xxxiv. 10)—who was specially inspired to give a true account of the Creation,-who has given that account in the simplest and most perspicuous language ever used by man,-should have been totally silent as to what, had it been the fact, would have been by far the most important part of the revelation? Is it consonant to any allowable mode of reading the Scriptures, to believe for an instant that a truth of such transcendant moment, would not, like the rest of his information, have been communicated by the inspired writer in direct terms, and not have been left to be gathered by inferences? The thing seems incredible, yet such is the fact, if the common notion be the correct one.

Gen. ii. 8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed (ver. 15.) to dress it and to keep it.

9. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good; the tree of Life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of Knowledge of good and evil.

16. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

17. But of the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

Moses, having declared the objects and order of Creation, "and that God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good," (ch. i. v. 31) that all things were in exact conformity to the design of their Maker,

and therefore perfect in their several kinds, proceeds to describe, in the words just quoted, the situation in which man was placed, and the one only condition, namely the abstinence from the fruit of a particular tree, on which the continuance of the life he had received, so full of all the means of enjoyment, was made to depend.

One can imagine that to a person reading the foregoing account without any previous bias, nothing can appear more plain, clear, and simple, and yet scarcely any portion of the Scriptures has received a greater number of interpretations. To pass by the fanciful reveries of the Jewish doctors, Fawkes says, that the ancient fathers

66

thought that the tree of life had the virtue to repair the animal spirits, and maintain the bodily organs without decay, until man should have been fit to be translated into another world." Now whatever they thought, it is clear that Moses gives not the slightest intimation of any translation to another world, or that man would at any future period be placed in a different state of being'; on the contrary, he most distinctly intimates the permanency of his then happy condition, if he obeyed the command which was given him. Sir William Jones seems to think that, though Moses' account be substantially true, yet that it is probably couched in figurative language; but the extreme simplicity of the narrative, totally void of ornament, and relating all the circumstances

as events which had actually taken place, forbid any such supposition; more especially when it is remembered that its author has, in a great number of instances, shewn his perfect command of the highest order of figurative language, where the subject required it. Bishop Horne considers the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to have been an emblem or symbol of the love of the world, the lust of the flesh-the opornua ragnòs of our Ninth Article; and the tree of life also as symbolical and sacramental: he says; "That some of the objects in Eden were of a sacramental nature we can hardly doubt, when we read of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.'" The fruit of a material tree could not by any virtue inherent in it convey the knowledge of good and evil, or cause that by eating it a man should live for ever: but such fruit might be ordained as a sacrament, upon the participation of which certain spiritual effects should follow. This is entirely conformable to reason, to the nature of man, and to religion." And of nearly the same import was the opinion held by Origen, who says, "who is so weak as to think that God planted a garden like a husbandman, and in it a real tree of life, to be tasted by corporeal teeth, or that the knowledge of good and evil was to be acquired by eating the fruit of another tree?" Now what can be a stronger

proof of the astonishing effects of human prejudices, than the two last quotations. Here are two men of the most unquestionable piety, zeal, learning, and sincerity, declaring, the one in positive terms, the other impliedly, that God could not impart to the fruit of two several trees qualities which should, if such fruits were respectively eaten by man, produce certain effects on him, of which he was previously apprised: in fact, that he could not do that which God himself expressly asserts he had done.

Genesis, iii. 1. 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?

2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3. 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.

4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

*It is worthy of remark that the serpent was the great object of Egyptian idolatry, and indeed its worship seems to have formed a portion of that of the whole heathen world.

14. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15. And I will put enmity between thee and the womau, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

22. 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 for ever.

24. 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.

Without entering into a discussion of the numerous hypotheses concerning the temptation of Eve, which, however, may be reduced under three heads-1st. Those which suppose the whole narrative to be an allegory. 2d. Those which attribute her deception to the agency of a wicked being, of a nature different from any inhabitant of the earth, and called in the New Testament Satan. And 3rd. Those which consider the events to have actually happened as related;-it may not be amiss to remark, that it by no means