should hear the voice of God and live; therefore he might here leave us this observation, concerning our first parents; that God spake to them, and that, although they stood naked before him, i. e. in his more immediate presence, under no covert, nigh to him, to hear the voice of his words talking to them, they experienced what Moses always reputed a very extraordinary thing, that God did talk with man, and they were not confounded, but lived."

Thus far we have no difficulty: we are now to consider what the voice of God said to Adam upon his confessing himself thus naked before him. And he (i. e. God) said, who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat ?* The words point very 'clearly to what 1 have explained to be the meaning of Adam's thinking himself naked. Had Adam intended by that expression, that he was ashamed to appear before God, upon account of his having no clothes, here would have been something said hugely trifling, and no way pertinent to any circumstance of his condition; but take him to mean by naked, not covered from the sight of God, and without any defence or protection against his power; and the reply from God here is, as if he had said, you say you are without cover from, and without defence against me: have you never been so before me until now? Have you hitherto wanted any cover or defence? Who tells you, that you now want them? I never threatened you, but for one thing: art thou

t Deut. iv. 33.

u Deut. v. 24.

* Gen. iii. 11.

afraid? Hast thou done that one thing, to be afraid of me? This now speaks itself to be the reason and explanation of what God was pleased to say to Adam, and refers evidently to what Adam had done to occasion this being said to him. Adam hereupon denied not, but confessed his guilt; the woman, said he, whom thou gavest me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." The woman being interrogated, answered without evasion, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. All this, I think, can want no comment; we may therefore proceed to examine the sentence, which God hereupon passed upon the offenders.

And here we read, that the Lord God said unto the serpent: because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." The objectors, hereupon, ask,--"Shall we say, that the nature of the serpent was now changed? that, before the serpent had done what he is here made criminal for, he was an animal that walked upright, and moved in a manner very different from what he now moves in? Were his whole make and shape, and powers of moving, upon the sentence now passed upon him, totally altered? If they were not, he was, before this sentence, just the same reptile, as he was after it; and if so, then no punishment was inflicted. If we say, God changed his make and form', and

b

y Gen. iii. 12.

a Gen. iii. 13.

loc. Rivet. exercit. in Gen.

z Ibid.

b Vide criticos in

degraded him to a low reptile for the mischief he had done; how can this be? For, where there was no fault, how should God punish?" If, as I have observed, the words which came to Eve, from the mouth of the serpent, were, in reality, not the serpent's words; were words he in no wise intended, nor had any sense of, or meaning in them," wherein could the serpent be criminal? and, if he was not criminal, why should he be so execrated and degraded? They, who oppose our understanding Moses in a literal sense, seem here to triumph; and I cannot say, that those who answer them, do speak so clearly as might be wished in this particular. The true fact in what had been done, undoubtedly was, that the serpent had been no moral agent in the affair, had really done nothing; for he was only a mere tool, an instrument in the use of an invisible agent; and therefore cannot be thought either accountable, or deserving to be punished, for any thing which had happened; so that we ought carefully to examine the

De poenâ serpentis non levis est quæstio: si diabolus rem totam egit sub specie serpentis; vel si coegit serpentem, ut ea ageret vel pateretur; quid serpens luit pœnas criminis a diabolo commissi? Dein, quoad modum et formam pœnæ in serpentem irrogatæ, nemque quòd in posterum pronus iret in ventrem, quid hoc sibi velit non est facile explicatu: erectum anteà fuisse serpentem, aut quadrupedum more incessisse ægrè quis dixerit: quòd si verò ferebatur pronus in ventrem ab initio, ut hodierni angues, ineptum videri possit id pro supplico, et in pœnam singularis facti, huic animali imponi aut attribui, quod semper et a naturâ habuit. Burnet. Archæol. p. 291. Vide quæ sup.

words of Moses, whether he says any thing which intimates that God had really called the serpent here to an account, or inflicted any punishment upon him.

It is, indeed, observable, that not only our English, but all versions of the text of Moses, render the place, as if great guilt was imputed to the serpent, and punishment thereupon denounced against him; but if the reader be apprised how the Hebrew particle [ki], in the text, which we translate, because, ought to have been rendered, not because, but although; the passage will appear to have a different meaning.

The words used by Moses, are ki ashitha zaoth ;f we render them, because thou hast done this: the particle ki has often this signification, and possibly may be thus taken, where Adam is spoken to, in the 17th verse, ki shamata, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife. But it must be rendered otherwise in other places. In Genesis viii. 21, the Lord God said, I will not curse the ground any more for man's sake ; FOR, [ki,] the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Had we here rendered the particle ki, because, we had darkened the sense extremely; and the translating it FOR, does not entirely clear it. The words truly rendered, are as follow: I will not curse the ground any more---ALTHOUGH the imagination of man's heart is evil:---This is the true meaning of the words:

• The Arabic version seems to specify, that the serpent designedly beguiled Eve: cum feceris hoc scienter, in the Latin version of the place. But how groundless is this fancy? Gen. iii. 17.

כי עשית זאת י

God was pleased to determine, not to curse the ground any more, although the wickedness of man was such as deserved its being again cursed. Thus again, in another place: Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, but he laid his left hand upon Manasseh's head; ki, we say, FOR Manassch was first born." Surely the reason intimated is a little confused: but if we had rendered the words, ALTHOUGH Manasseh was the first born, the expression would be just and significant. And thus in Psalm xxv. Pardon my iniquity, ki, we say, for it is great; but we should better express the Psalmist's meaning, if we translated it, ALTHOUGH it is great. Our version has, in one place,' given the particle this its true meaning: God led them not through the land of the Philistines; we here render the particle ki, justly, ALTHOUGH it was near.k

And thus the verse concerning the serpent ought to have been translated: And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ALTHOUGH thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. The words in no wise imply, that a change of the nature of the serpent was now inflicted on him; he remained the same animal as he was created. But they are, as it were, an apostrophe to the serpent, in the hearing of Adam and Eve, designed to evince to them, what a folly, as well as crime, they had been

.14 .Gen. xlviii כי מנשה הבבור A .11 .ver כי רב הוא:

27pExod. xiii. 17.