Pa.s.sing onward, in the history of G.o.d's ways, we find the river flowing in another channel. "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood, and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." (John vii. 37, 38.) Here, then, we find the river emanating from another source, and flowing through another channel; though, in one sense, the source of the river was ever the same, being G.o.d himself; but, then, it was G.o.d, known in a new relationship and upon a new principle. Thus in the pa.s.sage just quoted, the Lord Jesus was taking his place, in spirit, outside of the whole existing order of things, and presenting himself as the source of the river of living water, of which river the person of the believer was to be the channel. Eden, of old, was const.i.tuted a debtor to the whole earth, to send forth the fertilizing streams. And in the desert, the rock, when smitten, became a debtor to Israel's thirsty hosts. Just so, now, every one who believes in Jesus, is a debtor to the scene around him, to allow the streams of refreshment to flow forth from him.

The Christian should regard himself as the channel through which the manifold grace of Christ may flow out to a needy world; and the more freely he communicates, the more freely will he receive, "for there is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, and it tendeth to poverty." This places the believer in a place of sweetest privileges, and, at the same time, of the most solemn responsibility. He is called to be the constant witness and exhibiter of the grace of him on whom he believes.

Now, the more he enters into the privilege, the more will he answer the responsibility. If he is habitually feeding upon Christ, he cannot avoid exhibiting him. The more the Holy Spirit keeps the Christian's eye fixed on Jesus, the more will his heart be occupied with his adorable Person, and his life and character bear unequivocal testimony to his grace. Faith is, at once, the power of ministry, the power of testimony, and the power of worship. If we are not living "by the faith of the Son of G.o.d, who loved us, and gave himself for us," we shall neither be effectual servants, faithful witnesses, nor true worshippers. We may be doing a great deal; but it will not be service to Christ. We may be saying a great deal, but it will not be testimony for Christ. We may exhibit a great deal of piety and devotion; but it will not be spiritual and true worship.

Finally, we have the river of G.o.d, presented to us in the last chapter of the Apocalypse.[4] "And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of G.o.d and of the Lamb."

"There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of G.o.d, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High." This is the last place in which we find the river. Its source can never again be touched,--its channel never again interrupted. "The throne of G.o.d" is expressive of eternal stability; and the presence of the Lamb marks it as based upon the immediate ground of accomplished redemption. It is not G.o.d's throne in creation; nor in providence: but in redemption.

When I see _the Lamb_, I know its connection with me as _a sinner_.

"The throne of G.o.d," as such, would but deter me; but when G.o.d reveals himself in the Person of the Lamb, the heart is attracted, and the conscience tranquillized.

The blood of the Lamb cleanses the conscience from every speck and stain of sin, and sets it, in perfect freedom, in the presence of a holiness which cannot tolerate sin. In the cross, all the claims of divine holiness were perfectly answered; so that the more I understand the latter, the more I appreciate the former. The higher our estimate of holiness, the higher will be our estimate of the work of the cross.

"Grace reigns, through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." Hence the Psalmist calls on the saints to give thanks at the remembrance of G.o.d's holiness. This is a precious fruit of a perfect redemption. Before ever a sinner can give thanks at the remembrance of G.o.d's holiness, he must look at it by faith, from the resurrection side of the cross.

Having thus traced the river, from Genesis to Revelation, we shall briefly look at Adam's position in Eden. We have seen him as a type of Christ; but he is not merely to be viewed typically, but personally; not merely as absolutely shadowing forth "the second man, the Lord from heaven," but also as standing in the place of personal responsibility.

In the midst of the fair scene of creation, the Lord G.o.d set up a testimony, and this testimony was also a test for the creature. It spoke of _death_ in the midst of _life_. "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Strange, solemn sound! Yet, it was a needed sound. Adam's life was suspended upon his strict obedience. The link which connected him with the Lord G.o.d[5] was obedience, based on implicit confidence in the One who had set him in his position of dignity--confidence in his truth--confidence in his love. He could obey only while he confided. We shall see the truth and force of this more fully when we come to examine the next chapter.

I would here suggest to my reader the remarkable contrast between the testimony set up in Eden, and that which is set up now. Then, when all around was _life_, G.o.d spoke of _death_; now, on the contrary, when all around is death, G.o.d speaks of life: then the word was, "in the day thou eatest thou shalt _die_;" now the word is, "believe and _live_."

And, as in Eden, the enemy sought to make void G.o.d's testimony, as to the result of eating the fruit, so now, he seeks to make void G.o.d's testimony as to the result of believing the gospel. G.o.d had said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely _die_." But the serpent said, "Ye shall not surely _die_." And now, when G.o.d's word plainly declares that "he that believeth on the Son _hath_ everlasting _life_," (John iii. 36,) the same serpent seeks to persuade people that they have _not_ everlasting _life_, nor should they presume to think of such a thing, until they have, first, _done_, _felt_, and _experienced_ all manner of things.

My beloved reader, if you have not yet heartily believed the divine record, let me beseech you to allow "the voice of the Lord" to prevail above the hiss of the serpent. "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is pa.s.sed from death unto life." (John v. 24.)

FOOTNOTES:

[3] This subject will, if the Lord permit, come before us again in the twentieth chapter of Exodus; but I would, here, observe, that very much of the offence and misunderstanding connected with the important subject of the sabbath, may be justly traced to the inconsiderate and injudicious conduct of some who, in their zeal for what they termed Christian liberty, in reference to the sabbath, rather lose sight of the claims of honest consciences; and also of the place which the Lord's day occupies in the New Testament. Some have been known to enter on their weekly avocations, simply to show their liberty, and thus they caused much needless offence. Such acting could never have been suggested by the Spirit of Christ. If I am ever so clear and free in my own mind, I should respect the consciences of my brethren; and, moreover, I do not believe that those who so carry themselves, really understand the true and precious privileges connected with the Lord's day. We should only be too thankful to be rid of all secular occupation and distraction, to think of having recourse to them for the purpose of showing our liberty. The good providence of our G.o.d has so arranged for his people throughout the British Empire that they can, without pecuniary loss, enjoy the rest of the Lord's day, inasmuch as all are obliged to abstain from business. This must be regarded by every well-regulated mind as a mercy; for, if it were not thus ordered, we know how man's covetous heart would, if possible, rob the Christian of the sweet privilege of attending the a.s.sembly on the Lord's day. And who can tell what would be the deadening effect of uninterrupted engagement with this world's traffic? Those Christians who, from Monday morning to Sat.u.r.day night, breathe the dense atmosphere of the mart, the market, and the manufactory, can form some idea of it.

It cannot be regarded as a good sign to find men introducing measures for the public profanation of the Lord's day. It a.s.suredly marks the progress of infidelity and French influence.

But there are some who teach that the expression [Greek: he kyriake hemera], which is rightly enough translated, "the Lord's day," refers to "the day of the Lord," and that the exiled apostle found himself carried forward, as it were, into the Spirit of the day of the Lord. I do not believe the original would bear such an interpretation; and, besides, we have in 1 Thess. v. 2, and 2 Peter iii. 10, the exact words, "the day of the Lord," the original of which is quite different from the expression above referred to, being not [Greek: he kyriake hemera], but [Greek: he hemera kyriou]. This entirely settles the matter, so far as the mere criticism is concerned; and as to interpretation, it is plain that by far the greater portion of the Apocalypse is occupied, not with "the day of the Lord," but with events prior thereto.

[4] Compare, also, Ezekiel xlvii. 1-12; and Zech. xiv. 8.

[5] My reader will observe the change in the second chapter from the expression "G.o.d" to "Lord G.o.d." There is much importance in the distinction. When G.o.d is seen acting in relation with man, he takes the t.i.tle "Lord G.o.d,"--(Jehovah Elohim;) but until man appears on the scene, the word "Lord" is not used. I shall just point out three out of many pa.s.sages in which the distinction is very strikingly presented.

"And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as _G.o.d_ (Elohim) had commanded him; and the _Lord_ (Jehovah) shut him in."

(Gen. vii. 16.) Elohim was going to destroy the world which he had made; but Jehovah took care of the man with whom he stood in relation.

Again, "that all the earth may know that there is a G.o.d (Elohim) in Israel. And all this a.s.sembly shall know that the Lord (Jehovah) saveth," &c. (1 Sam. xvii. 46, 47.) All the earth was to recognise the presence of Elohim; but Israel was called to recognise the actings of Jehovah, with whom they stood in relation. Lastly, "Jehoshaphat cried out, and _the Lord_ (Jehovah) helped him; and _G.o.d_ (Elohim) moved _them_ to depart from him." (2 Chron. xviii. 31.) Jehovah took care of his poor erring servant; but Elohim, though unknown, acted upon the hearts of the uncirc.u.mcised Syrians.

CHAPTER III.

This section of our book sets before us the breaking up of the whole scene on which we have been dwelling. It abounds in very weighty principles; and has, very justly, been, in all ages, resorted to as a most fruitful theme for those who desired to set forth the truth as to man's ruin and G.o.d's remedy. The serpent enters, with a bold question as to divine revelation,--terrible model and forerunner of all infidel questions since raised by those who have, alas! too faithfully served the serpent's cause in the world,--questions which are only to be met by the supreme authority and divine majesty of Holy Scripture.

"Yea, hath G.o.d said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

This was Satan's crafty inquiry; and had the word of G.o.d been dwelling richly in Eve's heart, her answer might have been direct, simple, and conclusive. The true way in which to meet Satan's questions and suggestions, is to treat them as his, and repel them by the word. To let them near the heart, for a moment, is to lose the only power by which to answer them. The devil did not openly present himself and say, "I am the devil, the enemy of G.o.d, and I am come to traduce him, and ruin you." This would not be serpent-like; and, yet, he really did all this, _by raising questions_ in the mind of the creature. To admit the question, "hath G.o.d said?" when I know that G.o.d has spoken, is positive infidelity; and the very fact of my admitting it, proves my total incapacity to meet it. Hence, in Eve's case, the form of her reply evidenced the fact that she had admitted to her heart the serpent's crafty inquiry. Instead of adhering strictly to the exact words of G.o.d, she, in her reply, actually adds thereto.

Now, either to add to, or take from, G.o.d's word, proves, very clearly, that his word is not dwelling in my heart, or governing my conscience.

If a man is finding his enjoyment in obedience, if it is his meat and his drink, if he is living by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah, he will, a.s.suredly, be acquainted with, and fully alive to, his word. He could not be indifferent to it. The Lord Jesus, in his conflict with Satan, accurately applied the word, because he lived upon it, and esteemed it more than his necessary food. He could not misquote or misapply the word, neither could he be indifferent about it. Not so Eve. She added to what G.o.d had said. His command was simple enough, "Thou shalt not eat of it." To this Eve adds her own words, "neither shall ye touch it." These were Eve's words and not G.o.d's. He had said nothing about touching; so that whether her misquotation proceeded from ignorance, or indifference, or a desire to represent G.o.d in an arbitrary light, or from all three together, it is plain that she was entirely off the true ground of simple confidence in, and subjection to, G.o.d's holy word. "By the words of thy mouth, I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer."

Nothing can possess more commanding interest than the way in which the word is everywhere put forward throughout the sacred canon, together with the immense importance of strict obedience thereto. Obedience is due from us to G.o.d's word, simply because it is his word. To raise a question when he has spoken, is blasphemy. We are in the place of the creature. He is the Creator; He may, therefore, justly claim obedience from us. The infidel may call this "blind obedience;" but the Christian calls it intelligent obedience, inasmuch as it is based upon the knowledge that it is G.o.d's word to which he is obedient. If a man had not G.o.d's word, he might well be said to be in blindness and darkness, for there is not so much as a single ray of divine light, within or around us, but what emanates from G.o.d's pure and eternal word. All that we want to know is that G.o.d has spoken, and then obedience becomes the very highest order of intelligent acting. When the soul gets up to G.o.d, it has reached the very highest source of authority. No man, nor body of men, can claim obedience to their word, because it is theirs; and hence the claims of the Church of Rome are arrogant and impious. In her claiming obedience, she usurps the prerogative of G.o.d; and all who yield it, rob G.o.d of his right. She presumes to place herself between G.o.d and the conscience; and who can do this with impunity? When G.o.d speaks, man is bound to obey. Happy is he if he does so. Woe be to him if he does not. Infidelity may question if G.o.d has spoken; superst.i.tion may place human authority between my conscience and what G.o.d has spoken; by both alike I am effectually robbed of the word, and, as a consequence, of the deep blessedness of obedience.

There is a blessing in every act of obedience; but the moment the soul hesitates, the enemy has the advantage; and he will a.s.suredly use it to thrust the soul farther and farther from G.o.d. Thus, in the chapter before us, the question, "Hath G.o.d said?" was followed by, "Ye shall not surely die." That is to say, there was first the question raised, as to whether G.o.d had spoken, and then followed the open contradiction of what G.o.d had said. This solemn fact is abundantly sufficient to show how dangerous it is to admit near the heart a question as to divine revelation, in its fulness and integrity. A refined rationalism is very near akin to bold infidelity; and the infidelity that dares to judge G.o.d's Word is not far from the atheism that denies his existence. Eve would never have stood by to hear G.o.d contradicted, if she had not previously fallen into looseness and indifference as to his word. She, too, had her "Phases of Faith," or, to speak more correctly, her phases of infidelity; she suffered G.o.d to be contradicted by a creature, simply because his word had lost its proper authority over her heart, her conscience, and her understanding.

This furnishes a most solemn warning to all who are in danger of being ensnared by an unhallowed rationalism. There is no true security, save in a profound faith in the plenary inspiration and supreme authority of "ALL SCRIPTURE." The soul that is endowed with this has a triumphant answer to every objector, whether he issue from Rome or Germany. "There is nothing new under the sun." The self-same evil which is now corrupting the very springs of religious thought and feeling, throughout the fairest portion of the continent of Europe, was that which laid Eve's heart in ruins, in the garden of Eden. The first step in her downward course was her hearkening to the question, "Hath G.o.d said?" And then, onward she went, from stage to stage, until, at length, she bowed before the serpent, and owned him as her G.o.d, and the fountain of truth. Yes, my reader, the serpent displaced G.o.d, and the serpent's lie G.o.d's truth. Thus it was with fallen man; and thus it is with fallen man's posterity. G.o.d's word has no place in the heart of the unregenerated man; but the lie of the serpent has. Let the formation of man's heart be examined, and it will be found that there is a place therein for Satan's lie, but none whatever for the truth of G.o.d. Hence the force of the word to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again."

But, it is important to observe the mode in which the serpent sought to shake Eve's confidence in G.o.d's truth, and thus bring her under the power of infidel "_reason_." It was by shaking her confidence in G.o.d's love. He sought to shake her confidence in what G.o.d had said by showing that the testimony was not founded in love. "For," said he, "G.o.d doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as G.o.ds knowing good and evil." (Ver. 5.) In other words, "There is positive advantage connected with the eating of that fruit of which G.o.d is seeking to deprive you; why, therefore, should you believe G.o.d's testimony? you cannot place confidence in one who, manifestly, does not love you; for, if he loved you, why should he prohibit your enjoying a positive privilege?"

Eve's security against the influence of all this reasoning, would have been simple repose in the infinite goodness of G.o.d. She should have said to the serpent, "I have the fullest confidence in G.o.d's goodness, and, therefore, I deem it impossible that he could withhold any real good from me. If that fruit were good for me, I should surely have it; but the fact of its being forbidden by G.o.d proves that I would be no better, but much worse off by the eating of it. I am convinced of G.o.d's _love_, and I am convinced of G.o.d's _truth_, and I believe, too, that you are an evil one come to draw my heart away from the fountain of goodness and truth. Get thee behind me, Satan." This would have been a n.o.ble reply. But it was not given. Her confidence in truth and love gave way, and all was lost; and so we find that there is just as little place in the heart of fallen man for G.o.d's love, as there is for G.o.d's truth. The heart of man is a stranger to both the one and the other, until renewed by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Now, it is deeply interesting to turn from Satan's lie in reference to the truth and love of G.o.d, to the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ, who came from the bosom of the Father in order to reveal what he really is. "Grace and truth,"--the very things which man lost, in his fall,--"came by Jesus Christ." (John i. 17.) He was "the faithful witness" of what G.o.d was. (Rev. i. 5.) Truth reveals G.o.d as he is; but this truth is connected with the revelation of perfect grace; and thus the sinner finds, to his unspeakable joy, that the revelation of what G.o.d is, instead of being his destruction, becomes the basis of his eternal salvation. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true G.o.d, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John xvii.

3.) I cannot know G.o.d and not have life. The loss of the knowledge of G.o.d was death; but the knowledge of G.o.d is life. This, necessarily, makes life a thing entirely outside of ourselves, and dependent upon what G.o.d is. Let me arrive at what amount of self-knowledge I may, it is not said that "this is life eternal, to know themselves;" though, no doubt, the knowledge of G.o.d and the knowledge of self will go very much together; still, "eternal life" is connected with the former, and not with the latter. To know G.o.d as he is, is life; and "all who know not G.o.d" shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from his presence."

It is of the utmost importance to see that what really stamps man's character and condition is his ignorance or knowledge of G.o.d. This it is that marks his character here, and fixes his destiny hereafter. Is he evil in his thoughts, evil in his words, evil in his actions? It is all the result of his being ignorant of G.o.d. On the other hand, is he pure in thought, holy in conversation, gracious in action? It is but the practical result of his knowledge of G.o.d. So also as to the future.

To know G.o.d is the solid ground of endless bliss,--everlasting glory.

To know him not is "everlasting destruction." Thus the knowledge of G.o.d is every thing. It quickens the soul, purifies the heart, tranquillizes the conscience, elevates the affections, sanctifies the entire character and conduct.

Need we wonder, therefore, that Satan's grand design was to rob the creature of the true knowledge of the only true G.o.d? He misrepresented the blessed G.o.d: he said he was not kind. This was the secret spring of all the mischief. It matters not what shape sin has since taken,--it matters not through what channel it has flowed, under what head it has ranged itself, or in what garb it has clothed itself,--it is all to be traced to this one thing, namely, ignorance of G.o.d. The most refined and cultivated moralist, the most devout religionist, the most benevolent philanthropist, if ignorant of G.o.d, is as far from life and true holiness, as the publican and the harlot. The prodigal was just as much a sinner, and as positively away from the Father, when he had crossed the threshold, as when he was feeding swine in the far country.

(Luke xv. 13-15.) So in Eve's case. The moment she took herself out of the hands of G.o.d,--out of the position of absolute dependence upon, and subjection to, his word,--she abandoned herself to the government of sense, as used of Satan for her entire overthrow.

The sixth verse presents three things, namely: "the l.u.s.t of the flesh, the l.u.s.t of the eye, and the pride of life;" which three, as the apostle states, comprehend "all that is in the world." These things necessarily took the lead, when G.o.d was shut out. If I do not abide in the happy a.s.surance of G.o.d's love and truth, his grace and faithfulness, I shall surrender myself to the government of some one, or it may be all, of the above principles; and this is only another name for the government of Satan. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as man's free-will. If man be self-governed, he is really governed by Satan; and if not, he is governed by G.o.d.

Now, the three great agencies by which Satan works are "the l.u.s.t of the flesh, the l.u.s.t of the eye, and the pride of life." Those were the things presented by Satan to the Lord Jesus, in the temptation. He began by tempting the Second Man to take himself out of the position of absolute dependence upon G.o.d. "Command these stones that they be made bread." He asked him to do this, not, as in the case of the first man, to make himself what he was not, but to prove what he was. Then followed the offer of the kingdoms of the world, with all their glory.

And, finally, conducting him to a pinnacle of the temple, he tempted him to give himself, suddenly and miraculously, to the admiration of the a.s.sembled people below. (Comp. Matt. iv. 1-11 with Luke iv. 1-13.) The plain design of each temptation was to induce the Blessed One to step from the position of entire dependence upon G.o.d, and perfect subjection to his will. But all in vain. "_It is written_," was the unvarying reply of the only dependent, self-emptied, perfect man.

Others might undertake to manage for themselves: none but G.o.d should manage for him.

What an example for the faithful, under all their circ.u.mstances! Jesus kept close to scripture, and thus conquered: without any other weapon, save the sword of the Spirit, he stood in the conflict, and gained a glorious triumph. What a contrast with the first Adam! The one had every thing to plead for G.o.d: the other had every thing to plead against him. The garden, with all its delights, in the one case; the wilderness, with all its privations, in the other: confidence in Satan, in the one case; confidence in G.o.d in the other: complete defeat in the one case; complete victory in the other. Blessed forever be the G.o.d of all grace, who has laid our help on One so mighty to conquer, mighty to save!

Let us now inquire how far Adam and Eve realized the serpent's promised advantage. This inquiry will lead us to a deeply-important point in connection with the fall of man. The Lord G.o.d had so ordered it, that in and by the fall, man should get what previously he had not, and that was _a conscience_,--a knowledge of both good and evil. This, man evidently could not have had before. He could not have known aught about evil, inasmuch as evil was not there to be known. He was in a state of innocence, which is a state of ignorance of evil. Man got a conscience in and by the fall; and we find that the very first effect of conscience was to make him a coward. Satan had utterly deceived the woman. He had said, "your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as G.o.ds, knowing good and evil." But he had left out a material part of the truth, namely, that they should know good, without the power to do it; and that they should know evil, without the power to avoid it.

Their very attempt to elevate themselves in the scale of moral existence involved the loss of true elevation. They became degraded, powerless, Satan-enslaved, conscience-smitten, terrified creatures.

"The eyes of them both were opened," no doubt; but alas! to what a sight! It was only to discover their own nakedness. They opened their eyes upon their own condition, which was "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." "They knew that they were naked,"--sad fruit of the tree of knowledge! It was not any fresh knowledge of divine excellency they had attained,--no fresh beam of divine light from the pure and eternal fountain thereof,--alas! no: the very earliest result of their disobedient effort after knowledge was the discovery that they were naked.

Now, it is well to understand this; well, too, to know how conscience works,--to see that it can only make cowards of us, as being the consciousness of what we are. Many are astray as to this: they think that conscience will bring us to G.o.d. Did it operate thus, in the case of Adam and Eve? a.s.suredly not. Nor will it, in the case of any sinner.

How could it? How could the sense of what _I am_ ever bring me to G.o.d, if not accompanied by the faith of what _G.o.d is_? Impossible: it will produce shame, self-reproach, remorse, anguish. It may, also, give birth to certain efforts, on my part, to remedy the condition which it discloses; but these very efforts, so far from drawing us to G.o.d, rather act as a blind to hide him from our view. Thus, in the case of Adam and Eve, the discovery of their nakedness was followed by an effort of their own to cover it. "They sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves ap.r.o.ns." This is the first record we have of man's attempt to remedy, by his own device, his condition; and the attentive consideration thereof will afford us not a little instruction as to the real character of human religiousness in all ages. In the first place we see, not only in Adam's case, but in every case, that man's effort to remedy his condition is based upon the sense of his nakedness. He is, confessedly, naked, and all his works are the result of his being so. This can never avail. I must know that I am clothed, before I can do any thing acceptable in the sight of G.o.d.

And this, be it observed, is the difference between true Christianity and human religiousness. The former is founded upon the fact of a man's being clothed: the latter, upon the fact of his being naked. The former has for its starting-post what the latter has for its goal. All that a true Christian does, is because he is clothed,--perfectly clothed; all that a mere religionist does, is in order that he may be clothed. This makes a vast difference. The more we examine the genius of man's religion, in all its phases, the more we shall see its thorough insufficiency to remedy his state, or even to meet his own sense thereof. It may do very well for a time. It may avail so long as death, judgment, and the wrath of G.o.d are looked at from a distance, if looked at at all; but when a man comes to look these terrible realities straight in the face, he will find, in good truth, that his religion is a bed too short for him to stretch himself upon, and a covering too narrow for him to wrap himself in.

The moment Adam heard the voice of the Lord G.o.d, in Eden, "_he was afraid_," because, as he himself confessed, "I was naked." Yes, naked, although he had his ap.r.o.n on him. But it is plain that that covering did not even satisfy his own conscience. Had his conscience been divinely satisfied, he would not have been afraid. "If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward G.o.d." (1 John iii. 20, 21.) But if even the human conscience cannot find repose in man's religious efforts, how much less can the holiness of G.o.d. Adam's ap.r.o.n could not screen him from the eye of G.o.d; and he could not stand in his presence naked: therefore he fled to hide himself. This is what conscience will do at all times. It will cause man to hide himself from G.o.d; and, moreover, all that his own religiousness offers him is a hiding-place from G.o.d. This is a miserable provision, inasmuch as he must meet G.o.d, some time or other; and if he has naught save the sad conscience of what he is, he must be afraid,--yea, he must be wretched.

Indeed, nothing is needed, save h.e.l.l itself, to complete the misery of one who feels he has to meet G.o.d, and knows only his own unfitness to meet him.

Had Adam known G.o.d's perfect love, he would not have been afraid.

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John iv. 17, 18.) But Adam knew not this, because he had believed the serpent's lie. He thought that G.o.d was any thing but love; and, therefore, the very last thought of his heart would have been to venture into his presence. He could not do it. Sin was there, and G.o.d and sin can never meet; so long as there is sin on the conscience, there must be the sense of distance from G.o.d. "He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon iniquity." (Hab. i. 13.) Holiness and sin cannot dwell together. Sin, wherever it is found, can only be met by the wrath of G.o.d.

But, blessed be G.o.d, there is something beside the _conscience of what I am_. There is _the revelation of what he is_; and this latter the fall of man really brought out. G.o.d had not revealed himself, fully, in creation: he had shown "his eternal power and G.o.dhead,"[6] ([Greek: theiotes]) but he had not told out all the deep secrets of his nature and character. Wherefore Satan made a grand mistake in coming to meddle with G.o.d's creation. He only proved to be the instrument of his own eternal defeat and confusion, and "his violent dealing" shall forever "come down upon his own pate." His _lie_ only gave occasion for the display of the full _truth_ in reference to G.o.d. Creation never could have brought out what G.o.d was. There was infinitely more in him than power and wisdom. There was love, mercy, holiness, righteousness, goodness, tenderness, long-suffering. Where could all these be displayed, but in a world of sinners? G.o.d, at the first, came down to _create_; and, then, when the serpent presumed to meddle with creation, G.o.d came down to _save_. This is brought out in the first words uttered by the Lord G.o.d, after man's fall. "And the Lord G.o.d called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" This question proved two things. It proved that man was lost, and that G.o.d had come to seek. It proved man's sin, and G.o.d's grace. "Where art thou?" Amazing faithfulness!

Amazing grace! Faithfulness, to disclose, in the very question itself, the truth as to man's condition: grace, to bring out, in the very fact of G.o.d's asking such a question, the truth as to his character and att.i.tude, in reference to fallen man. Man was lost; but G.o.d had come down to look for him--to bring him out of his hiding-place, behind the trees of the garden, in order that, in the happy confidence of faith, he might find a hiding-place in himself. This was grace. To create man out of the dust of the ground was _power_; but to seek man in his lost estate was _grace_. But who can utter all that is wrapped up in the idea of G.o.d's being a _seeker_? G.o.d seeking a sinner? What could the Blessed One have seen in man, to lead him to seek for him? Just what the shepherd saw in the lost sheep; or what the woman saw in the lost piece of silver; or what the father saw in the lost son. The sinner is valuable to G.o.d; but why he should be so eternity alone will unfold.

How, then, did the sinner reply to the faithful and gracious inquiry of the Blessed G.o.d? Alas! the reply only reveals the awful depth of evil into which he had fallen. "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom _thou gavest_ to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Here, we find him actually laying the blame of his shameful fall on the circ.u.mstances in which G.o.d had placed him, and thus, indirectly, upon G.o.d himself. This has ever been the way with fallen man. Every one and every thing is blamed but _self_. In the case of true conviction, the very reverse is exhibited. "Is it not _I_ that have sinned?" is the inquiry of a truly humbled soul. Had Adam known himself, how different would have been his style! But he neither knew himself nor G.o.d, and, therefore, instead of throwing the blame entirely upon himself, he threw it upon G.o.d.