We cannot justly infer, from this prohibition or com. mand only being mentioned, that man was not prohibited the violation of the moral law, in every instance, upon the same penalty; or that there were no other positive commands given to him, guarded with an equally severe threatening, in case of disobedience; or that this prohibition was the only test of his obedience; or that if he had violated any other command, it would not have been attended with equally fatal consequences. The contrary has been proved above; by which it is very evident, it is presumed, to all who will properly consider the matter, that they who have supposed any of those things, have no reasonable foundation for what they have believed and asserted. This positive prohibition, with the threatened penalty, is thus particularly mentioned, for two very good reasons: First, because it was a positive prohibition or command, and therefore it could not have been known that man was forbidden to eat of that particular tree, unless it had been thus particularly narrated. Secondly, because man actually fell from his innocence and happiness, and incurred the threatened penalty, by disregarding this prohibition, and eating of the fruit of this forbidden tree. Had he sinned by transgressing any other positive command, which we know nothing of now; that, in this case, would have been as particularly mentioned, with the same penalty, as this now is, and we should have heard nothing of this in a history so concise, as that which Moses was inspired to give, in which not a word is mentioned, which was not necessary, in order to understand the important story; leaving many things implied in the history, to be investigated or inferred from what is written, or to be farther opened and explained in some future revelation.

It has been a great question, What this threatening imports? What is meant by the DEATH here threatened to disobedience? Those who have attempted to answer it, have done it very differently. Some have been confident, that it intends only the death of the body, or the separation of soul and body; to which all men are now condemned; to which Adam, and in him all his posterity, was sentenced, after man had transgressed, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Others sup

pose that a total annihilation of soul and body is intended; so that if the threatening had been executed without any mitigation or remedy, Adam and Eve would have been annihilated, and none of their posterity would have had actual existence. Others have thought, that by dying is meant their becoming totally corrupt or sinful, dead in trespasses and sins," which is denominated spiritual death. The most general and common opinion has been, that it includes the death of the body, which is called temporal death, and spiritual death, and also eternal death, or endless misery; or as it is commonly expressed, "Death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal." Instead of attempting directly to confute all or any of these different opinions, or to vindicate any one of them, it is thought the most likely and easy way to get satisfactory evidence of the real and true meaning of this threatening, denounced against man, if he transgressed the divine prohibition, is to endeavour to find some clue which will lead us into it, so as to give all desirable evidence and satisfaction, that we have fixed on the truth. Perhaps such an one may be investigated. In this view, the following things must be observed, and carefully examined, and put together.

First, Every transgression of God's law or command, is a crime of such magnitude, that no punishment is adequate and answerable to it, so as to express the turpitude and ill desert of the sinner, but that which contains infinite evil. Or every violation of the law of God is infinitely criminal, is an infinite moral evil; and therefore deserves a punishment infinitely great and dreadful, and which contains infinite natural evil. This has been brought into view above, and the evidence of it exhibited, so that it is needless to say much upon it here. That all sin against God is infinitely criminal, every one must grant, or be inconsistent with himself, who will allow that it is a greater crime for a child to abuse his kind, excellent father, than to injure the meanest servant in the family; and that the former deserves a much greater punishment than the latter. For by allowing this, he grants that the crime of abusing another, is greater or less, according to the degree of worth and excellency of him who is injured, and to the relation in which he

stands to him. And this is granting that to injure and abuse a Being of infinite greatness, authority, dignity, worth and excellence, who, in the highest sense, is our father, friend and benefactor, must be infinitely criminal. But this is true of every sin against God. Therefore every sin against God, which is an injury and abuse offered to him, is a crime of infinite magnitude; consequently the sinner must be punished with infinite evil, if he has his desert.

Again, if it be evident and certain that every criminal deserves all that punishment or natural evil, which his criminal deed tends to produce, or would certainly follow, were it not prevented by some other person or counteracting power, which, it is presumed, all will allow; then every transgression of the divine law, deserves infinite evil. Upon this ground a number of the laws given by Moses are founded, and cannot be proved to be just, if this be not admitted as a truth. It was commanded that if a man injured his neighbour, and brought any evil upon him, by depriving him of his life, limbs or senses, he should be punished, by suffering the same, or as great evil. "Thine eye shall have no pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."* And it is to be observed, that not only he who actually did evil to another, and took away his life or any of his limbs, but he who attempted or aimed to do this, and did that which tended to effect it, though it did not actually take place, but was prevented, was himself to be punished with the evil, which he willed and designed to bring on his neighbour. By the same rule, if a man should murder a thousand men, or will and design to do it, he would deserve to die a thousand deaths, or lose a thousand lives, and this punishment might justly be inflicted, were he capable of suffering it, or had so many lives to lose.

Now, according to this, as has just been asserted, every transgression of the divine law deserves infinite evil. For every instance of opposition to God, which every sin is, is an attempt to destroy his being, or to take away

* Deut. xix. 21.

† Deut. xix. 16-21.

his happiness, and make him infinitely miserable; to put an end to his government, and introduce universal confusion and misery, through the whole creation; and the rebel would be glad to effect all this, and would do it, were it in his power. Therefore he deserves to suffer infinite evil; even all the evil which he is capable of suffering.

If any proposition relating to things of a moral nature be capable of the clearest demonstration, this is such an one. And this is a chief corner stone in the science of theology. Whatever is properly built upon it must stand, and every proposition naturally and necessarily following from it, or that can evidently be deduced, must be a truth.

Secondly, It is essential to a perfect moral government, that there be a law pointing out and requiring what is right, and the duty of the subject, and threatening all transgression of it with a punishment exactly answerable to the crime.

This has been considered before, and it is hoped, has been made so evident and certain, that every one who examines it with care and impartiality, will be satisfied, that it is an important truth. However, in addition to what has been said in support of this proposition, the following things may have weight.

1. If there could be a law, and any proper moral government without a penalty threatening punishment to the transgressor, (which, as it has been observed, is impossible) yet it could not be so good and perfect a law and government, as that which threatens punishment to the disobedient, and by which the transgressor is exposed to suffer some evil, at least. This appears so evident, in itself, at first view, and is so demonstrably certain, from the many threatenings of punishment to transgressors in divine revelation, that there is no need of attempting to adduce farther evidence. If threatenings of evil to transgressors were not necessary in the most perfect government, they could not be found in the divine laws and government: Nor could that threatening which we are now considering have been made to man.

2. It is necessary in order to the most perfect government, not only that there should be a penalty, or a law

threatening evil to the transgressor: but that the threatened evil should be neither more nor less than the crime deserves.

If the evil threatened be greater than the crime deserves, the law would be unjust. If it be less than the demerit of the transgressor, the ends of a threatened penalty will be wholly, or in a measure defeated; and therefore the law and government will be proportionably imperfect and defective. This will appear by considering what are the principal ends to be answered by threatening punishment.

One end is, to deter the subject from transgressing the law, and prevent rebellion. Now, it is easy to see, that a greater and more dreadful punishment is better suited to answer this end, than a less, if it be not greater than the crime deserves. Therefore so far as this end is regarded in threatening a penalty, it will require it to be as great as the sin deserves; and if a law threatens a less punishment, it is so far defective, and not suited in the best manner to answer this end of a threatened penalty: Which cannot be supposed of the divine law and government; because that is in all respects absolutely perfect.

Another end of the threatening is to state and express the evil nature of sin, and show how great the crime is, in the estimation of the legislator. The preceptive part of the law does not determine the ill desert of the transgressor. This is to be seen only in the penalty threatened. This determines how criminal sin is, in the sight of God; and what evil it deserves as a punishment. In this view, it is necessary that the punishment threatened should be as great, and contain as much evil, as sin deserves, and be exactly proportioned to it. By this, the law becomes the standard of truth, while it declares not only what is sin, but how sinful or criminal it is. It is with reference to this, that St. Paul says, "That sin, by the commandment, might become exceeding sinful." In these words he has particular respect to the penalty of the law or punishment threatened, by which he was slain, and death was wrought in him, even the death threatened to every transgressor; of which he speaks in the words immediately preceding. Sin be