SERMON VI.

THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF EVE.

"And 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."-GENESIS iii. 2, 3.

than before for the entrance of sin into the heart: but, nevertheless, the eye and the taste, in the instance of Eve before she transgressed, acted a part of the very same kind as they peform now in cases of every day experience.

was

Whatever may have been the change | now that our nature has become deprawhich passed over man in consequence ved, these senses are readier avenues of sin, we are not to doubt that we retain, in great measure, the same constitution, weakened indeed and deranged, but compounded of the same elements, and possessing similar powers and tendencies. There does not appear to have been any essential difference between the mode in which Satan tempted Eve, and that wherein he would assault any one of ourselves under similar circumstances. | Neither, so far as Eve allowed the bodily senses to serve as instruments of temptation, have we reason to think that the trial at all differed from that to which the like inlets subject ourselves. The devil threw in a suspicion as to the goodness of God, suggesting that the restriction as to the not eating of a particular fruit was harsh and uncalled for, and insinuating, moreover, that the results of disobedience would be just the reverse of what had been threatened. And, certainly, this is much the way in which Satan still proceeds: whatever the commandment, our obedience to which is being put to the proof, he tries to make us feel that the commandment is unnecessarily severe, and that, in all probability, the infringing it will not be visited with such vengeance as has been denounced.

Thus also with regard to the bodily senses. Eve was tempted through the eye, for she saw that the tree was pleasant to the sight; she was tempted also through the appetite, for she saw that the tree was good for food. And this was precisely as the senses are now instrumental to the service of sin: no doubt

Indeed it ought to be observed that, according to St. John, all the sin that tempts mankind may be comprised in these three terms, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life." To these three may evidently be reduced the temptation of our first parents: there "the lust of the flesh," in that the fruit was desired as good for food; "the lust of the eye," in that the fruit was pleasant to the sight; and "the pride of life," in that it was "to be desired to make one wise." To the same three may as evidently be reduced the temptation of the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, on this very account, may be declared to have been " tempted in all points like as we are." Our blessed Savior was assailed through "the lust of the flesh," when tempted to satisfy his hunger by turning stones into bread. "The lust of the eye" was employed, when the devil would have had Him cast Himself from a pinnacle of the Temple, and thus obtain, by an useless and ostentatious miracle, the applauses of the crowd assembled there for worship. And "the pride of life" was appealed to, when Satan proffered our Lord "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory," on condition of his falling down and worshipping him.

These three departments are still

those under which all sin may be ranged. | nation, as it might indeed be, had Eve, If you take any particular temptation, before she yielded to temptation, been you may always make it answer to one differently constituted from one of ourof the terms," the lust of the flesh, the selves. But it has been the object of lust of the eye, and the pride of life." our foregoing remarks, to show you that So that to recur to our introductory there was not this difference in constiremark-there passed no such change tution: a piece of mechanism may have on human nature in consequence of its springs disordered and its workings apostasy, as that the elements of our deranged; but it is not a different piece constitution became different from what of mechanism from what it was when they were. If our first parents, whilst every part was in perfect operation ; yet unfallen, were assailed in the same and we may find, as we go on, that the way, and through the same channels, as workings of Eve's mind were wonderourselves on whom they fastened cor- fully similar to those of our own, so that ruption; if our blessed Redeemer, who we shall not only sustain all our foregotook our nature without taint of origi- ing argument, but be able to present our nal sin, was tempted in the modes in common mother as a warning, and to which temptation still makes its ap- derive from her fall instruction of the proaches; we may most justly conclude most practical and personal kind. Withthat our constitution remains what it out then further preface-though you was, except, indeed, that our moral must bear in mind what we have adpowers have been grievously weakened, vanced, that you may not think to evade and that a bias towards evil has been the application of the subject, by imalaid on our affections, which places us gining differences between Eve and at a real disadvantage, whensoever as- yourselves-let us go to the patient consailed by the world, the flesh, or the devil. sideration of the several statements of But when we have thus in a measure our text; let us examine what may be identified our constitution with that of gathered in regard of the exact state of our first parents before they transgress- Eve's mind, from her mode of putting, ed, it is highly interesting and instruct- first, the permission of God, "We may ive to study all the circumstances of the eat of the fruit of the trees of the gai original temptation, and to see whether den," and secondly, his prohibition, they may not still be often, and accu-"The fruit of the tree which is in the rately paralleled. So long as we separate, or so distinguish, ourselves from our first parents in their unfallen state, Now the point of time at which we as though there had been an actual dif- have to take Eve is one at which she is ference in nature, the account of the evidently beginning to waver: she has original transgression is little more to allowed herself to be drawn into conus than a curious record, from which we versation with the serpent, which it can hardly think to derive many person- would have been wise in her, especially al lessons. But when we have ascertain- as her husband was not by, to have deed that our first parents were ourselves, clined; and there is a sort of unacknowonly with moral powers in unbroken ledged restlessness, an uneasiness of vigor, and with senses not yet degraded feeling, as though God might not be to the service of evil, the history of that all-wise and all-gracious Being their fall assumes all the interest which which she had hitherto supposed. She belongs to the narrative of events, which has not yet, indeed, proceeded to actual not merely involve us in their conse-disobedience: but she is clearly giving quences, but the repetition of which is some entertainment to doubts and suslikely to occur, and should be earnestly picions: she has not yet broken God's guarded against. commandment; but she is looking at it We wish, therefore, on the present with a disposition to question its goodoccasion, to examine with all careful-ness, and depreciate the risk of setting ness the workings of Eve's mind at it at nought. There are certain preludes, that critical moment when the devil, or approaches, towards sin, which, even under the form of a serpent, sought to in ourselves, are scarcely to be designaturn her away from her allegiance to ted sin, and which must have been still God. This is no mere curious exami- farther removed from it in the unfallen

midst of the garden, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Eve. You remember how St. James |
speaks, "Every man is tempted, when
he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed. Then when lust hath conceiv-
ed, it bringeth forth sin." The Apostle,
you observe, does not give the name of
sin to the first motions: if these motions
were duly resisted, as they might be,
the man would have been tempted, but
not have actually sinned.

And if so much may be allowed of
ourselves, in whom inclinations and pro-
pensities are corrupted and depraved
through original sin, much more must
it have been true of Eve, when, if tot-
tering, she had not yet fallen from her
first estate. She was then still innocent:
but there were feelings at work which
were fast bringing her to the edge of
the precipice; and it is on the indica-
tion of these feelings that, for the sake
of warning and example, we wish espe-
cially to fix your attention.

But is not the symptom one which may be frequently found amongst ourselves? Indeed it is; and we point it out in the instance of Eve, that each one of you may learn to watch it in himself. There is in all of us a disposition to think little of what God gives us to enjoy, and much of what He gives us to suffer. It may be but one tree which He withholds, and there may be a hundred which He grants: but, alas! the one, because withheld, will seem to multiply into the hundred, the hundred, because granted, to shrink into the one. If He take from us a single blessing, how much more ready are we to complain as though we had lost all, than to count up what remain, and give Him thanks for the multitude. He has but to forbid us a single gratification, and, presently, we speak as though He had dealt with us with a churlish and niggardly hand, though, were we to attempt to reckon the evidences of his loving-kindness, they are more in number thar. the hairs of our head. And when we suffer ourselves in any measure to speak, or think, disparagingly of the mercies of God, it is very evident that we are making way for, if not actually indulging, suspicions as to the goodness of God; and it cannot be necessary to prove that he, who allows himself to doubt the Divine goodness, is preparing himself for the breach of any and every commandment.

It was a large and liberal grant which God had made to man of the trees of the garden. "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat." It is true, indeed, there was one exception to this permission: man was not to eat of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;" but of every other tree he might not only eat, he was told to "eat freely," as though God would assure him of their being all unreservedly at his disposal. But now, observe, that, when Eve comes to recount this generous grant, she Learn then to be very watchful over leaves out the word "freely," and thus this moral symptom. Be very fearful may be said to depreciate its liberality. of depreciating your mercies. It shew"We may eat of the fruit of the trees ed an intenseness of danger in the inof the garden." This is but a cold ver- stance of Eve, that, when God had given sion of the large-hearted words, "Of her permission to "eat freely," she could every tree of the garden thou mayest speak of herself as permitted only to freely eat." She is evidently more dis- "eat." There was no falsehood in her acposed to dwell on the solitary restriction count of the permission: she does not than on the generous permission: she deny that she was allowed to eat of the is thinking more of the hardship from trees of the garden; but there was a disthe one than of the privilege from the satisfied and querulous way of putting the other. It was a bad, a dangerous symp- permission, as though she avoided the tom, that Eve suffered herself to look word "freely," that she might not magslightingly on the rich mercies with nify the riches of the Divine liberality. which she was blessed, and that she And we warn you, by the fall of Eve, could speak of those mercies, if not in against the allowing yourselves to think a disparaging tone, at least without that slightingly of your mercies. It matters grateful acknowledgement which their not what may be your trials, what your abundance demanded. It laid her pe-afflictions:-none of you can be so striprilously open to the insinuations of Sa-ped but what, if he will think over the tan, that she was contrasting what she had not, magnifying the latter, and depreciating the former.

good which God has left in his possession, he will find cause for acknowledg ing in God a gracious and a generous

benefactor. But if, because you are de- | nies;—a comparison which will always barred from this or that enjoyment, or make the latter seem little, because imbecause this or that blessing is placed measurably exceeded by the formerout of reach, you make little of, or com- study with all care the instance of Eve, paratively forget, the rich gifts of God; and observe that her first indication of ah! then indeed there is a fearful pro- tottering towards her fatal apostasy lay in bability of your being left to harden into this, that, when God had issued the large the unthankful and unbelieving: with and generous charter, "Of every tree Eve, you may seem only to leave out of the garden thou mayest freely eat," the word freely;" but God, who is she could reduce it into the cold and jealous as well as generous, may punish measured allowance, "We may eat of the omission by such withdrawment of the fruit of the trees of the garden." his grace as shall be followed by open violation of his law.

But we may go farther in tracing in Eve the workings of a dissatisfied mind, O for hearts to magnify the Lord's of a disposition to suspect God of harshmercies, and count up his loving-kindness, notwithstanding the multiplied nesses! It is "freely" that He has evidences of his goodness. You are permitted us to eat of the trees of the next to observe how she speaks of the garden. He has imposed no harsh re- prohibition in regard of "the tree of strictions, none but what, shortsighted knowledge of good and evil." She left though we are, we may already perceive out a most important and significant designed for our good. Placed as we word in stating God's permission as to are amid a throng of mercies, rich fruits the trees of the garden, and thus did already ripened for our use, and richer much to divest that permission of its maturing as our portion for eternity, generous character. But she inserted shall we speak of Him as though He words when she came to mention the had dealt out sparingly the elements of prohibition, and by that means invested happiness? Shall we just because it with more of strictness and severity there is forbidden fruit, of which we are than God seems to have designed. The assured that to eat it is to die; or with- prohibition as it issued from God was, ered fruit, of which we should believe" Of the tree of the knowledge of good that it would not have been blighted un- and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." But less to make us seek better-shall we the prohibition as repeated by Eve was, deny the exuberant provision which God "Of the fruit of the tree which is in the hath made for us as intelligent, account-midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye able creatures? Shall we forget the abundance with which He has mantled the earth, the gorgeous clusters with which He has hung the firmament, the blessings of the present life, the promises of a future, and the munificent grant with which He has installed us as Christians into a sort of universal possession, "All things are yours; ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's?"

Nay, we again say, take ye good heed of misrepresenting God, of depreciating your mercies, of exaggerating your losses. There cannot be a worse sign, a sign of greater moral peril, than when a man repines at what is lost, as though there were not much more left, and dwells more on God as withholding certain things, than as bestowing a thousand times as many. And that you may be aware of the dangerousness of the symptom, and thereby led to cultivate a thankful spirit, a spirit disposed to compare what God gives with what He de

shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it." She affirmed, you observe, that God had forbidden the touching the fruit as well as the eating of it; whereas it does not appear that God had said anything as to the touching. There might indeed have been prudence in not touching what might not be eaten; for he who allowed himself to handle would be very likely to allow himself to taste. Still, the touching the fruit was not, as far as we know, actually forbidden by Ged; and we may therefore say of Eve, that she exaggerated the prohibition, even as she had before disparaged the permission.

And you will readily perceive that precisely the same temper or feeling was at work when Eve exaggerated the prohibition, and when she disparaged the permission. There was in both cases the same inclination to misrepresent God, as though He dealt harshly with his creatures: to leave out the word "free