Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	bruise_v	heel_n	serpent_n	2,564	5	9.8176	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11363	A treatise of Paradise. And the principall contents thereof especially of the greatnesse, situation, beautie, and other properties of that place: of the trees of life, good and euill; of the serpent, cherubin, fiery sword, mans creation, immortalitie, propagation, stature, age, knowledge, temptation, fall, and exclusion out of Paradise; and consequently of his and our originall sin: with many other difficulties touching these points. Collected out of the holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, and other both ancient and moderne writers.	Salkeld, John, 1576-1660.	1617 (1617)	STC 21622; ESTC S116515	126,315	368

a true serpent but that it was the deuill in the shape and likenes of a serpent and therefore he was cursed vnder the name of a serpent Neuerthelesse this opinion seemeth not true for if it had beene a deuill then would he haue 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 vnto the serpent because thou hast done this thou art cursed aboue all cattell and aboue euery beast of the field vpon 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 vpon 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 onely 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 vnto vs or if not why may not the same be said and the like allegoricall exposition be onely 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 haue this power permitted vnto 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 vnto 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 haue redeemed vs 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 vnto 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 vsque 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

CHAP. XXVIII To what end was Adam placed in Paradise CHAP. XXIX Whether the commandement of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill was giuen aswell to Eue as to Adam and how that was CHAP. XXX Why God commanded that Adam should not eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill CHAP. XXXI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. XXXII What death that was which God threatned to inflict vpon Adam for his transgression CHAP. XXXIII Of the creation of the woman and to what end she was created CHAP. XXXIV What sleepe that was which God caused to fall vpon Adam for the creation of Eue and whether it was a true sleepe or no CHAP. XXXV Why Eue was created of Adams ribbe and not immediately of the earth and how that could be without any griefe to Adam CHAP. XXXVI Why and how Eue was made of the ribbe of Adam CHAP. XXXVII Whether the ribbe of which Eue was created was requisite to the perfection of Adams body or no. CHAP. XXXVIII How mankinde should haue beene multiplied if Adam had persisted in Paradise CHAP. XXXIX Whether there should haue beene more men or women in the state of innocencie or rather an equalitie of both sexes and how there could haue beene any women seeing they are said to proceed out of the defect of nature CHAP. XL. Of the prerogatiues and excent gifts wherewith Adam was endued in the state of innocencie and first as touching his knowledge and naturall wisdome of naturall things CHAP. XLI Of the knowledge which Adam had of things aboue nature CHAP. XLII Whether Adam was created in the grace of God or no. CHAP. XLIII Whether if Adam had not fallen all his posteritie should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God and confirmed in the same CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall CHAP. XLV What kinde of Serpent that was which tempted Eue. CHAP. XLVI Whether that which Moses saith that the Serpent was craftier then all beasts of the earth is to be vnderstood of the true Serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. XLVII What was the reason why the woman was not afraid to speake with the Serpent 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 tempter CHAP. XLIX Whether when God cursed the serpent it is to be vnderstood of the true serpent or of the Deuill CHAP. L. Whether Adam was cast out of Paradise the same day he was created CHAP. LI. Of the Cherubin and Sword which were put at the entrance of Paradise CHAP. LII What was the cause why Adam and his posteritie were banished Paradise wherein two ancient errours are refuted as touching originall sinne CHAP. LIII In which diuers other opinions touching originall sinne are refuted CHAP LIV. Whether originall sinne consist in any priuation or no CHAP. LV. In which the last opinion of the precedent Chapter is discussed and reiected and the true doctrine of originall sinne set downe CHAP. LVI In which the matter of the precedent chapter is more largely discussed CHAP. LVII Wherein diuers difficulties are solued against the former doctrine CHAP. LVIII Of the manner how originall sinne doth descend from Adam to his posteritie CHAP. LIX Whether it was necessary there should be made any couenant betweene God and man that so originall sinne might descend to the posteritie of Adam CHAP. LX. How the soule is said to be infected by the body in the posteritie of Adam by his originall sinne CHAP. LXI Whether there should haue beene any originall sinne in vs if either Adam only or Eue onely had eaten of the forbidden tree CHAP. LXII What punishments bee due to originall sinne in this life CHAP. LXIII What punishment is due to originall sinne in the other life CHAP. LXIV The obiections of Simon Magus against the aforesaid doctrine of the creation of man and his being in Paradise CHAP. LXV In which the obiections of Manes are assoiled CHAP. LXVI The obiections of Theodorus and Nestorius against originall sinne are solued CHAP. I. Whether there was euer any such place as Paradise or rather the description of Moses is to be vnderstood Allegoricallie and so to be referred vnto the minde onely AS there is nothing in nature so plain which may not be contradicted neyther any thing so pure which may not be defiled so nothing so euident in Gods Worde which hath not beene opposed Such is our nature after our fall and such our daily most lamentable lapses after our first lapse and originall Fall Insomuch that ignoring the cause of our infinite misery we become desperately sicke and of our selues and nature without remedy Wherfore my intent beeing chiefly to shew vs our end and eternall felicity I will first shew the place and demonstrate the grace from which we fell that thereby knowing the infelicity of our fall and place from which we fel we may be more thankfull vnto God for that felicity place and grace vnto which we are exalted after our fall and so come to a more perfect blessednes after our fall then that which wee possessed before we fell or should haue possessed in Paradise if wee had not falne Now therefore as touching this place of our first happinesse and from whence our misery was first deriued I will begin with a worthy Prelate who though hee was one of the chiefest Doctors of the Church of God yet being to explicate these very difficulties of Paradise Ambrosius de Paradyso in principio capitis primi was not ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance De Paradiso adoriendus sermo non mediocrem nobis oestum videtur incutere quid nam sit Paradysus et vbi sit qualisue sit inuestigare explanare cupientibus maxime Apostolus siue in corpore siue extra corpus nesciat raptū se tamen dicat vsque ad tertiū coelū 2 Cor. 12. idemque testetur se ibi audiuisse arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui Being to speake saith this Father of Paradise it doth not a litle trouble me to search out and explane what Paradise is where it is what manner of place it is especially seeing the Apostle saith that he was rapt thither into the third heauen where hee heard such things as bee not lawfull for any mortall man to vtter By which words he signifieth two things the first that that place was Paradise vnto which S. Paul was carried the which opinion in what sense it may bee verified it shall afterward be explicated the second thing there to be noted is that it is impossible for man to declare what kinde of place that was vnto which the Apostle was carried vnlesse peraduenture it might haue been by him who had that speciall priuiledge to be carried thither Hence peraduenture it is that Origenes Philo the Hermetians and Seleucians were

true that which the Poët saith that labour blunteth the arrowes of Cupid so doth it no lesse other darts of the deuill But hence peraduenture some patron of idlenes may inferre that labour was contrary to that blessed state of Paradise as which required all quiet rest and content no rather I say that it was consequent or necessarily pertaining to that blessed state seeing that labour was not any toile or paine but rather a pleasure and a voluntary effect of his well disposed minde as it is now likewise to men not so ill affected quorum otium as Seneca said maximum negotium so as S. Austine saith l. 8. de Gen ad lit cap. 8. non esset laboris afflictio sed voluntatis exhilaratio cùm ea quae Deus creauerat humani generis adiutorium laetius seraciúque provenirent that it should not be a toile or affliction of the body but a recreation and reioycing of the will and minde CHAP. XXIX Whether the precept of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and euill was giuen aswell to Eue as to Adam and how that was THe difficultie of this question proceedeth of the diuers readings of the precept because some with Greg. l. 35. moral cap. 10. do read it according to the Greeke in the plurall the Hebrue Caldaean with the vulgar Latin and English are in the singular Gen. 21.16 and the Lord God commanded the man saying thou shalt eat freely of euery tree of the garden but of the tree of knowledge of good euill thou shalt not eat of it for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death Whereby wee see that this commandement was directed to the man only not to the woman seeing shee as yet was not created as is apparent out of the 18 verse the 21 22 23 where the creation of Eue is described Neuerthelesse it is manifest that the same commandment was extended to Eue also for so shee answered the serpent according to the vulgar edition de ligno quod est in medio paradysi praecepit nobis deus ne comederemus but of the tree which is in the midst of Paradise God commanded vs wee should not eat wherfore though this precept was principally giuen to Adam yet was it also to be obserued of Eue for as they were conioyned in nature so were they not to be separated in regard of their precept and grace But why then may some say was the name onely of Adam expressed I answer with Rupertus lib. 2. de Trinitate operibus eius c. 32. because the precept was principally giuen vnto him as vpon whose obedience or breach his and his posterities happinesse did solely depend not vpon Eues CHAP. XXX Why God commanded Adam that he should not eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euill TErtullian in the beginning of his booke against the Iewes saith that this commandement was giuen to Adam as the first principall foundation and ground from whence all other lawes were deriued and in which all the ten Commandments be virtually included so that as Adam was the first beginning of mankinde so this was the first ground of all other lawes But though this cannot be reiected as an improbable speculation yet certainely it is not so firmely grounded in the sacred text as Tertullian imagined The reasons therefore in my opinion why God so strictly prohibited the eating of the aforesaid fruit was first that thereby as God had declared vnto vs his power ouer vs so wee should shew our obedience towards him not that as S. Austine noteth God hath neede of our seruice Augustin l. 8. de Gen. ad literam cap. 11. but that wee haue neede of his power protection rule and dominion ouer vs according to that of the Psalmist who speaking in the person of God saith constitue super eos legislatorem vt sciant gentes quoniam homines sunt Constitute a ruler ouer them as the vulgare translateth that the heathen may know that they are but men so that as it is a token of vassalage and subiection to receiue lawes so is it of power dominion and authority to command constitute ordaine and set downe lawes to bee obserued Yea secondly God gaue this law vnto man that thereby he might exercise his obedience towards God a vertue as necessary to man as acceptable in the sight of God Aug. lib. 8. de Gen ad literā cap. 8. and therefore as S. Austine well noteth God gaue not this law in any obiect of it selfe otherwise euill or of its owne nature good to the end that the vertue of his obedience might be the more illustrious because it deriueth not his excellencie from the materiall obiect but from the formall the sole subiection to Almighty God It may seeme peraduenture not improbable to some that the law of nature which God had infused into the nature of man might haue sufficed to lay open try and manifest mans obedience towards God to what end then should the second law of abstayning from the tree of the knowledge of good and euill be added as a second tryall of that which otherwise might sufficiently bee manifest by the law of nature and obedience therevnto I answer that the law of nature would not haue beene a sufficient tryall of Adams obedience because it is not altogether manifest by the law of nature that God is sole and supreme Lord ouer all mankinde for some doe imagine that the law of nature is a propertie onely due vnto a reasonable creature as euery species or kinde of liuing creatures hath their particular propertie agreeing to their nature Againe some are of opinion that those things which are contained in the law of nature are to be imbraced or reiected in as much as they agree or disagree with naturall reason not as they are commanded or forbidden by God as supernaturall agent So that although it be prescribed by God vnto all men yet doth it not sufficiently manifest his most ample absolute power ouer all mankinde seeing that by this law there is not any thing commanded or forbidden but onely that which is according to humane reason either good or euill of its owne nature Wherefore Gods absolute dominion and extent of his diuine power were not sufficiently knowne onely by this law of nature but onely as it is agreeable to the instinct of nature the which as it was but onely in things within the spheare of nature could not possible shew the extent of the absolute power of God in things both with in the compasse of nature and aboue nature Hence Gregorie well noteth Lib. 33 moralium cap. 10. that the forbidden fruit was not euill of its owne nature but was forbidden to the end that man being created vpright by nature might increase in righteousnes by the subiection of his nature and perfection of his obedience to the author of nature CHAP. XXXI Why God commanded Adam that he should not touch the tree

nature it cannot be denied but that it was grace as which was not consequent vnto nature but aboue all nature Wherefore as now in the law of grace all that are regenerated by baptisme in Christ doe in and by baptisme according to the opinion of many Diuines receiue the grace of Christ so likewise in the state of innocency all that should haue been borne of the loines of Adam should in and at the very instant of their naturall conception and first moment of naturall life haue receiued the first influence of their spirituall birth and supernaturall life Now the difficultie is whether if Adam had persisted in the state of innocencie all we his posteritie should then haue beene confirmed in grace insomuch that as wee should haue beene borne in the grace and fauour of God so wee should neuer haue fallen from the same Anselmus lib. 1. Cur Deus home cap. 38. Gregorius lib. 4. Moraliū c. 36. Anselmus and Gregorie the great answer that if Adam had not sinned then all his posteritie should haue beene confirmed in the grace and fauour of God for who saith Anselmus dare presume to affirme plus valere iniustitiam that iniustice should haue beene of more force to binde vnto bondage in mans first perswasion then his iustice to confirme him in liberty if he had persisted in his first temptation for euen as all humane nature was ouercome by Adams sinne so by him all should haue ouercome if he had not sinned Neuerthelesse I resolue with S. Austine that the posteritie of Adam should not at least way in the instant of their generation beene confirmed in grace though Adam had persisted in his originall iustice for how is it credible that they should haue receiued more abundant grace then their first head and father at his first creation Wherefore like as Adam though created in grace could fall from that happy estate of grace so it seemeth most probable that his posteritie might also seeing that wee read of no particular prouidence grace promised to them which was not profferd to their first father For though Adam could as many Diuines hold haue increased in grace yet none but Paelagians hold that hee could merit vnto himselfe the infusion of the first grace much lesse vnto others CHAP. XLIV Whether Adam before his sinne was mortall or immortall SAint Austine in his 7. booke de Gen. ad lit cap. 25. answereth most excellently that the body of Adam before his sinne was both mortall and immortall mortall because he could die immortall beause hee could not haue died For it is one thing not to be able to dye another to be able not to dye that belongeth only to the Angells this is agreable euen vnto man not by the constitution of his nature but by the benefit of the tree of life from which tree hee was banished as soone as hee sinned that hee might dye who if he had not sinned might not haue died wherefore he was mortall by the nature of his corruptible body but yet immortall by the benefit of his Creator for if the body was mortall because it could dye by the like reason it was immortall because it could not haue died for that is not immortall onely which cannot dye at all vnlesse it be spirituall which is promised to vs in our resurrection Now therefore the difficultie is whether this gift of immortalitie due to the perfect state of Paradise was due also and connaturall vnto man persisting there Many of the best learned of this age are of opinion that this originall iustice which did bring with it a power of immortalitie and a perfect subiection of the flesh and senses vnto the rule of reason was a gift due euen vnto nature granted vnto man as not only agreable but likewise belonging and consequent vnto his naturall integritie and perfection insomuch that mans nature being now depriued thereof may iustly bee deemed in a manner maimed imperfect and monstrous especially seeing it was to proceed of naturall causes such as was the eating of the tree of life Againe euen naturall reason doth require that the minde and reason should rule and gouerne the whole man and consequently that the flesh and senses should be ruled by reason and obey the superiour power wherefore as it is without all question that the rebellion of the flesh against reason is contrary to mans nature so originall iustice which did restraine the rebellion did questionlesse pertaine to the naturall state integritie and perfection of man yea how were it otherwise agreable to the diuine wisdome to make a creature partly immortall and incorruptible partly againe mortall and corruptible Neuerthelesse vnlesse the question be more de nomine then dere I deeme it most certaine and out of all question that that gift of immortalitie was supernaturall as which was in no wise due or consequent to nature for neither this immortalitie could proceed of the qualities proportionate to the body seeing these tend rather to corruption then immortalitie as which are each contrary to other and after a sort consuming one another and these tending to the disvniting of the body and soule neither could this immortalitie be ab externo agente from some outward principle and cause for then if it were so it were rather to bee deemed in some sort opposite to the inclination of nature the which of it selfe as we haue already said tendeth to corruption yet as that which is congenitum or produced ioyntly with nature may in some sort be said to be naturall or rather connaturall so I will not deny of this quality of immortalitie though of it selfe it be altogether aboue nature yet respectiuely and in regard of the first infusion into nature I will not I say deny but that it may be deemed naturall 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 vnto it to speake vnderstand yea and to goe vpright like vnto 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 vnto the serpent for a time so that as in Balaams reprehension God gaue the vse of speach vnto the Asse for his iust reprehension and punishment so likewise here saith Ephraim God gaue not only speach but euen intellectuall power and vnderstanding vnto 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

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 vnto her selfe for as ordinarily in all his temptations hee doth craftily accommodate himselfe vnto 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 vpon the superficies of the earth but did goe vpright vpon his feet insomuch that as Damascene saith hee was more familiar vnto man then any other creature fawning often vpon 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 haue 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 haue 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 vpon 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 vnto 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 haue 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 vnto 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 CHAP. XLIX Whether when God cursed the serpent it is to be vnderstood of the true serpent or of the deuill MOses Barcephas Ephren with diuers other thinke that this curse is laid vpon the serpent although hee did not commit any crime at all his reason is because this narration of Moses being historicall it is to bee vnderstood simply as the words doe sound Now if it bee demanded how this standeth with naturall reason and the iustice of God which is neuer contrary to reason but is rather the rule of all reason that the serpent being innocent and not capable of reason neither consequently of sinne that hee should haue inflicted so great a punishment and curse as is denounced against him Gen. 3. vers 14. where God said to the serpent because thou hast done this thou art cursed aboue all cattell and aboue euery beast of the field vpon thy belly shalt thou goe and shalt eat dust all the dayes of thy life I answer with Barcephas and others aboue alledged that God did this principally as a punishment and in hatred of the principall agent the old serpent the deuill