SUMMARY OF

APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION II.

MAIN difficulty consists in what we are to understand by the serpent: in order to this we must examine distinctly what is ascribed to this serpent. Circumstances considered which lead us to conclude that it was a real serpent that had part in the transaction: Gen. iii. 1. 14. 15. Circumstances on the other side considered, which lead us to suppose it was not a real serpent. True import and meaning of the prophecy examined, and whether any real difficulty lies in the way of a reasonable inquirer. It is shown that if there be any truth at all in this history, we must suppose the tempter to have been a rational agent, and an evil being. This tempter being men tioned under the name and character of a serpent, there haye been various opinions to account for this circumstance. two most considerable ones are, first, that which supposes a real serpent under the management of the evil being; second, that which supposes the evil being to have transacted the whole himself, and that the term serpent is used metaphorically to denote this evil being. Both have some support from the text, and both have difficulties; but it is shown that neither the substance of the history, nor the conclusion to be drawn from it, is affected by this difference of opinion. Arguments of those who are for the literal sense stated. Arguments of those who oppose them, and are for the metaphorical sense. The author's opinion, that a real serpent was seen by Eve.

The

Reasons given to show that the tempter appeared and acted as a serpent, and a judgment passed on the visible agent in this fraud was a judgment on the deceiver himself. Objection against this interpretation, from the kind of punishment inflicted on the woman and the serpent, answered. It is shown from the parable of the tares, and our Saviour's exposition of it, that he understood the Devil to be the tempter. This opinion, that the Devil made use of the serpent in his first deceit, shown to acquire some strength from the serpent having been a great instrument of idolatry in all times. Return to the history of the fall. In opposition to what has been observed with regard to the hopes given to Adam and his posterity by the sentence on the serpent, it is said that there is not the least intimation of any victory of man over the serpent: this answered. The exposition however will not necessarily lead us farther; but a little reflexion will show us that since all was lost by disobedience to God, nothing can be regained but through his favor, unless there be one more mighty than him to rescue us out of his hands. It is a material inquiry, connected with the history of the fall, and affecting the foundation of all religion, to know on what ground we have hope towards God. The question is, whence this hope is derived. From revelation and the promises of God, says the author. From natural reason contemplating the attributes of God, say others, who think that the attributes of God are a sufficient foundation whence poor weak man may hope for certain mercy. Little is wanted to convince us that the condition of mankind, into which they were brought by no voluntary act of their own, affords arguments for pity, and grounds for hope, from a merciful God. But what is this to the case before us, or to the main question concerning the foundation of religion, which had a beginning before one poor weak man was born into the world? this point enlarged on. The not making a distinction between the original hopes of nature, and the hopes that may be derived from the present

state of the world, has been a great prejudice against revealed religion and those who defend it. There is one difficulty in every scheme of natural religion; the religion and morality which nature teaches, is such as nature in her present weak condition is unable to perform to mend this matter, the mercy of God is called in to the assistance of man's weakness; but the very call for mercy and pardon shows the original duty and obligation to have been transgressed: this point enlarged on. It is shown that it was necessary to convey hope to Adam, to be the foundation of religion, and that hope was conveyed when sentence was passed on the offenders. To this it is answered, No; the necessity of revealing hopes of mercy is plainly not complied with; and no such hopes, or color for them, are contained in this transaction. For these assertions no reasons are given but what are founded in a mere literal interpretation of the transaction; and it does not on that scheme do justice to the text. It may seem strange that we should imagine any blessing at all in this which is a judicial proceeding against offenders; and stranger still, that we should search for this blessing on the man, in the part which was directed against the serpent, and which contained God's curse against him for his deceit. Considerations proposed to clear this difficulty. Exposition of another prophecy of ancient date, so like to this in language and ideas, that the comparison reflects light on both this prophecy is found in the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis, and relates to the tribe of Dan; Dan shall be a serpent by the way, &c. The language of the first prophecy, representing the victory of the woman's seed by bruising the serpent's head, has been continued in later prophecies: hence we read of power given over serpents and scorpions, of treading on the adder and the dragon. The known use of this language in Scripture, and the application of it to the promised seed, helps us to account for one of the arts made use of by the tempter on our Saviour, when he wished to know whether

Jesus was the Son of God: this explained. If we look into the world, where sin and death rule with such absolute dominion, we shall want no other proof of the completion of the first part of the prophecy of the fall. Reasons given for confidence that the time will come when the loss of the fall shall be fully repaired.

APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION II.

THE main difficulty consists in determining what we are to understand by the serpent, who is represented by Moses as the tempter and deceiver of our first parents. In order to this, we must consider distinctly what is ascribed to this serpent.

This serpent, we are told, was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made :' Gen. iii. 1. The comparison here being made between this serpent and the beast of the field, intimates to us that this serpent was really a beast of the field; for between the beast of the field and beings of a higher order no comparison properly lies in respect to their subtlety and understanding.

Again; the curse denounced against this serpent is adapted to the state and condition of a natural serpent, and is literally applicable to no other kind of being : 'Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field on thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel:' Gen. iii. 14. 15.

On

These are the circumstances in the history which lead us to conclude that a real serpent had part in this transaction. the other side,

This serpent appears to have the use of language and of reason: nor is it said that these faculties were conveyed to him on this occasion, (which is the case of Balaam's ass, it being expressly noted in the text, that the Lord opened the mouth of the ass :') Numb. xxii. 28. but these faculties are mentioned as natural to this serpent. When he talks and reasons with Eve, Moses relates this fact as an historian.