20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God' caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,

g ch. 15. 12. 1 Sam. 26. 12.

and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof:

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

h Prov. 18. 22. Hebr. 13. 4.

existed for changing them in any res-others when favoured with visions and pect. It was therefore a virtual attest-revelations from God. Nor do we see ation to the wonderful wisdom and sagacity evinced in the transaction.

any objection to Lightfoot's supposition, that such was the nature of Adam's sleep at this time, that the whole scene of Eve's creation was presented to his imagination in a divinely inspired dream: for it is evident from v. 23, that Adam was fully apprized of the circumstances of her origination. Took one of his ribs, &c. Whether there was some peculiar organization in Adam in order to provide for the production of the woman, or God substituted another rib for the one taken away, we need not inquire. The account of the woman's formation has indeed been made the subject of the frequent profane cavils of the enemies of revelation; but there is surely nothing in the narrative calculated to weaken its credibility, or to reflect upon the wisdom of the Almighty Architect. The miracle is in the creation, not in the choice of sub

20. But for Adam there was not found an help meet. The particle 'but' here stands adversative to an idea that is implied but not expressed, viz. that all the males of the brute creation were supplied with mates, but for man no such provision had yet been made, as among all the animals none was found suitable for him.-'All that he saw were fit to be his servants, none his companions. The same God that finds the want supplies it. Rather than man's innocency shall want an outward comfort, God will begin a new creation; not out of the earth, which was the matter of man; not out of the inferior creatures which were the servants of man; but of himself, for dearness, for equality. Doubtless such was man's power of obedience, that if God had bidden him yield up his rib, waking,jects to create from. That omnipo for his use, he had done it cheerfully; but the bounty of God was so absolute, that he would not so much as consult with man's will to make him happy. As man knew not while he was made, so shall he not know while his other self is made out of him; that the comfort might be greater, which was seen before it was expected.' Bp. Hall. 21. Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. As this deep sleep is said to have been caused in a supernatural way, the Sept. version is probably correct in rendering it extacy or trance, such as usually fell upon the prophets and

tence which bids the embryo grow up into the full proportion and stature of a man, can with equal ease expand the smallest atom of nature into the perfect symmetry of the human frame. That there was moreover an important mystical meaning intended to be conveyed by this mode of formation sufficient to vindicate it from all reproach, will appear from a subsequent note, see on v. 23.

22. Made him a woman. Heb.

builded her to a woman; whence our bodies are called 'houses," Job, 4. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 1. And

the original word for 'woman' is Isha (N), the feminine of Ish (x) man, and properly signifies, however uncouth the sound to our ears, man-ness. So in the old Latin vir, a man, vira, a woman, whence virago, contracted virgo, a virgin. The English word woman, however, will appear a more appropriate rendering if its Anglo-Saxon origin womb-man, i. e. female man, be borne in mind. It may be remarked also that the word 'called' both here and often elsewhere in the Scriptures is properly significant of nature, as well as of title.

See note on Gen. 32. 28.

25 m And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not " ashamed.

m ch. 3, 7, 10, 11. n Exod. 32. 25. Isa. 47. 3.

binding nature of this holy covenant, than such a declaration? Indeed one cannot easily be guilty of a greater outrage against a solemn ordinance of heaven, or inflict a deeper wound upon the best interests of society, than to treat the marriage tie as any other than an indissoluble union between one man

and one woman. Although it be true that God did for wise reasons and in a less enlightened age tolerate for a season the practice both of polygamy and divorce, yet it is unquestionable that both are contrary to the original design of the institution, and cannot take place without sin on one side or the other. As for polygamy, it is clearly forbidden by the fact that but a single pair only were created, and by the terms of the command, that a man snall cleave to his wife (not wives) only. And as to divorce, although it is authorized for one reason and but one, yet even in that case it is by no means certain that the essential obligation of the union, the real vinculum matrimonii, ever can be truly dissolved, notwithstanding a separation of the parties may take place. In the sight of God the sinning husband or the sinning wife is still held by the moral bonds of the original compact, though the inno cent party may be at liberty to marry again.

24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, &c. Whether this is to be considered as an inspired comment of Moses on the language of the preceding verse, or as the words of Adam himself in continuation, it is difficult to determine. If they be supposed to have been uttered by Adam, as he could as yet have had no idea of a father, mother, child, or the relations and affections subsisting between them, they must have been prompted by immediate inspiration. But to whichsoever of them the words are to be ascribed, they are by our Saviour, Mat. 19. 4-6, evidently referred to as an authoritative expression of the divine will in regard to the institution of marriage. It is an explicit declaration that this endearing union was to be of a more intimate and sacred nature than any other; that every other was to yield to it, and be, as it were, swallowed up in it; that the parties were to deem themselves as entirely and indissolubly united, as if they were in reality one per-ings of infancy reigned in the bosom of son, one soul, one body; and what can innocence. Clothes are the cnsigns of convey a more impressive idea of the our sin and covers of our shame.

25. And were not ashamed. They had no consciousness of any thing that ought to occasion shame or cause a blush.

Shame is a fruit of sin. But in the primeval state, such sensations were unknown, and the guileless feel

То

Now

CHAPTER III.

&

OW the serpent was b more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had

a Rev. 12. 9. & 20. 2. b Matt. 10. 16. 2 Cor.11. 3.

made: and he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

be proud of them is as great a folly as ed their expulsion from Paradise, and for a beggar to be proud of his rags or a thief of his halter. As the prisoner looking on his irons thinketh on his theft, so we looking on our garments, should think on our sins.'-Trapp.

CHAPTER III.

expan

nahash.

overwhelmed them with all the unut-
terable miseries of the fall.
1. The serpent. Heb.
The word 'serpent' in our language
comes from the Latin serpo, to creep,
but the Hebrew term has no relation to
the form or motion or any external at-
tribute of the serpent. It is a term de-
scriptive solely of mental properties,
being derived from a root signifying to
search or scrutinize closely, to find out
by experiment, and in some few instan-
ces to practise divination or augury.
Gen. 44. 5. Lev. 19. 26. 1 Kings, 20. 33.
The name therefore is obviously more
appropriate, in its original import, to
some kind of rational being, than to a
brute beast or an unintelligent reptile
And this brings us to the consideration
of the question respecting the real agent
or agents to whom the too successful
temptation of our first parents was ow-
ing. This has been a point of great
controversy in all ages, and in the ef
forts of learned ingenuity and pervert-
ed criticism to reduce this part of the
sacred history to allegory or fable, even
the presence of a real natural serpent
has been denied, and the whole treated
as a mere figurative or symbolical rep-
resentation designed to convey under
expressive emblems certain great moral
truths, which it was important for man
to know. But as to this alternative of
resolving the present record into an al-

The happiness of our first parents in Paradise must have far exceeded any thing which we can now imagine. Formed in the image of God, with all their faculties perfect and their appetites in subjection, undisturbed by care, and as yet unassailed by temptation, they walked with God as a man walketh with his friend, and enjoyed communion with heaven, though their abode was upon earth. There was no cloud upon their understanding, no undue bias on their will, nothing inordinate in their affections. As to external comforts, they were surrounded by every thing that could minister to their innocent delight, and in the keen relish of their new-created existence, their hearts pure ded with emotions of love, adoration, gratitude, and joy, towards their bountiful Creator. But this happiness, alas! was of short duration! In the present chapter a sad reverse comes over the beatific scene which we have hitherto contemplated. We are reluctantly brought forward to that awful revolution which took place in their condition. Henceforth we behold them fallen, sinful, degraded, wretched, ruin-legory, it creates as many difficulties as ed! Their history now becomes blend-it removes. For as Horsley well reed with that of the wicked and malig- marks, 'The narrative of this chapter nant spirit, who had left his first es must be either all plain matter of fact, tate' of holiness and bliss, and who, or all allegory. It cannot be matter of by his fiendish arts, having seduced the fact in one part, and allegory in anothhappy pair from their innocence, expo-er. For no writer of true history would sed them to the wrath of God, procur- mix plain matter of fact with allegory

ing real words, since the inspired historian expressly asserts the fact. But was this all? Is there not clear evidence of the presence also of a higher power latent under the serpentine form and acting through it as an obsequious organ? Moses, it is true, makes no express mention of any such agent, but there are plainly some things ascribed by the history to the serpent, which do not agree with the properties

has not only the faculty of speech, but he reasons upon matters relating to God and man; he speaks of good and evil as if possessed of a thorough knowledge of the laws of nature and | providence; he argues against the divine prohibition; steals upon the woman with the most alluring artifice, and finally persuades her to disobey the in

in one continued narrative, without any | intimation of a transition from the one to the other. If therefore any part of this narrative be matter of fact, no part of it is allegorical. On the other hand, if any part be allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact; and the consequence of this will be, that every thing in every part of the whole narrative must be allegorical. If the formation of the woman out of man be allegory, the woman must be an allegorical wo-of a mere brute crcature. The serpent man. The man must therefore be an allegorical man; for of such a man only the allegorical woman will be a meet companion. If the man be allegorical, his Paradise is an allegorical garden; the trees that grew in it, allegorical trees; the rivers that watered it, allegorical rivers; and thus we may ascend to the very beginning of the creation, and conclude at last that the heav-junction. No mere animal, it is eviens are allegorical heavens, and the dent could be capable of itself of what earth an allegorical earth. Thus the is here attributed to the serpent, which whole history of the creation will be an must consequently have been impelled allegory, of which the real subject is not by some superior intelligent agent who disclosed, and in this absurdity the used that creature as the passive instruwhole scheme of allegorizing ends.' ments of his malignity. Such being Biblical Criticism, vol. I. pp. 9, 10. the case, no doubt can remain as to We may therefore safely rest in the lit- this agent, for no being, except the eral interpretation of the narrative, apostate spirit, could either plan or exeand assert the presence and the agen- cute the malevolent design of supplantcy of a true material serpent. That ing primeval innocence, and destroying the act attributed to him of uttering the happiness of paradise. This conarticulate sounds, was indeed pre-clusion is confirmed by the nature of eminently wonderful and miraculous, no one will hesitate to admit. But a similar circumstance is unequivocally asserted of Balaam's ass, Num. 22. 28, and the truth of the miracle cannot be questioned, as it is confirmed by apostolic authority, 2 Pet. 2. 16. It is there said indeed that 'the Lord opened the mouth of the ass,' whereas in the present narrative it is not said by what agency utterance was given to the serpent; but the possibility is equal in both cases and a due reverence for Scripture, would seem to force from us the admisBion that here was a real serpent utter

the sentence which the Lord God, ver. 14, pronounces upon the serpent, 'Because thou hast done this thou art cursed,' &c. Here the sentence is plainly directed against an intelligent being and free agent, who had been guilty of committing a crime of enormous character. It were ridiculous to suppose the Almighty in so solemn a manner addressing only a brute animal incapable of moral guilt. Intimations, moreover, to the same effect are found in other parts of the sacred volume. Thus our Saviour, John, 8. 44, tells the Jews that 'they were of their father the dev.