almost idle to propose such questions, yet it may serve still farther to show the suitableness of the actual prohibition to Adam's state, if we ask, could he be tempted to make idols when he thought himself Lord of all creatures? would a temptation to sabbath-breaking avail with him who had no need to work? To kill -who? his wife, and be left alone? To steal or to covet --when every thing was his own? To bear false witness -against whom? To commit adultery—impossible? Since, then, some restraint of natural liberty was necessary, and some permanent and visible memorial of man's dependance upon his Creator beneficial, what could be more proper and easy than a restraint of his appetite from one fruit, amidst an infinite variety of others equally delicious? what more worthy the wisdom and goodness of the Supreme Being, than the prohibition of a fruit which He knew would be injurious to man? what more kind and merciful than the placing the dangerous and prohibited object (expressly prohibited because it was dangerous) in so conspicuous a situation as to preclude the possibility of its being mistaken for any other?

The cavil about this fruit's being an object of temptation, is almost too idle to deserve specific notice; for surely no being can be out of the reach of temptation but God alone. The same may be said respecting the puerile objection founded on the supposed disproportion between the crime and the punishment. " Was "man and his posterity to incur death for eating an apple?" No. But who ever said this was the

66

case?

The sin consisted not simply in eating the

fruit, but in breaking the commandment of God by so doing.

Besides, though this act of disobedience may appear very trivial to those who do not duly consider it; "a "little reflection will render it evident that it contains "in it the seeds of all sin. It was ingratitude. God "had, of his free bounty, given to man every thing "that could be conducive to his happiness; yet he "could not refrain from that one fruit which God had "reserved for his own purposes. It was breach of "trust: he was placed in the garden to keep and to “dress it; every thing else was his own; yet he availed "himself of the confidence placed in him, to take "what God had told him was to be reserved. It was “rebellion; he knowingly put forth his hand to do "what God had prohibited. It was intemperance ;— "Eve saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant " to the eyes, and she did eat, and gave to her hus "band also, and he did eat. It was ambition ;-they

66

66

imagined that they were to become as gods, knowing

good and evil. It was charging God with false"hood:-God had said, in the day thou eatest of it "thou shalt surely die. Had Adam believed that de"claration, he would as soon have eaten of the most "deadly poison as of that fruit. But the serpent said "ye shall not surely die, and Adam believed the serpent rather than God, and proved this by the overt "act of eating the fruit. Are these to be represented

66

66

as forming no just ground of expulsion and exclusion "from the Divine presence ?” (≈≈)

(zz) Carlile on the Deity of Christ, p. 416.

With regard to the second question, it may be simply necessary to remind the querist, that even now there are fruits, the eating of which will destroy the best bodily and mental constitution upon earth, will inflame the blood, cause frenzies, and in many cases idiotism. Might not, then, some such fruit as now produces these deleterious effects upon the human constitution, operate most unfavourably upon those of our first parents? Might it not, in consequence of its previously endowed properties, ordained for a specific purpose, sow the seeds of disorder and death in their mortal frames-weaken the energy of their minds, and reduce their god-like understandings to the present standard of ordinary men? Might it not destroy the just equilibrium of their powers, and render passion no longer subordinate to reason—thus occasioning guilt, misery, disease,—and (since man can, by a necessity of his nature, only produce his like) entailing these upon their posterity to the latest ages?—If there be any thing unreasonable in these admissions, I confess I am unable to detect it.

As to the circumstance included in the third question, it was clearly the effect of mercy, not of relentless fury, as the inquiry usually implies. When man by his folly and disobedience had contracted a mortal disease, and had merely the power of communicating to his children that “life” which "is nothing but their death begun," surely it was the height of mercy in an insulted God; to take away some of its allurements and fascinations from a world which man must quit—to make the earth the scene of troubles and disquietude, as soon as life

བླློ

became temporary-that when this was no longer his home, it should no longer be supremely desirable; at the same time graciously assuring the offender, that more than what he had lost by transgression might be regained by repentance, and "turning unto God;" that thus, though

"Blooming Eden withers in his sight,

"Death gives him more than was in Eden lost."-YOUNG.

Some persons, and (as I have already hinted) even some Divines, whose minds lean towards the Socinian (a)

(a) I do not wish to give any offence by employing the term Soci nian in this place: but I am really unable to find any other word that will be both appropriate and distinctive, when applied to the class of Theologians to whom I now refer; and I am not aware that the use of it occasions any doctrine to be ascribed to them which they do not hold. It is not at all essential to our present purpose, to inquire in what minute particulars the opinions of Faustus Socinus differed from those of his uncle Lælius: or in what respects the modern Socinians differ from either; all of them differ from other Christians, by denying the doctrines of original sin, of imputed righteousness, and of Christ's divinity. To call them by the name Unitarian, is to give them a name comparatively new, and to concede them a term which they have often unfairly turned against us; although they know that every firm believer in the doctrine of the Trinity as much abhors the notion of a plurality of Gods as they do. Besides, they generally include under the appellation Unitarian the Arians, who hold at least two doctrines essentially distinct from theirs, namely, that of a propitiation for sin, and that of the divinity of Christ in some sense. If this sense, whatever it be, is not equivalent to Christ's being the supreme and only God, the holders of it are in theory Polytheists; and therefore can no more be classed with the Socinian believers in the Unity of God, than with the Trinitarian asserters of the same great truth.

[Addition to the 3d Edition.] Mr. FULLAGAR, who has honoured ine with a pamphlet on the subject of this note, and two or three other gentlemen whom I really esteem, wish me to employ the term Unitarian instead of Socinian. I am sorry to say that their reasonings and observations have rather strengthened than weakened my objections to the terni

hypothesis, contend that the whole story of the fall of man is allegorical. To this it is easy to reply by many obvious arguments. The Scriptures are intended to lead us into all truth, to preserve us from all error. But will this be effected by thrusting an allegory into the midst of an important, interesting, and remarkably simple narration, and not furnishing us with the least clue by which we can ascertain where the allegory is interposed between the links of the

they request me to adopt. I have told them that if they will present me with any term that will be universally admitted as designating the sect, and not in great measure assume the truth of their own system, I will gladly adopt it; but they decline complying with this proposal.

On cool, mature, and conscientious deliberation, I can think of no correct method of employing the word Unitarian in this controversy, but what would, I fear, give these gentlemen greater offence than the term Socinian. It would, for example, be used correctly to designate a class of unbelievers :-Unitarian Unbelievers, persons who loudly profess their belief in one God; who believe also, that great part of the New Testament was written by the apostles; yet do not therefore believe it true. Unbelievers in general deny the truth of Revealed Religion in toto; Unitarian unbelievers deny the truth of all which does not accord with their own theory. They do not deny that the apostles taught that Jesus Christ is "God over all, blessed for evermore," that he died " "fice for sin, the just for the unjust, to bring us unto God," that we are "redeemed by the precious blood of Christ," or that it is "by grace we 66 are saved, through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of "God;" but they deny the truth of these doctrines, notwithstanding the apostles taught them. That is, they believe that they themselves know more of the nature of true religion, than the apostles who were inspired to teach it. Admirable humility!

a sacri.

Whether the majority of modern Socinians do or do not belong to this class of speculators, I have no inclination to determine. But if they do, I may then add, that unless belief retain all, or nearly all, the essential characteristics of unbelief; and unless true religion be that which, among all known religions professing to regard a Revelation, approximates most nearly to infidelity in its nature and tendencies, modern Socinianism cannot be the true religion.