this Section proceeds to teach :

1st. That they sinned.

2d. That the particular sin they committed was their eating the forbidden fruit.

3d. That they were seduced thereto by the subtlety and temptation of Satan.

4th. That this sin was permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of God.

6th. That in so doing God designed to order it to his own glory.

1st. Our first parents sinned.

2d. The particular sin they committed was their eating the forbidden fruit.

It appears to be God^s general plan, and one eminently wise and righteous, to introduce all the newcreated subje(;ts of moral government into a state of probation for a time, in which he makes their permanent character and destiny depend upon their own action. He creates them holy, yet capable of falling. In this state he subjects them to a moral test for a time. If tliey stand the test, the reward is that their moral characters are confirmed and rendered infallible, and they are introduced into an inalienable blessedness for ever. If they fail, they are judicially excluded from God's favour and communion for ever, and hence morally and eternally dead. This certainly has been his method of dealing with new-created angels and men. In the case of mankind the specific test to which our first parents were subjected was their abstaining from eating of the fruit of a single tree. As this was a matter in itself morally indifferent, it was admirably adapted to be a test of their implicit allegiance to God of their absolute faith and submission.

The dreadful sin which they committed in eating this fruit appears from the indications afforded in the record in Genesis to have been — (1.) Unbelief. They were induced to doubt the wisdom of the divine prohibition and the certainty of the divine threatening. (2.) Disobedience. They set their will in opposition to God's will.

In respect to the origin of sin in this world, there are two questions which men constantly ask, and which it is impossible to answer :

A, How could sinful desires or volitions '>riginate in the soul of moral agents created holy like Adam and Eve? Men exercise choice according to their prevailing desires and affections. If these are holy, the:r wills are holy And the character of their prevailing i^e<'tioas

and desires is determined by tlie moral state of their souls. If their souls are holy, these are holy ; if their souls are sinful, these are sinful. Christ says, "a good man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things ; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, l>ringeth forth evil things." " Either make the tree good, and his fruit good ; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt." Matt. xii. 33, 36. But Adam's heart had been created holy; how then could his action be sinful ?

All our experience conspires to make the question more difficult. The sinful souls of fallen men never can give birth to holy volitions until they are regenerated by divine grace. The holy spirits of angels and glorified men in heaven are for ever removed from all liability to sinful affections or actions. In both these cases the stream continues as the fountain.

Now, although we cannot explain precisely the origin of sin in the holy soul of Adam, it is plain that the difficulty lies only in our ignorance. (1.) We have none of us experienced the same conditions of free agency as those which give character to the case of Adam. We have always been under the bondage of corruption, except in so far as we are momentarily assisted against nature by supernatural grace. Now, in order that a volition shall be holy, it must spring from a positively holy affection or disposition, and as these are not native to our hearts, we cannot exercise holy volitions without grace. But Adam was in a state of probation, holy yet fallible. Saints and angels are holy and infallible, yet their infallibility is not essential to their natures, but is a superaddei divine grace sustained

13 »

by the direct power of God. While holiness must always be positive, rooting itself in divine love, it is plain that sin may originate in defect ; not in positive alienation, but in want of watchfulness, in the temporary ascendency of the natural and innocent appetites of the body or constitutional tendencies of the soul over the higher powers of conscience.

The motives which appear to have led to this dreadful sin in the case of our first parents were not intrinsically sinful, but became so when dwelt upon and allowed gradually to occupy the mind and sway the will in despite of the divine prohibition. They were — (1.) Natural appetite for the attractive fruit. (2.) Natural desire for knowledge. (3.) The persuasive power of the superior mind and will of Satan. In this last fact, that, 3d, they were seduced thereto by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, much of the solution of this mystery lies. To the fall of Satan and his angels in the remote past, and under conditions of which we have no knowledge, the true origin of sin is to be referred.

B. The other element of mystery with regard to the origin of sin relates to the permission of God. This Section affirms, 4th, That this sin was permissively embraced in the eternal purpose of God.

About the facts of the case there can be no doubt. (1.) God did certainly foreknow that if such a being as Adam was put in such conditions as he was, he would sin as he sinned. Yet, in spite of this certain knowledge, God created that very being and put him in those very conditions, and having determined to overrule the sin for good, he so\ ereignly decreed not to intervene to prevent, and so he made it certainly future. (2.) On

I

FALL. OF MAN, SIN AND ITS PUNISHMENT. 151

the other hand, God did neither cause nor approve Adam's sin. He forbade it, and presented motives which should have deterred from it. He created Adam holy and fully capable of obedience, and with sufficient knowledge of his duty, and then left him alone to his trial. If it be asked why God, who abhors sin, and who benevolently desires the excellence and happiness of his creatures, shonld sovereignly determine to permit such a fountain of pollution, degradation and misery to be opened, we can only say, with profound reverence, "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight !''

5th. That God from the beginning designed to order the sin of Adam to his own glory is included in what we have already proved in the Chapters on Creation and Providence — (a.) That God overrules the sins of his creatures for good. (6.) That the chief end of all God's purposes and works is the manifestation of his own glory.

That man is now in a very corrupt and sinful state, universal experience and observation attest. That he was not originally formed in this degraded state might be inferred from the character of his Maker ; and the Scriptures explicitly affirm that he was at first created in the image of God — in a state of perfect rectitude. The question then arises, How was moral evil introduced into the world ? To this important question reason can give no satisfactory answer. Pagan philosophers could not fail to observe the degeneracy of human nature ; mournful experience taught them that evil had come into the world ; but to assign the source of evil, was knowledge too wonderful for them ; numerous were their conjectures, and all remote from the tinith. Divine revelation, however, sets this matter in a clear and certain light ; and our Confession, in accordance with the inspired record, traces the entrance of sin to the seduction and disobedience of our first parents. They " sinned in eating the forbidden fruit." This supposes that the fruit of a certain tree was prohibited. The moral law was impressed upon the heart of man at his creation, and entire conformity to it was his indispensable duty ; but, besides this natural law, God was pleased to give man a positive law, restricting him from the use of the fruit of a particular tree in the garden. " The Lord God commanded the man, saying. Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." — Gcn.ii. 16, 17. Without loosening his obligation to yield obedience to the whole moral law, God summed up the duty of man in this single positive injunction, and constituted his abstaining from the fruit of a certain tree the test of his obedience. The thing forbidden was

74 CONFESSION OF FAITH. [[cHAP. VI.

/ in its own nature quite indiffei-ent, neither good nor evil ; the

prohibition was founded solely on the sovereign will of God ;

it was, therefore, a most proper trial of man's obedience to

the divine authority.

The occasion of man's violating this express injunction of his Sovereign, was the temptation of Satan. The inspired historian, in the 3d chapter of Genesis, makes mention only of the serpent as concerned in seducing om* first parents; but since we find Satan represented, in manifest allusion to the transactions of the fall, as " a murderer from the beginning," and as " the old serpent and dragon" (John viii. 44 ; Rev. xii. 9, and xx. 2), we are led to the conclusion that Satan was the real tempter, and that he made use of the literal serpent as his instrument in carrying on the temptation. The various methods of fraud and cunning whereby he conducted his plot are stated in the sacred history, and have been illustrated by many eloquent writers.* It was not by force or compulsion, but only " through his subtlety that the serpent beguiled Eve." Seduced by the tempter, Eve " took of the fruit, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." — Gen. iii. 6. Thus the eating of the forbidden fruit was the first sin actually committed by man in our world. No doubt, our first parents were guilty of sin iu their hearts, before they committed it with their hands ; but the eating of the forbidden fruit was the first sin that was finished. " When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." — James i. 15.

To some the eating of an apple may appear a very trivial matter, and often have attempts been made to turn this grave subject into ridicule ; but, in judging of this act of our first parents, we must remember that they thereby transgressed ^ an express prohibition of the Most High. Their abstaining from the tree of knowledge was the criterion by which their fidelity was to be tried, and their eating of the fruit of that tree was a violation of the whole law; for it was rebellion against the Lawgiver, and a renunciation of his authority. " This grand transgression,'' says a judicious author, " though in its matter — to wit, eating a little fruit — it may be looked upon as a most mean and insignificant action ; yet, if we consider it in its formal nature, as disobedience to an express divine command, which precept was particularly chosen out and enjoined as the test of man's pure love, just gratitude, and absolute obedience to God, it was certainly a most lieinous sin. For behold what monstrous infidelity, ingra- * Berry Street Sermons, Serm. 10; Dwight's Theology, Senn. 27.

titude, and diabolical pride, were all at once implied in the same."* " It was aggravated," says another, " by the Being sinned against, — a Benefactor so bountiful, a Master so indulgent; by the persons guilty of it, — creatures fresh from God's hand, untainted by sin, and laden with benefits; by the precept violated, — so plain and simple ; by the place where it was committed, — a place where every plant, every creature, and every scene, displayed the bounty of the Lord, and proclaimed his goodness; and by its results, which were not to be limited to themselves, but to extend to their descendants, whom, for a momentary gratification, they ruined for ever."f Is it asked, How could upright man be seduced to commit this great transgression ? The answer is, Man, though perfectly holy, was mutable. He had power to stand, but was liable to fall. God left him to the freedom of his own will, and that freedom he abused. No doubt God could have prevented his fall if he had pleased, by giving such influences of his Spirit as would have been absolutely effectual to hinder it; but this he was under no obligation to do. He did not withdraw from man that ability with which he had furnished him for his duty, nor did he infuse any vicious inclinations into his heart, — he only withheld that further grace that would have infallibly prevented his fall. If it be inquired, Why God permitted the fall of man to take place ? " Probably the best answer ever given to this question in the present world, is that which was given by Christ concerning one branch of the divine dispensations to mankind : ' Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.' It was a dispensation approved by infinite wisdom, and seen by the Omniscient Eye to be necessary towards that good which God proposed in creating the universe.''^