Obey'd thy Master's call; and in the right Thy voice was ever heard, from youth's green prime : Against oppression, tyranny, and crime: Yes! freedom, virtue, and the good man's fame Shall ever shed their light around thine honored name." pp. 357, 358. [For the Christian Examiner.] ART. II.-Spirit of the Hebrew Scriptures. - No. II. Temptation, Sin, and Punishment. WE closed our last article with some remarks upon the origin of evil, taking the subject in a metaphysical point of view. But what is more practically important, is the history of its origin as a matter of fact, in the individual souls in which it is manifested. For few men are capable of bringing metaphysical truths to bear upon their own lives; or, in other words, few men are in such habits of mind, that general truths fructify in their thoughts, even though they do assent to them when presented as matters of opinion. This was especially the case in the age of Moses; and it is sufficiently so now for us to be able to appreciate the good sense and knowledge of human nature, which forms one of the claims of the Jewish lawgiver to being considered inspired; for good sense, and knowledge of human nature, are the last products of the human mind, when developed in the natural way, if we may believe the testimony of common experience. But let us follow his own steps. When he wishes to bring home to the minds of his readers the fact, that moral evil was assumed upon the nature of man by his own acts, and subsequently to his being "created upright," he wisely selects the first sin of the first beings created; not that it was the greatest, but that it was the simplest case of moral evil on historical record; indeed the simplest case that could be imagined. As we reflect upon it, we shall see that it is peculiarly fortunate for the illustration of human frailties. VOL. XVI. -N. S. VOL. XI. NO. 111. 39 Each one of us may learn from it, by analogy, the history of his own individual fall. But in order to understand the temptation and the sin, we must inquire into the primitive condition of man, from our sole authority for this age. Moses describes this condition by a beautiful sketch, or more properly, by a finished painting. "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." (Then follows a geographical description.) "And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." - Some think that Moses meant to express, in a graphic manner, by this passage, that, besides plenty and beauty, which were poured around man, that his body might continue and grow, there was also given a means for his soul's expansion and growth; the tree of life perhaps designating extraordinary effusions of God's spirit, (and that by an oriental mind this would be easily understood): while temptation in general is expressed in the figure of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; especially, perhaps, the temptations to the indulgence of the lower appetites. But perhaps a more literal interpretation would be quite as philosophical. Supposing that man was called upon to deny himself the pleasure of eating of a tree, which was very desirable in appearance, is there not an apparent adaptation to the circumstances in the institution of such a sacrifice? Though a man in reason (as is implied in God's having given him a command), yet he must have been an infant in understanding,* -thoughtless,-inexperienced,-weak in moral power. And was not this sacrifice adapted to such a being? Was it not in the direct line of those thoughts and feelings, which must necessarily have constituted a large portion of his consciousness; viz. the bliss of new found existence, -the en * Reason and understanding are used here according to their old meanings, i. e. in the same sense in which Coleridge uses them. joyment of his appetites? Since the soul unfolds its powers by being exercised in reflection on the designs of its existence, and the purposes of God respecting it, was it not peculiarly fit, that what was to call him to reflection and internal effort, should be placed in the midst of what interested him as a physical being? The tree might have been a very common one, one that he could not avoid continually seeing: that it was the most beautiful and desirable, might serve to teach him, that the principle, for the sake of which he sacrificed, was infinitely beyond the most beautiful thing of material creation in value. Thus, the not eating of the fruit would excite and assist the spirit within, reminding it of God's interest in individual man, and serving all those purposes, which outward worship is intended to serve in all ages of the world. We cannot say of the command "not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil," as we did of the command "to have dominion," that it is the germ of all religion. On the contrary, it is a specific direction, the design of which was, to assist the divine instinct of self-respect, which is the universal revelation; and, as such, it is a proof of divine wisdom. If man were a purely spiritual being, natural religion, i. e. the laws of his nature, recognised by reason and the heart, might have sufficed him. But his life is not a mere consciousness of first principles. He is operated upon by the external, and himself reacts; and religion must address him with some other voice than the deep one in the soul. Hence the blessing of specific duties, something to do, which may enlist his animal nature and active powers, in alliance with the inward sentiment for the same end. The value of the prohibition to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, consists in its adaptation to the existing state of circumstances. Suppose Adam had obeyed this command, and afterwards had been placed in new circumstances. His own judgment, or perhaps more specific directions of God, would still have imposed on him other sacrifices and other self-denial, until his soul was sufficiently elevated for the fruition of heaven. It is important to learn, however, to make the distinction between general principles and specific directions. Not making the distinction has led to superstition and bigotry; and, moreover, has made the commandment of God of no effect on thousands, by whom general truth was professedly reverenced. These specific directions are not of universal obligation; but they are not to be undervalued. The wisest are not all the time elevated into the sphere of general truth. A voice must come from the earth beneath, warning man not to grovel upon it, which may be heard when the head is drooping, and the sun of the intellectual firmament obscured by the shadow of our own recumbent body. For want of these specific directions, addressing the active nature of man, the sublime speculations of the wise have generally failed of practical effect, even on those few who have admitted them; and they have entirely soared over, without touching, the minds of the multitude. Moses has united the two modes of developement. The more deeply men have reflected on their nature, the more have the wisest learned to feel, that man must act in order to be pure in heart,—that to do good is the road to goodness. Even a consciousness of connexion. with the Creator has been in vain to those, who have not equally cultivated a sense of connexion with their fellow beings. The things of time act, as well as are acted upon;the balance of action and reaction must be kept up. Man must not only contemplate the Deity, but must coöperate in his ceaseless action, sacrificing lower enjoyments whenever they interfere, if he would be a son of God. If this be true, how wise was Moses, who, before there had been experience of the effects of various systems, yet so simply and unassumingly stated the true method of cultivation! And the form in which he does it is also remarkable. scene. The temptation, the fall, the sense of condemnation, are all represented, in the living colors of poetry, a dramatic These colors and this scene have given rise to various explanations, and some have been more subtile than the case demanded. Moses was indeed expressing intellectual and moral truth by pictures, but it is not necessary to suppose that he used allegory. His object was not to disguise truth, but to give it a medium, which should attract the attention by waking up the imagination. It may be that facts were the materials, out of which he formed his picture. A serpent may have eaten of the apple. Its characteristic subtlety might have struck the mind of Eve, as connected with this food. Dwelling upon the subject is aptly enough described as parleying with the tempter. The first yielding of the good principle, though only so far as to question the expediency of obeying the divine direction, gives the lower propensities too much sway; they conquer;-retribution commences, more keenly felt, perhaps, because contrasted with the previous innocence; -and Paradise is lost. The fact stated as the immediate cause of Adam's sin, is so simple and natural, that it could receive no liveliness from poetry. "And she gave also to her husband with her, and he did eat." He might have sympathized in all that went before; or, if he did not, we may see the effect of the mere example of the loved upon the unprepared heart. Moses was certainly not writing to a people skepticalfrom philosophical speculation, but only skeptical, if they ever were so, from stupidity and sensuality; therefore it would be strange if his narrative were guarded against philosophical doubts. But, keeping this in mind, let us proceed to consider the subject philosophically, and we shall find, that for poetry, it bears a remarkable scrutiny, such a scrutiny, that we may be led to feel it has solid truth for its foundation. Do any make objection to this account of the introduction of evil into the world? Do they say that it implicates the Deity, and supposes that he places stumbling blocks at the very threshold of existence? But it was not the very threshold of existence. The command was known before the temptation occurred. The man was told that his spirit was the object of God's love, and that temptation was to come to his animal nature. When he saw this tree, and especially the serpent eating of it, what would be the state of his mind? On the one hand, appetite would excite the emotion of desire; on the other, conscience would set the divine command; and the balance, you will say, is equal. Not at all so. There has been a preparation of mind before, and according to what this has been, will the event now be. Has he, then, endeavoured to strengthen his spiritual nature? Has he meditated on his origin? Has he often recalled the truth, that he was created sovereign over all things which he saw, and increased the intuition of self-respect into a habit of mind? Has he lifted his heart to the Creator of spirits, and thanked him fervently for spiritual existence, and increased the emotion of gratitude into the sentiment of devotion? Has he employed his intellect in detecting the designs of the Deity, and the attributes |