A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 11
LECTURE XI.
GENES. 2. 17.
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou mayeſt not eate; for in the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt ſurely die.
WE come now in order to the law God gave Adam; and this may be conſidered two wayes: Firſt, as a Law, ſecondly, as a Covenant. We will handle it firſt in the former notion. Now, becauſe the law God gave Adam was partly naturall, and partly poſitive, both which did goe to the making up of that covenant, I ſhall handle both thoſe diſtinctly: and firſt, let us conſider Gods poſitive law in the text, which is alſo called by Divines, a ſymbolicall precept, becauſe the obedience unto it was a ſymbolum or outward teſtimony of our homage and ſervice to God. And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature, but indifferent, and only evil becauſe prohibited: So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept deſcribed two wayes; firſt, by that which is proper to it, the tree of knowledge of good and evil: ſecondly, by that which is accidentall to it, viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it. And that this commandement might be the better received, in the Verſe before, God giveth a large commiſſion to eate of any other tree beſides this. When God made this world as a great houſe, he puts man into it as his tenant; and by this tryall of obedience, he muſt acknowledge his Land-lord. That Adam did eate in the ſtate of innocency, and was hungry, doth appeare by this text; onelyonly hunger was not in him, as it is in us, with paine and trouble. The difficulties muſt be handled in the opening of the doctrine, which is, That God beſides the naturall law engraven in Adams heart, did give a poſitive law, to try his obedience.
The doubts in explicating of this point are, 1. What is meant by the tree of knowledge of good and evill? And here, certainly, wee muſt take heed of being too curious, leſt, as it was Adams ſin, to eate of it; ſo it may be our curioſity to dive too farre into the knowledge of it. Now when I aske what is meant by it, I doe not underſtand what kind of fruit or tree it was, whether apple or fig, (that cannot be determined) but why it had that name. The Rabbins, who have as many fooliſh dreames about the Old Teſtament, as the Friars about the New, conceive Adam and Eve to be created without the uſe of reaſon, and that this tree was to accelerate it. And, indeed, the Socinians border upon this opinion, for they ſay, Adam and Eve were created very *Tanta fuit Adami recens conditi stupiditas, ut major in infantos cadere non poſtit.ſimple, and weak in underſtanding; and, ſay they, it's impoſſible to conceive, that if Adams ſoule were created ſo adorned with all knowledge and graces (as the firmament is beſpangled with ſtars) how he ſhould come to eate of the forbidden fruit, or to ſin againſt God.
But both theſe are falſe. That he had perfect knowledge, appeareth in his giving names to the creatures, and to Eve, ſo fitting The tree of knowledge why ſo called.and apt; and, Eph. 3. the image of God is ſaid to have a renewed mind: and that though thus knowing, he did yet ſin; and though thus holy, hee did yet fall; it was becauſe hee was not perfectly confirmed, but mutable. Indeed Divines doe much labour to expreſſe how his ſin did begin, whether in the Will firſt, or in the Underſtanding; but that is impertinent to this matter. That which is the moſt received, both by Austin and others, is, that it was ſo called, not from any effect, but from the event, becauſe it did indeed experimentally make to know good and evill: and ſo it's uſuall in Scripture to call that by a name, which it had afterward. Now though this be generally received, and cannot well be rejected, yet certainly it may be further ſaid, that it was not called ſo by the meere event, but by the divine decree and appointment of God, as being given to be a boundary and limit to Adam, that hee ſhould not deſire to know more, or otherwiſe then God had appointed.
2. Why God would give a poſitive law, beſides that of the naturall God, beſides the naturall law engraven in Adams hea…, did give a poſitive law: 1. That the power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth.law in his heart. There are theſe reaſons commonly given:
1. That hereby Gods dominion and power over man might be the more acknowledged: for to obey the naturall law, might be a neceſſary condition, and not an act of the Will: Even as the Heathens doe abſtaine from many ſins, not becauſe forbidden by God, but as diſſonant to their naturall reaſon. And even among Chriſtians there is a great deale of difference between good actions, that are done becauſe God commands, and becauſe of a naturall conſcience. Theſe two principles make the ſame actions to differ in their whole nature. Therefore God would try Adam by ſome poſitive law, that ſo the dominion and power which God had over him might be the more eminently held forth: and therefore Adam in this was not to conſider the greatneſſe or goodneſſe of the matter, but the will of the commander.
2. Another reaſon, which floweth from the former, is, that 2. To try and manifeſt Adams obedience.ſo Adams obedience might be the more tryed, and be manifeſted to be obedience. For, as Auſtine, ſpeaking of himſelfe in confeſſing his wickedneſſe, that though he had no need or temptation to ſin, yet to be a ſinner he delighted in that; Nulla alia cauſa malitiae, niſi malitia: ſo on the contrary, it's an excellent aggravation of obedience, when there is nulla alia cauſa obedientiae, niſi obedientia; ſo that the forbearing to eate, was not from any ſin in the action, but from the will of the law-giver. And Austine doth well explaine this: If a man (ſaith he) forbid another to touch ſuch an herb, becauſe it's poyſon, this herb is contrary to a mans health, whether it be forbidden or no: Or if a man forbid a thing, becauſe it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth; as to take away a mans mony, or goods, here it's forbidden, becauſe it would be loſſe to him that forbiddeth: but if a man forbids that which is neither of theſe waies hurtfull, therefore it's forbidden, becauſe bonum obedientiae per ſe, & malum inobedientiae per ſe monſtraretur.
And this is alſo further to be obſerved, that though the obedience unto this poſitive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law, becauſe the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profeſſion of obedience, then obedience; yet the diſobedience unto the poſitive law is no leſſe hainous then that to the morall law, becauſe hereby man doth profeſſedly acknowledge he will not ſubmit to God: Even as a vaſſall, that is to pay ſuch homage a yeare, if he wilfully refuſe it, doth yearly acknowledge his refractorineſſe. Hence the Apoſtle doth expreſly call Adams ſin diſobedience, Rom. 5. not in a generall ſenſe, as every ſin is diſobedience; but ſpecifically it was (ſtrictly taken) the ſin of diſobedience: he did by that act caſt off the dominion and power that God had over him, as much as in him lay; and though pride and unbelief were in this ſin, yet this was properly his ſin.
3. Why God would make this law, ſeeing he fore-knew his fall, and The proper eſſentiall end of the poſitive law was to exerciſe Adams obedience.abuſe of it. For ſuch is the profane boldneſſe of many men, that would have a reaſon of all Gods actions, whereas this is as *Altitudinem conſilii ejus penetrare non poſſum, & longè ſupra vires meas eſſe confiteor, Aug.if the Owle would look into the Sun, or the Pigmee meaſure the Pyramides. Although this may be anſwered without that of Pauls, Who artthou, O man, &c. for God did not give him this law to make him fall; Adam had power to ſtand. Therefore the proper eſſentiall end of this commandement was to exerciſe Adams obedience. Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteouſneſſe in God. Bellarmine doth confeſſe, that God may doe that, which if man ſhould doe, hee ſinned: as, for inſtance, Man is bound to hinder him from ſin that he knoweth would doe it, if it lay in his power; but God is not ſo tyed, both becauſe hee hath the chiefe providence, it's fit he ſhould let cauſes work according to their nature; and therefore Adam, being created free, hee might ſin, as well as not ſin; as alſo becauſe God can work evill things out of good; and laſtly, becauſe God, if hee ſhould hinder all evill things, there would many good things be wanting to the world, for there is nothing which ſome doe not abuſe. The Engliſh Divines in the Synod of Dort held, that God had a ſerious will of ſaving all men, but not an efficacious will of ſaving all: Thus differing from the Arminians on one ſide, and from ſome Proteſtant Authours on the other ſide; and their great inſtance of the poſſibility of a ſerious will and not efficacious, is this of Gods to Adam, ſeriouſly willing him to ſtand, and with all giving him ability to ſtand: yet it was not ſuch an efficacious will, as de facto did make him ſtand; for, no queſtion, God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good, as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven. But concerning the truth of this their Aſſertion, we are to enquire in its time. But for the matter in hand, if by a ſerious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency, yea and efficiency in ſome ſenſe, no queſtion but God did ſeriouſly will his ſtanding, when he gave that commandement. And howſoever Adam did fall, becauſe he had not ſuch help that would in the event make him ſtand, yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him, whereby he was enabled to obey God. To deny Adam that help, which ſhould indeed make him ſtand, was no neceſſary requiſite at all on Gods part.
But ſecondly, that of Auſtins is good, God would not have ſuffered ſin to be, if he could not have wrought greater good then ſin was evill: not that God needed ſin to ſhew his glory; for he needed no glory from the creature: but it pleaſed him to permit ſin, that ſo thereby the riches of his grace and goodneſſe might be manifeſted unto the children of his love. And if Arminians will not be ſatisfied with theſe Scripture conſiderations, wee will ſay as Austine to the Hereticks, Illigarriant, nos credamus, Let them prate while we beleeve.
5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity. And certainly The poſitive law did lay an obligation upon Adams poſterity.wee muſt conclude, that this poſitive command was univerſall, and that Adam is here taken collectively; for, although that Adam was the perſon to whom this command was given, yet it was not perſonall, but to Adam as an head, or common perſon: Hence Rom. 5. all are ſaid to ſin in him, for whether it be in him, or, in as much as all have ſinned, it cometh to the ſame purpoſe; for how could all be ſaid to have ſinned, but becauſe they were in him? And this is alſo further to be proved by the commination, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou ſhalt dye: now all the poſterity of Adam dyeth hereby. Beſides, the ſame reaſons which prove a conveniency for a poſitive law, beſides the naturall for Adam, doe alſo inferre for Adams poſterity. It is true, ſome Divines that doe hold a poſitive law would have been, yet ſeem to be afraid to affirme fully, that the poſterity of Adam would have been tryed with the very ſame commandement of eating the forbidden fruit: but I ſee no cauſe of queſtioning it. Now all this will be further cleared, when wee come to ſhew, that this is not meerly a law, but a covenant, and ſo by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams ſinne unto his poſterity. And, indeed, if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing, there could be no more reaſon, why Adams ſinne ſhould be made ours, then the ſinnes of our immediate parents are made ours. I know Peter Martyr (and he quoteth Bucer) is of a minde, that the ſinnes of the immediate parents are made the ſins of the poſterity; and Austin inclineth much to that way: but this may ſerve to confute it, that the Apoſtle, Rom. 5. doth ſtill lay death upon one mans diſobedience. Now, if our parents and anceſtors were as full a cauſe as Adam was, why ſhould the accuſation be ſtill laid upon him? But of this more hereafter.
6. How the threatning was fulfilled upon him, when he did eat of Adam, by eating the forbidden fruit, became mortall, and in the ſtate of death, not naturall onelyonly, but ſpirituall and eternall alſo.the forbidden fruit. We need not run to the anſwer of ſome, that this was ſpoken onelyonly by way of threatning, and not poſitively, as that ſentence upon the Ninivites; for theſe conclude, therefore Adam died not, becauſe of his repentance: but Adam did not immediately repent, and when he did, yet for all that he died. Others reade it thus, In the day thou eatest thereof, and then make the words abſolute that follow, Thou ſhalt die: as if God had ſaid, There is no day excepted from thy death, when thou ſhalt eate. But the common anſwer is beſt, which takes to die, for to be in the ſtate of death: and therefore Symmachus his tranſlation is commended, which hath, Thou ſhalt be mortall; ſo that hereby is implyed a condition and a change of Adams ſtate as ſoon as he ſhould eate this forbidden fruit: And by death, we are not onelyonly to meane that of the actuall diſſolution of ſoule and body, but all diſeaſes and paines, that are the harbingers of it. So that hereby Chriſtians are to be raiſed higher, to be more Eagle-eyed then Philoſophers: They ſpake of death and diſeaſes, as tributes to be paid, they complained of Nature as a ſtep-mother; but they were not able to ſee ſin the cauſe of this. Yea, in this threatning we are to underſtand ſpirituall death, and eternall alſo. Indeed, it's made a queſtion, Whether, if Adam had continued, be ſhould have been tranſlated into heaven, or confirmed onelyonly in Paradiſe? but that his death would have been more then temporall, appeareth fully by Rom. 5. Indeed, the things that concern heaven and hell, or the reſurrection, are not ſo frequently and plainly mentioned in the Old Teſtament as in the New; yet there are ſufficient places to convince, that the Promiſes and threatnings in the Old Teſtament were not onelyonly temporall, as ſome doe moſt erroneouſly maintain.
7. Whether Adam was mortall, before his eating of the forbidden Adam before his ſin was immortall.fruit. And this indeed is a very famous queſtion; but I ſhall not be large in it. The orthodox they hold, that immortality was a priviledge of innocency, and that Adams body then onelyonly became mortall, when his ſoule was made ſinfull. This is vehemently oppoſed by Papiſts, and by Socinians: now they both agree, that man ſhould not actually have dyed, but for ſin; only they ſay, he was mortall, as the Socinians, or immortall, by a meere ſupernaturall gift of God▪ But a thing may be ſaid to be immortall ſeverall wayes, as the Learned obſerve: 1. From an abſolute A thing may be ſaid to be immortall foure wayes.neceſſity, either inward or outward; in this ſenſe God only is ſaid to be immortall. 2. When there is no inward materiall cauſe of diſſolution, though outwardly it may be deſtroyed; and thus are Angels, and the ſoules of men. 3. A thing may be ſaid to be immortall by ſome ſpeciall gift and appointment of God, as the bodies glorified: and, as ſome ſay, the heavens and maine parts of the world ſhall have only a qualitative alteration, not a ſubſtantiall abolition. 4. That is immortall, which hath no propenſity to death, yet ſuch a condition being put, it will die; and thus Adam was: therefore in ſome ſenſe he may be ſaid mortall, in another immortall: But becauſe he is commonly called mortall that is obnoxious to death, therefore we ſay, Adam, before his ſin, was immortall; and this is abundantly confirmed by this ſentence of commination. And therefore though Adam would have eaten and drunk, though his body was elementary, and the originall of it duſt, though he would have begotten children; yet none of theſe can prove him mortall, becauſe the righteouſneſſe in his ſoule would have preſerved the fit temperament of his body, eſpecially having Gods Promiſe made to his obedience.
8. Whether upon this threatning, Thou ſhalt die, can be fixed The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou ſhalt die.that curſed opinion of the mortality of the whole man, in ſoul as well as body. Of all the errours that have riſen up, there is none more horrid in nature, and more monſtrous in falſhood then this: ſo that if it could be true of any mans ſoul, that it was not an immateriall ſubſtance, but onelyonly a quality of the temperament; it would be true of the Authour of that Book, which ſeemeth to have little ſenſe and apprehenſion of the divine authority in the Scriptures concerning this matter. What an horrid falſhood is it to call the doctrine of the immortall ſoul an hell-hatched doctrine? And what a contradiction alſo to call it hell-hatched, when yet he holdeth there is no hell? But certainly you would think, for a man to dare to broach ſuch an opinion, he muſt have places of Scripture as viſible as the Sun. But this Text is his Achilles, and all the reſt ſhrowd under this, from which he frames his firſt and chiefeſt argument, thus:
What of Adam was immortall through innocency, was to be mortaliz'd by tranſgreſſion:
But whole Adam was in innocency immortall:
Therefore all and every part, even whole man was lyable to death by ſin. But what Logician doth not ſee a great deale more foiſted into the Concluſion, then was in the Premiſes? Whole Adam was to be mortaliz'd, therefore all and every part. What a non ſequitur is here? That is true of the whole; as it is the whole, which is not true of every part. If I ſhould ſay, Whole Chriſt dyed, (for death is of the concrete, the perſon) therefore all and every part of Chriſt died, therefore his divine nature died; this would be a ſtrange inference: yet upon this fallacy is the frame of all his arguments built. Man is ſaid to be mortall, whole man dieth, therefore every part of man dieth. There is difference between totum and totalii as, the whole, and every part of that whole. It's true, death doth bring the compoſitum, the perſon, to a non-entity, but not every part of that compoſitum to a non-entity.
Beſides, that which was immortall, is mortalized, according to their natures, the ſoule dieth a ſpirituall and an eternall death. But ſee how the devill carries this man further, and ſets him upon the pinacle of errour, and bids him throw himſelf head-long; becauſe he doth evidently ſay, that if the ſouls were deſtroyed as well as the bodies, then there would be no heaven nor hell as yet; he is bold, and confeſſeth there is none till the reſurrection. Now if this be ſo, then how ſhall that be true, that the heaven muſt contain Chriſt till he come? This doth exceedingly puzzle him, but he takes the heaven for the place where the Sun is, and concludes peremptorily (as if he had been in the ſame alſo) that Chriſts glorified body is in the Sun: Without doubt (ſaith he, pag. 33.) he must be in the Sun; and (ſaith he, pag. 34.) The Sun may be called well the right hand of God, by which through Chriſt in him we live, and move, and have our being: and there ſpeaketh nothing but darkneſſe about light, as that the Sun is the vaile, to keep off the light of Chriſts body from us, which otherwiſe would be ſo glorious, we could not ſee it and live. But how dare any man make this interpretation, The heavens must contain him, that is, he muſt be in the Sun, till he come to restitution of all things? The naming of theſe things is confutation enough, onelyonly this I brought as in a paſſage meerly, to ſee what cauſe we have to pray to God to keep us from our ſelves, and our own preſumptuous thoughts.
Uſe 1. Of Inſtruction, that a law may be made, even to a righteous man, and that threatnings may be menaced to a man, who yet is not under the actuall curſe and damning power of the Law.
Uſe 2. To ſee the goodneſſe of God, that tryed Adam but with one poſitive precept. This ſhould be a caution againſt multitude of Church precepts: how did Austin complain of it, and Gerſon in his time?
Uſe 3. How the devill doth ſtill prevaile over us with this temptation of knowledge. There were Hereticks called Gnostici, and Ophitae. This deſire to eate of the tree of knowledge, hath brought much ignorance and errour. I know there are many people ſo ſottiſh and ſtupid, that the divell could never intice them with this temptation: They account it a trouble, even the knowledge of meere neceſſary things to ſalvation; but when men deſire to know above that which is written, this is a dangerous precepice.
Uſe 4. To take heed of our ſelves. If Adam, thus perfect, did faile in a command of tryall about ſo little a matter, take heed where you ſet gun-powder, ſeeing fire is in your heart. Compare this of Adams with that of Abraham, what a vaſt difference? Austin thanks God that the heart and temptation did not meet together.