A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 14
LECTURE XIV.
GENES. 2. 17.
In the day thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt die the death.
HAving handled the Law of God both naturall and poſitive, which was given to Adam abſolutely; as alſo relatively in the notion of a Covenant God made with Adam, I ſhall put a period to this diſcourſe about the ſtate of innocency, by handling ſeverall Queſtions, which will conduce much to the information of our judgement againſt the errours ſpread abroad at this time, as alſo to the inlivening and inflaming of our affections practically.
Theſe Queſtions therefore I ſhall endeavour to cleare:
1. Whether there can be any ſuch diſtinction made of Adam, while innocent, ſo as to be conſidered either in his naturalls, or ſupernaturalls? For this is affirmed by ſome, that Adam may be conſidered in his meere naturalls, without the help of grace, and ſo he loveth God as his naturall utmoſt end, in that he is the preſerver and authour of nature: or elſe in his ſupernaturalls, as God did beſtow righteouſneſſe upon him, whereby he was inabled to enjoy God as his ſupernaturall end. And for this end is this errour maintained, that ſo man now born, may be made no worſe then Adam in that condition at firſt: which errour, if admitted, would much eclipſe all that glory which is attributed in Scripture to grace converting and healing of us. Therefore to this Queſtion theſe things may be anſwered:
1. That it cannot be denied, but that in Adam ſuch qualities 1. In Adam ſuch qualities and actions may be conſidered, as did flow from him as aliving creature, endued with a rational ſoul.and actions may be conſidered, which did flow from him as a living creature, endued with a reaſonable ſoul; ſo 1 Cor. 15. 45. there the firſt Adam is ſaid to be made a living ſoul, that is, a living creature in his kinde, whereby he did provide and prepare thoſe things for his nouriſhment and life that he needed: and this is to have a naturall body, as the Apoſtle calls it. But we may not ſtay in the conſideration of him as a man in an abſtracted notion, but as ſo created by God for that end, to be made happy. Therefore howſoever ſome learned ſpeak of the animall ſtate and ſpirituall eſtate of Adam, yet both muſt be acknowledged to be naturall to him.
2. In the next place, we doe not hold in ſuch a manner his 2 The principle and habit of righteouſneſſe was naturall to Adam, but help from God to perſevere, ſupernaturall.righteouſneſſe and holineſſe to be naturall to him, as that we deny every thing to Adam that was ſupernaturall; for, no queſtion but the favour of God, which he did enjoy, may well be called ſupernaturall; ſo alſo that actuall help of God (ſay ſome,) which was to be continued to him: For howſoever the principle, and habit as it were of righteouſneſſe, was naturall to him; yet to have help from God to continue and perſevere, was ſupernaturall. Even as you ſee the eye, though it hath a naturall power to ſee, yet there is a further requiſite to the act of ſeeing, which is light, without which it could not be.
The ſecond queſtion is, Whether Christ did intervene in his help Adam in the ſtate of innocency needed not Chriſt by way of reconciliation, but of conſervation in righteouſneſſe.to Adam, ſo that he needed Christ in that ſtate? For here we ſee many learned and ſound men differ: ſome ſay, that Chriſt, being onelyonly a Mediatour of reconciliation, could no wayes be conſidered in any reſpect to Adam; for God and he were friends: Others again make the grace of Chriſt univerſally neceſſary, even to Angels, and Adam; ſaying that propoſition, [Without me ye can doe nothing,] is of everlaſting truth, and did extend to Adam, not indeed by way of pardon or reconciliation, but by way of preſervation and conſervation in the ſtate of righteouſneſſe: Thus thoſe excellent pillars in the Church of God, Calvin, Bucer, and Zanchy, with others. Now for the clearing of this truth, we muſt conſider theſe particulars:
1. That it cannot be denyed, but that Christ, as the ſecond Perſon of the Trinity, did create and make all things. This is to be diligently maintained againſt thoſe curſed opinions that begin, even publikely, to deny the Deity of Chriſt. Now there are three generall waies of proving Chriſt to be God: 1. In that the name Jehovah, and God, is applyed to him, without any ſuch reſpect as to other creatures. 2. In that he hath the attributes of God, which are Omnipotency and Omniſciency, &c. 3. In that he doth the works which God only can doe; ſuch are, raiſing up from the dead by his own power, and creation: Now that Chriſt doth create and ſuſtain all things, appeareth, John 1. Col. 1. and Hebr. 1. 3. ſo that it's impudent blaſphemy which oppoſeth clear Scripture, to detract this from Chriſt. Indeed, his creating of the world, doth not exclude the other Perſons, onelyonly he is included hereby.
2. What help the Angels had by Chriſt. Here I finde different thoughts, even of the judicious. That place Coloſ. 1. 20. To reconcile all things to himſelf by him, whether things in heaven or earth, is thought by ſome a firme place, to prove that the Angels needed Chriſt, even as a Mediatour: and Calvin upon the place brings two Reaſons why the Angels need Chriſts mediation:
1. Becauſe they were not without danger of falling, and therefore their confirmation was by Chriſt. But how can this be proved, that their confirmation came from Chriſt, and not from God, as a plentifull rewarder of their continued obedience? Indeed, if that opinion of Salmerons were true, which holds it very probable, that the fallen Angels were not immediately condemned, but had a ſet ſpace and time of repentance given them, this would with more colour have pleaded for Chriſts mediation; but that opinion cannot be made good out of the Scripture.
2. The ſecond Reaſon of Calvin is, that the obedience of the The obedience of Angels may be ſaid to be imperfect negatively, not privatively.Angels was imperfect, or not ſo perfect, but that it needed pardon; which he groundeth upon Job 4. 18. His Angels he charged with folly. This may be anſwered thus, That the obedience of the Angels may be ſaid imperfect negatively, or comparative, in reſpect of God; it is not anſwerable to his greatneſſe: but yet it is not imperfect privatively, as if it did want any perfection due to it, and ſo was to be pardoned. Therefore Eliphaz his expreſſion tends onelyonly to this, to ſhew the Greatneſſe and Majeſtie of God, and that even Angels themſelves are but darkneſſe to his glory. If you aske then, What ſhall be thought of the place Coloſ. 1. 20? I anſwer, This place compared with Epheſ. 1. 10. [That he might gather together in one all things in Christ,] may well be laid together; for they ſpeak the ſame thing. In the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians it's foreign, to reconcile; and that to the Epheſians, foreign, which word ſome expound to be as much as to bring to its firſt beginning; and ſo it's explained by them, that all things have ſuffered a defect from the beginning, and by Chriſt are to be reſtored to their former ſtate: Others expound it of reducing all to one head, which is Chriſt: Others make it a metaphor, from thoſe things which are largely ſet down, and then briefly capitulated, and ſummed up again; thus, ſay they, all that was prefigured by the ſacrifices, is fulfilled in Chriſt: but we take the word in this ſenſe, as it doth imply, to gather together thoſe things which were ſcattered and divided; and ſo it doth excellently deſcribe the ruine and confuſion that is brought upon all by ſin. But then here is the difficulty again, how the Angels can be ſaid to be gathered, ſeeing they were never divided. To this ſome anſwer, that the All things here ſpoken in the text, are to be limited to men onelyonly: ſo that the things in heaven, ſhall be the ſpirits of godly men already tranſlated thither; and the things in earth, thoſe men that are living. But ſuppoſe it be extended to Angels, yet will not this inferre their need of mediation by Chriſt, but onelyonly ſome benefit to redound unto them by Chriſt; and that is certain: for, firſt, by Chriſt they have a knowledge of the myſteries of our ſalvation, as appeareth, Epheſ. 3. 10. and ſecondly, hereby they have joy in the converſion of a ſinner; and, laſtly, Angels become hereby reconciled with man: and this ſeemeth to be the moſt proper and immediate ſenſe of the place. So that I cannot ſee any ground for that aſſertion, which ſaith, Becauſe there is no proportion between a creature and the Creatour, therefore there must be a Mediatour. And if this hold true of the Angels, then it will alſo hold about Adam; for, there being no offence or breach made, there needed no Mediatour to interpoſe.
It's hard to ſay, Christ would have been incarnated, if Adam had Chriſts incarnation cannot be ſuppoſed, but upon ſuppoſition of Adams fall.not ſinned. All thoſe, who hold the neceſſity of Chriſt to Adam and Angels, muſt alſo neceſſarily maintain, that, though Adam had not fallen, Chriſt would have been incarnated. Now when the Scripture nameth this to be the principall end of Chriſts coming into the world, to ſave that which is loſt; unleſſe this had been, we cannot ſuppoſe Chriſts coming into the fleſh. Whether indeed Chriſt was not the firſt object in Gods decree and predeſtination, and then afterwards men, and then other things, is a far different queſtion from this. As for Coloſ. 1. which ſeemeth to ſpeak of Chriſt as head of the Church, that he might have preheminency in all things, this doth not prove his incarnation, though no fall of Adam, but rather ſuppoſeth it.
3. Whether the tree of life was a ſacrament of Christ to Adam, or The tree of life was not a ſacrament of Chriſt to Adam.no? For this alſo is affirmed by ſome, that the tree of life was a ſacrament given to Adam, which did repreſent Chriſt, from whom Adam was to receive his life. But upon the former grounds I doe deny, the tree of life to have any ſuch ſacramentall ſignification. It is true, I grant it to be a ſacrament; for there is no good reaſon to the contrary, but that ſacraments may be in the ſtate of innocency; onelyonly they did not ſignifie Chriſt. Why it was called a tree of life, is not the ſame way determined by all: ſome think, becauſe it had a ſpeciall quality and efficacy with it, to preſerve Adam immortall; for, although he was ſo made, yet there were meanes appointed by God to preſerve this ſtate. But we will not conclude on this; only we ſay, It was a ſacrament, not only to admoniſh Adam of his life received from God, but alſo of that happy life, which upon his obedience he was alwayes to enjoy. Hence Revel. 2. 7. happineſſe is called eating of the tree of life, which is in the midst of Paradiſe. We do not in this exclude Adam from depending upon God for all things, or acknowledging him the ſole authour of all his bliſſe: but onelyonly there was not then that way of adminiſtration of good to us, as is now by Chriſt to man plunged into ſin. And this muſt be ſaid, that we muſt not curiouſly ſtart queſtions about that ſtate in innocency; for the Scripture, having related that there was ſuch a ſtate once, doth not tell us what would have been, upon ſuppoſition of his obedience.
4. And ſo we may anſwer that demand, Whether there was The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Chriſt unto Adam.any revelation unto Adam of a Chriſt? Now what might be done, we cannot ſay; but there is no ſolid ground to aſſert it: for, howſoever the Apoſtle indeed makes a myſterious application of that ſpeech of Adam unto Chriſt and his Church, to ſet forth their immediate union; yet it doth not follow, that Adam did then know any ſuch myſterie. Indeed Zanchy ſaith, that Chriſt did in an humane ſhape appear, and put Adam and Eve together in that conjugall band; but we cannot affirme this from Scripture. And by this alſo it doth appeare, that the Sabbath, as it was figurative of Chriſt, had this conſideration added unto it, as it was given to the Jewes afterward, and in that reſpect it was to be aboliſhed. That opinion is very much forced, which makes thoſe words of Gods bleſſing and ſanctifying the Sabbath day, Gen. 1. to be by way of anticipation; and therefore would deny the command of the Sabbath to be given to Adam, ſaying, there was onelyonly one poſitive law, which was that of not eating the forbidden fruit, that was delivered unto Adam. Now, though this be falſe, yet that conſideration of the Sabbath, as it was figurative of Chriſt, was not then in the ſtate of the innocency.
5. Another main queſtion is, Whether this ſtate of reparation The ſtate of innocency excelled the ſtate of reparation in rectitude, immortality, and outward felicity.be more excellent then that in innocency. Now here we cannot ſay one is abſolutely better then the other, only in ſome reſpects one is excelled by the other: As, the firſt eſtate of Adam did far exceed this in the rectitude it had, being altogether without any ſin; for he was not created (as ſome would have it) in a neutrall eſtate doth plainly repugne that image of God, after which he is ſaid to be created. Now what a bleſſed eſtate it is to have an heart not ſtained with fin, to have no blemiſh, nor ſpot in the ſoul, will appeare by Paul's bitter complaint, Who ſhall deliver me from this body of death? That eſtate alſo doth excell ours in the immortality and outward felicity he enjoyed; for our ſecond Adam, Chriſt, howſoever he hath deſtroyed the works of ſin and Satan, yet he hath not fully removed the ſcars which thoſe ſins have left upon us: Chriſt doing here, as thoſe Emperours, who had taken their enemies priſoners and captives, but yet killed them not immediately, till the day of triumph came.
But on the other ſide, our condition is in one reſpect made The ſtate of reparation more happy then that of innocency, in reſpect of the certainty of perſeverance in the ſtate of grace.happier then Adams; which is the certainty of perſeverance in the ſtate of grace, if once tranſlated into it. And this conſideration Auſtin did much preſſe. We have indeed much ſin with our grace, yet God will not let that ſpark of fire goe out: but Adam had much holineſſe, and no ſin; yet how quickly did he loſe it? Not but that grace of it ſelf is amiſſible as well as that of Adams, but becauſe of the ſpeciall promiſe and grace of God in Chriſt; therefore whom he loves, he will alwaies love.
The next Queſtion is, Whether we may be now by Chriſt ſaid to The imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſs doth not inferre, that therefore we are more righteous then Adam.be more righteous then Adam? For ſo an Antinomian in his Treatiſe of Justification, pag. 320. 321. quoteth places out of ſome Authours, as affirming this, that now by Chriſt we have a more perfect righteouſneſſe, then that of Angels, or was loſt in Adam; and by this meanes labours to prove, that we are ſo holy, that God can ſee no ſin in us. Now, to anſwer this, I deny not, but the orthodox ſometimes have uſed ſuch expreſſions, and upon this ground, becauſe the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt as it was his, was of infinite value and conſequence; and ſo as we are in a Mediatour, we are in a better and ſurer condition, then the Angels or Adam was: but they never uſed ſuch expreſſions to the Antinomian ſenſe, as if hereby we were made not onelyonly perfectly righteous, but alſo holy, and without ſin. This opinion is at large to be refuted in the Treatiſe about Juſtification; only thus much take for an anſwer, That the doctrine, which holdeth the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe, doth not neceſſarily inferre, that therefore we have righteouſneſſe more excellent then Angels or Adam; for it is onelyonly imputed to us for that righteouſneſſe which we ought to have: it is not made ours in that largeneſſe or latitude as it was Chriſts, but as we needed it. Now God never required of us ſuch an holineſſe as the Angels have, or a greater righteouſneſſe then Adam had; and therefore it's a ſenſleſſe thing to imagine, that that ſhould be made ours which we never needed, or ever were bound to have: ſo that thoſe expreſſions of the orthodox muſt be underſtood in a ſound ſenſe.
7. Whether that which God requireth of us be greater, then that he What God requireth of us, is not greater then what he demanded of Adam in innocency.demanded of Adam in the ſtate of innocency? For thus the Arminians hold, that greater abilities are now required of a man to beleeve the Goſpel, then were of Adam to fulfill the Law; partly, becauſe the myſterie of the Goſpel doth conſiſt in meere revelation, which the Law doth not; as alſo, becauſe all the actions required by the Goſpel do ſuppoſe a reſurrection from that firſt fall. Now (ſay they) more is required to riſe from a fall, then to prevent a fall. And all this they urge, to prove the neceſſity of univerſall grace given to all.
Now to anſwer this: Firſt, I conclude (as before hath been proved) that the nature of juſtifying faith was in Adam, though there was not ſuch a particular object about which it may be exerciſed; for a thing may be for the nature of it, and yet not have ſuch a name which it hath from a certain reſpect to ſome object that now is not, or from ſome effects which it cannot now produce: So Mercy and Grace was in God for the nature of it alwaies, but as it hath reſpect to a miſerable and wretched creature, that was not till the creature was made ſo. And ſo in Adam, there was the nature of love and pity, but yet in regard of ſome effects, which could not be exerciſed in that eſtate, his love could have no ſuch name, as mercy or pity. Thus Adam for his faith, that faith which he did put forth in Gods Promiſe about eternall life, upon his obedience, was a juſtifying faith for the nature of it, but had not the denomination or reſpect of juſtifying, becauſe ſuch an object was impoſſible in that condition. Hence that faith of dependency which Adam had, was the ſame in nature which juſtifying faith is. Therefore to the arguments propoſed, we deny, that greater ſtrength is required to riſe, then to keep from falling; for the ſame things which would have preſerved Adam from falling, as faith in the firſt place, the ſame alſo are required for a man to riſe. And as Adam would have ſtood, as long as his faith in God ſtood, the devill labouring to ſhake that by his temptation; ſo Chriſt praying for Peter, a man fallen by Adam, doth eſpecially pray, that his faith may not fail, becauſe by that he was ſupported and ſtrengthned.
Laſtly, Whether Adams immortality in that estate, be not different Adams immortality in the ſtate of innocency different from, and ſhort of that which ſhall be in heaven.from that which ſhall be in heaven. Yes, it is very plain it is ſo; for he was ſo immortall, as that there was a poſſibility of mortality, but it is not ſo with thoſe that are glorified. Again, he was ſo immortall, as that he had a naturall body, which did need nouriſhment; but it is not ſo with thoſe that are made happy. It is true, we have heretofore concluded, that Adam in his firſt eſtate was naturally immortall, for if death had been naturall, God had been the authour of death, and man would not have abhorred it. Neither did Chriſt dye ſimply becauſe he was a man, but becauſe he was a man made for us, who ought to dye becauſe of our ſin. Indeed, becauſe Adam did eat and drink, and his body was a naturall body, therefore there was mortality in him in a remote power, but actuall mortality was hindered, by reaſon of that glorious condition he was placed in; and therefore not actually to dye, but to be in a mortall ſtate was threatned as a puniſhment to him of all apoſtaſie from God.
Uſe 1. Of Inſtruction. What comfort may be to the godly from Chriſt, though by nature all is loſt. Who can heare without trembling of this great loſſe? Righteouſneſſe and immortality loſt, God and his image loſt. If thou lookeſt upon thy proud earthly ſinfull heart, thou mayeſt ſay, It was not thus from the beginning: if upon thy ſick, weak, and mortall body, It was not thus from the beginning. Now here is no way to keep up the heart, but by looking to Chriſt. Though thou haſt loſt the image of God, yet he is the expreſſe image of his Father. Though thou haſt not perfect righteouſneſſe, he hath. Whatſoever thy loſſe and evil be by the firſt Adam, thy gain and good may be by the laſt Adam. Admire herein the myſteries of Gods grace and love. What may we not expect for temporalls, if needfull, when he is thus gracious in ſpiritualls? Are riches, ſubſiſtence, equall to Chriſt?
Uſe 2. Of Exhortation, not to reſt in any eſtate, but that of reſtauration again. The word (as you heard) Epheſ. 1. 10. to gather, doth imply that all mankind is like an houſe fallen down, lying in its rubbiſh and ruines. Let us not therefore ſtay in this condition: It's a condition of ſinne, of wrath: Oh, much better never to have been born, then to be thus. How happy are all the irrationall creatures in their eſtate above us, if not repaired by Chriſt? And know, that to be reſtored again to this image of God, is a great and rare bleſſing, few partake of it. Holineſſe muſt be as inwardly rooted and ſettled in thee, as ever ſinne and corruption hath ſoaked into thee. Thou didſt drink iniquity like water; doeſt thou now, as the Hart, pant after the water-brooks? The reſurrection of the ſoul muſt be in this life. It was ſinfull, proud; but it's raiſed an holy, humble ſoule.