its influence, will be more largely developed, when we come to discuss the imputation of the first offence to his natural posterity.

In respect, however, to the goodness of God revealed in the transaction, I could have added more, which had eminently displayed the propriety of its design. Which must establish the moral fitness of it, as founded in the relations which exist between man and Infinite excellence. That fitness, for example, exhibited in the obligation assumed on God's part, to manifest his benevolence toward the innocent. A feature of the agreement, not merely concerned with divine veracity, but in regard to his real character, which renders him properly an amiable Being. And much might be said, in respect to the endearing intercourse which is fostered by the terms of a mutual engagement, among those who are naturally unequal. An advantage on the part of an inferior, as displayed in this instance, which is gained partly, by an unbounded condescension of the Maker, and in part, by a conscious elevation of the creature himself. A moral fact, that is often disclosed in covenants among men, and which is made frequently a subject of particular regard in the sacred writings.

But without a farther discussion of the suitableness of this divine dispensation, as regards the interest posterity had in that probation, arising from a certain respect to the first pair, I close, with merely adopting the sense of an eloquent preacher. He remarks: "If our whole race had been created when this understanding took place had all the offspring of the first man been ranged about him at the commencement; and the terms of a public manifesto, of the nature described, been fully offered to their acceptance: I do not say, it had not en

tered the imagination of the heart, to look for any thing more desirable than its stipulations, but of this, I am confident-if a solitary agent in this innumerable multitude had rejected a trial of this nature with disdain, or spurned away its kindness-it had been just in God Almighty, to have annihilated that rebel in an instant. And when the consequence had appeared, all Heaven must have approved the act: and so far from a stain, lying on the sceptre of a gracious King-his throne should have remained forever guiltless, and his glorious character, unimpeachable and lovely in the perception of an admiring universe."

THE FALL OF MAN.

DISCOURSE IV.

Genesis iii. 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.

The covenant made with Adam in paradise, was not long regarded on his part. The condition, plainly stated, was not observed by the first pair. Of this, we are admonished by the text: for the main point on which the blessings of the covenant were suspended, viz., abstinence from the fruit of a certain tree-was not wisely adhered to. With regard to delinquency in that trial, it is faithfully averred-that the woman, who was designed to be an help-meet of the first man, took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband. with her, and he did eat.

The covenant being violated then, it becomes us with liveliest interest, to consider the steps by which the painful occurrence took place. And if we are suffered, in the good pleasure of its author, to trace the scheme by which the act was prosecuted, we should bear in recollection, that the word of God is our only guide on the subject; and the information it imparts, should ever be received, with the simplicity of heart and communication that becomes an inspired record.

In discoursing on this subject, I shall take occasion, First. To speak of the Tempter, as he is styled; and the measures he employed for promoting a rebellion in the garden.

Again. A particular object, that is made prominent in promoting his intentions, viz., the forbidden fruit.

And finally. The actual guilt incurred by the first pair, in yielding to his infernal persuasion respecting the use of it.

First. In regard to the tempter, his character, measures and the like.

Here it must be acknowledged, that in the temptation and fall of man, he takes the name doubtless of a serpent: and from the historical fact, a diversity of opinion has arisen, in respect to what is truly the character of that being.

But with regard to his character, as far as that may deserve a separate notice, I am deeply convinced, that there are two extremes in the opinions respecting it. I mean more especially in regard to the query-Who the serpent is? or, what rank he may sustain in the scale of animated being? For some have contended on one hand, that a serpent, properly so called, and nothing but a serpent, was employed in the trespass of the garden. While others in like manner, insist on it, that no serpent properly speaking is found there, but an invisible. agent, of which, the serpent spoken of, was barely an unreal sign, or, at the most-an external symbol. And in naming the extremes, or what I describe in this manner, there is, at least, some consolation in the thought, that if but one agency in strict propriety was mainly the cause of sinning, it must be purely a serpent's act, or solely that of Satan. For reason and the sacred narrative alike, will plainly teach us, that on that hypothesis, no other agent than one or the other of the two, can be really imagined, to have set on foot that infamous conspiracy.

This being premised, I will propose a few thoughts, which may leave an impression on the mind, that neither view is fundamentally correct; but the truth of the matter lies more evidently here—that a real serpent was actually engaged in the affair, and that serpent, at the same time, was literally "possessed of the devil." A position, in my apprehension, that may harmonize every scheme, and accord particularly with the truth of divine revelation.

First. A real serpent then, was concerned in that foul transaction.

This is proved in the first place, by the entire uniformity with which the tempter is so denominated in the third chapter of Genesis. For not only Moses calls him so, as an historian, but he declares in the chapter, (in a record of the whole matter,) that the woman spake of him by that name* And not only so, indeed, but the Lord God addressed himself to him, as the serpent, or outward agent, at least, employed in that transaction. And what may deserve particular notice, he is not only styled thus in the record spoken of-but the original word here employed, is commonly made use of, to signify that creature in the pages of the Old Testament: A lively instance of which, you have in the book of Numbers, where it often occurs to denote the animal, or fiery serpent, by which the Jews were bitten on their way through the wilderness. And to say the least, if a real serpent were not employed in that affair, but only Satan-it were a very faint compliment indeed to lavish on the arch apostate, to say of him, that he was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.§ To say, indeed, that he were

* Gen. iii. 18. † Gen. iii. 14.

xxi, 6, 7, 8 and 9. § Gen. iii. 1.