positive injunction; when the sole inducement to perform it is his command; it is in these circumstances, that it is known whether we duly feel and recognise our moral dependence upon him. The morality of an action does not depend upon its abstract nature, but upon its relation to the law of God. Men seem often to judge of actions, as they judge of material substances, by their bulk. What is great in itself or in its consequences, they will admit to be a sin; but what appears little, they pronounce to be a slight fault, or no fault at all. Had Adam, it has been remarked, been possessed of preternatural power, and wantonly and wickedly exerted it in blasting the beauty of paradise, and turning it into a scene of desolation, they would have granted that he was guilty of a great and daring offence, for which a curse was justly pronounced upon him. But they can see no harm in so trifling a matter as the eating of a little fruit. Nothing however is more fallacious than such reasoning; the essence of sin is the transgression of a law; and whether that law forbids you to commit murder, or to move your finger, it is equally transgressed when you violate the precept. Whatever the act of disobedience is, it is rebellion against the law-giver; it is a renunciation of his authority; it dissolves that moral dependence upon him, which is founded on the nature of things, and is necessary to maintain the order and happiness of the universe. The injunction therefore to abstain from the tree of knowledge, was a proper trial of the obedience of our first parent; and the violation of it deserved the dreadful punishment which was denounced and executed. He was put to the test, whether the will of God was sacred in his eyes; and he was punished because he gave the preference to his own.

The command, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, was accompanied with a penalty, to be inflicted in case of transgression; "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Into the extent of this penalty, I shall afterwards inquire; and at present shall only observe, that while he was obviously threatened with the loss of the present life by the separation of his soul from his body, he was farther exposed to the deprivation of the divine favour, and the everlasting misery consequent upon it. Although a promise was not expressly made, yet it was implied in the threatening. If death would be the punishment of transgression, life would be the reward of obedience; the continuance not only of his animal life without end, but of all the happiness which he enjoyed in fellowship with his Maker, with such augmentations as his Maker might be pleased to confer in the exercise of his bounty, and in adaptation to the progressive and expanding faculties of his mind. În this transaction, there are all the constituents of a covenant. There were two parties, God and man; there was a condition prescribed, which man, as he was in duty bound, engaged to perform; there was a penalty, which would be incurred in case of failure; and there was a reward, to which he would be entitled by the fulfilment of the terms. It is worthy of attention, that although, through the sin of man, the consequences of this transaction have been fatal, considered in itself it was a proof of the goodness of God. Its immediate aim was to insure the happiness of our whole race, in a compendious way, by suspending it upon the obedience of our common progenitor, to whom the condition prescribed was perfectly easy, and no inducement was wanting to excite him to fulfil it. Besides, it put it in his power to acquire a right to immortal felicity, to which he could have possessed no claim, on the ground of the value or the extent of his services. Whatever obedience he was able to perform, he owed it to God, from whom he had received all his powers, physical and moral, Merit on the part of a creature, towards the Author of his being, and of all his privileges and blessings, is impossible; the idea of it is manifestly absurd. But, in consequence of the promise of God, that, if our first parent should obey his command, he would reward him, an opportunity VOL. 1.-57 2N2

was furnished of establishing a claim upon his faithfulness, for his own felicity and that of his descendants. This convention between God and man, is sometimes called the Covenant of Life, because life or happiness was the subject of the promise; and more frequently the Covenant of Works, because works or obedience was the condition of it. Of this covenant, the tree of life, which also grew in the garden, may be considered as a seal. It probably received its name, not because there was some mysterious virtue in its fruit to render the body immortal; but because, if Adam had obeyed the voice of his Maker, he would have been allowed to eat of it, as a pledge or earnest of the eternal life to which he had now obtained a right. I take this opportunity of stating, with respect to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that it was probably so called, because, as is often said, man should eventually know good and evil by its means; good by the loss of it, and evil by painful experience or rather because, if he abstained from violating it, he should know good, or continue to enjoy it; but otherwise, he should actually feel the evil of the threatening.

But, although the law given to man was easy, it was soon broken. The event is related by Moses: "Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."* Some consider this passage as an allegorical representation of the origin of moral evil. It is unnecessary to inquire how they explain it, as they have nothing to guide them but their own fancies; and some give one account of it, and others another. There seems to be no reason for deviating from the literal sense, (which is favoured by other passages of Scripture), notwithstanding some difficulties which occur in the narrative. The chief difficulty consists in what is said of the serpent. There is no doubt that the animal known by that name, was employed in the temptation of our first parents; but it may seem incredible that it should have uttered articulate sounds, as it was destitute of reason, and the gift of speech is known to be the peculiar attribute of man. The only solution of the difficulty is to suppose, that the invisible agent in the temptation, of whom we shall immediately speak, was permitted to cause such vibrations of the air, by means of the organs of the serpent, or in its mouth, as made the woman hear the words already recited. The serpent had no knowledge of what was spoken, and attached no meaning to the words which it uttered; they were properly the words of the superior being, who used it as his instrument. No man should say that the thing was impossible, unless he can prove that it was impossible for a superior being, with divine permission, so to move the air, that it should convey such sounds to the ear as he pleased; and every doubt should be superseded by the authority of Moses.

I have referred to an invisible agent, because it is certain that the serpent itself could not have spoken and reasoned; and the Scripture signifies, that the fall of our first parents was owing to the solicitations of a spiritual being. It calls the Devil, the old serpent,† in allusion to this transaction; and because, by his deceitful arts, he brought death into the world, it says, "He was a mur† Rev. xii. 9.

• Gen. iii, 1-6.

derer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth.” The author of the temptation was that spirit, who is the leader and prince of the apostate angels. Limited as is our information respecting that order of creatures, we know that some of them rebelled against God; that for their sin, they were cast down into hell; but that, although reserved in chains to the judgment of the great day, they are not constantly confined to their prison, but are permitted to visit the earth. This liberty had been granted to their chief soon after the creation; and he employed it in carrying on his hostile designs against God, upon whom he wished to avenge himself for the punishment which he had justly inflicted upon him. While this was his principal motive, we may conceive him also to have been actuated by envy towards man, who enjoyed the favour of his Maker; and whose happiness in paradise was an image of the heavenly bliss from which he had himself been excluded. If he should succeed in seducing man from his allegiance, he would involve him in the same misery with himself; an event which would be gratifying to the malignity of his nature; and, at the same time, he would defeat the purpose of his Creator, whom he hated, and the obscuration of whose glory would be his highest triumph. Thus impelled by the darkest and fiercest principles of his nature, he was impatient to accomplish his design; and soon after our first parents had begun to taste the sweets of existence, he attempted, with too much success, to ensnare them.

The prohibition respecting the tree of knowledge, furnished the occasion of the temptation; and its name supplied him with an argument to enforce it. He boldly affirmed, that the eating of its fruit, instead of subjecting them to death, as they feared, would exalt them in the scale of intelligence; and that they should become as gods, or beings of a superior order, knowing good and evil. Remark the consummate art of the deceiver. Had he addressed himself to the animal part of their nature; had he held out the allurement of sensual pleasure; had he appealed only to the beauty and delicious taste of the fruit, his proposal would have been immediately rejected. Still untainted with sin, they were not to be drawn aside from the path of rectitude, by those low and paltry gratifications, which exert so powerful an influence upon their degraded children. He adapted the temptation to the nobler part of their nature; and held out the specious but deceitful promise of such an augmentation of wisdom, as should elevate them above their present condition, and render them worthy to associate with the inhabitants of the celestial regions.

It is difficult to conceive how they could be imposed upon by the words of the serpent, between which and the words of God there was an express contradiction. We may be apt to think that were a person of the highest reputation, or even an angel from heaven, to affirm, that any thing which God had told us was not true, we would not give credit to him. How then is it possible, that they, who were so much superior to us in intellectual and moral endowments, should be persuaded that their Creator had deceived them? The question is an important one, and it is not easy to return a satisfactory answer to it. It is no light task to explain by what process sin found access into a holy soul.

Man was endowed, not only with the knowledge of his duty and a fixed inclination to it, but also with various appetites, affections, and desires, which were constituent principles of his nature. These having been given to him by his Maker, were innocent in themselves, and might be innocently gratified; and as long as they were subject to his superior principles, and regulated by them, he was perfect according to the state in which he was placed. But, although it was the office of the moral principle to superintend and direct them, their excitement might anticipate its interference, and be suddenly caused by the presence of the proper objects; whatever seemed good was naturally fitted

• John viii. 44.

It

to awaken desire, and whatever seemed evil, naturally to awaken aversion. follows, that, if conscience was hindered by any means from doing its duty, if an appetite or a desire was permitted for a moment to exist without the proper check, the harmony of the soul would be immediately disturbed; and the desire or appetite having acquired new strength, would press forward to its gratification without waiting for the approbation of conscience. Let us apply these observations to the case before us. In man in a state of innocence, the desire of knowledge must have existed, because, being a finite creature, he was capable of endless improvement in wisdom: all that was necessary was, that the gratification of this desire should be sought only by such means as his Creator might approve. In this state of mind, the prospect of acquiring knowledge would naturally excite the desire; and at this critical moment, the exercise of virtue consisted in subjecting it to moral restraint. To permit the desire to continue, without due consideration of the means, was a fault; and besides, gave it time to gather such force as might impel to immediate indulgence. In this way, we may account for the sin of our first parents. The affirmation of the serpent, that the eating of the forbidden fruit would be followed by a great increase of knowledge, awakened their desire; while they were reflecting upon his words, the moral principle was thrown off its guard; the desire became urgent, and fixed their attention solely upon its object; which at length so fascinated them, that they lost all power of resistance, and yielded to the temptation. The desire perverted their judgment, as it still does in the case of their descendants, who come to believe according to their wishes, and call evil good, and good evil.

From this account, it appears that our first parents were guilty of sin in their hearts, before they committed it with their hands; and that the eating of the forbidden fruit was only the outward expression of the vitiated state of their minds. The desire of knowledge by unlawful means, being indulged, disordered their whole moral constitution; and they had already rebelled against God, before they openly violated his law. "Lust," or desire," when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Although this account of the origin of moral evil should not be deemed satisfactory, it is certain that our first parents did break the commandment of God. That the fault was entirely their own, and that God was in no sense the Author of their sin, will appear from the following observations, which are chiefly a repetition of what has been formerly stated.

First, God created man perfectly holy, with no defect, no weakness, no tendency to sin. Every power was conferred upon him which was necessary to enable him to maintain the rank, and to perform the duty assigned to him.

Secondly, God set before him the fittest motives to secure his obedience. He promised as its reward, eternal happiness to himself and his offspring; he denounced death as the penalty of sin. The trial which he prescribed to him, was perfectly easy. The restraint imposed upon him, could hardly be considered as any restraint at all, surrounded as he was with the choice and abundant productions of paradise...

Thirdly, God did not withdraw, in the moment of danger, the ability with which he had furnished man for his duty. His holiness was unimpaired; his faculties were continued in their full vigour; no means were employed to darken his understanding, and to seduce his affections, except by the tempter. God was still present with him, to afford him assistance, if it was needed, and he should ask it; he did not abandon him till he actually sinned.

If we attend to these observations, we shall perceive that the fall of man was entirely owing to himself. That God could have so strengthened him,

James i. 15.

that he should have been invincible, is certain; but, as he had already impart ed to him sufficient strength, there is not the slightest ground for thinking, that he was bound to give him more. Had Adam exerted the power which he possessed, he would have stood. God had done all for him, which either justice or goodness required him to do; the failure was wholly on his part. His fall was the consequence, not of want of ability, but of an adventitious state of mind, which hindered him from exerting it.

I shall not take up your time with an attempt to shew, that by this single act, man transgressed all the precepts of the law, but shall leave this exercise of ingenuity to those who can find entertainment in it, and think that it will serve some valuable purpose. I would remind you, however, of the words of the Apostle James, that he who "offends in one point, is guilty of all." His meaning is, not that he is guilty of a formal breach of every commandment, but that he virtually subverts the whole law, by rebelling against the authority upon which it is founded. The words are obviously applicable to the first sin. It was the revolt of man from his Creator. It was an explicit declaration, that he would no longer be subject to him, that his own will was his law, and that instead of submitting to divine guidance and control, he would walk according to the sight of his eyes, and the desires of his heart. It was an avowed insurrection against the supremacy of God, and an attempt to establish a separate and independent dominion upon earth; to wrest the sceptre from the hands of the Almighty, and commit it to the erring reason and wayward passions of his creatures. Trifling, therefore, as the act may seem to the thoughtless and profane, it implied all the guilt of the most daring impiety, and merited the dreadful punishment which ensued.

The immediate consequences of the fall, in relation to our first parents, are detailed in the narrative of Moses. First, "their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked."* The fact, that their bodies were without covering, they knew before; and the opening of their eyes, and their knowing that they were naked, must mean something different. The result of eating the forbidden fruit was not the acquisition of supernatural wisdom, as they fondly hoped; but a discovery that they had reduced themselves to a wretched and unprotected condition, being divested of original righteousness, and exposed to the wrath of their Maker. Hence they covered themselves with fig-leaves, and hid themselves among the trees of the garden, that he might not find them out. That Moses does not mean bodily nakedness, may be inferred from the words of Adam, who says not, I was ashamed,' but “I was afraid, because I was naked." The nakedness which gave rise to fear, must have been the nakedness of the soul. Our first parents were conscious of guilt, and wished to avoid a meeting with their Judge.-Secondly, they were summoned into his presence, and the sentence was pronounced upon them, by which they were subjected to all the miseries of life, and finally to death: "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."-Lastly, they were expelled from paradise, a place too sacred and delightful to be the abode of the guilty; and sent into the wide world, now cursed for their sake, in which toil and trouble awaited them: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever; Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden, cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."‡

God seemed to threaten Adam with immediate death as the punishment of sin: "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." As he did

• Gen. iii. 7.

† Ib. iii. 19.

Tb. iii. 22-24.

§ Ib. ii. 17.