Adam. Eliminate the principle of law and we 

 say, \vitlmut hesitancy, that God could moreeasily 

 have avoided the death penalty than by a 

 vicarious atonement. 



We assume to believe, that, if some one of 

 those who are "wise above what is written," 

 had been consulted in the adjustment of the 

 catastrophe that involved the death sentence they 

 would either have had to reconstruct legal usage, 

 or change their present ideas of God. 



We speak of the inevitable. We usually re- 

 late this to impotence of a human sort, but we 

 can easily see in the fall of Adam a divine in- 

 evit ible that argues no intelligent impotence, 

 but expresses free-will and justice. We are not 

 warranted in assuming that Adam and Eve were 

 cognizant of the extent nor import of the penalty 

 they incurred till its weight fell upon them. 



God's requirement in this case was positive. 

 ii The nature of the prohibition made to Adam 

 has been considered by some as a ground of seri- 

 ous complaint against the divine administration. 

 In reference to this prohibition, it may be ob- 

 served, that the objection is not that man was 

 placed under a law — the propriety of this, all 

 who acknowledge that he was constitute 1 a moral 

 agent, must admit, but the ground of com- 

 plaint is against the peculiar character of the 

 law. ''What harm could there be in eating an 



