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

II. But other Perfons,who were Jews likewise, not being able to digeft fo many unpalatable things,as Speech and Reafon attributed to a Brute, and the Serpent's lofing his Feet, although Mofes feem'd to exprefs as much in the plaineft manner imaginable, yet rather than understand him fo,they chose to commit Violence upon his words, and betake themselves to Allegory. Philo indeed, in his Treatife De mundi opificio, and elsewhere, denies that these were Fables and Fictions,wherein the Poets and Sophifters take fo great a delight, Nevertheless he owns them to be Figurative Documents, that are to be explain'd Allegorically, in order to find out the hidden meaning of them.

And

i

And lastly affirms, That it may be rightly con jectured,that the Serpent is a Symbol of Pleasure, which Argument he handles more copiously afterwards.Maimonides allo Part 2.Mor.Nev.c.29. fupposes, that these Paffages are to be expounded by way of Allegory, and fome of the later Rab. bins declare themselves to be of the fame Opinion.

III. But others that have a juft Indignation to this Libertine way of Interpreting the Scripture, which wholly depends upon the Fancy of the Interpreter, and yet not able with Jofephus to follow the literal Sense, have fallen into different Sentiments,none of which labours with fewer Inconveniences than the two above-citedOpinions. Some Divines of no mean Rank in the Learned World, maintain, that it was not a Serpent,properly fo called, which appeared,but that the Devil was fignified by that name, that therefore the Devil is called the old Serpent by the Hebrews, and is thus described by St. John in the Revela tions 12.9.The great Dragon the old Serpent,called the Devil and Satan, who feduceth all the Earth. See likewise Rev.20.2.For this Reason the Devil is called by our Bleffed Saviour,a Murderer from the Beginning. And the Author of the Book of Wisdom 2. 24. tells us, That Death entered into the World by the Envy of the Devil.See also 2 Cor. 11.3. where the Serpent is faid to have deceived the Woman by his Subtilty. But this Hypothefis is eafily refuted; for neither can the Devil be called the most subtle Beast of the Field, but in a Figurative

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

IV. For this reason several Perfons have be lieved, that the Devil ufed the Serpent's body as an Organ to act his Impofture by, and that God, to fhew his utter Averfion and Hatred of Sin,punish'd the very Organ by which this Seduction was effected.But if it were fo, what occafion was there to say,that the Serpent was the most subtle Beaft of the Field. For the Devil might have abufed the most stupid Creature in the World to this purpose with as much Succefs; for he did not employ the Serpent's Craft, but his own, to deceive Eve.

V. But others obferving these and the like Difficulties in all thefe Opinions, came at last to this Point,as to own, that all we could apparently gather from this Enigma,was, that the First Parents of Mankind began to Sin, from whence a Series of innumerable Evils were derived to them and their Pofterity. 'Tis indeed certain,that now and heretofore Mankind has been in a State of great Corruption, nor can the beginning of this Infection be carried lower than the Original of the World. But then after what manner Sin entered into the World, so that we might underL ftand

stand plainly, and without the least Reasons of doubting, all the Circumftances of the first Sin, none but those can fignifie to us,who were prefent at the matter, if by any means they could be revived again.

VI. Laftly, Others finding in this Hiftory,frequent mention made of Difcourfes, where none at all feem to have paffed, imagine,that the Serpent did not speak, but that Eve faw him eating the Forbidden Fruit, and was feduced, by his Example,to eat of it her felf. Efpecially if we confider that this prohibited Fruit, by its beauty, and perhaps by the fpecious name of Knowledge,might help to induce her, as the was gazing on it. Indeed the Serpent's Punishment,below v.14. Thou fhalt lick the Duft all the days of thy Life,seems to intimate,that the Serpent had deceived Eve by eating of the Fruit, and because he had occafi oned her Ruine by eating of Fruit from a high Tree, therefore he was condemn'd to lick the Juices of the Earth. The Favourers of this Opinion do not deny, but that fome Evil Spirit might act his part in this Tragedy, for which reafon the Jews not rightly comprehending the meaning of this place, might in after-Ages call him by the name of the Serpent. But as the Sacred Hiftorian introduces the Serpent Speaking, who had no Speech at all,according to the Genius of his Narration, as is plain from the firft Chapter of Genefis, where he frequently repre fents God Almighty fpeaking to all the parts of the Creation; fo likewise because he was to give

him his fhare in a Dialogue, by whose Example our firft Parents were deceived, he therefore attributes Subtlety to him, which however can be fuppofed to belong to a Beaft, no more than the Faculty of Speaking does. For this reafon he is faid to have used both Speech and Craftiness,because,as the Maintainers of this Opinion alledge, he as effectually ruined our first Parents, as if he had feduced them by a crafty artificial Harangue. And therefore both the Subtlety of the Serpent,and his Conversation with Eve,are con fidered by them, not as Circumftances that can be urged, but as fome Oriental Ornaments of the Hiftory. This was in part the Opinion of Ifaac Abarbinel, who denies that the Serpent could maintain any Discourses with Eve, and afferts, That nothing more is meant by this Colloquy, but the Reasonings of the Woman from what she gathered from the Serpents action, and his eating of that Tree. He pretends,that the inferr'd from the Serpent's Example, that the Forbidden Fruit was Wholefome and Nutritive, which Opinion does not well agree with the words, Tou fhall be like Gods; the meaning of which could never be deduced from this fingle action of the Ser pent.

In fo perplex'd and obfcure a Matter as this is, 'tis the fafeft way, as I imagine,openly to confefs our Ignorance, provided we still preserve the Substance of the History, as 'tis explain'd in the fifth Opinion, but fo as not to condemn thofe that differ from our Sentiments. We are now