A third brother now joins the discussion, Brother C.

C.—Brother A., may I interrupt you here to ask,

Why, if it was proper and wise that Adam should have a trial under the most favorable of circumstances, as a perfect man, should not all his posterity have a similarly favorable trial? We all know that we are born with both mental and physical ailments and imperfections.

Why did not God give us all as good a chance as Adam?

A.—If you or I had been in Adam’s place, we would have done just as he did. Remember, he had known God only a little while. He found himself alive–perhaps God told him he was his Creator, had a right to command his obedience, and to threaten and inflict punishment for disobedience. But what did Adam know about the matter? Here was another creature at his side who contradicted God, telling him that he would not die from eating the fruit; that God was jealous, because eating of this fruit would make him a God also. Then the tempter exemplified his teaching by eating of it himself, and man saw that he was the wisest of creatures. Can you wonder that they ate? No; as a reasoning being he could scarcely have done otherwise.

C.—But he should have remembered the penalty–what a terrible price he must pay for his disobedience–the wretchedness and death which would follow.

If I were so placed, I think I should make more effort to withstand the tempter.

A.—Wait, Brother C.; you forget that Adam, up to this time, was totally unacquainted with wretchedness and death. He could not know what wretchedness meant; he had never experienced it. He did not know what dying meant; and, if you or I had been there, controlled by an unbiased judgment, we would have done just as Adam did.

The reason you think you could withstand better is, that you have had experience with evil, and have learned, in a measure, what Adam up to that time had not learned in the smallest degree,–viz., to know good from evil.

C.—O, I see. Then it is because we would have done just as Adam did; that God is justified in counting us all sinners, that “by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners,” and “by the offence of one, all were condemned” (Rom. 5:18, 19), and so “the wages of sin (death) passed upon all,” and through or “in Adam all die.”

B.—Do I understand you to say that God does evil that good may come?

A.—By no means, God did no evil, and he permitted it only because it was necessary that his creatures should know good from evil; that by being made acquainted with sin and its consequences –sickness, misery, and death–they might learn “the exceeding sinfulness of sin,” and having tasted that the bitter “wages of sin is death,” they might be prepared to choose life and to understand the wisdom and love of God in commanding obedience to his righteous laws.

B.—But did not God implant in his creature that very thirst for knowledge which led him to an act of disobedience in order to gratify it?

Does it not seem, too, that he wanted him to become acquainted with evil, and, if so, why should he attach a penalty to the sinful act, knowing that knowledge of evil could be obtained in no other way?

A.—We can see readily that knowledge of evil could be obtained in no way except by its introduction; and, remember, Adam could not have disobeyed if God had given no commandment, and every command must have a penalty attached to give it force. Therefore, we claim that God not only foresaw man’s fall into sin but designed it: it was a part of his plan. God permitted, nay, designed man’s fall; and why? Because, having the remedy provided for his release from its consequences, he saw that the result would be to lead man to a knowledge, through experience, which would enable him to see the bitterness and blackness of sin–“the exceeding sinfulness of sin,” and the matchless brilliancy of virtue in contrast with it; thus teaching him the more to love and honor his Creator, who is the fountain and source of all goodness, and to forever shun that which brought so much woe and misery. So the final result is greater love for God, and greater hatred of all that is opposed to him. The best armament against temptation is knowledge.

C.–Your reasoning is clear, forcible, and, would seem to me, plausible, were it not that this experience and knowledge came too late to benefit the human family. Adam failed from want of knowledge and experience to maintain uprightness of character – -his posterity, though possessing that knowledge and experience, fail to attain uprightness from lack of ability occasioned by his sin.

B.–I can see no objection to your view, that evil was permitted because necessary to man’s development and designed for his ultimate good, were it not as Brother C. suggests–mankind will never have an opportunity to make use of the experience and knowledge thus obtained.

But, Brother A., what did you mean a few minutes since when you said God had a remedy provided for man’s release from the effects of the fall before he fell?

A.—God foresaw that having given man freedom of choice, he would, through lack of knowledge, accept evil when disguised as an “angel of light;” and, also, that becoming acquainted with it, he would still choose it, because that acquaintance would so impair his moral nature that evil would become more agreeable to him and more to be desired than good. Thus permitted to take his own course, man brought upon himself misery and death, from which he could never recover himself. Then the voice of infinite love is heard:

“Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” This is Christ Jesus, and the death of Christ for man’s sin was a part of God’s plan as much as man’s fall. He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” His death for our sins was purposed by God before man even fell; yes, even before man was created.”

We continue with our next post.