_1st_, It was a single tree, not a _species_ of trees, bearing one sort
of fruit, as some suppose: This is evident, because it is expressly
said, that it was planted _in the midst of the garden_, Gen. ii. 9.
_2dly_, The fruit thereof is said, in the same scripture, to _be
pleasant to the sight, and good for food_, as well as that of other
trees, which were ordained for the same purpose. It is a vain thing to
enquire what sort of fruit it was; and it is better to confess our
ignorance hereof, than to pretend to be wise above what is written.
_3dly_, It is called the tree of life. Some suppose, that the principal,
if not the only reason, of its being so called, was, because it was
ordained to preserve man’s natural life, or prevent any decay of nature;
or to restore it, if it were in the least impaired, to its former
vigour. And accordingly they suppose, that, though man was made
immortal, yet some things might have happened to him, which would have
had a tendency to impair his health, in some degree, and weaken and
destroy the temperament of his body, by which means death would
gradually, according to the course of nature, be brought upon him: But,
as a relief against this, he had a remedy always at hand; for the fruit
of this tree, by a medicinal virtue, would effectually restore him to
his former state of health, as much as meat, drink, and rest, have a
natural virtue to repair the fatigues, and supply the necessities of
nature, in those who have the most healthful constitution, which would,
notwithstanding, be destroyed, without the use thereof. But, though
there be somewhat of spirit and ingenuity in this supposition; yet why
may we not suppose, that the use of any other food might have the same
effect, which would be always ready at hand, whenever he had occasion
for it, or wherever he resided?
Therefore I cannot but conclude, that the principal, if not the only
reason, of the tree of life’s being so called, was because it was, by
God’s appointment, a sacramental sign and ordinance for the faith of our
first parents, that, if they retained their integrity, they might be
assured of the blessed event thereof, to wit, eternal life, of which
this was, as it is called in this answer, a pledge; and it contained in
it the same idea, for substance, as other sacraments do, namely, as it
was designed not to confer, but to signify the blessing promised, and as
a farther means to encourage their expectation thereof: Thus our first
parents were to eat of the fruit of this tree, agreeably to the nature
of other sacramental signs, with this view, that hereby the thing
signified might be brought to their remembrance, and they might take
occasion, at the same time, to rely on God’s promise, relating to the
blessing which they expected; and they might be as much assured, that
they should attain eternal life, in case they persisted in their
obedience, as they were, that God had given them this tree, and liberty
to eat thereof, with the expectation of this blessing signified thereby.
Now, to make it appear, that it was designed as a sacramental sign of
eternal life, which was promised in this covenant, we may consider those
allusions to it in the New Testament, whereby the heavenly glory is set
forth: thus it is said, _To him that overcometh will I give to eat of
the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God_, Rev.
ii. 7. and elsewhere, _Blessed are they that do his commandments, that
they may have a right to the tree of life_, chap. xxii. 14. It seems
very plain, that this respects, in those scriptures, the heavenly glory,
which is called the _New Jerusalem_; or it has a particular application
to that state of the church, _When God shall wipe away all tears from
their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor
crying_, chap. xxi. 4. and it is mentioned immediately after, _Christ’s
coming quickly, and his rewards being with him_, chap. xxii. 12. and
there are several other passages, which might be easily observed, which
agree only with the heavenly state. Therefore, since this glory is thus
described, why may we not suppose, that the heavenly state was signified
by this tree to Adam, in paradise?
And, that this may farther appear, let it be considered, that nothing is
more common, in scripture, than for the Holy Ghost to represent the
thing signified by the sign: Thus sanctification, which was one thing
signified by circumcision, is called, _The circumcision made without
hands_, Coloss. ii. 11. and regeneration, which is signified by baptism,
is called, our _being born of water_, John iii. 5. and Christ, whose
death was signified by the passover, is called, _Our Passover_, 1 Cor.
v. 7. Many other instances, of the like nature, might be produced;
therefore, since the heavenly glory is represented by the tree of life,
why may we not suppose, that the reason of its being so called, was,
because it was ordained, at first, to be a sacramental sign or pledge of
eternal life, which our first parents were given to expect, according to
the tenor of that covenant, which they were under?
_Object. 1._ It is objected, by some, that sacramental signs,
ceremonies, or types, were only adapted to that dispensation, which the
church of the Jews were under, and therefore were not agreeable to that
state in which man was at first.
_Answ._ The ceremonial law, it is true, was not known, nor did it take
place, while man was in a state of innocency; nor was it God’s ordinary
way to instruct him then by signs; yet it is not inconsistent with that
state, for God to ordain one or two signs, as ordinances, for the faith
of our first parents, the signification whereof was adapted to the
state, in which they were, any more than our Saviour’s instituting two
significant ordinances under the gospel, _viz._ baptism, and the Lord’s
supper, as having relation to the blessings expected therein, is
inconsistent with this present dispensation, in which we have nothing to
do with the ceremonial law, any more than our first parents had. And all
this argues nothing more, than that God may, if he pleases, in any state
of the church, instruct them in those things, which their faith should
be conversant about, in what way he pleases.
_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that the tree of life was not
designed to be a sacramental sign of the covenant, which our first
parents were under, but rather, as was before observed, an expedient, to
render them immortal in a natural way, inasmuch as when man was fallen,
yet the tree of life had still the same virtue: Accordingly it is said,
_Lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat and
live for ever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden
of Eden; and he drove out the man_: and _placed cherubim and a flaming
sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life_,
Gen. iii. 22, 23, 24. And some extend this objection so far, as that
they suppose man did not eat of the tree of life before he fell, which,
had he done, he would by virtue of his eating of it, have lived for
ever, notwithstanding his sin: or if, as soon as he had fallen, he had
had that happy thought, and so had eaten of it, he might, even then,
have prevented death; and therefore God drove him out of paradise, that
he might not eat of it, that so the curse, consequent upon his fall,
might take effect.
_Answ._ The absurdity of this objection, and the method of reasoning
made use of to support it, will appear, if we consider, that there was
something more lost by man’s fall, besides immortality, which no fruit,
produced by any tree, could restore to him. And, besides, man was then
liable to that curse, which was denounced, by which he was under an
indispensable necessity of returning to the dust, from whence he was
taken; and therefore the tree of life could not make this threatening of
no effect, though man had eaten of it, after his fall: But, since the
whole force of the objection depends on the sense they put on the text
before-mentioned, agreeable thereunto, the only reply that we need give
to it is, by considering what is the true and proper sense thereof.
When it is said, _God drove out the man, lest he should eat of the tree
of life, and live for ever_; the meaning thereof is, as though he should
say, Lest the poor deceived creature, who is now become blind, ignorant,
and exposed to error, should eat of this tree, and think to live for
ever, as he did before the fall, therefore he shall be driven out of
paradise. This was, in some respect, an act of kindness to him, to
prevent a mistake, which might have been of a pernicious tendency, in
turning him aside from seeking salvation in the promised seed. Besides,
when the thing signified, by this tree, was not to be obtained that way,
in which it was before, it ceased to be a sacramental sign; and
therefore, as he had no right to it, so it would have been no less than
a profanation to make a religious use of it, in his fallen state.
2. The other tree, which we read of, whereof our first parents were
forbidden to eat, upon pain of death, is called, _The tree of knowledge,
of good and evil_. Though the fruit of this tree was, in itself, proper
for food, as well as that of any other; yet God forbade man to eat of
it, out of his mere sovereignty, and that he might hereby let him know,
that he enjoyed nothing but by his grant, and that he must abstain from
things apparently good, if he require it. It is a vain thing to pretend
to determine what sort of fruit this tree produced: it is indeed, a
commonly received opinion, that it was an apple tree, or some species
thereof; but, though I will not determine this to be a vulgar error, yet
I cannot but think it a groundless conjecture[49]; and therefore I would
rather profess my ignorance as to this matter.
As to the reason of its being called the tree of knowledge, of good and
evil; some have given great scope to their imaginations, in advancing
groundless conjectures: thus the Jewish historian[50], and, after him,
several rabbinical writers, have supposed, that it was thus described,
as there was an internal virtue in the fruit thereof, to brighten the
minds of men, and, in a natural way, make them wise. And Socinus, and
some of his brethren, have so far improved upon this absurd supposition,
that they have supposed, that our first parents, before they ate of this
tree, had not much more knowledge than infants have, which they found on
the literal sense they give of that scripture, which represents them as
not knowing that they were naked[51]. But enough of these absurdities,
which carry in them their own confutation. I cannot but think, it is
called the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, to signify, that as man
before knew, by experience, what it was to enjoy that good which God had
conferred upon him, the consequence of his eating thereof would be his
having an experimental knowledge of evil.
All that I shall add, concerning this prohibition, which God gave to our
first parents, is, that, as to the matter of it, it was one of those
laws, which are founded in God’s arbitrary will, and therefore the thing
was rendered sinful, only by its being forbidden; nevertheless, man’s
disobedience to it rendered him no less guilty, than if he had
transgressed any of the laws of nature.
Moreover, it was a very small thing for him to have yielded obedience to
this law, which was designed as a trial of his readiness, to perform
universal obedience in all the instances thereof. It was not so
difficult a duty, as that which God afterwards commanded Abraham to
perform, when he bade him offer up his son; neither was he under a
necessity of eating thereof, since he had such a liberal provision of
all things for his sustenance and delight; and therefore his sin, in not
complying herewith, was the more aggravated. Besides, he was expressly
cautioned against it, and told, that _in the day that he eat of it, he
should die_; whereby God, foreseeing that he would disobey this command,
determined to leave him without excuse. This was that transgression by
which he fell, and brought on the world all the miseries that have
ensued thereon.
Footnote 42:
Vide Dr. Wells’ _Sacred Geography_, and the _excursions_ annexed to
it.
Footnote 43:
_See Quest._ cxxxix.
Footnote 44:
_See Quest._ cxvi.
Footnote 45:
If there had been a period in which there was absolutely no existence,
there would never have been any thing. Either man, or his Creator, or
one more remote, has been from eternity, unless we admit the
contradiction of an eternal succession. But because to create implies
power and wisdom, which we have not the least reason to imagine any
creature can possess, either man, and the world he possesses, have
always been, or their maker. The history of man, the structure of
languages, the face of the ground, &c. shew that man and his
habitation have not been from eternity; therefore God is eternal. As
all excellency is in himself or derived from him, his happiness
depends only on himself; and the worlds he has made, are so far
pleasing as they exhibit himself to himself. He could have made his
intelligent creatures all confirmed in holiness, but he chose to
confer liberty, which was a blessing till abused. He knew all the
consequences, and that these would exercise his mercy and justice.
Partial evil he determined should produce universal good, and that no
evil should take place, but that which should eventually praise him.
The first intelligent creatures were purely spiritual, and each stood
or fell for himself. He united in man the spiritual and corporeal
natures; he formed his soul innocent and holy, and made ample
provision for the comfort of his body; and as it would have been
inconvenient to have brought all of the human family, which were to be
in every generation, upon the earth at one time, and still more so,
that, every one standing or falling for himself, the earth should be
the common habitation of beings perfectly holy, happy, and immortal,
and also of cursed perishing beings, he constituted the first man a
representative of his race. “Let us make _man_,” the race in one. To
be fruitful, multiply, fill, and subdue the earth, were directed to
the race. “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.” He did die
spiritually, he lost his innocence, became the subject of guilt,
shame, and fear; and all his posterity inherit the fallen nature.
Being already cursed, when afterwards arraigned and sentenced, it was
only necessary to curse his enjoyments in this world. His posterity
were included, for they are subjected to the same afflictions and
death. If they had not been included in the sentence “dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return,” as they were a part of his dust, not
dying, it would not have been accomplished. That he represented the
race appears also from this, that the command was given to him before
his wife was formed, and also because it does not appear that her eyes
were opened to see her guilt, and miserable condition until he had
eaten of the fruit; then “the eyes of them both were opened.”
The remedy was provided before the creation, and nothing can be shown
to prove that it is not complete in every instance when there is not
actual guilt. That the woman was to have a seed the first parent heard
announced in the sentence against the tempter, whilst standing in
suspense momently in expectation of that death which had been
threatened. If the plural had been used, this could have been no
intimation of the seed Christ. Why was the word _woman_ used, which
excludes the man, and not the term _man_, which would have embraced
both, unless the Son of the virgin was intended? It is all one great
whole, perfectly seen only to God himself. “O the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out.”
Footnote 46:
_Vid. Grot. in Hos._ vi. 7. _Mihi latina hæc interpretatio non
displicet, ut sensus hic sit; sicut Adam, quia pactum meum violavit,
expulsus est ex Hedene; ita æquum est ex sua terra expelli._
Footnote 47:
_When I speak of the advantages being_, for substance the same, _it is
supposed, that there are some circumstances of glory, in which that
salvation that was purchased by Christ, differs from that happiness
which Adam would have been possessed of had he persisted in his
integrity._
Footnote 48:
Yet it is the better opinion, that he was vulnerable only on one
point.
Footnote 49:
_The principal argument brought to prove this, is the application of
that scripture, to this purpose, in Cant. viii. 5._ I raised thee up
under the apple tree; there thy mother brought thee forth, _as if he
should say, the church, when, fallen by our first parents eating the
fruit of this tree, was raised up, when the Messiah was first
promised. But, though this be a truth, yet whether it be the thing
intended, by the Holy Ghost, in that scripture, is uncertain. As for
the opinion of those who suppose it was a fig-tree, as Theodoret,
[Vid. Quest, xxviii. in Gen.] and some other ancient writers; that has
no other foundation, but what we read, concerning our first parents
sewing fig leaves together, and making themselves aprons, which, they
suppose, was done before they departed from the tree, their shame
immediately suggesting the necessity thereof. But others think, that
whatever tree it were, it certainly was not a fig-tree, because it can
hardly be supposed but that our first parents, having a sense of
guilt, as well as shame, would be afraid so much as to touch that
tree, which had occasioned their ruin. Others conclude, that it was a
vine, because our Saviour appointed that wine, which the vine
produces, should be used, in commemorating his death, which removed
the effects of that curse, which sin brought on the world: but this is
a vain and trifling method of reasoning, and discovers what lengths
some men run in their absurd glosses on scripture._
Footnote 50:
_Vid. Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. I. cap. 2._
Footnote 51:
_Vid. Socin. de Stat. Prim. Hom. & Smalc. de ver. & Nat. Dei. Fil._
Quest XXI.
QUEST. XXI. _Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first
created him?_
ANSW. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own
will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment
of God, in eating the forbidden fruit, and thereby fell from the
state of innocency, wherein they were created.
In this answer,
I. There is something supposed, namely, that our first parents were
endued with a freedom of will. This is a property belonging to man, as a
reasonable creature; so that we may as well separate understanding from
the mind, as liberty from the will, especially when it is conversant
about things within its own sphere, and, most of all, when we consider
man in a state of perfection, as to all the powers and faculties of his
soul, as he was before the fall. Now, that we may understand what this
freedom of will was, let it be considered, that it consisted in a power,
which man had, of choosing, or embracing, what appeared, agreeably to
the dictates of his understanding, to be good, or refusing and avoiding
what was evil, and that without any constraint or force, laid upon him,
to act contrary to the dictates thereof; and it also supposes a power to
act pursuant to what the will chooses, otherwise it could not secure the
happiness that it desires, or avoid the evil that it detests, and then
its liberty would be little more than a name, without the thing
contained in it.
Moreover, since the thing that the will chooses, is supposed to be
agreeable to the dictates of the understanding, it follows, that if
there be an error in judgment, or a destructive, or unlawful object
presents itself, under the notion of good, though it be really evil, the
will is, notwithstanding, said to act freely, in choosing or embracing
it, in which respect it is free to evil, as well as to good.
To apply this to our present purpose, we must suppose man, in his state
of innocency, to have been without any defect in his understanding, and
therefore that he could not, when making a right use of the powers and
faculties of his soul, call evil good, or good evil. Nevertheless,
through inadvertency, the mind might be imposed on, and that which was
evil might be represented under the appearance of good, and accordingly
the will determine itself to choose or embrace it; for this is not
inconsistent with liberty, since it might have been avoided by the right
improvement of his natural powers, and therefore he was not constrained
or forced to sin.
Now it appears, that our first parents had this freedom of will, or
power to retain their integrity, from their being under an indispensible
obligation to yield perfect obedience, and liable to punishment for the
least defect thereof. This therefore, supposes the thing not to be in
itself impossible, or the punishment ensuing unavoidable. Therefore it
follows, that they had a power to stand; or, which is all one, a liberty
of will, to choose that which was conducive to their happiness.
This might also be argued from the difference that there is between a
man’s innocent and fallen state. Nothing is more evident, than that man,
as fallen, is, by a necessity of nature, inclined to sin; and
accordingly he is styled, _a servant of sin_, John viii. 34. or a slave
to it, entirely under its dominion: but it was otherwise with him before
his fall, when, according to the constitution of his nature, he was
equally inclined to what is good, and furnished with every thing that
was necessary to his yielding that obedience, which was demanded of him.
II. It is farther observed, that our first parents were left to the
freedom of their own will. This implies, that God did not design,
especially, while they were in this state of probation, to afford them
that immediate help, by the interposition of his providence, which would
have effectually prevented their compliance with any temptation to sin;
for that would have rendered their fall impossible, and would have been
a granting them the blessing of confirmation, before the condition
thereof was fulfilled. God could easily have prevented Satan’s entrance
into paradise; as he does his coming again into heaven, to give
disturbance to, or lay snares for any of the inhabitants thereof; or,
though he suffered him to assault our first parents, he might, by the
interposition of his grace, have prevented that inadvertency, by which
they gave the first occasion to his victory over them. There was no need
for God to implant a new principle of grace in their souls; for, by the
right use of the liberty of their own wills, they might have defended
themselves against the temptation; and had he given them a present
intimation of their danger, or especially excited those habits of grace,
which were implanted in their souls, at that time, when there was most
need thereof, their sinful compliance with Satan’s temptation would have
been prevented: but this God was not obliged to do; and accordingly he
is said to leave them to the freedom of their own wills. And this does
not render him the author of their sin, or bring them under a natural
necessity of falling, inasmuch as he had before furnished them with
sufficiency of strength to stand. Man was not like an infant, or a
person enfeebled, by some bodily distemper, who has no ability to
support himself, and therefore, if not upheld by another, must
necessarily fall: but he was like a strong man, who, by taking heed to
his steps, may prevent his falling, without the assistance of others. He
had no propensity in nature to sin, whereby he stood in need of
preventing grace; and God, in thus leaving him to himself, dealt with
him in a way agreeable to the condition in which he was. He did not
force, or incline him to sin, but left him to the mutability of his own
will, according to the tenor of the dispensation which he was under.
III. It is farther observed, that there was an assault made on our first
parents by Satan, not by violence, but by temptation; the consequence
whereof was, that, by sinful compliance therewith, they fell from their
state of innocency. It appears very evident, from scripture, that they
were deceived, or beguiled, as Eve says, _The serpent beguiled me, and I
did eat_, Gen. iii. 13. And the apostle Paul speaks concerning it to the
same effect; _The woman being deceived, was in the transgression_, 1
Tim. ii. 14. in which scripture, though it be said, in the foregoing
words, that _Adam was not deceived_, probably nothing more than this is
intended, that the man was not first deceived, or not immediately
deceived, by the serpent, but by his wife; though, indeed, some give
another turn to that expression, and suppose that Adam sinned knowingly,
being content to plunge himself into the depths of misery, in
complaisance to her, in her sorrows:[52] But we rather think, that the
apostle does not speak of Adam’s not being deceived, but rather of his
not being first deceived, or first in the transgression.
Now this deception or temptation, was from the devil, who, because of
his subtilty, is called, _That old serpent_, Rev. xii. 9. chap. xx. 2.
and he is said to make use of _wiles_, Eph. vi. 11. that is, various
methods of deceit in suiting his temptations, so that men may be
ensnared by them; which leads us to consider,
IV. The methods he took to deceive our first parents, as we have a
particular account thereof, and of their compliance therewith, in Gen.
iii. 1-6. in which we shall take occasion to observe who the tempter
was; and the way and manner how he assaulted them.
There are two extremes of opinion, which some run into, which are
equally to be avoided. On the one hand, some suppose that it was a
beast, or natural serpent, that was the tempter, and that the devil had
no hand in the temptation; whereas others suppose that there was no
serpent made use of, but that the devil did all without it, and that he
is styled a serpent, in that scripture, from his subtilty. This we call
another extreme of opinion, and, indeed, the truth lies in a medium
between them both; therefore we must suppose, that there was really a
natural serpent, a beast so called, made use of, as an instrument, by
the devil, by which he managed the temptation, and accordingly that he
possessed and spake by it, which is the most common opinion, and agrees
best with the account given of it in the above-mentioned scripture; and
it is also consistent with what our Saviour says of him, when describing
him as _a murderer from the beginning_, John viii. 44.
That it was not only, or principally, the natural serpent that tempted
our first parents, will appear, if we consider,
(1.) That, though the serpent, indeed, is said to be more subtile than
all the beasts of the field, yet it never was endowed with speech,[53]
and therefore could not, unless actuated by a spirit, hold a discourse
with Eve, as he is said to have done.
(2.) Brute creatures cannot reason, or argue, as the serpent did; for,
whatever appearance of reason there may be in them, it would be a very
hard matter to prove that they are capable of digesting their ideas into
a chain of reasoning, or inferring consequences from premises, as the
serpent did; much less are they capable of reasoning about divine
subjects, who know nothing of God, or the nature of moral good or evil,
as the serpent that tempted Eve must be supposed to have done. But
though the serpent was not the principal agent herein, yet it was made
use of by the devil; and therefore the whole history, which we have
thereof in the place before-mentioned, is not an allegorical account of
what Satan did, as some suppose, without any regard to the part that the
serpent bore therein.
This appears from the curse denounced against the serpent, _Because thou
hast done this_, saith God, _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_, Gen. iii. 14. which is only
applicable to the beast so called, and this we see evidently fulfilled
at this day. Some, from hence, infer, not, I think, without reason, that
the serpent, before this, went erect; whereas afterwards, as containing
the visible mark of the curse, it is said to go on its belly. This part
of the curse therefore respected the natural serpent only; whereas that
contained in the following words, _I will put enmity between thee and
the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel_, ver. 15. respects the devil, that
actuated, or spake by it; though I am not insensible that some Jewish
writers, and others, who would exempt the devil from having any hand in
the temptation, and throw all the blame on the brute creature, the
natural serpent, give a very jejune and empty sense of this text, as
though it were to be taken altogether, according to the letter thereof,
as importing, that there should be a war between man and the serpent,
that so he might be revenged on him, which should never cease till he
had slain him, or had bruised his head. But it seems very plain, that as
the former verse respects the instrument made use of, _viz._ the natural
serpent, so this respects the devil, and contains a prediction, that his
malice should be defeated, and his power destroyed, by our Saviour, who
is here promised, and described as _the seed of the woman_. From all
which we are bound to conclude, that the devil making use of the
serpent, was the tempter, by whom our first parents were seduced, and
led astray from God, to the ruin of themselves, and all their posterity.
There are several things that may be observed in the method Satan took
in managing this temptation, by which he seduced and overcame our first
parents, of which we have an account in the scripture before-mentioned.
1. He concealed his character as a fallen spirit, and pretended himself
to be in circumstances not unlike to those in which our first parents
were, at least in this, that he seemed to pay a deference to the great
God, so far as to allow that he had a right to give laws to his
creatures; and it is more than probable that this was done immediately
after his fall, and that our first parents knew nothing of this instance
of rebellion in heaven, and did not, in the least, suppose that there
were any creatures who were enemies to God, or were using endeavours to
render them so. Had the devil given Eve an historical narration of his
sin and fall, and begun his temptation with open blasphemy, or reproach
cast on God, whom he had rebelled, against, he could not but apprehend
that our first parents would have treated him with the utmost
abhorrence, and fled from him as an open enemy; but he conceals his
enmity to God, while he pretends friendship to them, which was a great
instance of subtilty; inasmuch as an enemy is never more formidable,
that when he puts on a specious pretence of religion, or conceals his
vile character as an enemy to God, and at the same time, pretends a
great deal of friendship to those whom he designs to ruin.
2. As he tempted our first parents soon after his own fall, which shews
his restless malice against God and goodness; so it was not long after
their creation, in which he shewed his subtilty, not barely, as some
suppose, because he was apprehensive, that the longer man stood, the
more his habits of grace would be strengthened, and so it would be more
difficult for the temptation to take effect. But that which seems to be
the principal reason, was, either because he was apprehensive that man
might soon have an intimation given him, that there were some fallen
spirits, who were laying snares for his ruin, and therefore he would
have been more guarded against him; or principally because he did not
know but that man might soon be confirmed in this state of holiness and
happiness; for how long God would continue him in a state of probation,
was not revealed, and the devil knew very well that, upon his obtaining
the grace of confirmation, after he had yielded obedience for a time,
all his temptations would prove ineffectual; therefore he applied
himself to his work with the greatest expedition.
3. He assaulted Eve when she was alone. This, indeed, is not expressly
mentioned in scripture; but yet it seems very probable, inasmuch as he
directed his discourse to, and held a conference with her, and not with
Adam, which doubtless, he would have done, had he been present; and then
it could hardly have been said, as the apostle does in the scripture
before-mentioned, that the woman was _first in the transgression_, and
that she was first deceived by the serpent; and, indeed, had he been
with her, though she might have been first in eating the forbidden
fruit; yet he would have sinned, as being a partaker with her therein,
by suffering her to comply with the temptation, and not warning her of
her danger, or endeavouring to detect the devil’s sophistry, and
restrain her from compliance therewith. As the law deems every one to be
principals in traiterous conspiracies against a prince, it they are only
present, provided they do not use those proper means which they ought to
prevent it; accordingly if Adam had been with Eve, he would have sinned
with her, before he received the forbidden fruit from her hand; which we
do not find him charged with; therefore she was alone, on which account
the devil took her at the greatest disadvantage; for, as the wise man
well observes, _Two are better than one; for if they fall, the one will
lift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falleth_,
Eccles. iv. 9, 10.
4. The instrument Satan made use of, was, as was before observed, the
serpent: Probably he was not suffered to take a human shape; or, if he
had, that would not so well have answered his end, since it would have
tended to amuse and surprise our first parents, and have put them upon
enquiries who he was, and whence he came, for they knew that there were
no human creatures formed but themselves. If he had made use of an
inanimate creature, it would have been more surprising to hear it speak
and reason about the providence of God; and if he had not assumed, any
visible shape, he could not have managed the temptation with that
success; for there was no corrupt nature in our first parents to work
upon, as there is in us. Therefore some are ready to conclude, that no
temptation can be offered to an innocent creature, in an internal way,
by the devil; therefore it must be presented to the senses, and
consequently it was necessary that he should assume some shape, and
particularly that of some brute creature, that he might more effectually
carry on his temptation. And it was expedient to answer his design, that
he should not make use of any brute creature, that is naturally more
stupid, and therefore less fit for his purpose; accordingly he made use
of the serpent, concerning which it is observed, that it is _more subtil
than any beast of the field;_ and, as some suppose, it was, at first, a
very beautiful creature, however odious it is to mankind at present, and
that it had a bright shining skin curiously painted with variety of
colours, which, when the sun shone upon it, cast a bright reflection of
all the colours of the rainbow. But passing this by, as what is
uncertain;
5. It is probable that the devil took that opportunity to discourse with
Eve about the tree of knowledge, when she was standing by, or at least,
not far from it, that so he might prevail with her to comply with the
temptation in haste; whereas, if he had given her room for too much
deliberation, it might have prevented his design from taking effect: If
she had been at some distance from the tree, she would have had time to
consider what she was going about; she did not want understanding to
detect the fallacy, had she duly weighed matters, and therefore would
hardly have complied with the temptation. Again, that she was, at least,
within sight of the tree appears from hence, that the serpent takes
occasion, from the beholding of it, to discourse about it, and commend
it; and, while he was speaking about it to her, _she saw that it was
pleasant to the eye, and good for food_.
6. As to what respects the matter of the temptation, we may observe,
that the devil did not immediately tempt her to blaspheme God, to
proclaim open war against him, or to break one of the commandments of
the moral law; but to violate a positive law, which, though heinous in
its own nature, as it was a practical disowning or denying the
sovereignty of God, and had many other aggravations attending it; yet
the breach of positive laws, founded on God’s arbitrary will, are
generally reckoned less aggravated, or we are inclined to entertain the
temptation thereunto with less abhorrence than when we are tempted to
break one of the moral laws, which are founded on the nature of God. Had
he tempted her to deny that there was a God, or that there was any
worship due to him; or had it been to have murdered her husband, or to
commit any other crime, which is in itself shocking to human nature, he
would have had less ground to conclude that his temptation would have
taken effect.
And here we may observe, that he proceeded, in a gradual way, from less
to greater insinuations, brought against God.
(1.) He does not immediately and directly, in his first onset, bring a
charge against God, or his providence, but pretends ignorance, and
speaks as one that wanted information, when he says, _Yea, hath God
said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden_, _q. d._ Here is a
garden well stored with fruit, the trees whereof are designed for your
food; are there any of which you are prohibited to eat? This question
occasions her reply; _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_. Some think, that her sin began
here, and that she misrepresents the divine prohibition, for she was not
forbid to touch it; it is only said, _In the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die_, Gen. ii. 17. But I cannot see that this
was any other than a just inference from the prohibition itself, as
every thing is to be avoided that may prove an occasion of sin, as well
as the sin itself. Others suppose, that there is a degree of unbelief
contained in that expression, _Lest ye die_[54]; which may be rendered,
_Lest peradventure ye die_, as implying, that it was possible for God to
dispense with his threatning, and so death would not certainly ensue;
whereas God had expressly said, _In the day that thou eatest thereof,
thou shalt surely die_. But passing by this, as an uncertain conjecture,
let us farther consider,
(2.) After this, Satan proceeds from questioning, as though he desired
information, to a direct and explicit confronting the divine threatning,
endeavouring to persuade her, that God would not be just to his word,
when he says, _Ye shall not surely die_. He then proceeds yet farther,
to cast an open reproach on the great God, when he says, _God doth know
that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall
be as Gods, knowing good and evil_. Here we may observe,
_1st_, That he prefaces this reproach in a most vile and wicked manner,
with an appeal to God for a confirmation of what he was about falsely to
suggest, _God doth know_, &c.
_2dly_, He puts her in mind, that there were some creatures above her,
with an intent to excite in her pride and envy: and it is as though he
had said; notwithstanding your dominion over the creatures in this lower
world, there are other creatures above you; for so our translation
renders the words, _gods_, meaning the angels. And Satan farther
suggests, that these excel man, as in many other things, so particularly
in knowledge, thereby tempting her to be discontented with her present
condition; and, since knowledge is the highest of all natural
excellencies, he tempts her hereby to desire a greater degree thereof,
than God had allotted her, especially in her present state, and so to
desire to be equal to the angels in knowledge; which might seem to her a
plausible suggestion, since knowledge is a desirable perfection. He does
not commend the knowledge of fallen angels, or persuade her to desire to
be like those who are the greatest favourites of God. From whence it may
be observed, that it is a sin to desire many things that are in
themselves excellent, provided it be the will of God that we should not
enjoy them.
But it may be observed, that a different sense may be given of the
Hebrew word, which we translate _gods_: for it may as well be rendered,
Ye shall be like God, that is, Ye shall have a greater degree of the
image of God; particularly that part of it that consists in knowledge.
But however plausible this suggestion might seem to be, she ought not to
have desired this privilege, if God did not design to give it,
especially before the condition of the covenant she was under was
performed; much less ought she to have ventured to have sinned against
God to obtain it.
_3dly_, Satan farther suggests, that her eating of the tree of knowledge
would be a means to attain this greater degree of knowledge; therefore
he says, _In the day you eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened_, &c. We
cannot suppose, that he thought her so stupid as to conclude that there
was a natural virtue in the fruit of this tree, to produce this effect;
for none can reasonably suppose that there is a natural connexion
between eating and increasing in knowledge. Therefore we may suppose,
that he pretends that the eating thereof was God’s ordinance for the
attaining of knowledge; so that, as the tree of life was a sacramental
ordinance, to signify man’s attaining eternal life, this tree was an
ordinance for her attaining knowledge; and therefore that God’s design
in prohibiting her from eating of it, was, that she should be kept in
ignorance, in comparison with what she might attain to by eating of it:
Vile and blasphemous insinuation! to suggest, not only that God envied
her a privilege, which would have been so highly advantageous, but that
the sinful violation of his law was an ordinance to obtain it.
It is farther supposed, by some, though not mentioned in scripture, that
Satan, to make his temptation more effectual, took and ate of the tree
himself, and pretended, as an argument to persuade her to do likewise,
that it was by this means, that he, being a serpent, and as such on a
level with other animals of the same species, had arrived to the faculty
of talking and reasoning, so that now he had attained a kind of equality
with man; therefore if she eat of the same fruit, she might easily
suppose she should attain to be equal with angels. By these temptations,
Eve was prevailed on, and so we read, that she _took of the fruit
thereof and did eat_; it may be, the fruit was plucked off by the
serpent, and held out to her, and she, with a trembling hand, received
it from him, and thereby fell from her state of innocency.
Having considered the fall of Eve, who was the first in the
transgression, we are now to speak of the fall of Adam: This is
expressed more concisely in the fore-mentioned chapter, ver. 6. _She
gave also unto her husband, and he did eat_. We are not to suppose that
she gave him this fruit to eat, without his consent to take it; or that
she did not preface this action with something not recorded in
scripture: but it is most probable that she reported to him what had
passed between her and the serpent, and prevailed on him by the same
arguments which she was overcome by; so that Adam’s fall was, in some
respect, owing to the devil, though Eve was the more immediate
instrument thereof. And to this we may add, that, besides her alleging
the arguments which the serpent had used to seduce her, it is more than
probable she continued eating herself, and commending the pleasantness
of the taste thereof, above all other fruits, as it might seem to her,
when fallen, to be much more pleasant than really it was; for forbidden
fruit is sweet to corrupt nature. And besides, we may suppose, that,
through a bold presumption, and the blindness of her mind, and the
hardness of her heart, which immediately ensued on her fall, she might
insinuate to her husband, that what the serpent had suggested was really
true; for as he had said, Ye shall not surely die, so now, though she
had eaten thereof, she was yet alive; and therefore that he might eat
thereof, without fearing any evil consequence that would attend it: by
this means he was prevailed upon, and hereby the ruin of mankind was
completed. Thus concerning their sin and fall.
V. We shall now consider what followed thereupon, as contained in that
farther account we have of it, in Gen. iii. 7, &c. And here we may
observe,
1. That they immediately betray and discover their fallen state,
inasmuch as they, who before knew not what shame or fear meant, now
experienced these consequences inseparable from sin: They knew that they
were naked, and accordingly they were ashamed;[55] and had a sense of
guilt in their consciences, and therefore were afraid. This appears, in
that:
2. God calls them to an account for what they had done, and they,
through fear, hide themselves from his presence; which shews how soon
ignorance followed after the fall. How unreasonable was it to think that
they could hide themselves from God? since _there is no darkness, nor
shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves_, Job
xxxiv. 22.
3. God expostulates with each of them, and they make excuses; the man
lays the blame upon his wife, ver. 12. _The woman, whom thou gavest to
be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat_; which contains a
charge against God himself, as throwing the blame on his providence,
_The woman whom thou gavest to be with me_. And here was an instance of
a breach of affection between him and his wife: as sin occasions
breaches in families, and, an alienation of affection in the nearest
relations, he complains of her, as the cause of his ruin, as though he
had not been active in this matter himself.
The woman, on the other hand, lays the whole blame on the serpent, ver.
13. _The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat_. There was, indeed, a
deception or beguiling; for, as has been already observed, an innocent
creature can hardly sin, but through inadvertency, as not apprehending
the subtilty of the temptation, though a fallen creature sins
presumptuously, and with deliberation; however, she should not have laid
the whole blame on the serpent, for she had wisdom enough to have
detected the fallacy, and rectitude of nature sufficient to have
preserved her from compliance with the temptation, if she had improved
those endowments which God gave her at first.
We shall now consider the aggravations of the sin of our first parents.
It contained in it many other sins. Some have taken pains to shew how
they broke all the Ten Commandments, in particular instances: But,
passing that by, it is certain, that they broke most of them, and those
both of the first and second table; and it may truly be said, that, by
losing their innocency, and corrupting, defiling, and depraving their
nature, and rendering themselves weak, and unable to perform obedience
to any command, as they ought, they were virtually guilty of the breach
of them all, as the apostle says, _Whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all_, James ii. 10. But,
more particularly, there were several sins contained in this complicated
crime; as,
(1.) A vain curiosity to know more than what was consistent with their
present condition, or, at least, a desire of increasing in knowledge in
an unlawful way.
(2.) Discontentment with their present condition; though without the
least shadow of reason leading to it.
(3.) Pride and ambition, to be like the angels, or like God, in those
things, in which it was unlawful to desire it: it may be, they might
desire to be like him in independency, absolute sovereignty, _&c._ which
carries in it downright Atheism, for a creature to desire thus to be
like to him.
(4.) There was an instance of profaneness, in supposing that this tree
was God’s ordinance, for the attaining of knowledge, and accounting
that, which was in itself sinful, a means to procure a greater degree of
happiness.
(5.) It contained in it unbelief, and a disregard, either to the promise
annexed to the covenant given to excite obedience, or the threatening
denounced to deter from sin; and, on the other hand, they gave credit to
the devil, rather than God.
(6.) There was in it an instance of bold and daring presumption,
concluding that all would be well with them, or that they should,
notwithstanding, remain happy, though in open rebellion against God, by
the violation of his law; concluding, as the serpent suggested, that
they should not surely die.
(7.) It was the highest instance of ingratitude, inasmuch as it was
committed soon after they had received their being from God, and that
honour of having all things in this world put under their feet, and the
greatest plenty of provisions, both for their satisfaction and delight,
and no tree of the garden prohibited, but only that which they ate of,
Gen. ii. 16, 17.
(8.) It was committed against an express warning to the contrary;
therefore whatever dispute might arise concerning other things being
lawful, or unlawful, there was no question but that this was a sin,
because expressly forbidden by God, and a caution given them to abstain
from it.
(9.) If we consider them as endowed with a rectitude of nature, and in
particular that great degree of knowledge which God gave them: This must
be reckoned a sin against the greatest light; so that what inadvertency
soever there might have been, as to what respects that which first led
the way to a sinful compliance: they had a sufficient degree of
knowledge to have fenced against the snare, how much soever they
pretended themselves to be beguiled and deceived, as an excuse for their
sin; and, had they made a right use of their knowledge, they would
certainly have avoided it.
(10.) Inasmuch as one of our first parents proved a tempter to the
other, and the occasion of his ruin, this contained a notorious instance
of that want of conjugal affection and concern for the welfare of each
other, which the law of nature, and the relation they stood in to one
another, required.
(11.) As our first parents were made after the image of God, this sin
contained their casting contempt upon it; for they could not but know
that it would despoil them of it. And as eternal blessedness was to be
expected if they yielded obedience, this they also contemned, and, as
every sinner does, they despised their own souls in so doing.
(12.) As Adam was a public person, the federal head of all his
posterity, intrusted with the important affair of their happiness,
though he knew that his fall would ruin them, together with himself,
there was not only in it a breach of trust, but a rendering himself, by
this means, the common destroyer of all mankind; which was a greater
reproach to him, than his being their common father was an honour.
We shall conclude with a few inferences from what has been said,
concerning the fall of our first parents.
_1st_, If barely the mutability of man’s will, without any propensity or
inclination to sin in his nature, may endanger, though not necessitate,
his fall, especially when left to himself, as the result of God’s
sovereign will; then how deplorable is the state of fallen man, when
left to himself by God in a judicial way, being, at the same time,
indisposed for any thing that is good.
_2dly_, From the action of the devil, in attempting to ruin man, without
the least provocation, merely out of malice against God, we may infer
the vile and heinous nature of sin, its irreconcilable opposition to
God; and also how much they resemble the devil, who endeavour to
persuade others to join with them as confederates in iniquity, and
thereby to bring them under the same condemnation with themselves: this
is contrary to the dictates of human nature, unless considered as vile,
degenerate, and depraved by sin.
_3dly_, How dangerous a thing is it to go in the way of temptation, or
to parley with it, and not to resist the first motion that is made to
turn us aside from our duty? And what need have we daily to pray, as
instructed by our Saviour, that God would not, by any occurrence of
providence, lead us into temptation!
_4thly_, We learn, from hence, the progress and great increase of sin:
it is like a spreading leprosy, and arises to a great height from small
beginnings; so that persons proceed from one degree of wickedness to
another, without considering what will be the sad effect and consequence
thereof.
Footnote 52:
_This is beautifully described by Milton, (in his paradise lost, Book
IX.) and many others have asserted the same thing for substance, as
thinking it below the wisdom of the man to be imposed on; thereby
insinuating, though without sufficient ground, that he had a greater
degree of wisdom allotted to him than his wife._
Footnote 53:
_Josephus indeed, (See Antiq. Lib. I. cap. 2.) intimates, that the
serpent was, at first, endowed with speech, and that his loss of it
was inflicted for his tempting man; but it is a groundless conjecture
arising from a supposition, that those things spoken of in Gen._ iii.
_which are attributed to the devil, were done without him, which is
not only his opinion, but of many other Jewish writers, and several
modern ones._
Footnote 54:
_The words of the prohibition, in Gen._ ii. _17. are_, Ye shall surely
die: _whereas in the account she gives thereof to the serpent, her
words are_, פן תמתון _which Onkelos, in his Targum, renders_, Ne forte
moriamini.
Footnote 55:
The command had been given to Adam: he was the representative of Eve
and his posterity; accordingly, upon her eating, no change was
discovered: but as soon as he ate, “_the eyes of them both were
opened_.” They instantly felt a conscious loss of innocence, and they
were ashamed of their condition.
This affection may have either good or evil as its exciting cause. The
one species is praise-worthy, the other culpable. When there exists
shame of evil, the honour of the party has been wounded.
Honour, the boast of the irreligious, is the vanguard of virtue, and
is always set for her defence, while she is contented with her own
station. But when honour assumes the authority, which belongs to
conscience and reason, the man becomes an idolater. For conscience
aims at God’s glory, honour at man’s; conscience leads to perfect
integrity, whilst honour is contented with the reputation of it: the
one makes us good, the other desires to become respectable. Conscience
and religion will produce that, which honour aims at the name of.
Honour without virtue, is mere hypocrisy.
But honour as ancillary to virtue, will detect and vanquish
temptation, before virtue may apprehend danger: she is therefore to be
regarded and fostered, but to be restrained within her own precincts.
Shame of good is rather an evidence of a want of honour, and springs
from dastardly cowardice: it argues weak faith, superficial knowledge,
and languid desires of good. Such knowledge and desires are barely
enough to aggravate the guilt, and show it was deliberate.
The religious man must count upon opposition from a world hostile to
holiness. His conduct and character will necessarily, by contrast,
condemn those of the wicked. But he is neither to abandon his duty,
but cause his light to shine; nor purposely afflict the sensibility of
his enemies, but treat them with mildness and kindness. The demure and
dejected countenance is to be avoided, not only because the Christian
has a right to be cheerful, but because when voluntary, it is
hypocritical; and because also it injures the cause by exciting
disgust and contempt, and provoking persecution, where a mild and
evenly deportment would command the respect and admiration even of the
evil themselves.
Contempt and ridicule will come. But the Christian should know that
this indicates defect in the authors of them. If religion were, as the
infidel hopes it will prove, without foundation, to ridicule the
conscientious man for his weakness, is rudeness, weakness, and want of
generosity. If religion be doubtful, to ridicule it is to run the
hazard of Divine resentment, and highly imprudent. If it be certain,
it is to rush upon the bosses of God’s buckler, and the most horrid
insolence.
Ridicule is no test of truth, for the greatest and most important
truths may be subjected to wit; it is no index of strength of
understanding; and wit and great knowledge almost never are found
together. It indicates nothing noble or generous, but a little
piddling genius, and contemptible pride.
He who yields to the shame of that which is good, weakens his powers
of resistance, provokes the Spirit of grace, hardens his conscience,
strengthens the hands of the enemy, excites the contempt of the wicked
themselves, grieves his follow Christians, affronts God to his face,
and incurs the judgment of Christ “Whosoever is ashamed of me and my
words, of him will I be ashamed.”
Quest. XXII.