the Ophidian genus. The brazen serpent, constructed by Moses in the Wilderness, possessed a curative property. That the serpent should be deemed subtle arises from the facility with which it conceals itself in grass, and amongst decayed leaves and decayed wood, and from its noiseless mode of disappearing, and gliding into places of safety; but that it possesses the merit of a greater portion of intelligence than that of any other reptile, and especially that it can advance any title to wisdom, is a fable.

All religion recognizes in the being of God the pos session of three transcendental principles. Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, are the attributes of the Godhead. The first comprehends infinite power; the second, infinite wisdom; the third, infinite ubiquity. The author of this legend would detract from these attributes. He makes us acquainted with an enemy of greater power than his Creator; one who not only subverts his Creator's works, but nullifies his omniscience and his omnipresence. The enemy is made to personate the form of the serpent, in which shape he tempts woman to partake of the fruit of the forbidden tree. Both the act of temptation, and the presence of the enemy, are unknown to the Deity, and the victim is exposed to the snares of the enemy totally unguarded.

Three questions suggest themselves at once to our meditation. The first inquires, whether the Deity could possibly have an enemy, with power to subvert his plans; and, having such enemy, whether he could not annihilate him? The second inquiry demands, whether, with the transcendant quality of omniscience, the Creator should not be cognizant of the secret

devices of the enemy? and thirdly, whether, by virtue of his omnipresence, he should not have been the witness of his enemy's unconcealed proceedings?

The promptness of the answer which reaches our understanding convinces us that the narrative is a myth, or a figurative form of writing peculiar to the people of the East, a form made use of by them, when they desire either to flatter or to deceive, or to mystify their readers.

Our intelligence demands from us too exalted an opinion of the goodness of God to believe it was his intention to tempt man. That having created him with a sensitive nature, open to the weaknesses of an artificial and imperfect structure, he should have exposed him to temptation, and have threatened him with condign punishment if he suffered himself to be overcome by its tempting power.

The myth relates that Adam's wife, having tempted him to partake of the forbidden fruit, they are suddenly made conscious of their nakedness. We are here reminded of the material conceptions of the author of the legend, who represents God as a human being, enjoying the refreshing influences of the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day. The victims "heard the voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the day." They hid themselves amongst the trees; but the Lord God called unto Adam, and on his reluctant appearance, and faltering excuses, he is accused of having eaten of the fruit of the forbidden tree. The deportment of the mean-spirited Adam entitles him to the severest reprobation. With a paucity of soul, and a total absence of moral courage, he heaps accusation on the head of his tender partner,- of her, of whom he

had said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;" but in the consciousness of guilt, instead of assuming to himself the entire blame, and drawing upon himself the consequent punishment, he asserts "the woman that thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat." Upon this the woman accuses the serpent as the tempter.

The first act of the Creator's vengeance would be expected to fall heavily upon the original offender; he, as the enemy, would at least be deprived of life. He would no longer have the power of mischief. Annihilation would be his fate. Not so. The enemy is permitted to live. He is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field, and doomed to go on his belly, and enmity is put between him and the woman, and between the enemy's seed and her seed; that her seed shall bruise the head of the enemy's seed, and the enemy's seed shall bruise the heel of the woman's seed. Upon the authority of this unintelligible conviction and sentence is built a myth of modern construction, which does not yield in extravagant conception to any one of those of by-gone days. We waive the consideration of the curious fact that the enemy is permitted to have seed; but the concluding part of the curse on the serpent condemns the woman's seed to bruise the head of the serpent's seed, and the serpent's seed is condemned to bruise the heel of the woman's seed.

This, when translated into the language of theology, is understood to signify, that at some future epoch of man's history, God should appear in carnal shape, and by submitting himself to a material death, should atone for the sin of the curse passed upon man, and thus reconcile to himself the accursed being. The actual

birth of the incarnate God took effect eighteen hundred and sixty years ago, through the immaculate conception of a pure virgin; and after a short ministry on earth, whose truth was attested to, and confirmed by the performance of many miracles, the atoning God submitted himself to an ignominious death as a public criminal, by which he released believing man from the weight of original sin and subsequent curse. God then ascended into heaven, to be the Judge and Mediator between the sinful creature and his Creator.

We have only spoken of the curse on the enemy. We have now to speak of the Creator's curse on the woman, whose portion of punishment is more grievous than that either of the enemy or of her husband. Adam's turn follows, and he is condemned, in consequence of having hearkened to the voice of his wifea venial sin at the worst, and one in the performance of which the majority of men find comfort and consolation. But the ground is cursed on account of Adam, and he is doomed to eat of it in sorrow, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and then to return to the dust from whence he was taken.

One cannot but be struck by the dissimilarity in the wording of the legend of the seven days, and of that which forms the subject of our present commentary. The legend of the seven days breathes beneficence and blessing: that of which we are treating fulminates condemnation and cursing. They cannot both be true. They are opposed to each other in spirit and in letter. One of them must be in error. It is vain to assert that the legend of the condemnation is merely a continuation of that of the blessing. The style is dissimilar. They are written by different hands, and

there is not one link of connecting subject-matter between them. If we must consent to consider them as exponents of each other, then we are entitled to expect that the second legend shall be in strict harmony with the first.

The legend of Benediction occupies the first place in the Bible. In it the Creator unequivocally blesses man, both male and female, and desires them to go on increasing and multiplying, and replenishing the earth. It likewise ennobles the duty of labour; whereas the second legend bestows curses on man, and entails

thorns and thistles on labour.

God being an immutable Being, and incapable of change; whose fiat, when once pronounced, must be carried out in all its consequences; then it follows that God, having blessed man, had removed from Himself the power of cursing him, and, as a necessary consequence, the legend of the Malediction is in error, and the needfulness for the Atonement never had an existence.

The conclusion of the legend allegorically refers to the separation of the Hebrew people from the land which their ancestors formerly occupied in Eden (Asia). The cherubims and the flaming sword which guarded the garden were the new generations and the hostile tribes which separated them from it, and debarred all hopes of a return to it.