78 



apple, " it is asked, " that our first parents should 

 be placed under so strict and unreasonable a 

 restraint ?" 



To this we reply that we can see no just reason 

 for complaint, because the prohibition was what 

 has been termed, not a moral, but a positive pre- 

 cept. In reference to moral precepts, it must be 

 admitted that the reasonableness of the duty is 

 not, in every case, equally obvious. May we not 

 therefore infer that, in positive precepts, a suffi- 

 cient reason for them may exist, in the mind of 

 God, which, in consequence of the weakness of 

 our understanding, we cannot perceive? That 

 our minds do not perceive the reason upon which 

 a command is founded, cannot possibly be an 

 evidence that no such reason exists, with any 

 who admit the finiteness of the human under- 

 standing. Therefore, to object to the prohibi- 

 tion as unreasonable, because we do not perceive 

 the reason upon which it is founded, is seen to 

 be fallacious." T. N. Ralston, D. D. 



Adam disobeyed, and the penalty was inflicted. 

 Six thousand years have witnessed the withering,, 

 baneful effects of one sin. 



If God has not been moved by the hopeless 

 condition, and pitiless cries of His children — He 

 is no God of love! And yet He has never re- 

 voked His pristine decision to manifest that love. 



He that offendeth in one point is guilty of 



