tracted by the creature, who, though he was endowed with "power to stand, was free to fall." (y)

Sceptical writers, who are solicitous either to destroy or diminish the authority of the sacred records, have usually selected three points at which to attack the Mosaic account of the Fall of Man. 1st. They ask, why was so strange an act of obedience as that of refraining from eating a particular fruit, exacted of Adam and Eve? 2dly. How could eating that fruit destroy the perfection of their nature, and entail guilt and misery upon themselves and their latest posterity? 3dly. Why should the earth be cursed for the transgression of man?

Supposing we were not able to furnish satisfactory answers to these questions, that circumstance would not justify any person in withholding his assent to the portion of sacred history to which they relate. "Secret

Let it be recollected, however, that though our defection is a necessary consequence of the fall of our first parents, it by no means follows that if they had continued upright, we should. The notion of a covenant "that Adam should stand as well as fall for himself and his posterity," appears to me totally unsupported by Scripture. We obviously suffer by his fall; and, if he had stood, we might have been benefited by it in some way: yet some of his progeny, we know not how early or how late, might, by virtue of their freedom, have introduced sin and all its miserable attendants into the world. In this view it would rather seem that the fall of the first pair was a benefit to mankind; because the partial though extensive introduction of sin, might have caused many to perish irretriev ably, there being no provision for their escape; whereas the foreseen universality of the disorder led, in the exuberance of the Divine mercy, to the gracious plan which furnishes us with a universal and all-sufficient remedy. But on such a topic it behoves us to speak with reverence: I have ventured simply to suggest this thought, because I have found it tend to remove from the minds of well-disposed but undecided men, one of their greatest objections to the doctrine of the fall."

"things belong unto God:" and though he has been graciously pleased to reveal unto us every thing essential to our well-being here, and that is calculated to invite and draw us to eternal felicity hereafter, we have no reason to expect that all the questions, doubts, and speculations, which might be started by ingenious men should be cleared up by immediate revelation. When an apostle indulged in useless inquiries, the reply of his Master was, "What is that to thee? follow thou "me;" (~) and if Jesus were speaking to many querists in our days, he might employ similar language: The difficulties, however, to which the present questions relate are by no means insurmountable. To the first it may be replied, that none but God can be absolutely independent: that dependance in a creature, without some criterion or test of that dependance, is unintelligible, or, in truth, a contradiction; because it ould in such case become with regard to that creature state of independence; that in a free and rational reature this test of dependance should be such as would often remind him of his dependance, and lead him to acknowledge it; that this acknowledgment could only be by obedience, that is, by some restraint of natural liberty; that the first and only man and woman upon earth could not be guilty of any of the crimes which arise from the connexion of human beings with society-were safely prevented by mutual affection, from committing any crime with regard to each other—and could therefore only sin by infringing upon the obedience due to their Maker. It seems

(x) John, xxi. 22.

almost idle to propose such questions, yet it may serve still farther to show the suitableness of the actual prohibition to Adam's state, if we ask, could he be tempted to make idols when he thought himself Lord of all creatures? would a temptation to sabbath-breaking avail with him who had no need to work? To kill -who? his wife, and be left alone? To steal or to covet -when every thing was his own? To bear false witness —against whom? To commit adultery—impossible? Since, then, some restraint of natural liberty was necessary, and some permanent and visible memorial of man's dependance upon his Creator beneficial, what could be more proper and easy than a restraint of his appetite from one fruit, amidst an infinite variety of others equally delicious? what more worthy the wisdom and goodness of the Supreme Being, than the prohibition of a fruit which He knew would be injurious to man? what more kind and merciful than the placing the dangerous and prohibited object (expressly prohibited because it was dangerous) in so conspicuous a situation as to preclude the possibility of its being mistaken for any other?

The cavil about this fruit's being an object of temptation, is almost too idle to deserve specific notice; for surely no being can be out of the reach of temptation but God alone. The same may be said respecting the puerile objection founded on the supposed disproportion between the crime and the punishment. "Was

66

66

man and his posterity to incur death for eating an apple?" No. But who ever said this was the case? The sin consisted not simply in eating the

fruit, but in breaking the commandment of God by so doing.

Besides, though this act of disobedience may appear very trivial to those who do not duly consider it; "a "little reflection will render it evident that it contains "in it the seeds of all sin. It was ingratitude. God "had, of his free bounty, given to man every thing "that could be conducive to his happiness; yet he "could not refrain from that one fruit which God had "reserved for his own purposes. It was breach of "trust: he was placed in the garden to keep and to "dress it; every thing else was his own; yet he availed "himself of the confidence placed in him, to take "what God had told him was to be reserved. It was “rebellion; he knowingly put forth his hand to do "what God had prohibited. It was intemperance;→→→ "Eve saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes, and she did eat, and gave to her hus"band also, and he did eat. It was ambition ;—they

66

66

imagined that they were to become as gods, knowing "good and evil. It was charging God with false"hood:-God had said, in the day thou eatest of it "thou shalt surely die. Had Adam believed that de"claration, he would as soon have eaten of the most "deadly poison as of that fruit. But the serpent said ye shall not surely die, and Adam believed the serpent rather than God, and proved this by the overt "act of eating the fruit. Are these to be represented

66

66

as forming no just ground of expulsion and exclusion "from the Divine presence?" (xx)

(zz) Carlile on the Deity of Christ, p. 416.

With regard to the second question, it may be simply necessary to remind the querist, that even now there are fruits, the eating of which will destroy the best bodily and mental constitution upon earth, will inflame the blood, cause frenzies, and in many cases idiotism. Might not, then, some such fruit as now produces these deleterious effects upon the human constitution, operate most unfavourably upon those of our first parents? Might it not, in consequence of its previously endowed properties, ordained for a specific purpose, sow the seeds of disorder and death in their mortal frames-weaken the energy of their minds, and reduce their god-like understandings to the present standard of ordinary men? Might it not destroy the just equilibrium of their powers, and render passion no longer subordinate to reason-thus occasioning guilt, misery, disease,—and (since man can, by a necessity of his nature, only produce his like) entailing these upon their posterity to the latest ages?-If there be any thing unreasonable in these admissions, I confess I am unable to detect it.

As to the circumstance included in the third question, it was clearly the effect of mercy, not of relentless fury, as the inquiry usually implies. When man by his folly and disobedience had contracted a mortal disease, and had merely the power of communicating to his children that “life” which "is nothing but their death begun,” surely it was the height of mercy in an insulted God, to take away some of its allurements and fascinations from a world which man must quit—to make the earth the scene of troubles and disquietude, as soon as life