of the seed of the woman; so Christ the seed of the woman, not in∣dividually considered, but with his seed shall break the Serpents head.
For the further clearing of this, the seed of the woman, may be said to bruise the Serpents head two manner of wayes.
1. As the Lord Jesus spoiled principa∣lities and powers, and blotted out the handwriting of Ordinances against us, and nailing it to his crosse.
2. As he overcomes the plots, the assaults, the rebellions of this conquered, and bro∣ken enemy.
In both senses we may say of the seed of the woman collectively considered, it shall break the Serpents head, It, viz. Christ and his Church, head and mem∣bers.
In the first sense the Saints break the Serpents head in Christ, in the second sense Christ breaks the Serpents head in and with his Saints.
In the first sense Christ breaks the Ser∣pents
head, without the actual concur∣rence of his Saints: it is true, the Saints do it in him, but they do not concurre with him in it: (as all of us sin∣ned in Adam, though we did not actu∣ally concurre with him in his sinne) and in this sense he is said to tread the Wine∣presse alone▪
In the second sense, Christ breaks the Serpents head, with the actuall concur∣rence of his Saints: not that Christ receives any help from them for to do it, but be∣cause he is pleased to make use of them in the doing of it, and in this sense is that Scripture to be understood; The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet short∣ly. * 1.26 Christ hath throwen Satan down, and wounded him, and he will enable his peo∣ple to keep him down, and tread upon him; As Ioshua caused the Princes of Israel to set their feet on the very necks of the five Kings.
They urge, to break the Serpents head notes a Divine power, and therefore it is [Arg. 3] to be understood onely of Christ.
This Argument would be something [Resp. 1] against those that shut out Christ from this great work, but not in the least against those who say, the Church breakes the
Serpents head, but that power whereby it doth it, is derived from Christ.
Since therefore besides what hath been already said according to the judgement of those who hold this first assertion, the seed of the woman is to be taken collect∣ively therefore.
I rather close with others as Learned, who say, that this particle it, is to be expoū∣ded [ 2] collectively also; for, it being a pro∣noune relative, and pointing to the seed of the woman, which the Adversary saith is to be expounded collectively, I conceive we cannot without straining of the Gram∣mar of the Text, interpret it otherwise.
Nor doth this detract from the honour of Christ, the victory is Christs princi∣pally, ours onely relatively, and as his members.
Nor doth this advantage the Jew: for according to this construction, in this Scripture you have a Prophecy concern∣ing the Messiah: It is said here, The seed of the woman shall breake the Serpents head; now this being a work above the spheare of the activity of any creature, it will follow that the Messiah is princi∣pally intended in this promise, or Prophe∣cy.
Why we may not translate this verse ac∣cording to the vulgar Latin, she, viz. the Virgin Mary shall breake the Serpents head?
Because according to the Hebrew text [Resp. 1] it is not she, but according to our translati∣on it.
Because this, detracts much from the [ 2] honour of Christ. It was a rare saying of Seneca, Similiter esse exprehensibilem, ni∣miam laudationem et immoderatam vitupe∣rationem.
I but say the Romanists, Christ did it by [Object.] his own power, the Virgin Mary by Christs.
If you say that of the blessed Virgin, [Resp.] as we have formerly concerning other Saints of God, we have no cause to be of∣fended: but they intend more by it then this comes to.
Doth not the worth and eminency of a [Object.] childe cast a shine of honour upon the Pa∣rents? If it be said of Abraham, In thee shall all Nations be blessed, though it was not Abraham that made them blessed, but his seed, why not of the Virgin Mary, In thee shall the Serpents head be broken,
though she did not do it, but Christ?
It is one thing to say, a parent is blessed in a child, or to say that in a parent a Na∣tion [Resp.] is blessed because of a child, and to attribute the worthy atchievements of the child to the parent: as if a woman should beare a sonne, who when he came to years ceserved worthily of the Common-wealth, a shine of honour would be cast upon this woman because of her son: but we could not with any sense, nor indeed with hone∣sty ascribe the worthy acts of the sonne to the mother.
Thus they endeavour to paint over their black and horrid blasphemies, with the fairest colours they will take: The chimney-piece is commonly the fairest part of the Roome, and yet it covereth the foulest and blackest place.
Why is it said, I will put enmity between thee, and the woman in the Abstract?
To note unto us the bitter, inveterate, [Resp.] irreconcileable hatred of the wicked against the godly; enemies may be reconciled, but enmity cannot, &c.
It is observable, that profane persons,
Hereticks, blasphemous, Popish, & supersti∣tious persons are more loving, & favourable each to other (though vastly differing in their judgment) then either of them to the people of God. Edom, and Ishmael, Moab, & the Hagarens, Gebal, Ammon, Amaleck, & the Philistines the men of Tyre, & Ashur, had each several gods, yet all conspired against the true God. Ps. 83. 5, 6, 7, 8. They have consulted to∣gether with one consent, they are confederate against thee. The Tabernacles of Edom, & the Ishmaelites, of Moab & the Hagarens, Gebal, and Ammon, and Amaleck, the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre. Ashur also is joyned with them, they have holpen the children of Lot. Darknesse and darknesse agree better together, then light and darknesse.
Whether man had any share in this curse pronounced in these two verses?
Man hath a share in that which was pro∣nounced [Resp.] against the Serpent; but all his share is mercy: for though it be a curse to the Serpent, yet a blessing to man; The truth is, there seems to be spirituall checker-work in this 15. verse, halfe white,
and half black, much of judgement and ter∣rour, and much of mercy and consolation, resembling Moses, who saved the Israelites, and slew the Egyptians.
In this verse, you have the Sun in a cloud, the Gospel with its masque on: the day-break of that glorious mystery which was hid in God from before the foundation of the world, the light whereof, though it were faint, and shadowy in regard of our Noon-day-brightnesse, yet at that time, through the help of the prospective of faith they might see thereby,
1. Mans Redemption, from the Tyran∣ny of Satan, and by consequence from sin, death, and hell, noted in that expression of breaking the Serpents head.
2. That man should be redeemed by a Mediatour, viz. by the intervention of the seed of the woman.
3. That this Mediator should be true man, intimated by the seed of the woman, and that he should have a divine power, being able to break the Serpents head, which is tantum mount to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God∣man.
4. That this Redemption should be wrought in a way of suffering, intimated by that expression, Thou shalt bruise his heel.
5. That none should have benfit by this Redemption, but the elect, intimated by the seed of the woman.
6. That this Redemption is an act of free grace; as soon as man had sinned, God makes a gracious promise of the Messiah, (no possibility of merits interven∣ing)
7. That the Devil and his Angels have no interest in the free grace, and mercy of God in Christ; He took not on him the nature of Angels, but became the seed of the woman: We have a saying in nature, Cor∣ruptio optimi est pessima; when Satan sinned against God, the most excellent nature was defiled, and so fell under the heaviest doome.
Why the promise made concerning the Messiah was so dark and hard to be un∣derstood?
1. Propter Diabolum, in regard of the De∣vil, that he might be exercised with per∣petuall feare, and suspect every child that was borne into the world to be the Mes∣siah: the Doctrine of the Messiah was a * 1.27 mystery hid in God.
2. Propter parentes, in regard of our first parents, that God might exercise their faith, and the faith of their holy seed, and that their desires might be enflamed after a clearer discovery of this mystery: the A∣postle Peter tells us, that the Prophets en∣quired, and searched diligently after the grace * 1.28 of Christ.
3. Propter Christum, in regard of Christ himself: for look as it is with School-Ma∣sters, they will reserve the reading of the most Learned Lectures for themselves: So Christ is our great Rabbi; All were his Ushers that were before, they taught the punies an inferiour Lecture of the Law and Prophets; but the Gospel, as to the sublimest and most mysterious part of it, Christ hath reserved for to unfold himself: It is said, The Law having a shadow * 1.29 of good things to come, and not the very i∣mage of the things, &c. In this ver. you have mention made of the shadow, and the i∣mage: The thing it self was not yet come; the Jewes had the shadow, and we the i∣mage, now look how much an image or the picture of a man goes beyond his sha∣dow, so much doth the discovery of Christ now, go beyond the discoveries of him then; so in another place, God who at
sundry times, and in divers manners, spake * 1.30 in times past unto the fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last dayes spoken unto us by his Son; God who by piece meale, drop by drop, now a drop, and then a drop, spake unto our fore-fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last times spoken more fully by his Sonne. When this King came, all the cocks ran with wine: as Iacob before he was borne, put forth his hand, so Christ before he was borne, did as it were put forth his hand to the Jews, they could see something of Christ, but unto us a Sonne is borne, unto us a child is given. Our fa∣thers went to heaven by Candle-light, how sad will it be if we should go to Hell by day-light?
Whether the woman should have con∣ceived, and brought forth in sorrow if she had not sinned?
Neg. For although now her pain, and sor∣row [Resp.] arises from naturall causes, yet it may well be questioned whether this was natu∣ral at first: for seeing we find by experience that other creatures bring forth without pain, it doth not imply a contradiction, that
the constitution of the body of woman, might be such at first, as she might con∣ceive and bring forth without sorrow: and therefore we need not say, as some, that woman should have brought forth by a miracle, if she had not sinned, &c.
It is said here, Thy desire shall be to thy Husband, and he shall rule over thee: Now the question is, how that could be inflict∣ed as a punishment upon the woman, which was suitable to her condition in the state of innocency?
The subjection of the woman to her [Resp.] husband, was not repugnant to the state of innocency; but then, as the authority of the man would have been used with justice, and kindnesse, so the obedience of the woman would have been exerci∣sed with pleasure and cheerfullnesse.
The truth is, though this be the punish∣ment of the woman, yet those who have good husbands have not the like share in it, with those who have bad. A good man dares not but carry himself as a man of knowledge towards his wife, and make her yoke as easy as may be: It is remarkable
when the Apostle had bid wives, Submit * 1.31 your selves unto your husbands, as it is fit in the Lord, he doth not say, Husbands, rule over your wives, for that they will do fast e∣nough without bidding; but, Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter to them.
Why doth the Lord in pronouncing the sentence upon the man, insert the cause, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife?
That God might convince man of the [Resp.] vanity and weaknesse of that excuse which he made, why he sinned against God, as verse 12. The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the Tree, and I did eat.
Let us have a care of carnall shifts, and excuses; when God calls us to an account, these will not stand us in stead: there was never any came to Hell, but they had some seeming pretence for coming thi∣ther.
Pilate could not wash off the guilt, when he washed his hands: Saint Paul exhorts, Be not deceived, God is not mocked: as in * 1.32 divers other things, the deceitfulnesse of
our hearts shews it selfe so in this, viz. the forging of idle reasons, to satisfie, and beare out our selves in the neglect of duties commanded by the Word of God; and if you consult the context, you will finde, it is about paying the Minister his dues: Let him that is taught in the word, com∣municate unto him that teacheth in all good things; Now people are very apt to * 1.33 finde excuses, that they may save their purse, and if it be possible satisfie Con∣science; but the Apostle exhorts them not to put a cheat upon their soules, Be not deceived, saith he, God is not mocked.
God sayes, Thou shalt eat the herbe of the field: why? should not man have eat of the herb if he had not sinned? Did not God say, Behold, I have given you every herbe bearing seed, which is upon the face of all * 1.34 the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a Tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat?
Very true, but here when God sayes, [Resp.] Thou shalt eat the herbe of the field, the meaning is, thou shalt not eat of the herbs or fruits of Paradise.
How this curse can be verified concerning man, That in the sweat of his browes he should eat his bread, when many neither labour, nor sweat, and yet have bread e∣nough?
As for idle persons, whilest they think [Resp. 1] to shake off that yoke that God hath put upon their necks, they bind it faster, and make it heavier: To a person of any inge∣nuity idlenesse is a toyle, nor is a man more weary then when he doth no∣thing.
We must distinguish of a three-fold la∣bour. [ 2]
1. Labor Oeconomicus or mechanicus, the labour of mechanicks, as we call them, or handicrafts-men; of this the Apostle speaks, Let him that stole steale no more; * 1.35 but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good.
2. Labor Politicus, the labour of Magi∣strates and Governours: so the Apostle speaking of the Magistrate, He is the Mi∣nister of God to thee for good; but if thou do * 1.36 that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vaine; for he is the Minister of God, &c.
3. Labor Ecclesiasticus, the labour of Mi∣nisters; we may observe that whilest the world takes this to be an easie calling, the Spirit of God in the Scripture frequently speaks of the labour, and the work that doth attend it: He that desires the office of a Bishop, desires a good work. And, The work∣man is worthy of his hire. And, They that rule well are worthy of double honour, especi∣ally they that labour in the Word, and do∣ctrine.
Ministers are called Starres, now the Starres are in continuall motion for the good of the Universe; they are to cry a∣loud, and to lift up their voice like a * 1.37 trumpet, Durante pugnâ non cessat Tuba: The trumpet must be sounding all the while the battell is fighting. The Church of God is Gods husbandry, and the Ministers are his husbandmen.
—Redit agricolis labor actus in Orbem.
The husbandman hath never done his work, but the end of one task is still the beginning of another: so it fares with the Ministers of the Gospel, sometimes they are instructing poor ignorant souls, & then they are like Starres that shine in a cold winters night; another while convincing gain-sayers; then they are like those Starres
that fought in their course against Sisera; every man must be accountable for his i∣dle words, and a Minister for his idle si∣lence: Qui claves habent Ecclesiae ostia suorum labiorum aperiant: A Minister had better be worne out with whetting, then with rusting.
A way then with the fanatick Spirits of our dayes, who call upon Ministers to work with their hands, as if there were no other labour, but hand-labour. Consi∣der,
1. They confound those things that God would have distingushed: there is the labour of the head and brain, as well as of the hand.
2. They overthrow (as much as in them lyes) the well-being, if not the being of Kingdomes, States, Common-wealths in which they live: for we stand in as much need of the Magistrate, and Minister as we do of the Husbandman, and handy∣craftsman.
3. Aaron with his posterity were Priests, Ioshua, David, Iosias were Magistrates, yet it might be said of them, that they are their bread in the sweat of their browes.
It is said here, In the sweat of thy brows thou shalt eat thy bread; and yet our Saviour hath taught us to pray, Give us this day our daily bread. If we earne our bread with our labour, how is it a gift?
We earne it of man, but not of God, from man it is a debt, but from God it is a [Resp. 1] gift.
It is an act of free grace, that we have bread for our labour; God might have [ 2] said that we should labour, and sweat, and after all we should eat husks with hogs; as the Prodigall, or grasse with the Oxe, as Ne∣buchadnezzar: that in the sweat of our brows we eat bread, is a mercy.
As the Scripture speaks of bread, so of the staffe and stay of bread: For be∣hold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts doth take a∣way [ 3] from Jerusalem, and from Judah, the * 1.38 stay, and staffe, the whole stay of bread. And the truth is, a man is strengthened more by the staffe that is in his body, then by the staffe that is in his hand; it is not the corne, and floure, but the staffe of bread, which supports the life, and that is not any thing that comes out of the
earth, but the blessing of God, which comes down from heaven. The creature cannot hold up it selfe, much lesse con∣tribute to the subsistence of other things, unlesse God continue the influence of his blessing upon it. It is the observation of a Learned Author, As soone as ever Christ cursed the figge-tree it withered, and dried * 1.39 up from the roots, to shew, that it was not the root alone, but the blessing of Christ which did support the figge-tree, it is pro∣nounced * 1.40 as a curse, They shall eat, and not have enough; and again, Ye shall eat, and not * 1.41 be satisfied: when I have broken the staffe of your bread, ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. As good take a mouthfull of gravel, as a mouthfull of bread, and as able it is to nou∣rish without Gods blessing.
The means by which we live, are with∣out life; If they be living creatures, as sheep, and oxen, and beasts, and birds, and fishes, they must lose their lives, before they can come to be helpes to ours; so true is that saying mortibus vivimus, we live by deaths; now reason tells us, Nihil dat quod non habet nothing can give that, which it hath not; How should food of it selfe pre∣serve and further life, which in it self is void of life? the death of the creatures shew∣eth
that our life is not from them, but from something else.
By all which we may perceive, how these Scriptures may be reconciled, of Eating our bread in the sweat of our browes, and yet to pray, according to the forme our Saviour hath prescribed us, Give us this day our daily bread.
Whether from this Scripture we have a command from God, to labour, To eat our bread in the sweat of our browes?
I conceive we have, though some think, that this was laid upon man after his [Resp.] transgression, rather as a curse which he must indure, then a duty which he should performe: for the clearing of this con∣sider,
1. It is granted that this was a curse laid upon man for his transgression.
1. As some of Gods curses are promises as well as curses, to set out his goodnesse: so some of Gods curses are precepts as well as curses, to set forth h••s justice.
Some of Gods curses are promises, as well as curses; so, I will put enmity between thee and the woman: It is a curse on he
Serpent, and yet a promise of the Messi¦ah.
Some of Gods curses areprecepts as well as curses; so, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee; this is * 1.42 a curse, and yet it is a precept: Let our * 1.43 women keep silence in the Churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as saith the Law.
Now the truth is, this of eating our bread in the sweat of our brows is all these, it is a curse, it is a promise, it is a precept; it is a curse, in that God will not suffer the earth to afford us bread, without our sweat; it is a promise, in that God assu∣reth us, that we shall have bread for our sweat; and it is a precept too, in that God enjoyneth us, if we will have bread to sweat for it.
Have a care then of relieving common beggers, vagrant and idle persons: I speak not against Almes, God requireth us to feed the hungry: but remember as God doth not approove of any other work without charity, so neither of charity it selfe without discretion, as Paul, Honour widows; but those that are widdowes indeed: * 1.44 A woman that hath poysoned her hus∣band
is a widow, but she is not a widow indeed, not to be honoured; so you must relieve the poor, but those who are poor indeed: who are they?
Those that want not onely the things they aske, but want also means to get without asking, viz. blind, aged, past their work, that have a greater charge then they can maintain by their work.
Ierome: Pars sacrilegii est rem pauperum dare non pauperibus. Whilest you think you relieve the poor, you robbe the poor.
What may we learne, from these verses considered together?
That God in the midst of judgement [Resp.] remembers mercy: and that he rolls up the sentence pronounced against the man, and woman in love, and sweetnesse: thou shalt conceive, and travell in sorrow, there is judgement, but thou shalt bring forth chil∣dren, there is mercy; thy desire shall be sub∣ject, there is judgement; but it shall be to thy husband, there is mercy. God saith to Adam, Cursed is the ground for thy sake, there is judgement; but not cursed art thou, there is mercy. Thou shalt labour and sweat,
there is judgement; but it shall not be over∣much, (you know the face sweats before a∣ny part) and it shall be the sweat of thy face, there is mercy; thy face shall sweat, there is judgement; but in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread, there is mercy.
Why did the Lord God make coats of skinnes, and cloath our first parents with them?
To teach them he had not cast them out [Resp. 1] of his fatherly care, though they had sinned against him.
That it might be a continuall Item of [ 2] their sin against God. The originall of raiment should never be forgotten by the sonnes of Adam, but be remembred as a check to the vanity, and pride of appa∣rell; we have no more cause to be proud of our cloaths, then of a plaister of mast∣ick worne to stay the Rheume from an∣noying the eyes or Teeth, or a paire of spectacles to help the dimnesse of the sight.
In the former verse it is said, The Lord
God sent man forth from the garden of Eden, and in this verse, it is said he drove out the man.
It is like God at first bid him go, and [Resp.] then he shewing himselfe unwilling, and begging that he might abide there still, God with some evidence of wrath drove him out.
What may we Learne from Gods placing at the East of the Garden Cheru∣bims, and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the Tree of life?
That when man fell out with God, he fell out with the good Angels; The [Resp.] Angels were loyall subjects, and took part with their Prince against the Rebels; but through Christ God and we are friends, and the Angels and we are friends; now in stead of shutting us out of Paradise, they carry us into Paradise: The Angels conveyed Lazarus into Abrahams bo∣some.
Good examples are rare in the world, Oh that we could imitate the good Angels! The mariners at sea when they have no land-markes to direct them home to their
own Countrey, are guided by the Starres. Truly we have but a few good examples in this world, and therefore let us take our patterne from the Angels, that continu∣ally behold the face of God, ready to do his will: Despise ye not one of these little * 1.45 ones, for I say unto you, that in heaven their Angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Gen. 8.
1 Sam. 18. 2••.
Isa. 27. 3.
Gen. 3.22.
Rom 5.19
Rom. 16.5
Col. 3.15.
Gen. 2.25.
Psal. 29.3.
1 Sa. 15.1.
Jer. 23.24.
Ps. 139.7, 8.
Jer. 16.17.
1 Tim. 2. 14.
Gen 6.17.
Lev. 20.15
Is 65.25.
Isa 24.4.
Eph. 5.1.
Joh. 8. 44
1 Joh▪ 3. 8.
Gen. 4.25.
Isa. 57.3.
Mat. 28.19
Luk. 8. 5.
Rom. 16. 20.
Eph. 3.9.
1 Pet. 1.10.
Heb. 10.1.
Heb. 1.1.
Col. 3. 18, 19
Gal. 6. 7.
verse 6.
Gen. 1. 29.
Eph. 4.28.
Rom. 13.4
Isa. 58.1.
Isay. 3.1.
Ma. 11.20.
Hos. 4. 10.
Lev. 26. 26.
Gen. 3.16.
1 Cor. 14. 34.
1. Tim 5.3
Matth. 18. 19.