happy as the ftate they were placed in would allow, or as happy as they could be in any given circumftances, as long as their being continued, and that therefore, if they deviated from this rule, they would lose the advantage that attended the obferving it, and meet with fome inconveniences that attended the departing from it: fo that these advantages and inconveniences may be confidered as the natural fanctions of the law of nature. But, befides the happiness that would refult from obferving this law, it was highly fuitable and congruous, that a reasonable being, who came innocent and perfect out of the hands of God, fhould be placed in additional circumstances of dignity and felicity. He had no other father but God [1]. He was created in his moral image and likeness: he was therefore his fon by creation [2]: and, whilft he preserved his duty and obedience, it was fit he should be placed in a state that became fo high a relation; or, more particularly, that he that refembled him in his moral, fhould alfo refemble him in fome of his high natural perfections; namely, dominion and immortality, and in the glory and blifs that fhould accompany or refult from them. And fo we find he did, from positive expreffions, or from plain hints in Mofes's history. ftory. Particularly, we find that God bleffed him, and placed him in a most pleafant fruitful garden, free from toil, care, and vexation, with dominion over the works of God's hands, and clothed with a glory [3] (as a proper badge of his high relation to God, and of the power and dominion God had given him), and vested with a body capable of immortality by means of the tree of life, as we fhall fee prefently. All this was conferred on him as an inheritance that was very fuitable to an earthly fon of God [4]. In this sense and meaning is Adam called emphatically "a fon of God," and not barely as God created him, for fo he did all things; or as he created him a living foul, or a being endued with rational powers, for fo he did all angels, bad as well as good, and would there Mofes's hiftory.] That Genefis was written by Mofes is the received opinion; and I fhall therefore quote it as his in the fequel. But the doubts that may be raised against that opinion, without the leaft prejudice to the facred canon, may be seen in the Differtation, No. V. b Pleafant and fruitful garden.] This garden was in Eden, a country in Chaldea, Ifa. xxxv. 12. Ezek. xxvii. 23. Eden fignifies pleafure; whence the Grecks name pleasure Hdon. But Eden fignifies the garden itfelf, in the Rabbinical writings. The LXX call it P4radife, from the Hebrew word Paradife, which fignifies ་་ an orchard." • Luke iii. 38. fore be the Father of the one as well as the other. God, who, as the tender Father of our firft parents, had given them fuch additional circumftances of dignity and felicity, cannot be fuppofed to have been wanting in any thing that was neceflary for their fubfiftence and comfort; and therefore, as it might be very neceffary to fupply their want of experience with a law about their food for their own prefervation, and about marriage for propagating the fpecies, we meet with an account of the first, Gen. i. 29. ii. 9. and of the second, chap. ii. 22, 23. It is highly probable too, that they were endued with a language at once [5], which could not have been formed by themfelves in many years; and yet we find that God gave them the law of food and matrimony by language, together with other difcoveries of his will; and that Adam gave names to the fowls of the air, and to the cattle, and wild beafts of the field; and alfo that the man and the woman converfed with God, with the ferpent, and with one anotherf. Nor can God, who fo kindly provided every thing else for their happinefs, be fuppofed to have been wanting in this respect. For without a language, what fociety or comfort Gen. i. 28. ii. 16-19. iii. 8-12, 14-22, See the places juft quoted, and chap. iii. 1-6. could could there poffibly have been between the first pair, or between them and their defcendants? However, though Adam was created a rational being, innocent or perfect, and placed in the happy, blissful, and glorious circumstances I have mentioned, yet he could not positively affure himself how long his being, or these happy, blissful, and glorious circumftances, would laft, or that he fhould have any confiderable term in them granted to him: for Being itself was what he had no right to, nor the additional degrees of blifs and glory, which attended it; nor had he any right to the continuance of either. Here therefore a farther revelation was most of all wanting, in order to his receiving a proper threatening and promise, the most powerful motives to obedience. God was accordingly pleafed to give them to him, and to let him know, that, though his life was but terrestrial and animal, and therefore corruptible, yet it fhould be continually reftored and preferved (together with the dominion, glory, and blife, which accompanied it), in cafe he continued perfectly dutiful and obedient, by means of "the tree of life [6]," which was one of the trees of the garden that God had given him for food but that, on the other hand, he would certainly lofe all by yielding to his Gen. ii. 15, 16. appetites appetites and paffions, instead of obeying the law of God; and particularly, if he fhould but taste of "the tree of knowledge of good "and evil," which may not be improperly called the tree of death [7]. There can be no manner of doubt but that our first parents understood that the tree of life was of a fanative and restorative nature. But it was not poffible for them to hope to be restored and preferved by it against fin as well as against natural decays: they might therefore indeed expect, that it would preferve them if they continued innocent; but they muft conclude, that if they finned, either they, or the tree, or its virtue, would be removed from each other. Nor can there be much more doubt but they underftood, that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was of a noxious and deadly nature, which would diforder and hurt them, and fooner or later bring death upon them. And could they imagine that would not be the cafe, if they violated any other precept which God had given them as well as this prohibition? Could they be so stupid as to think, that this additional penalty, or one of equal feverity, would not attend the breach of the laws of their nature (over and above fuch lower penalties as would neceffarily refult from the breach of those laws), as well as the |