영
Ad'am (Heb. *Adam', *אָדָם, *red SEE EDOM*; hence אֲדָמָה, the *ground, *from the *ruddiness *of flesh and of clayey soil, see Gesenius, *Thes. Heb. *p. 24, 25; comp. Josephus, *Ant. *2, 1; Jonathan's *Targum *on Ge 2:7; Leusden, *Onomast, *s.v.; Marek, *Hist. Paradisi, *2, 5), the name of a man and a place.
**1. **The first man, whose creation, fall, and history are detailed by Moses in Genesis 2 - 5, being in fact the same Hebrew word usually rendered "man" (including *woman *also, Ge 5:1-2), but often used distinctively with the article (הָאָדָם, *ha-Adam', *"the man," Sept. and N.T. Α᾿δάμ*, *Josephus ῎Αδαμος*, Ant. *1, 1, 2), as a proper name (comp. Tobit 8, 6). It seems at first thought somewhat strange that the head of the human family should have received his distinctive name from the affinity which he had, in the lower part of his nature, to the dust of the earth — that he should have been called *Adam, *as being taken in his bodily part from *adamah, *the ground; the more especially as the name was not assumed by man himself, but imposed by God, and imposed in immediate connection with man's destination to bear the image of God: "And God said, Let us make man (Adam) in our image, after our likeness," etc. This apparent incongruity has led some, in particular Richers *(Die Schopfungs-, Paradieses- und Sundfluthsgesch ichte, *p. 163), to adopt another etymology of the term — to make *Adam *a derivative of *damah *(דִּמִה, *to be like, to resemble). *Delitzsch, however *(System der Bibl. Psychologie, *p. 49), has objected to this view, both on grammatical and other grounds; and though we do not see the force of his grammatical objection to the derivation in question, yet we think he puts the matter itself rightly, and thereby justifies the received opinion. Man's name is kindred with that of the earth, *adamah, *not because of its being his characteristic dignity that God made him after his image, but because of this, that God made after his image one who had been taken from the earth. The likeness to God man had in common with the angels, but that, as the possessor of this likeness, he should be *Adam — *this is what brought him into union with two worlds — the world of spirit and the world of matter — rendered him the center and the bond of all that had been made, the fitting topstone of the whole work of creation, and the motive principle of the world's history. It is precisely his having the image of God in an earthen vessel, that, while made somewhat lower than the angels, he occupies a higher position than they in respect to the affairs of this world (Ps 8:5; Heb 2:5).
**I. ***History. — *In the first nine chapters of Genesis there appear to be three distinct histories relating more or less to the life of Adam. The first extends from Ge 1:1 to 2:3, the second from 2:4 to 4:26, the third from 5:1 to the end of 9. The word (תּוֹלרוֹת) at the commencement of the latter two narratives, which is rendered there and elsewhere *generations, *may also be rendered *history. *The style of the second of these records differs very considerably from that of the first. In the first the Deity is designated by the word *Elohim; *in the second he is generally spoken of as *Jehovah Elohim. *The object of the first of these narratives is to record the creation; that of the second to give an account of paradise, the original sin of man, and the immediate posterity of Adam; the third contains mainly the history of Noah, referring, it would seem, to Adam and his descendants, principally in relation to that patriarch. The first account of the creation of man is in general terms, the two sexes being spoken of together (ch. 1:27) as a unit of species; whereas in the second, or resumptive account, the separate formation of the man and the woman is detailed. This simple consideration reconciles all apparent discrepancy between the two narratives. *SEE GENESIS*.
The representation there given is that Adam was absolutely the first man, and was created by the direct agency of God; that this act of creation, including the immediately subsequent creation of Eve, was the last in a series of creative acts which extended through a period of six literal days. *SEE CREATION*. This Scriptural account is, of course, entirely opposed to the atheistic hypothesis, which denies any definite beginning to the human race, but conceives the successive generations of men to have run on in a kind of infinite series, to which no beginning can be assigned. Such a theory, originally propounded by heathen philosophers, has also been asserted by the more extreme section of infidel writers in Christian times. But the voice of tradition, which, in all the more ancient nations, uniformly points to a comparatively recent period for the origin of the human family, has now received conclusive attestations from learned research and scientific inquiry. Not only have the remains of human art and civilization, the more they have been explored, yielded more convincing evidence of a period not very remote when the human family itself was in infancy, but the languages of the world also, when carefully investigated and compared, as they have of late been, point to a common and not exceedingly remote origin. This is the view of Sir William Jones, and, later, of Bunsen also. The same conclusion substantially is reached by Dr. Donaldson, who, after stating what has already been accomplished in this department of learning, expresses his conviction, on the ground alone of the affinities of language, that "investigation will fully confirm what the great apostle proclaimed in the Areopagus, that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" *(New Cratylus, *p. 19). The position is still further confirmed by the results that have been gained in the region of natural science. The most skillful and accomplished naturalists — such as Cuvier, Blumenbach, Pritchard — have established beyond any reasonable doubt the unity of the human family as a species (see particularly Pritchard's *History of Man); *and those who have prosecuted geological researches, while they have found remains in the different strata of rocks of numberless species of inferior animals, can point to no *human *petrifactions — none, at least, but what appear in some comparatively recent and local formations — a proof that man is of too late an origin for his remains to have mingled with those of the extinct animal tribes of preceding ages. Science generally can tell of no separate creations for animals of one and the same species; and while all geologic history is full of the beginnings and the ends of species, "it exhibits no genealogies of development" (Miller's *Testimony of the Rocks, *p. 201). That, when created, man must have been formed in full maturity, as Adam is related to have been, was a necessity arising from the very conditions of existence. It has been discovered, by searching into the remains of preceding ages and generations of living creatures, that there has been a manifest progress in the succession of beings on the surface of the earth — a progress in the direction of an increasing resemblance to the existing forms of being, and in particular to man. But the connection between the earlier and the later, the imperfect and the perfect, is not that of direct lineage or parental descent, as if it came in the way merely of natural growth and development. The connection, as Agassiz has said in his *Principles of Zoology, *"is of a higher and immaterial nature; it is to be sought in the view of the Creator himself, whose aim in forming the earth, in allowing it to undergo the successive changes which geology has pointed out, and in creating successively all the different types of animals which have passed away, was to introduce man upon the surface of our globe. *Man is the end toward which the animal creation has tended from the first appearance of the first palaeozoic fishes." SEE GEOLOGY*.
The Almighty formed Adam out of the dust of the earth, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures (Ge 1:26; Ge 2:7), B.C. 4172. He created him in his own image *SEE PERFECTION*, and, having pronounced a blessing upon him, placed him in a delightful garden, that he might cultivate it and enjoy its fruits. *SEE EDEN*. At the same time, however, he gave him the following injunction: "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The first recorded exercise of Adam's power and intelligence was his giving names to the beasts of the field and fowls of the air, which the Lord brought before him for this purpose. The examination thus afforded him having shown that it was not good for man to be alone, the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while he remained in a semi-conscious state took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh; and of the rib thus taken from man he made a woman, whom he presented to him when he awoke. *SEE EVE*. Adam received her, saying, "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." *SEE MARRIAGE*.
This woman, being seduced by the tempter, persuaded her husband to eat of the forbidden fruit (comp. Theuer, *De Adamo lapso, divortium c. Eva cogitante, *Jen. 1759). When called to judgment for this transgression before God, Adam blamed his wife, and the woman blamed the serpent- tempter. God punished the tempter by degradation and dread *SEE SERPENT*; the woman by painful travail and a situation of submission; and the man by a life of labor and toil — of which punishment every day witnesses the fulfillment. *SEE FALL*. As their natural passions now became irregular, and their exposure to accidents great, God made a covering of skin for Adam and for his wife. He also expelled them from his garden to the land around it, where Adam had been made, and where was to be their future dwelling; placing at the east of the garden a flame, which turned every way, to prevent access to the tree of life (Genesis 3). *SEE DEATH*.
It is not known how long Adam and his wife continued in Paradise: some think many years; others not many days; others not many hours. Shortly after their expulsion Eve brought forth Cain (Ge 4:1-2). Scripture notices but three sons of Adam, Cain, Abel, and Seth (q.v.), but contains an allusion (Ge 5:4) to "sons and daughters;" no doubt several. He died B.C. 3242, aged 930 (see Bruckner, *Ob Adam wirklich ub. *900 *J. alt geworden, *Aurich, 1799). *SEE LONGEVITY*.
Such is the simple narrative of the Bible relative to the progenitor of the human race, to which it only remains to add that his faith doubtless recognised in the promise of "the woman's seed" that should "bruise the serpent's head" the atoning merits of the future Redeemer. *SEE MESSIAH*. Whatever difficulties we may find in the Scriptural account, we accept it as a literal statement of facts, and shall therefore dismiss the rationalistic theories and speculations to which it has given rise. The results are of the utmost importance to mankind, and the light that the Bible thus sheds upon the origin of the race and the source of human depravity is of inestimable value even in a historical and philosophical point of view. *SEE MAN*.
See, generally, Eichhorn's *Urgesch. *ed. Gabler (Nurnb. 1790); Hug, *Mos. Gesch. *(Frankf. und Leipz. 1790). Buttman has collected the parallels of heathen mythology in the *Neue Berl. Monatsschr. *1804, p. 261 sq.; also in his *Mythologus, *1, 122 sq.; comp. Gesenius, in the *Hall. Encykl. *1, 358. In the Hindoo sacred books the first human pair are called *Meshia *and *Meshiam (Zend Avesta, *1, 23; 3:84). For the Talmudic fables respecting Adam, see Eisenmenger, *Entdeckt. Judenth. *1, 84-365, 830; 2, 417; Otho, *Lex. Rabb. *p. 9 sq. Those of the Koran are found in Sura 2, 30 sq.; 7, 11 sq.; see Hottinger, *Hist. Orient. *p. 21; comp. D'Herbelot, *Biblioth. Or. *s.v. Christian traditions may be seen in Epiphan. *Haer. *46, 2 sq.; Augustine, *Civ. Dei, *14, 17; Cedrenus, *Hist. *p. 6, 9; see especially Fabricii *Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. *1, 1 sq. The Vulgate. in Jos 14:15, ranks Adam among the Anakim; see Gotze, *Quanta Adamistatura fuerit *(Lips. 1722); comp. Edzardi, *Ad Cod. Avoda Sara, *p. 530 sq. *SEE ANTEDILUVIANS*.
**II. **The question of the *unity of the human race, *or the descent of the race from a single pair, has given rise to much discussion of late, after it had been thought to be finally settled. It may be stated thus: "Did the Almighty Creator produce only one man and one woman, from whom all other human beings have descended? or did he create several parental pairs, from whom distinct stocks of men have been derived? The question is usually regarded as equivalent to this: whether or not there is more than one species of men? But we cannot, in strict fairness, admit that the questions are identical. It is hypothetically *conceivable *that the adorable God might give existence to any number of creatures, which should all possess the properties that characterize identity of species, even without such differences as constitute varieties, or with any degree of those differences. But the admission of the possibility is not a concession of the reality. So great is the evidence in favor of the derivation of the entire mass of human beings from one pair of ancestors, that it has obtained the suffrage of the men most competent to judge upon a question of comparative anatomy and physiology.
"**(1.) **The animals which render eminent services to man, and peculiarly depend upon his protection, are widely diffused — the horse, the dog, the hog, the domestic fowl. Now of these, the varieties in each species are numerous and different, to a degree so great that an observer ignorant of physiological history would scarcely believe them to be of the same species. But man is the most widely diffused of any animal. In the progress of ages and generations, he has naturalized himself to every climate, and to modes of life which would prove fatal to an individual man suddenly transferred from a remote point of the field. The alterations produced affect every part of the body, internal and external, without extinguishing the marks of the specific identity.
"**(2.) **A further and striking evidence is, that when persons of different varieties are conjugally united, the offspring, especially in two or three generations, becomes more prolific, and acquires a higher perfection in physical and mental qualities than was found in either of the parental races. From the deepest African black to the finest Caucasian white, the change runs through imperceptible gradations; and, if a middle hue be assumed, suppose some tint of brown, all the varieties of complexion may be explained upon the principle of divergence influenced by outward circumstances. Mr. Poinsett saw in South America a fine healthy regiment of spotted men, quite peculiar enough to be held by Professor Agassiz a separate race. And why were they not? Simply because they were a known cross-breed between Spaniards and Indians. Changes as great are exhibited by the Magyars of Europe, and by the Ulster Irish, as quoted by Miller. Sir Charles Lyell was of opinion that a climatic change was already perceptible in the negro of our Southern states. Professor Cabell *(Testimony of Modern Science, *etc.) ably and clearly sustains the doctrine that propagability is conclusive proof of sameness of species. He denies, on good authority, that the mulatto is feebler or less prolific than either unmixed stock. He furnishes abundant proof of the barrenness of hybrids. The fact that the connection of different varieties of the human species produces a prolific progeny, is proof of oneness of species and family. This argument, sustained by facts; can hardly be considered less than demonstration.
"**(3.) **The objection drawn from the improbability that the one race springing from a single locality would migrate from a pleasanter to a worse region is very completely dispatched. Ample causes, proofs, facts, and authorities are furnished to show that, were mankind now reduced to a single family, only time would be wanting, even without civilization, to overspread the earth. European man and European- American man, as all history agrees, came from Asia. Whence came our aboriginal men? As Professor Cabell shows, they came by an antipodal route from the same Asia. Pursue the investigation, and the clue of history will lead our tremulous feet to about the Mosaic cradle of man.
"**(4.) **Ethnology, or rather Glottology, the gradually perfecting comparison of languages, is bringing. us to the same point. The unscientific attempt to trace the striking analogies of languages to the mere similarity of human organs, and the still more unscientific attempt of Professor Agassiz to attribute them to a transcendental mental unity in races sprung from different original localities, look like desperation. Meanwhile, comparison is educing wonderful yet rarely demonstrative laws, and laws are guiding threads converging to unity.
"**(5.) **Another argument is derived from the real mental unity of the universal human soul. Races differ, indeed, in mental power, as do individuals, widely, even in the same family. But there is the same program of mental philosophy for all. The same intellect, affections, instincts, conscience, sense of superior divine power, and susceptibility of religion. For the European, the Esquimaux, the Hottentot, there is the same power in the cross of Christ.
"**(6.) **Finally, Geology, with her wonderful demonstration of the recent origin of man, proves the same thing. The latest attempts to adduce specimens of fossil man have been failures. Not far back of the period that our best but somewhat hypothetical calculations from Mosaic chronology would assign, Geology fixes the birth of man.
"The conclusion may be fairly drawn, in the words of the able translators and illustrators of Baron Cuvier's great work: 'We are fully warranted in concluding, both from the comparison of man with inferior animals, so far as the inferiority will allow of such comparison, and, beyond that, by comparing him with himself, that the great family of mankind loudly proclaim a descent, at some period or other, from one common origin.'
"Thus, by an investigation totally independent of historical authority, we are brought to the conclusion of the inspired writings, that the Creator 'hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth' (Ac 17:26)." The more recent authorities on this question are: Prichard, *Researches into the Physiological History of Mankind *(Lond. 4 vols. 8vo, 1836-44); also *Natural History of Man *(London, 3d ed. 8vo, 1848); Bachman, *Unity of the Human Race *(Charleston, 1850, 8vo); Smyth, *Unity of the Races *(New York, 1850); Johnes, *Philological Proofs of the Unity of the Human Race *(London, 1846); *Meih, Qu. Rev. *July, 1851, p. 345; Jan. 1859, p. 162; Cabell, *Testimony of Modern Science to the Unity of Mankind *(New York, 1858, 12mo). See also Blumenbach, *De gen. hum. Var. Nativa *(Gott.
1776, 8vo); Quatrefages, in *Rev. des Deux Mondes, *1861; and the article MAN *SEE MAN *.
**III. **The *original capacities and condition *of the first human pair have also formed the subject of much discussion. It will be found, however, that the *best *conclusions of reason on this point harmonize fully with the brief Scriptural account of the facts as they were.
**1. **It is evident, upon a little reflection, and the closest investigation confirms the conclusion, that the first human pair must have been created in a state equivalent to that which all subsequent human beings have had to reach by slow degrees, in growth, experience, observation, imitation, and the instruction of others; that is, a state of prime maturity, and with an infusion, so to speak, of knowledge and habits, both physical and intellectual, suitable to the place which man had to occupy in the system of creation, and adequate to his necessities in that place. Had it been otherwise, the new beings could not have preserved their animal existence, nor have held rational converse with each other, nor have paid to their Creator the homage of knowledge and love, adoration and obedience; and reason clearly tells us that the last was the noblest end of existence. The Bible coincides with this dictate of honest reason, expressing these facts in simple and artless language: "And Jehovah God formed the man *[Heb. *the Adam], dust from the ground *[ha-adamah], *and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living animal" (Ge 2:7). Here are two objects of attention, the organic mechanism of the human body, and the vitality with which it was endowed.
**(a) **The mechanical material, formed (molded, or arranged, as an artificer models clay or wax) into the human and all other animal bodies, called "dust from the ground." This expression conveys, in a general form; the idea of *earthy matter, *the constituent substance of the ground on which we tread. To say that of this the human and every other animal body was formed, is a position which would be at once the most easily apprehensible to an uncultivated mind, and which yet is the most exactly true upon the highest philosophical grounds. We now know, from chemical analysis, that the animal body is composed, in the inscrutable manner called *organization, *of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, lime, iron, sulphur, and phosphorus. Now all these are mineral substances, which in their various combinations form a very large part of the solid ground.
**(b) **The expression which we have rendered "living animal" sets before us the *organic life *of the animal frame, that mysterious something which man cannot create nor restore, which baffles the most acute philosophers to search out its nature, and which reason combines with Scripture to refer to the immediate agency of the Almighty — "in him we live, and move, and have our being."
**2. **But the Scripture narrative also declares that "*God created man in his own image: *in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Ge 1:27). *The image *(resemblance, such as a shadow bears to the object which casts it) *of God *is an expression which breathes at once primitive simplicity and the most recondite wisdom; for what term could the most cultivated and copious language bring forth more suitable to the purpose? It presents to us man as made in a resemblance to the Author of his being, a true resemblance, but faint and shadowy; an outline, faithful according to its capacity, yet infinitely remote from the reality: a distant form of the *intelligence, wisdom, power, rectitude, goodness, *and *dominion *of the Adorable Supreme. As to the precise characteristics of excellence in which this image consists, theologians have been much divided. Tertullian *(Adv. Marc. *2, 5, 6) placed it in the faculties of the soul, especially in the power of choice between good and evil. Among the fathers generally, and the schoolmen after them, there were many different theories, nor are the later theologians at all more unanimous. Many unnecessary disputes would have been avoided by the recognition of the simple fact that the phrase *the image of God *is a very comprehensive one, — and is used in the Bible in more than one sense. Accordingly, the best writers speak of the image of God as twofold, *Natural *and *Moral.*
**(a) ***Natural *— The notion that the original resemblance of man to God must be placed in some *one *quality is destitute of proof either from Scripture or reason; and we are, in fact, taught that it comprises also what is so far from being essential that it may be both lost and regained.
**(1.) **When God is called "the Father of Spirits," a likeness is suggested between man and God in the *spirituality *of their nature. This is also implied in the striking argument of St. Paul with the Athenians: "Forasmuch, then, as we are the *offspring *of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device;" plainly referring to the idolatrous statues by which God was represented among heathens. If likeness to God in man consisted in bodily shape, this would not have been an argument against human representations of the Deity; but it imports, as Howe well expresses it, that "we are to understand that our resemblance to him, as we are his offspring, lies in some higher, more noble, and more excellent thing, of which there can be no figure; as who can tell how to give the figure or image of a thought, or of the mind or thinking power?" In *spirituality, *and, consequently, immateriality, this image of God in man, then, in the first instance, consists.
**(2.) **The sentiment expressed in Wisdom. 2, 23, is an evidence that, in the opinion of the ancient Jews, the image of God in man comprised *immortality *also.
"For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity;" and though other creatures were made capable of immortality, and at least the material human frame, whatever we may think of the case of animals, would have escaped death had not sin entered the world; yet, without admitting the absurdity of the "natural immortality" of the human soul, that essence must have been constituted immortal in a high and peculiar sense, which has ever retained its prerogative of continued duration amid the universal death not only of animals but of the bodies of all human beings. There appears also a manifest allusion to man's immortality, as being included in *the image of God, *in the reason which is given in Genesis for the law which inflicts death on murderers: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in *the image of God *made he man." The essence of the crime of homicide is not confined here to the putting to death the mere animal part of man; and it must, therefore, lie in the peculiar value of life to an immortal being, accountable in another state for the actions done in this, and whose life ought to be specially guarded for this very reason, that death introduces him into changeless and eternal relations, which were not to be left to the mercy of human passions.
**(3.) **The *intellectual *faculties of man form a third feature in his natural likeness to God. Some, indeed (e.g. Philo), have placed the *whole *likeness in the νούς*, *or rational soul.
**(4.) **The *will, *or power of choice and volition, is the last of these features. They are all essential and ineffaceable. Man could not be man without them.
**(b) ***Moral. —*
**(1.) **There is an express allusion to the moral image of God, in which man was at first created, in Col 3:10: "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that created him;" and in Eph 4:24: "Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." In these passages the apostle represents the change produced in true Christians by the Gospel, as a "renewal of the image of God in man; as a new or second creation in that image;" and he explicitly declares, that that image consists in "knowledge," in "righteousness," and in "true holiness."
**(2.) **This also may be finally argued from the satisfaction with which the historian of the creation represents the Creator as viewing the works of his hands as *"very good," *which was pronounced with reference to each of them individually, as well as to the whole: "And God saw *every thing *that he had made, and behold it was very good." But, as to man, this goodness must necessarily imply moral as well as physical qualities. A rational creature, as such, is capable of knowing, loving, serving, and living in communion with the Most Holy One. Adam, at first, did or did not exert this capacity; if he did not, he was not *very good — *not good at all.
**3. **On the *intellectual and moral endowments *of the progenitor of the human race, extravagant views have been taken on both sides.
**(a) **In knowledge, some have thought him little inferior to the angels; others, as furnished with but the simple elements of science and of language. The truth seems to be that, as to *capacity, *his intellect must have been vigorous beyond that of any of his fallen descendants; which itself gives us very high views of the strength of his understanding, although we should allow him to have been created "lower than the angels." As to his *actual knowledge, *that would depend upon the time and opportunity he had for observing the nature and laws of the objects around him; and the degree in which he was favored with revelations from God on moral and religious subjects. The *"knowledge" *in which the Apostle Paul, in the passage quoted above from Col 3:10, places "the image of God" after which man was created, does not merely imply the faculty of understanding, which is a part of the *natural *image of God, but that which might be lost, because it is that in which we may be "*renewed." *It is, therefore, to be understood of the faculty of knowledge in right exercise; and of that willing reception, and firm retaining, and hearty approval of religious truth, in which knowledge, when spoken of morally, is always understood in the Scriptures. We may not be disposed to allow, with some, that Adam understood the deep philosophy of nature, and could comprehend and explain the sublime mysteries of religion. The circumstance of his giving names to the animals is certainly no sufficient proof of his having attained to a philosophical acquaintance with their qualities and distinguishing habits, although we should allow their names to be still retained in the Hebrew, and to be as expressive of their peculiarities as some expositors have stated. Sufficient time appears not to have been afforded him for the study of the properties of animals, as this event took place previous to the formation of Eve; and as for the notion of his acquiring knowledge by intuition, this is contradicted by the *revealed *fact that angels themselves acquire their knowledge by observation and study, though, no doubt, with great rapidity and certainty. The whole of this transaction was supernatural; the beasts were "brought" to Adam, and it is probable that he named them under a Divine suggestion. That his understanding was, as to its capacity, deep and large beyond any of his posterity, must follow from the perfection in which he was created; and his acquisitions of knowledge would, therefore, be rapid and easy. It was, however, in moral and religious truth, as being of the first concern to him, that we are to suppose the excellency of his knowledge to have consisted. "His reason would be clear, his judgment uncorrupted, and his conscience upright and sensible." The best knowledge would, in him, be placed first, and that of every other kind be made subservient to it, according to its relation to that. The apostle adds to knowledge "righteousness and true holiness;" terms which express, not merely freedom from sin, but positive and active virtue.
Sober as these views of man's primitive state are, it is not, perhaps, possible for us fully to conceive of so exalted a condition as even this. Below this standard it could not fall; and that it implied a glory, and dignity, and moral greatness of a very exalted kind, is made sufficiently apparent from the degree of guilt charged upon Adam when he fell; for the aggravating circumstances of his offense may well be deduced from the tremendous consequences which followed.
**(b) **As to Adam's *moral *perfection, it has sometimes been fixed at an elevation which renders it exceedingly difficult to conceive how he could fall into sin at all. On the other hand, those who deny the doctrine of our hereditary depravity, delight to represent Adam as little superior in moral perfection and capability to his descendants. But if we attend to the passages of Holy Writ above quoted, we shall be able, on this subject, to ascertain, if not the exact degree of his moral endowments, yet that there is a certain standard below which they cannot be placed. Generally, he was made in the *image *of God, which, we have already proved, is to be understood *morally *as well as *naturally. *To whatever *extent *it went, it necessarily excluded all which did not resemble God; it was a likeness to God in "righteousness and true holiness," whatever the degree of each might be, and excluded all admixture of unrighteousness and unholiness. Man, therefore, in his original state, was *sinless, *both in act and in principle.
**4. **The rabbis and the Arabians relate many absurd traditions about Adam's personal beauty, endowments, etc., and such are still current among the Eastern nations. An account of many of them may be found in Bayle (s.v.).
**5. **That Adam was a type of Christ is plainly affirmed by Paul, who calls him "the figure of him who was to come." Hence our Lord is sometimes called, not inaptly, the second Adam. This typical relation stands sometimes in *similitude, *sometimes in *contrast. *Adam was formed immediately by God, as was the humanity of Christ. In each the nature was spotless, and richly endowed with knowledge and true holiness. Both are seen invested with dominion over the earth and all its creatures; and this may explain the eighth Psalm, where David seems to make the sovereignty of the first man over the whole earth, in its pristine glory, the prophetic symbol of the dominion of Christ over the world restored. Beyond these particulars fancy must not carry us; and the typical *contrast *must also be limited to that which is stated in Scripture or supported by its allusions. Adam and Christ were each a public person, *a federal head *to the whole race of mankind; but the one was the fountain of sin and death, the other of righteousness and life. By Adam's transgression "many were made sinners" (Ro 5:14-19). Through him, "death passed upon all men, because all have sinned" in him. But he thus prefigured that one man, by whose righteousness the "free gift comes upon all men to justification of life." The first man communicated a living soul to all his posterity; the other is a quickening Spirit, to restore them to newness of life new, and to raise them up at the last day. By the imputation of the first Adam's sin, and the communication of his fallen, depraved nature, death reigned over those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression; and through the righteousness of the second Adam, and the communication of a divine nature by the Holy Spirit, favor and grace shall much more abound in Christ's true followers unto eternal life. Watson, *Theol. Dict. *s.v.; Hunter, *Sac. Biog. *p. 8; Williams, *Characters of O.T. *1; Kurtz, *Hist. of Old Cov. *§ 21, 22. *SEE FALL *and *SEE REDEMPTION*.
**2. **(Sept. Α᾿δάμ, but most copies omit; Vulg. *Adom.) *A city at some distance from the Jordan, to which (according to the text, בּאָדָם, *in *Adam), or beyond which (according to the margin, מֵאָדָם, *"from *Adam," as in our version), the overflow of the waters of that stream extended in its annual inundation, at the time when the Israelites passed over (Jos 3:16). The name of the city *(red) *may have been derived from the alluvial clay in the vicinity (comp. 1Ki 7:46). It has been incorrectly inferred from the above text that the city Adam was located east of the river, whereas it is expressly stated to have been *beside. *(מַצִּד) Zarethan (q.v.), which is known to have been on the west bank, not far from Bethshean (1Ki 4:12). It hence appears that the "heap" or accumulation of waters above the Israelites' crossing-place, caused by the stoppage of the stream, reached back on the shore and many miles up the river, over the secondary banks of the Ghor, on which Zarethan stood, as far as the higher ground on which Adam was located (see Keil, *Comment. *in loc.); probably the ridge immediately north of Bethshean, which closes the plain of the Jordan in this direction.
