to awaken desire, and whatever seemed evil, naturally to awaken aversion. It 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 imparted 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."t-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 Ib. iii. 22-24. § Ib. ii. 17.

• Gen. iii. 7.

† Ib. iii. 19.

.

not die on that day, we must conclude, either that the execution was delayed in the exercise of Divine patience, or that the apparent was not the real meaning of the sentence. It may import, that as soon as he transgressed, he should become mortal; and in this sense he did immediately die. He was dead in law; the seeds of mortality were sown in his constitution; a change took place in his body preparatory to its ultimate dissolution. It was now subject to internal disorders, and external injuries; it was exposed to the wasting influence of the elements; it was doomed to decline in vigour and activity, to feel the infirmities of old age, and at last to sink into the grave. At the same time, his mind was disturbed with fear hitherto unknown; and the awful pros

pect of the termination of his earthly career aggravated the other evils which he suffered, and embittered his remaining pleasures. He lost all hope of the happiness, which would have been the reward of his obedience, and would have consisted in the enjoyment of endless life and felicity. His right to it depended upon his fulfilling the terms of the covenant; and as he failed to fulfil them, he had no claim to the promise. That noble prize, which would have blessed him and his posterity through the ages of eternity, was for ever forfeited. He fell under the curse; and being unable to extricate himself from its power, he was still less capable of regaining, by his utmost exertions, the immense reward which, having been once rejected, would not be offered again. He was ejected from paradise, that he might not, with presumptuous hand, pluck the fruit of the tree of life, the symbol and seal of immortality. In the day of his transgression, he underwent spiritual death. His sin shed its baneful influence over his soul, and, in a moment, turned its beauty into deformity. Such was the constitution under which he was placed, and such was the nature of things, that the image of God must either be preserved entire, or be totally lost. The moment that the principle of rebellion was admitted, the principle of obedience was expelled; as soon as he began to love earthly things, the love of God was extinguished. When the tie was broken which connected him with his Maker, from whom those influences proceeded, which inspired and sustained his moral excellence, his holy dispositions withered and died, like the verdure of a tree plucked up by the roots. Nothing remained but his natural faculties, weakened and corrupted; a darkened understanding, a wayward will, sensual appetites, and irregular affections. The change was sudden, but it was complete. Human nature was essentially the same, but it was divested of its brightest ornaments. All its glory was gone, and it was now poor, miserable, and disgusting; an object from which he, who had lately pronounced it to be good, turned away his eyes with abhorrence.

Such were the effects of the fall of our first parents, but they did not terminate upon them. Adam, as we shall see in our next lecture, was the federal head of the human race; and as his obedience would have ensured the happiness of all his descendants, so his transgression involved them all in guilt and perdition. The fountain being polluted, the stream which flows from it is impure; the tree being corrupt, the fruit which it bears is also corrupt. It is owing to his sin that death has ever since been making havoc of mankind, and sweeping one generation after another into the grave; it is owing to his sin that holiness has been banished from the earth, and crimes and miseries have been multiplied from age to age; it is owing to his sin that myriads of beings, capable of immortal felicity and endless improvement, have been lost, and are doomed to spend an interminable existence in sorrow and despair: "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."*-Some of the topics which have now been slightly sketched, will be resumed and illustrated at greater length in the subsequent lectures.

Rom. v. 12.

LECTURE XLV.

ON THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

Covenant of Works-Definition of a Covenant-Scriptural Evidence of the Covenant between God and our First Parent-The Parties to it, God and Adam-Adam as the Federal Head of the Human Race-The Condition of the Covenant, Obedience-Its extent.

In the preceding Lecture, I made some observations upon the test of obedience which was prescribed to our first parent, when he was forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; from which it appeared, that the transaction between him and his Maker was of a federal nature, But the subject holds such an important place in religion, and in systems of Theology, that it must not be slightly passed over, and I purpose, therefore, to devote this lecture to a more ample illustration of it.

A covenant is often defined to be an agreement between two parties upon certain terms, and comprehends a promise made by the one to the other, accompanied with a condition which the other accepts, and upon the performance of which he becomes entitled to the promise. Some add a penalty, if either of the parties be fallible; but it is not essential, and may be omitted, as it is in those covenants between man and man, in which the only consequence of a failure on the part of the person, who had engaged to perform a particular service, is, that he loses the stipulated reward; but this cannot properly be denominated a penalty. In the case before us, however, a penalty was subjoined; because, man being under the highest obligations to obey the will of his Creator, justice would not permit him, in the event of transgression, to escape with impunity.

The Covenant of Works has been defined to be, a convention between God and man concerning the method of obtaining eternal happiness, accompanied with a threatening of death in the case of disobedience; or the covenant which God made with Adam as the representative of his posterity, and in which he promised eternal life upon the condition of obedience, not only to the moral law written on his heart, but to the positive precept respecting the tree of knowledge. It is called the Covenant of Nature, because it was entered into with man while he was in his natural state, which was a state of innocence. It is called the Covenant of Life, because life was promised; but improperly, I apprehend, since this designation does not express its peculiar character, and points out no distinction between it and the Covenant of Grace, the same blessing being promised in both. It is more commonly called the Covenant of Works, and this denomination is evidently appropriate; shewing us at once what is its nature, and in what respect it differs from the other covenant, which bestows its reward not upon him who works, but upon him who believes.

It has been objected, that there is no mention of a covenant of works either in Genesis, or in any other passage of Scripture. Whether this be strictly true, we shall afterwards see; but in the meantime, we observe that, although the words should not be used, yet, if the thing intended by them is virtually taught, there is no good reason against a phrase, by which it is conveniently and intelligibly expressed. It is necessary for clearness and expedition, to adopt compendious modes of speech which are understood by all parties. We read the Scriptures, not merely to learn the words, but to collect the sense; and when we clothe it in a different dress, if it is faithfully represented, although the words are human, the sentiment is divine. It is objected, that

the transaction with Adam could not be federal; because, in a covenant, it is required that both parties should be free and independent, having power to give, or to withhold their consent; but that Adam, being a creature, had no choice, and was bound to acquiesce in the will of his Creator. Hence it has been thought, that it ought to be considered rather as a law than as a covenant. It is acknowledged that the qualification mentioned is necessary in a human covenant, or that the parties should be sui juris, and stipulate with perfect liberty and that a condition imposed upon a person against his will would not be obligatory in law. But, although Adam was not at liberty to accept or reject as he might please, yet he freely gave his consent, as we may presume from the state of his mind, which recognized no law but the command of his Maker; and he came under a voluntary engagement to yield obedience to the precept enjoined, and to obey for the specific purpose of obtaining the reward, and avoiding the penalty. The transaction was federal on the part of God, as he proposed a condition, sanctioned with a promise and a threatening; and on the part of Adam, as he pledged himself to fulfil the condition.

covenant.

I formerly stated, that in this transaction there are found all the parts of a There were two parties, God and Adam. We shall afterwards have an opportunity to shew, in what light both should be considered. There was a condition, consisting in obedience to the positive precept, which God was pleased to issue for the trial of man's fidelity. There was a threatening, although there have been different opinions respecting its import, or in what extent the term death, should be understood. There was a promise, not distinctly expressed, but implied in the threatening; for, if death was to be the consequence of sin, it clearly follows, that life was to be the reward of obedience. We cannot suppose, that a Being who delights in the happiness of his creatures would have placed man in such disadvantageous circumstances, that, while his transgression of the law would subject him to the greatest evil, no positive benefit would result from the most exact performance of his duty. He loves righteousness as much as he hates iniquity; and although there can be no merit in the best exercise of those faculties which are his free gifts, and are sustained by the continual care of his Providence, yet it would not have been consistent with his infinite goodness to have required man to serve him for nought. I may add, that our Saviour seems to refer to the original promise, when he says, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments;"* intimating that there was a reward, according to the divine constitution, as well as a penalty. It is supposed also, in the reasonings concerning the impossibility of justification by works in consequence of human guilt and depravity, that it is owing to his inability to fulfil the terms, that man cannot obtain eternal happiness by the law.

From these observations it appears, that we are warranted to maintain, that there was a federal transaction between God and our first parent, and that, from its nature, it is fitly designated the covenant of works. We may even allege, for the use of such language, the authority of Scripture. In Hosea vi. 7, we read, "But they like men have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against me." On consulting the original, we find this to be the literal version, "they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant." The same Hebrew phrase occurs in Job xxxi. 33. "If I covered my transgression, like Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom ;" and in Psalm lxxxii. 6, 7, "I have said ye are Gods, and all of you children of the Most : High; but ye shall die like men," like Adam. The comparison in these two last is natural and impressive. The descendants of the first man imitate him in attempting to deny or palliate their sin; and the mortality to which he was subjected has descended to them as their inheritance: the most exalted

• Matt. xix. 17.