rior rank, and of the superiority with which he was invested. The transaction was with the man. The command was given to him. But it was evidently understood as applicable also to the woman. So Satan regarded it (ch. 3: 1); so the woman regarded it (v. 3); and so it was evidently regarded both by Adam and by God. The man was thus deemed qualified to receive laws which should be binding on his wife and family just as man now, by the constitution of society, is qualified to receive laws, and to act for his partner in life, in some respects, and for his children. He was regarded as the head of the family and of the race, and a law given to him, was, in fact, a law given to her, and to the entire race. On this principle society is organized still; and on this principle the world still acts.

6. The whole narrative is against the supposition which has been made by many that Eve was guilty in this affair, only because the sin of Adam was imputed to her. That this opinion should have ever been held may appear strange, and increYet it has been so held; and, indeed, it is indispensable to the doctrine that the sin of ADAM is imputed to his posterity. For unless this be held it may follow that the sin of Eve may have as certainly affected their posterity as his. But the absurdity of this opinion is manifest. 1. There is not the shadow of a declaration that the sin of Adam was imputed to her, any more than there is that her sin was imputed to him. 2. Her offence was just as much a violation of the law as his; and in the same sense. The law was given to both; both were bound by it; and there is no specification that she violated it in one sense and he in another; that her violation was an ordinary offence, his a violation of a covenant; that her sin was not to affect their posterity, his was. They are mentioned as offences of the same kind; violations of the same law; and as subjecting themselves to the same penalty. 3. There are intimations of the same guilt in the transaction. Eve was personally guilty, and not guilty by imputation, and was so adjudged, ch. 3: 16. Adam was personally guilty and was so adjudged, ch. 3: 17. The serpent was personally guilty and was so adjudged, ch. 3: 14. In all this there is no intimation that Adam was guilty personally, and as the representative, and Eve only by imputation. The direct contrary was evidently the fact. The doctrine is absurd. The very statement of it is contrary to the narrative, and to common sense. That Eve should first sin, and then that this sin should not be charged upon her-should be passed over

-and that in regard to the violation of this law, she should be held to be innocent until Adam had offended, and then that she became guilty only by his sin being charged on her as her representative, is so contrary to the history, and is such a confounding of all proper notions of innocence and guilt, and of law and justice, that it is presumed no mind, unless trained long in the trammels of technical theology, can possibly believe it. If Eve was not guilty by eating the forbidden fruit, it is natural to ask why she was sentenced for this act, and why was not the sentence for his act alone? ch. 3: 16. If she was guilty, and she was sentenced for this, and for this alone, then how could his sin be charged on her as her representative? And how would it be just at any rate? And where is there the slightest evidence of the fact? But if the law was given to Eve as well as to Adam; if she was held to be guilty in the same sense that he was; if the matter was a personal matter in both cases; if she was sentenced for her offence, and he for his, then it follows that here is one at least of the human family to whom his sin was not imputed; and then it follows that any notion of a peculiar covenant transaction with him, in which she was not concerned, is a figment of scholastic theology, and not a doctrine of Moses. And it is clear also, that unless the doctrine can be made out that the sin of Adam-though subsequent to her sin,—was imputed to her, and that she was held to be innocent until he violated the command, the doctrine that he alone stood as the representative of the race, is one that receives no countenance from this passage.

- to him

7. The doctrine of Moses (Gen. iii), and of Paul (Rom. 5: 12) is, therefore, that the sin which introduced all guilt into the world, and all our wo was that of the united pair· the soIcial head of the human race called in their union (Gen. 5: 1, 2) ADAM. To this united pair the law was given first as then alone (Gen. 2: 15-17) before Eve was made; to her through him as being formed from him, and as being a part of himself (Gen. 2: 21-24); to him as being the superior in dignity, and rank, and authority, but also given as binding equally on her, involving her in guilt, when she violated it, of the same kind as his (Gen. 3: 16); subjecting them alike to its penalty; and by their united crime the crime of the united pair - the "one flesh" joined in the bonds of marriage, constituting the oneness of the sin or transgression which whelmed in ruin the whole human race. Had Eve alone sinned the command had been

broken, and a train of guilt and wo would have been introduced. She had been personally as guilty as she was when he fell. His fall made no difference in her crime; nor in its punishment. His fall completed the transgression; united them in guilt as they had been in innocence; in grief as they had been in bliss; in sickness as they had been in health; in subjection to the appropriate curse of the Creator as they had been in his favor; in the certainty of tears, and pain, and the corruption of the grave as they had been in joy, 'and the hope of immortality. The united pair fell-each personally guilty -and thus the ADAM (Gen. 5: 1, 2),

Brought death into the world and all our wo.

II. The next inquiry in regard to this law respects its nature. The statement of Moses is (Gen. 2: 16, 17), that God gave him permission to partake of the fruit of all the trees of the garden with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It is needless to say that this statement has been made the subject of unsparing derision by the enemies of the Bible. They have alleged that no such tree exists; that the whole command was ridiculous; that to require the man endowed with an immortal nature, made in the image of God, and with dominion over the works of his hands, to abstain from a specified species of fruit was childish, and unworthy of God; and that to make the eternal destiny of himself and of countless millions to depend on so trifling a matter as eating or abstaining from an apple-for so infidels choose to term this fruit - was palpably unjust. The first inquiry is, into the account which Moses has given of the tree of "the knowledge of good and

evil."

The account in Gen. 2: 17 is, that it was a tree of knowing good and evil." The LXX render it, "the tree of knowing good and evil," i. e. the tree by which they were to be known, or might be ascertained. It has been supposed by some that the meaning is the same as when the same phrase is applied to infants to designate their entire ignorance, as in Deut. 1: 39. Is. 3: 16. Jonah 4: 11. But the expression in Deut. 1: 39, refers rather to the moral character of children as not having actually committed sin; or as having no personal, practical knowledge between good and evil. And in this sense that expression may be parallel with this, and may denote the same VOL. IX. No. 25.

24

thing. The evident meaning is, that somehow by eating of the forbidden fruit of this tree they would obtain a knowledge of the distinction between good and evil to which they would otherwise be strangers.

A particular tree is designated as having stood in the midst of the garden. Gen. 3: 3. We are not, however, by any means, led by this statement to suppose that there was only one tree of this kind; or that there was any physical property in it to convey the knowledge of good and evil; or that it was of a species that has since ceased to exist, or which is now unknown. The name was given to it evidently by ANTICIPATION of the effect which would follow if the man should partake of its prohibited fruit. The narrative leads us to suppose that this was designated as a simple test of obedience; an appointed, or designated thing by which it would be known whether Adam would, or would not obey. Any simple act would have done this as well as the designation of a forbidden tree. Had Adam been prohibited from crossing a certain line, or rivulet; had he been told not to ascend a certain hill; or not to pluck a certain flower; or even not to look in a certain direction, it would equally have been a test of obedience. The tree was probably one of a species which abounded in Eden. It occupied a conspicuous place in the garden (Gen. 3: 6); and he would be, therefore, perpetually reminded of the law, and of the duty of allegiance. Obedience demanded no self-denial where all the senses might be gratified, and not improbably from trees of the same species and bearing the same fruit as that which was prohibited; and the whole matter was therefore reduced to the simple inquiry whether man was, or was not disposed to obey the command of his Maker. The law was simple; easily obeyed; adapted to the newly formed being of limited knowledge, and of little acquaintance with his relations.

In regard to the meaning of the terms in the command, we may observe,

1. That the word knowledge here cannot be supposed to mean simply intellectual knowledge, or a capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. Because (a) such knowledge is not sinful; and it is every where regarded in the Scriptures as creditable in moral beings to be able to make that distinction. God has that power in the highest degree, and therefore it cannot have been designed to prohibit this, or to suppose that the participation of the forbidden fruit would have communicated this

knowledge. (b) It is well known that the words to know, and knowledge are every where in the Scriptures used to denote not only simple intelligence, but an experimental sense, or an experiencing of the thing known. Comp. Ps. 101: 4. Matth. 7: 23. Rom. 8: 7. See the concordance under the words know and knowledge. The word here means, therefore, that by partaking of this fruit Adam would have a practical acquaintance with, an experimental sense of the distinction between good and evil. We are to remember that before this, his knowledge of the distinction must have been imperfect, and the result of vague conjecture. He had seen no evil; he had felt none. Around him all was purity, and bliss; within all was contentment and innocence. Before the fatal act all was conjecture; after it, all was fatal knowledge. Even now, with all our knowledge and observation on the evils of the world, there is a distinction between our views of evil before we experience it and subsequently, which may justify us in calling the one ignorance, and the other knowledge. A man sees the effects of intemperance. But between simple observation of it, and actually becoming a drunkard and experiencing its ills there is all the difference between ignorance and knowledge. A man reasons about affliction. But between his reasoning, and the actual loss of a child, there is all the difference between vague, unmeaning conjecture and knowledge of the deepest and most painful certainty.

2. The words "good and evil," may have one of two significations. They may mean either moral good and evil, i. e. holiness and sin, or they may mean happiness and misery. The words are used in both senses often in the Scriptures. Probably the two ideas are here blended. Holiness and happiness, and sin and misery are united, and one follows in the train of the other. The sense is, that by violating this command they would have an experimental acquaintance with the difference between holiness and sin, and as a consequence an acquaintance with the difference between sin and wo.

Such, then, was the obvious nature of the command given to our first parents. It was a simple law- so simple as to some minds to become the object of contempt and ridicule by its very simplicity. It was plain, and intelligible, and easy to be obeyed. It involved no self-denial, where all was abundant; and could only be violated by a wanton curiosity, or by the mere love of disobedience. It was easy to be obeyed; adapted to