especially by Eve, then perhaps about to become a mother, to know what might be the fate or fortune of themselves. and their posterity in the succeeding ages of the then newlycreated world.

There can be little doubt that this desire had long occupied the thoughts of both Adam and Eve, for they had evidently been informed by the Creator that the fruit of the tree, if eaten, would be the means of affording the desired knowledge, probably by a miraculous and prophetic vision, but they were commanded to forbear the act, and thereby to prove that they duteously relied on the Divine goodness. Such was their trial; but female curiosity became predominant. Eve first dared the consequences of the transgression, and Adam at her persuasion joined in the great offence. Desires such as above stated were the tempting serpent. The tempting serpent of the first book of holy writ was no more a real serpent than was the serpent named in the last book, the book of Revelation.

The recital of the history of this their fall became a religious duty incumbent upon Adam in the discharge of his office of priest at the religious assemblies of his family on the sabbaths. He would have occasion to designate the tempting spirit so as to render it intelligible to his hearers. No figure could be a representation of that wicked spirit more apt than a serpent, a creature of whose deadly poison the first man in the then rude uncultivated state of the earth would have often sad experience. The serpent therefore was taken to designate, in accordance with the habits of the animal, whatever might be mischievous, cunning, and deadly. Every hearer would understand by the use of the name that spirit which had been and was still too often found to be the deadly enemy unto man. Thus was the serpent first used as a type of the evil spirit. It is used for the same purpose throughout the books of holy writ, but merely as a symbol. It is never supposed to take a real bodily form: and the

notion that at the time of the Fall it was permitted to take such form is altogether arbitrary, and irreconcileable with the use of the same symbol in all the books of sacred Scripture, as the following authorities will shew.

In the book of Revelation the evil spirit is called the great dragon, that old serpent the devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world. This same spirit, in other places, is called the prince of the power of the air. In accordance with this latter text, the serpent or dragon is often represented with wings to bear him in air, and to signify the ubiquity of his presence; but a winged serpent is unknown. The prophet Isaiah writes, "The Lord shall punish Leviathan, the piercing serpent, that crooked serpent, and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."f The dragon and the leviathan are, it appears, the same creature. His abidance in the sea implies the great extent of his influence over man: the sea signifies the multitude, as in the following text: "The waters where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."g Such is the import of this figure when it occurs in several other passages in the sacred Scriptures. The serpent is often represented with a sting in the tail, like a scorpion. Such sting is not found in any serpent, but is intended to signify figuratively remorse, and vexatious disappointment, the ordinary result of bad actions. The evil spirit is occasionally exhibited by a form compounded of the limbs of a man and a goat; a figure known in the heathen pantheon under the name of Pan, one of the oldest of the heathen gods, a personage of licentious character. Such use of the form of Pan is well calculated to cast odium on the rites and images. of idolatry. The heathen always used the serpent as the symbol of good, as has been stated in preceding pages; but it is never used by sacred writers to signify good, but always evil.

d Rev. xii. 9. xx. 8. e Eph. ii. 2.

f Is. xxvii. 1. g Rev. xvii. 15.

The practice of ornamenting sacred structures both within and without with paintings both historical and figurative, was universal in the ages of early antiquity. It especially prevailed in the temples of India and of Egypt, and was common in the temples of Greece and Rome. In the fourth century of the Christian era the like practice was resumed by the Christians; and images and pictures were introduced into the churches, partly, it is presumed, out of respect for the persons represented, partly for the instruction which their figures might afford, and partly in compliance with the prejudices of heathen converts, who had been accustomed to such exhibitions of the gods of the temples. It is well known that the abuse of this practice led ere long to the grossest idolatry. The abuse of what is good affords no argument against the beneficial use, except when the abuse becomes a consequence of the use almost inevitable: in that case the symbol ought to be withdrawn. This was done in churches at the Reformation; but in the present state of the public mind, the use of symbols not being likely to lead to idolatry, it may be, and being beneficial it ought to be admitted, and our churches ought to be supplied with symbolical forms.

The second commandment of the Decalogue gives the rule which distinguishes the use from the abuse of figured forms. "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." These are the words of the commandment. Moses, in seeming breach of it, was ordered to make the cherubims, graven images whose wings overspread the ark of the covenant, the sacred symbol of the divine presence. These figures were undeniably a direct violation of the commandment, and committed in the immediate presence

"h

b Exod. xx. 4, 5. The use of the phrase of bow down will be vindicated in a subsequent page.

k

of the Deity, if the commandment be understood to forbid the formation of any figure; but that such is not the intention is made plain, not only by the use of the cherubims, but by the words of the following text, which, occurring in a subsequent portion of the Mosaic Law, explains the true intent of the commandment, "Ye shall make you no idols, nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God." This text, which enumerates all the various objects used for idolatrous worship, prohibits the construction of such fabrics only when intended and used for idolatrous reverence by bowing unto them. This interpretation of the law is fully confirmed by the image of a fiery serpent set up by Moses for the means of recovery from the bite of such serpents. The people were directed to look at the image, and the desired effect immediately followed. The act was all but idolatrous; but the enjoined inspection of the object was not idolatrous, and the use of the image was not a breach of the commandment. The persons about to be benefitted by the use were directed to look at it; they did not bow. How far it may have been symbolical of the crucifixion, as some suppose, need not here be asked. It appears that the image remained for several centuries, till at length it became perverted to idolatrous uses; the people offered sacrifices to it: then king Hezekiah called it Nehushtan, and treating it, as the name signifies, as a brazen bauble, destroyed it, because when worshipped it became an idol; but until it was worshipped its use was not idolatrous, was not forbidden, was even enjoined. These facts clearly prove that the utter abhorrence with which images and such forms were regarded by the Jews after their return from captivity, was unjustifiable by any authorized principle.

i Levit. xxvi. 1.

k Numb. xxi. 8, 9.

12 Kings xviii. 4.

It will be seen from these premises, that images and other forms, when addressed or honoured by bowing and other like acts of reverence, are then idols prohibited by the divine commandment; when not so used they are merely symbols, and are so far from being wicked, that they become objects of approved usefulness. The Protestant reformers, abjuring the errors of the Church of Rome, accused that Church with the direct worship of images, and with having thereby become an heretic Church. Acting in accordance with this accusation, all images and other symbols which had been perverted to the purposes of Romanist idolatry were destroyed, with a degree of zeal which might perhaps be justly termed indignant, and even outrageous, and the interior of churches were stript of all ornaments which could by any possibility have been available to idolatrous uses, even when they were merely expressive of moral and scriptural truths. In this it may be said that the Reformers transgressed all reasonable bounds. What may have been the rule by which the Reformers ought to have been guided, it may be proper to enquire.

The bishop of Mende advocates the Romanist use of images. He thus writes: "Pictures and ornaments in churches are the lessons and scripture of the laity. Whence Gregory: It is one thing to adore a picture, and another by means of a picture historically to learn what should be adored; for what writing supplieth to him that can read, that doth a picture supply to him which is unlearned and can only look. Because they who are instructed thus see what they ought to follow, and things are read though letters be unknown." m The bishop, after observing that the Chaldeans and other nations were idolaters in every sense of the word, thus proceeds: "But we worship not images, nor account them to be gods, nor put any hope of salvation in them, for that were idolatry. Yet we adore them for the

m Durand. chap. iii. sect. 1.