THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF EVE. y" was to make his grant look less tiberal; to put in the words, "neither shall ye touch it," was to make his law look more rigid; and it was evidently the dictate of the same rising suspicion, or a part of the same tacit accusation, when God's gifts were depreciated, and when his restrictions were magnified. upon amining the fruit, in and through that But now, was Eve singular in the misrepresenting the prohibition of God? was she not rather doing what has been done ever since, what is done every day by those who would excuse themselves from the duties and obligations of reli Alas for Eve, that she could thus ascribe harshness to God, and speak as though He denied his creatures any approach towards knowledge. She might as well have said that God had forbidden them to look the tree; whereas it is clear that not only might they look at the fruit, but that the eye was able to detect certain properties of the fruit; for you read that "the woman saw that the tree was good for food," the color probably informing her some-gion? To hear men of the world talk And we cannot tell about religion, you might imagine that thing of its nature. what additional information might have God's law forbade all enjoyment whatbeen obtained through touching the fruit. soever of the pleasures and satisfactions But if the eye could detect certain pro- of life, that it prescribed nothing but perties, the touch, in all probability, de- gloom and austerity, and required from tected more. Even in the darkness and those who would save the soul, that they feebleness into which we have fallen, should forego every gratification which each sense is instrumental to the ascer- their nature solicits. They will talk to taining the qualities of substances; and you of piety, as if it were necessarily of this power of the senses must have been a most morose and melancholy tenor, as vastly greater in our first parents; Adam if it debarred men from all participation gave names to every living creature, the in visible good, requiring them to move names undoubtedly being expressive of amid what is bright, and beautiful, and the natures, and thus showed that he attractive in creation, but only that they could ascertain at once, without any in- might mortify the propensities which formant but himself, their several cha- find therein their counterpart objects. Because God has distinctly forbidden our racteristics. finding our chief good in earthly things, because He has limited us to a moderate or temperate use of these things, therefore will men perversely misrepresent his enactments, and pretend that He would shut them up in the most dismal seclusion, as though He had given them appetites which were not to be gratified, desires which were only to be resisted, and yet, all the while, had surrounded Whereas, them with what those appetites crave, and those desires solicit. there is nothing prohibited by the Divine law but just that indulgence of our appetites and desires, which, because excessive and irregular, would, from our very constitution, be visited with present disappointment and remorse, and, from the necessary character of a retributive government, with future vengeance and death. We may, therefore, reasonably infer that, whilst eating of the tree of knowledge was distinctly forbidden, and thus our first parents were debarred from such discoveries as the sense of taste might have imparted, they were able to determine a great deal in regard of the fruit, through their other senses, of which they were allowed the unrestricted use. But Eve, you see, was disposed to make out that God had extended his prohibition to other senses besides that of taste, and thus had prevented them from making any advance towards the knowledge of good and of evil. You would have argued, from her version of the prohibition, that God had altogether enclosed, or shut up the tree, guarding it with the most extreme jealousy and igor, so that there was no possibility of Wheredetecting any of its properties. as the restriction was only on the ex We suppose it capable of a most thorough demonstration, that the man and placed in such a world as that as of religion, the man who allows himself signed for our dwelling, the nature soliin no indulgence which religion forbids, citing the very objects which are prewhose appetites are never his masters, sented by the world, we should hold but who is "temperate in all things," ourselves altogether aloof from present has more actual enjoyment, even of what gratifications, and live as though we had earth can afford, than the reckless slave no senses, no appetites, no desires. Ah, of sense, who, in the expressive lan- my brethren, the younger more espe guage of Scripture, would "work all cially, and such as are yet looking up uncleanness with greediness. And on religion with distaste and dislike, be there never, we believe, was a falser candid, and tell us whether it be not the charge than that which would fasten apprehension of having to give up all upon religion such a severe code of that is pleasant and agreeable, and to precepts, and such a stern series of settle into a life of moroseness and mesacrifices, as must make its disciples do lancholy, which makes you turn with perpetual violence to their feelings, and aversion from the proffers and promises live within reach of pleasures in which of the Gospel? they must deny themselves all share : whilst they who renounce religion are dividing amongst themselves whatever good the present life can give. Religion forbids all that is irregular or excessive in the use of earthly things; but it forbids nothing more; and whilst we are constituted as we are, whilst there is no slavery so oppressive as the being slaves to our own lusts, whilst there are the ir-"Of every tree of the garden ye may repressible workings within us of a great moral principle, causing uneasiness, and even anguish, to follow on criminal indulgence-nay, it is no boast of idle declamation, it is the statement of a simple and sober calculation, that the religious man, partaking only so far as religion permits, enjoys, in a much higher degree than the thorough-paced world ling, the very objects for which that worldling throws away his soul. But is it in pure ignorance that you thus misrepresent religion? is it through an actual misunderstanding as to what God permits, and what He prohibits! Nay, not exactly so; we must probe you a little deeper. Ye are thoroughly aware, even though you may strive to hide the knowledge from yourselves as well as from others, that God hath said, freely eat." He hath not, ay, and ye know that He hath not, filled his creation with attractions on purpose to keep his rational creatures at perpetual strife with themselves, merely to exercise them in self-denial, and give them occasion of doing violence to all the feelings of their nature. On the contrary, it is the decision of an Apostle, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksThus God is just doing with us as He giving." It is the abuse, not the use did with our first parents in regard of of the creature which God hath forbid the tree of knowledge. He did not al- den. His prohibition commences only together debar them from that tree; He where indulgence virtually defeats its only debarred them from eating of that own end, the ministering to happiness : it tree; knowing that they had but to eat allows all the participation which beings, of it, and they would find it to be death. conscious of immortality, can enjoy withAnd He does not debar us from the en- out a blush. And how, knowing thisjoyment of earthly things: He debars for ye do know it; ye know that religion us only from that unbridled and unlaw- is not meant to turn the earth into a ful indulgence which tends directly to desert; ye know that practically it does the destruction of both body and soul. not turn the earth into a desert, for that But it is with us as it was with Eve. religious persons may have their share As a sort of excuse for breaking God's in all that is really bright and sweet in commandments, we represent those life, yea, and relish it the more as the commandments as forbidding the touch- gift of a heavenly Father, and enjoy it ing, when they forbid only the tasting. the more because enjoying it temperateWe try to make out religion as all gloom ly and subordinately-how is it, that, and austerity; and ask, whether it be knowing all this, ye contrive to justify not something too much to expect, that, yourselves in continued disregard of the with such a nature as God has given us, demands and duties of religion? Ah 66 Yo uttered by Satan: the devil could do little then, and he can do little now, ex cept as openings are made for hi'n by those on whom he seeks to work. It was probably the incipient unbelief, manifested by the "lest ye die " of Eve, which suggested, as the best mode of attack, the "ye shall not surely die" of Satan. The devil may well hope to be believed, so soon as he sees symptoms of God's being disbelieved. we will not pretend to follow you into | ready ear to the lie of the serpent, every subterfuge, nor to dissect every shall not surely die." She had whisfalsehood. But we look at the case of pered his lie to herself, before it was our first mother: we see how, when she was inclining to disobedience, she wrought herself up into opposition to the commadnment by perversely magnifying its strictness. And we can believe that you do much the same. You take pains to hide from yourselves the real facts of the case. You leave out a word, when you speak of God's permissions; you put in words, when you speak of his prohibitions. When God hath said, “Ye shall not eat of it," and ye are secretly persuaded that herein He hath only consulted for your good, ye repeat, as your version of the commandment, till perhaps you almost believe it to be true, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it." And if we could charge upon numbers, in the present day, the imitating Eve in the disparaging God's permissions, and the exaggerating his prohibitions, can we have any difficulty in continuing the parallel, now that the thing done is the making light of his threatenings? Why, what fills hell like the secretly cherished thought, that perhaps, after all, there may be no hell to fill ? What is a readier, or more frequent, engine for the destruction of the soul. than a false idea of the compassion of God as sure to interfere, either to shorten the duration, or to mitigate the intenseness, of future punishment, if not altogether to prevent its infliction? God hath said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." But when men come to give their version of so stern and emphatic a declaration, they put it virtually into some such shape as this, "The soul should not sin, lest it die." Christ hath said, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; " men, however, practically throw this sweeping and startling affirmation into a much smoother formula, “Believe upon Christ, lest ye die." But there was a yet worse symptom in Eve, one still more indicative of the fatal disease which was making way into her veins. It was bad enough, whether to depreciate God's permission, or to exaggerate his prohibition; but it was worse to soften away his threatenings. This showed the workings of unbelief; and there could, indeed, have been but a step between our common mother and ruin, when she had brought herself to look doubtingly on the word of the Lord. And this symptom is even more strongly marked than those which we have already examined. The declaration of God had been, "Thou shall not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.' But what is Eve's version of this strong and unqualified declaration? "Ye shall not eat of it, lest ye die." Lest ye die," this is what she substitutes for "in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." "Lest ye die," "Lest ye die"-is this then all? is an expression which implies a sort of there any doubt? is it a contingency? chance, a contingency, a bare possibility, is it a may be? "Lest ye die," when what might happen, or might not hap- God hath said, "Ye shall surely pen, what might happen soon, or might die." "Lest ye die," when God hath not happen for years-it is thus she puts said, "The wicked shall be turned a denunciation as express, as explicit, into hell, and all the people that foras language can furnish, "in the day get God." "Lest ye die," when God that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt sure- hath said, "Be not deceived: neither ly die." Alas now for Eve! Harbor- fornicators, nor idolators, nor adultering a thought that God would not carry ers, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor his threatenings into execution-and this revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit she must have harbored, ere she could the kingdom of God." Nay, ye may have softened these threatenings into give the paragraph a smoother turn, “lest ye die "—no marvel if she gave a Dut ye cannot give the punishment a shorter term. Ye may soften away the haps think that there is a great deal of metaphor in the Bible, much which was never meant to be literally understood, much which was only for local or temporary application; and so, at last, "lest ye die," au expression which just implies some measure of risk, comes to pass with you (so far as you think on such matters at all) as a very fair exposition of "Ye shall surely die, an expression denoting the most absolute certainty. But, now, be warned by the instance of Eve. She allowed herself to give a And yet, such is the constancy in hu- smooth turn to the threatening of God. man perverseness, the feeling which She invented, and never was invention wrought in Eve, before she eat the fatal so pregnant with disaster to the world, fruit, is just that which is most power- the doubtful suggestion, "Lest ye die," fully at work amongst her descendants. as a substitute for the awful affirmation, There is not perhaps one of you, who," Ye shall surely die." But, acting on if he be still living in unrepented sin, is the supposition that "Lest ye die," not secretly disposed to the regarding God as too gracious to visit iniquity with everlasting destruction, to the resolving into the exaggerations of the priesthood, or, at all events, into denunciations whose ends will be answered by their delivery without their execution, the tremendous announcements of a worm that dieth not, and of a fire that is not quenched. It is not, that, if ye were pushed into an argument, or urged to a confession, ye would, in so many words, assert an expectation of such a difference between punishment as threatened, and punishment as put in force, as might make it comparatively safe for you to set at nought God's law. We do not suppose that Eve would have done this: she would not, even to herself, have acknowledged so much as this. But it is, that ye have a smooth way of putting the threatenings of the law; you per might fairly pass as the meaning of "Ye shall surely die," she "brought death into the world, and all our woe." In her case, indeed, tremendous though the consequences were, there was a remedy: our first parents fell, but were arrested by a Mediator in their fatal descent. But in your case-if the soul be staked on the chance, that God threatens more than He will execute, and if ye find, as find ye must, that "ye shall surely die meant what it saidno exaggeration, no metaphor-alas! there will then be no remedy for you: the hour will be passed, the day will be gone: though now a Mediator waits to make true to all penitents the bold falsehood of Satan, "Ye shall not surely die," there shall be no deliverance hereafter for such as have been presumptuous enough to sin, in the hope, or with the thought, that God will not be stern enough to strike. SERMON VII. SEEKING AFTER FINDING. "They shall ask the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward."—JEREMIAH 1. 5. The chapter from which these words text, you find this statement: "In those are taken is filled with predictions of days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the overthrow of Babylon, and of the the children of Israel shall come, they deliverance of the Jews from their and the children of Judah together, gohaughty oppressors. There can be no ing and weeping: they shall go, and doubt that these predictions had at least seek the Lord their God." These a primary reference to the demolition of words describe a great national contrithe Chaldean Empire by Cyrus, and to tion. The scattered tribes have been the consequent emancipation of the cap-brought to a deep sense of their rebeltive citizens of Jerusalem. But, as is lion against the God of their fathers, and generally if not always the case with are inclined accordingly to return to his prophecies of this class, there would ap- service. But it would hardly appear pear to be a secondary reference to the that there was any such general repentdestruction of the mystic Babylon, close-ance preparatory to the return of the ly associated as it will be with the restoration of the scattered tribes of Israel, and with the triumphant estate of the Christian Church. It would seem that from the first the enemies of God and his people which one age has produced, have served as types of those who will arise in the latter days of the world; and that the judgments by which they have been overtaken, have been so constructed as to figure the final vengeance on Antichrist and his followers. Hence it is that so many prophecies appear to require as well as to admit a double fulfilment; they could hardly delineate the type and not delineate also the antitype; whilst we may believe that the Spirit, which moved the holy men of old, designed that what it inspired should serve for the instruction of remote ages as well as of near. That the predictions in the chapter before us referred to what is yet future, as well as to what has long ago passed, will appear from a careful attention to the terms in which they are couched. In the verse immediately preceding our Jews from Babylon, though we have decisive testimony, from various parts of Scripture, that there will be antecedently to the final restoration of the Israelites to Canaan. And besides this, you will not fail to observe that the children of Israel are here combined with the children of Judah; whereas only the latter were captives in Babylon, and only the latter were emancipated by Cyrus. Whenever, as in tihs instance, prophecy speaks of any gathering together of the twelve tribes, of which the kingdom of Israel had ten, that of Judah only two, we seem obliged to understand it as relating to the future; there having as yet been no event which can be regarded as the predicted restoration of the ten tribes whom Shalmaneser removed. On this and other accounts which it is not important to specify, we conclude that in its secondary, if not in its primary, application, our text is connected with that august event, the theme of so many prophecies, the centre of so many hopes, the reinstatement in Canaan of the children of Israel. And it may possibly indicate from what various and remote |