coincide with what Moses had related; and thus both to edify and entertain his reader. And he has no where, in his performance, worked up a scene more natural, than by representing the vanity of Eve desiring to work apart by herself; the manner of the temptation, and success of it; her address to Adam after she had eaten the forbidden fruit; his foreseeing, better than she had done, the ruin into which she was fallen; the fond, but rash resolution he took, rather to perish with her than live without her; the turbulent scenes of passion and disgust, of mutual accusation and resentment which soon arose, when both were become guilty; elcgantly expressing, how certain it is that the being partakers in sin will not satisfy but disturb the soul. But however elegantly Milton may have represented these things; if we truly judge of the subject, as Moses relates it, we must plainly perceive that all this is Milton's imagination, and not the history of Moses. Moses does not hint that Eve had to go any distance from the place where she had eaten, to carry the fruit of the tree to her husband: but she took of the fruit of the tree and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. The point here treated proceeds without any discontinuance: her husband was with her at the time; she ate and reached to him, he partook of what she had taken," and ate also. The serpent indeed t Gen. iii. 6. " If she had carried fruit to her husband, he not being upon the spot, to eat at the same time with her, this would have required other words, than those used by Moses, to express it. spake only to Eve, and she only replied to him: she admitted his temptation, and added a sentiment of her own to strengthen it. The serpent told her she would become wise in eating; she had no fear of being overwise, though the danger threatened was, that she would thereby destroy herself. She perceived that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; but did not consider nor know that there could be no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against God: and Adam, we read, hearkened unto the voice of his wife. Thus far we may say, in the words of the apostle,' Adam was not deceived; not meaning, as the poet intimates, that Adam had such superior sense and judgment beyond Eve, as absolutely to reject the temptation; if, after she had eaten and was thereby ruined, he had not rather chosen to die with, than to live without her; (for this is entirely Milton's fiction ;) but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression: the serpent through his subtlety deceived Eve. The words spoken by the serpent were all the subtlety they knew of him; these caught Eve's imagination first; Adam was first formed, then Eve, but Adam was not deceived; the apostle means Adam was not deceived first. Here Eve unhappily took the pre-eminence, and, by adding to what the serpent had said, led her husband also to be deceived. This I take to be the true meaning of what the scriptures declare upon the subject. But it will be said, there are much greater points than what I have mentioned, which ought here to be well explained; as, I. How is it possible that a serpent should speak, as Moses supposed? I answer; we can form so clear a judgment of the natural capacity and ability of the brute creation, that I may be allowed to say, 1. That the serpent could not, of himself, speak the words, which, according to Moses, came from him. C But, 2. the tongue of the serpent might be so vibrated, or moved, by some superior, invisible agent, as to utter the sounds, or words, which Moses tells us Eve heard. This, I think, must readily be allowed by any one who considers how the tongue of Balaam's ass was moved, speaking in man's voice, to forbid the madness of that prophet. But, 3. I would add here, what I have considered more at large upon that case; that we cannot reasonably suppose that the serpent here speaking to Eve, any more than the ass there speaking to Balaam, understood the meaning of one word which it spoke. Both their tongues were moved otherwise, than of themselves they would have moved them; they were so moved, that such sounds proceeded from them as were significant words to the person who heard and understood such words when spoken. But these sounds conveyed no meaning to the serpent, or to the ass; both of whom, I apprehend, had spoken without any appre hension or intention of the sounds which came from c2 Fet. ii. 16. d See Connect. vol. iii, b. xii. them. In all this there was plainly a miracle; for, that the thing was impossible, cannot reasonably be asserted, unless we can assert, that the air could not be, by the power of any agent whatsoever, in using the tongue of a serpent, put into this or that motion, to cause what words such agent designed to be sounded by it. But, 4. was it then God, who miraculously caused the tongue of the serpent to utter the words spoken? In the case of Balaam, the text tells us, that the Lord opened the mouth of the ass: shall we here say, the Lord God opened the mouth of the serpent in like manner? I answer, no: the deceiving our first parents by a miracle, cannot be deemed a work worthy of God; but seems much more suitable to him, whom our New Testament denominates, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. The falsehood spoken by the serpent to Eve, seems to come naturally enough from him, who, when he speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own, he being the original author of falsehood; for he is a liar, and the father of it ; and our blessed Saviour hints, that he was the real person who deceived Eve; for he was a murderer from the beginning; and it was by him that death came into the world. Therefore, we have such intimations, that it was not God, but Satan, who spake to our first parents by the serpent. But the question which will here occur, is, 5. Can we then say, that there is any power in • Numb. xxii. 28. i Wisdom ii. 24. f Rev. xii. 9. h. Ibid. the universe, except the power of Him, who is God over all, blessed for ever, that can make alteration in the natural faculties of any creature, or cause a mere serpent to be heard speaking in man's voice, whatever he may purpose to have spoken? If we say there may be any such power, it will be queried, whether, in supposing it, we do not set up two opposite and contending powers, each able, beyond our capability to distinguish their limitation, to create or give things a new nature contrary to their true one? And do we not hereby lay a foundation for great confusion of sentiment concerning God, and his power over the world? I answer, 1. I apprehend there was no change made in the nature of the serpent, by his speaking to Eve, from what, in every respect, he was before. He was the same reptile; went upon his belly, even then, as a serpent now does ; had the same mouth, aud tongue, the instrument of speech, which a serpent still hath. His tongue was indeed moved in a way which he had not been accustomed to move it, and made such sounds as he never made before nor since. Adam and Eve, who heard him thus speak, and understood what he spake, but did not yet know that it was not natural for a serpent to have this faculty; readily apprehended, as indeed they well might, not knowing by what power he spake to them, that he was a creature of greater sagacity, than all other creatures of the animal world; all the rest appearing to them to be dumb, and not capable of such conversation. Yet all this while, I cannot con * Vide quæ postea. |