A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 13
LECTURE XIII.
GENES. 2. 17.
In the day thou eatest thereof, thou ſhalt die.
I Have already handled this Text, as it containeth a law given to Adam by God, as a foveraigne Lord over him; now I ſhall re-aſſume this Text, and conſider it as part of a Covenant, which God did enter into with Adam and his poſterity; for theſe two things, a Law, and a Covenant, ariſe from different grounds: The Law is from God as ſupreme, and having abſolute power, and ſo requiring ſubjection; the other ariſeth from the love and goodneſſe of God, whereby he doth ſweeten and mollifie that power of his, and ingageth himſelf to reward that obedience, which were otherwiſe due, though God ſhould never recompence it. The words therefore being heretofore explained, and the Text eas'd of all difficulties, I obſerve this Doctrine, That God did Doctr.not only, as a Law-giver, injoys obedience unto Adam; but as a loving God, did alſo enter into covenant with him. And for the opening of this, you muſt take theſe Conſiderations:
1. That this covenant with Adam in the ſtate of innocency, is more The covenant with Adam before the fall more obſcurely laid down, then the covenant off grace after the fall.obſcurely laid down, then the covenant of grace after the fall: for afterwards you have the expreſſe name of the Covenant, and the ſolemne entring into it by both parties; but this Covenant made with Adam, muſt only be gathered by deduction and conſequence. This Text cometh the neereſt to a Covenant, becauſe here is the threatning expreſſed, and ſo by conſequent ſome good thing promiſed to obedience. We are not therefore to be ſo rigid, as to call for expreſſe places, which doe name this Covenant; for that which is neceſſarily and immediately drawn from Scripture, is as truly Scripture, as that which is expreſly contained in it. Now there are theſe grounds to prove God dealt in theſe commandements by way of Covenant:
1. From the evil threatned, and the good promiſed. For, while That God dealt with Adam by way of Covenant, appeares, 1. From evil threatned, and good promiſed.there is a meere command, ſo long it is a law onelyonly; but when it is further confirmed by promiſes and threatnings, then it becomes a Covenant. And if that poſition be true of ſome, which maketh the tree of life a ſacrament, then here was not onelyonly nudum pactum, a meer covenant; but a ſeale alſo to confirme it. And certainly, being God was not bound to give Adam eternall life if he did obey, ſeeing he owed obedience to God under the title of a creature, it was of his meere goodneſſe to become ingaged in a promiſe for this. I know it's a Queſtion by ſome, Whether Adam, upon his obedience, ſhould have been tranſlated into heaven, or confirmed onelyonly in that naturall life, which was marvellous happy? But either way would have been by meer promiſe of God, not by any naturall neceſſity. Life muſt be extended as farre as death; now the death threatned was not onelyonly a bodily death, but death in hell: why therefore ſhould not the life promiſed be a life in heaven?
In the ſecond place, another argument to confirme that God 2. Becauſe his poſterity becomes guilty of his ſin, and obnoxious to his puniſhment.dealt in a Covenant with Adam is, in that his poſterity becomes guilty of his ſin, and ſo obnoxious unto the ſame puniſhment which was inflicted upon Adam in his own perſon. Now we muſt come to be thus in Adam, either by a naturall propagation, and then Adam ſhould be no more to us then our parents, and our parents ſins ſhould be made ours as well as Adams; which is contrary to the Apoſtle, Rom. 5. who chargeth it ſtill upon one man. And beſides, who can ſay, that the righteouſneſſe, holineſſe and happineſſe, which we ſhould have been partakers of in Adams ſtanding, could come by a naturall neceſſity, but onelyonly by the meere covenant and agreement of God? Adams repentance might then have been imputed to us, as well as his ſin.
Laſtly, the Apoſtle Rom. 5. makes all men in Adam, as the godly are in Chriſt: now beleevers come to receive of Chriſt, not from a naturall neceſſity, becauſe they have that humane nature which Chriſt took upon him, (for ſo all ſhould be ſaved) but by a federall agreement.
2. Let us conſider in the next place, what a Covenant doth imply; A Covenant implies Gods decree, will, or promiſe to, & concerning his creatures, whether rationall, or irrationall.first in the word, then in the thing ſignified. For I ſhould deal very imperfectly, if I did not ſpeak ſomething of the generall nature of it, though hereafter more may be ſpoken of. You may therefore take notice, that there are things among men, that doe induce a publike obligation, that yet doe differ: A Law, a Covenant, and a Testament. Now a Law and a Teſtament, they are abſolute, and doe not imply any conſent of the party under them: As a Law requireth ſubjection, not attending unto, or expecting the conſent of inferiours; and ſo a Teſtament, or a Will of man, is to bequeath ſuch goods and legacies unto a man, not expecting a conſent. Indeed ſometimes ſuch goods are bequeathed with a condition, and ſo a man may refuſe whether he will be executor, or no; but this is accidentall to the nature of a Teſtament. But a Covenant, that differs from the two former, in that it doth require conſent and agreement between two parties: and in Divinity, if it be between man entire and upright, it is called by ſome, A Covenant of friendſhip; if it be between God and man fallen, it is called, A Covenant of reconciliation. Hence in Covenants, that are not nuda pacta (meer Covenants) but are accompanied with ſome ſolemnities, there were ſtipulations added, which were done by Queſtion and Anſwer: Doe you promiſe? I promiſe. Hence it is called foreign and we call it Stipulation, from the Latine word, which comes from the Greek word, foreign, or foreign, which is as much as foreign, or foreign, becauſe theſe words did make the Covenant valid. As for Iſidorus his etymology of ſtipulation, à frangendis ſtipulis, becauſe, when they promiſed or entred into an agreement, they brake a ſtick between them, and then joyning it together, ſo made a promiſe, and every party kept a piece, as a tally, to maintain their agreement; this is rejected by the learned Salmaſius.
But becauſe a Covenant doth thus differ from a Teſtament, hence hath it troubled the Learned, why the Hebrew word, which ſignifieth a Covenant, ſhould be tranſlated by the Septuagint, foreign, a Teſtament; and ſo the New Teſtament uſeth it in this ſenſe: for, if it be a Covenant, how can it be a Teſtament, which implyeth no conſent? Let us anſwer firſt to the word, and then to the matter. Therefore is a Covenant called foreign, a Teſtament, and not foreign (as Aquila tranſlates it) becauſe this word is of a large ſenſe, coming from foreign, to order and diſpoſe: and when we ſay, the New or Old Testament, it is not to be taken ſo ſtrictly, as we call a mans Will and Teſtament, though ſometimes the Apoſtle doth, in reference to Chriſts death; but more largely, for Gods gracious ordering of ſuch mercies and ſpirituall benefits to us, by the death of Chriſt: for the Covenant of grace implyeth Chriſts death, it being a Covenant of reconciliation. Now, becauſe there is in the Covenant of grace ſomething of a Covenant, and ſomething of a Teſtament alſo, hence ſome do call it a Testament-Covenant, becauſe it is of a mixt nature. The riſe of the Hebrew word Berith is variouſly conjectured: ſome make it to come from a word that ſignifieth to eat, becauſe of the ſacrifices and feaſts that were at a Covenant: ſome from a word that ſignifieth to cut, becauſe then in the ſtriking of the Covenant, there was a diviſion of the beaſt that was killed: ſome from the word that ſignifieth to create, as alſo to order and diſpoſe things by way of likeneſſe: ſome from a word that ſignifieth to be pure, and to chooſe, either becauſe it's by agreement, or becauſe in Covenants they ought to deal without all fraud: but I ſtand not upon theſe things.
By this which hath been ſaid it may appeare, that the Covenant God made with Adam, though it be truly called a Covenant; yet no wayes a Teſtament, becauſe there did not intervene the death of any to procure this good for Adam. Now to all this that hath been ſaid, there muſt this caution be added, That a Covenant is not ſo properly ſaid to be with God and man, as between man and man: for among them conſent is requiſite, and doth mutually concurre to make the Covenant valid: but neither in the Covenant of Nature or Grace is this conſent anteceding the validity of the Covenant required in man. Therefore if you regard the uſe of the word, and the application of it, it doth denote Gods decree, and will, or promiſe about things, whether about the irrationall creatures, or the reaſonable: Such was Gods Covenant not to drown the world, and Gods Covenant with day and night; yea, Gods Covenant with Abraham did induce an obligation and tye upon Abraham to circumciſe his childe. And thus it was with Adam, Gods Covenant did not depend properly upon his conſent and acceptation, for he was bound to doe as God commanded, whether he would agree, or no.
That Adams conſent was not neceſſary to make the Covenant valid, doth appeare, in that he was bound to accept what God did require. And it's indeed diſputed, Whether Adam did ſo much as know (and if he did not know, he could not conſent) that God did indent with him as a publike perſon, and ſo all his poſterity in him; although it may truly be thought, that Adam did know this precept to be to him and his poſterity: for hereby his ſinne is made the more hainous, in undoing himſelf and all his; as alſo, by the knowledge of this, he would be the more thankfull unto God, that ſhould propagate ſuch great mercies to him and his, and alſo be made more vigilant againſt falling.
3. In the next place let us conſider, how God can be ſaid to covenant, God enters into Covenant with man by way of condeſcenſion, & makes promiſes unto him to confirme him in his hope and confidence in him.or enter into a promiſe with man: for it may be thought an imperfection, and hereby God may ſeeme to loſe his right, that he cannot doe what he will. But this may be eaſily anſwered; for, if God can give good things to man, he may alſo promiſe to give them: and therefore both to give, and to promiſe to give, are acts of liberality and dominion, and ſo not repugning to the majeſty of God: Nor doth God by promiſing to give, loſe his dominion, no more then he doth by giving. It is true, a promiſe doth induce an obligation, and ſo in man it is with ſome imperfection; but in God it is not, becauſe he doth not hereby become obliged to us, but to his own ſelf: ſo that we have not a right of juſtice to the thing, becauſe God hath promiſed it to us; but only God cannot deny himſelf nor his word, and therefore we are confident.
And ſo Aquinas well, Deus non eſt debitor, quia ad alia non ordinatur, ſed omnia ad ipſum, God by covenanting and promiſing doth not become a debtor, becauſe he is not to be ordered for other things, but all things for him. Hence is that ſaying of God, Reddit debita nulli debens, donat debita nihil pendens: And ſo again, Justus eſt, non quia reddit debitum, ſed quia facit quod decet ſummè bonum: So that when God entreth into a covenant or promiſe, you muſt conceive of this ſutably to his great majeſty; you muſt not apprehend of it, as when two men agree that are equall, and therefore a debt of juſtice ariſeth between them, and one may implead the other; but as a mercifull condeſcenſion on Gods part, to promiſe ſuch things to us, that ſo we might be the more confirmed in our hope in him. Hence Durand and Ariminenſis labour to prove, that Gods promiſes doe not induce an obligation, but denote the diſpoſition of God to give, although their arguments exclude onelyonly a debt of juſtice from God. Therefore although in the Covenant God makes with man, there is a compact of mutuall fidelity, yet there is not a reciprocall, and equall right of covenanting, becauſe of the inequality of the Covenanters; ſo that the whole diſpoſition and ordering of the Covenant with ſuch conditions is on Gods part, and not mans: Hence it's called Gods Covenant, and not mans.
4. Conſider why God will deale with man in a covenant way rather then in a meere abſolute ſupreme way. There may be theſe Reaſons:
1. That God might hereby ſweeten and indeare himſelf to us. For, God deales with man by way of covenant, not of power, 1. To indeare himſelf unto him.whereas he might require all obedience from us, and annihilate us at laſt, or at leaſt not vouchſafe heaven and ever laſting happineſſe; to ſhew how good and loving he is, he will reward that moſt bountifully, which is otherwiſe due to him: for God did not make man, becauſe he needed him, but that there might be objects to whom he would communicate his love. Thou needest not my goodneſſe, or, that extendeth not to thee, ſaith David. It's Austins expreſſion, The earth doth farre otherwiſe dry up, or ſwallow the water, thirſting for it, then the Sun beames, which alſo conſume the water: the one doth it indigentiâ out of want; the other potentiâ, out of power and ſtrength: ſo that Adam could not but have thankfull and loving thoughts of God, that would thus condeſcend.
2. Another Reaſon might be, to incite and incourage Adam the 2. To incite man to more obedience.more to obedience. For, howſoever there was no ſin in Adam, or remiſneſſe: yet this might ſerve as a meanes to preſerve him in his obedience to God. And here you may ſee, that to do a duty, becauſe of a reward promiſed, is not a ſlaviſh and unlawfull thing; for did not God deale thus with Adam? If he would obey, he ſhould live; but if not, then he muſt dye. Will you ſay, with the Antinomian, That this was an unlawfull thing, and this was to make Adam legall, and one that was not affected with the goodneſſe of God to him? It is true, if a man obey God out of love to any thing more then God, or equally with God, this is unlawfull, according to that, Minus te amat, qui tecum (Domine) aliquid amat.
3. That hereby Adams obedience might be the more willing and free. 3. To make this obedience more willing and free.An abſolute law might ſeeme to extort obedience, but a covenant and agreement makes it to appeare more free and willing, as if Adam would have obeyed, though there could have been no obligation upon him to doe it.
5. Conſider that the nature of this Covenant was of works, and not The Covenant God made with Adam was of works, not of faith.of faith. It was not ſaid to Adam, Beleeve, and have life eternall; but, Obey, even perfect and entire obedience. It is true indeed, there was faith of adherence and dependance upon God in his promiſe and word, and this faith doth not imply any imperfection of the ſtate of the ſubject as ſinfull, (which juſtifying faith doth) for it was in Chriſt, who in his temptations and tryalls did truſt in God. And what the Old Teſtament calls trusting, the New calls beleeving; yea, ſome ſay, that this kind of faith ſhall be in heaven, viz a dependance upon God for the continuance of that happineſſe which they doe enjoy. This faith therefore Adam had, but in that Covenant it was conſidered as a gracious act and work of the ſoul, not as it is now, an organ or inſtrument to receive and apply Chriſt.
With us indeed there is juſtifying faith and repentance, which keeps up a Chriſtians life; as the Naturaliſts ſay, the calor innatus, and humidum radicale doe the naturall life: Faith is like the calor innatus and Repentance is like the humidum radicals; and, as the Philoſopher ſaith, if the innate heat devoure too much the radicall moiſture, or the radicall moiſture too much the heat, there breed preſently diſeaſes: ſo it is with us, if beleeving make a man repent leſſe, or repenting make a man beleeve the leſſe, this turneth to a diſtemper.
Yet, though it were a Covenant of works, it cannot be ſaid to be of merit. Adam though in innocency, could not merit that happineſſe which God would beſtow upon him: firſt, becauſe the enjoying of God, in which Adams happineſſe did conſiſt, was ſuch a good, as did farre exceed the power and ability of man. It's an infinite good, and all that is done by us is finite. And then in the next place, Becauſe even then Adam was not able to obey any command of God, without the help of God. Though ſome will not call it grace, becauſe they ſuppoſe that onelyonly cometh by Chriſt; yet all they that are orthodox do acknowledge a neceſſity of Gods enabling Adam to that which was good, elſe he would have failed. Now then, if by the help of God Adam was ſtrengthned to do the good he did, he was ſo farre from meriting thereby, that indeed he was the more obliged to God.
6. God, who entred into this Covenant with him, is to be conſidered God, entring into Covenant with Adam, muſt be looked upon as one already pleaſed with him, not as a reconciled Father through Chriſt.as already pleaſed, and a friend with him, not as a reconciled Father through Chriſt. Therefore here needed no Mediatour, nor comfort, becauſe the ſoul could not be terrified with any ſin. Here needed not one to be either medius, to take both natures; or Mediatour, to performe the offices of ſuch an one. In this eſtate that ſpeech of Luthers was true, which he denieth in ours, Dens eſt abſolute conſiderandus. Adam dealt with him as abſolutely conſidered, not relatively: with us, God without Chriſt is a conſuming fire, and we are combuſtible matter, chaffe and ſtraw: we are loathſome to God, and God terrible to us; but Adam he was Deo proximo amicus, & Paradiſi colonus, as Tertullian, and therefore was in familiarity and communion with him.
But, although there was not that ordered adminiſtration and working of the three Perſons in this Covenant of works, yet all theſe did work in it. Hence the ſecond Perſon, though not as incarnated, or to be incarnated; yet he with the Father did cauſe all righteouſneſſe in Adam: and ſo the holy Ghoſt, he was the worker of holineſſe in Adam, though not as the holy Spirit of Chriſt purchaſed by his death for his Church, yet as the third Perſon; ſo that it is an unlikely aſſertion which one maintains, That the Trinity was not revealed in this Covenant to Adam: ſo that this ſheweth a vaſt difference between that Covenant in innocency, and this of grace. What ado is here for the troubled ſoul to have any good thoughts of God, to have any faith in him as reconciled? but then Adam had no fear, nor doubt about it.
7. This Covenant did ſuppoſe in Adam a power, being aſſiſted by Gods Covenant did ſuppoſe a power and poſsibility in Adam to keep it.God, to keep it; and therefore that which is now impoſſible to us, wa… poſſible to him. And certainly, if there had been a neceſſity to ſin, it would have been either from his nature, or from the devill: Not from his nature, for then he would have excuſed himſelf by this, when he endeavoured to clear himſelf. But Tertullian ſpeak… wittily, Nunquam figulo ſuo dixit, Non prudenter definxisti me, rudis admodum haereticus fuit, non obaudiit, non tamen blaſphemavit, creatorem, lib. 2. ad Mar. cap. 2. Nor could any neceſſity ariſe from the devill, whoſe temptations cannot reach beyond a moral ſwaſion. Therefore our Divines doe well argue, that if God did not work in our converſion beyond a morall ſwaſion, he ſhould no further cauſe a work good, then Satan doth evil.
Nor could this neceſſity be of God, who made him good and righteous: nor would God ſubtract his gifts from him before he ſinned, ſeeing his fall was the cauſe of his defection, not Gods deſerting of him the cauſe of his fall. Therefore, although God did not give Adam ſuch an help, that de facto would hinder hi… fall, yet he gave him ſo much, that might and ought to prevent… it. And upon this ground it is, that we anſwer all thoſe cavills, why God doth command of us that which is impoſſible for us to doe: for the things commanded are not impoſſible in themſelves, but, when required of Adam, he had power to keep them; but he ſinned away that power from himſelf and us. Neither is God bound, as the Arminians fancy, to give every one power to beleeve and repent, becauſe Adam in innocency had not ability to doe theſe; for he had them eminently and virtually, though not formally: But more of theſe things in the Covenant of grace.
Uſe 1. To admire with thankfulneſſe Gods way of dealing with us his creatures, that he condeſcends to a promiſe-way, to a covenant-way. There is no naturall or Morall neceſſity that God ſhould doe thus. We are his, and he might require an obedience, without any covenanting: but yet, to ſhew his love and goodneſſe, he condeſcends to this way. Beloved, not onelyonly we corrupted, and our duties, might be rejected; not onelyonly we in our perſons might be abaſhed, but had we all that innocency and purity which did once adorn our nature, yet even then were we unprofitable to God, and it was Gods goodneſſe to receive it, and to reward it. Was then eternall life and happineſſe a meere gift of God to Adam for his obedience and love? what a free and meere gift then is ſalvation and eternall life to thee? If Adam were not to put any truſt in his duties, if he could not challenge God for a reward; how then ſhall we relye upon our performances, that are ſo full of ſin?
Uſe 2. Further to admire Gods exceeding grace to us, that doth not hold us to this Covenant ſtill. That was a Covenant which did admit of no repentance: though Adam and Eve had torn and rent their hearts out, yet there was no hope or way for them, till the Covenant of grace was revealed. Beloved, our condition might have been ſo, that no teares, no repentance could have helped us: the way to ſalvation might have been as impoſſible, as to the damned angels. To be under the Covenant of works, is as wofull, as the poore malefactour condemned to death by the Judge, according to the law, he falls then upon his knees, Good my lord ſpare me, it ſhall be a warning to me, I have a wife and ſmall children, O ſpare me: But, ſaith the Judge, I cannot ſpare you, the Law condemnes you: So it is here, though man cry and roare, yet you cannot be ſpared, here is no promiſe or grace for you.