Goodwill Towards Men, Part 1 · Section 7 – Section 12
Sect. 7.
PROP. VII. God our supreme and absolute Lord and Governour, to manifest his Divine Goodness and benignity, together with his Soveraign Authority and Greatness, was pleased to his Law, given to Man at first, to add and annex a gracious promise of Future life and happiness.
HEre (Gen. 2.17.) is implyed upon condition of his obedience, the promise of eternal life, whereof the Tree of life was a sign, Gen. 3.22. Ainsworth.
To encourage men to yield free Obedience, God bound himself by his free promise to reward it.
Here take notice of Gods gracious Nature. He would not rule man with rigour, but made the yoke of his Subjection as easie as man could possibly expect, or reasonably desire. Besides the strong Engagements that lye on the Creature to obey God, the Lord was pleased to give man all encouragement that might be.
There is a Question, what life was promised unto Adam?
Whether to live still in statu quo, to be continued upon earth in that happy state, wherein he was created, or whether after some time he should not have been advanced, and translated to a more glorious estate in Heaven?
Now some very worthy and Judicious Divines (I confess) are for the former, denying the latter. And others I know look upon the Decision of the Question (which way soever it be decided) as an unprofitable speculation; but I cannot so slight it, because if it appears to be an Heavenly happiness, that was promised, it further sets off the Grace of God towards man, which must needs have laid him under a greater obligation to obedience, and thankfulness; so it doth the more set forth and aggravate man's sin and ingratitude, whom such cords did not, could not bind. Besides that it may be of some service against Socinians, who would have Adam subject to death by Creation, not by Sin.
Now to the Question.
1. Those Divines that hold a life of happiness upon earth, only promised unto Adam, do grant the promise of life to be implyed in the threatning of death: Now if the threatning [dying thou shalt dye] did not only intend a privation of the life which Adam then enjoyed, but everlasting punishment in hell; Then it seems to follow, that the life here implicitely promised is not to be understood only of the continuation of that life, which Adam lived in Paradice, but of everlasting life in Heaven.
2. That eternal life which the Scripture opposeth unto death (the wages of sin) Rom. 6.23. there is none that questioneth, but it is a life of happiness in Heaven.
3. Was not the Earthly Paradice a type of Heaven, and the tree of life there, a type of Eternal life in Heaven (Rev. 2.7.) Had Adam the type of Heaven, and was it not to teach him what to expect, to look after a life of happiness in Heaven? unless you will say, Those were Types only since they were lost, not while they were, and might have been enjoyed.
4. Was not innocent Adam as capable of Heavens happiness, as believers are now? And would it not be strange, that though he had kept his Integrity and innocency, yet he should never have enjoyed the chiefest Happiness and perfection, he was made for, was created capable of.
5. If Adam had continued innocent and obedient, may we not suppose, he should have had as many Children descending from him, as have sprung from him since the fall, who might have stood and been happy with him: Now whether seemeth more improbable, to suppose a translation of men up to Heaven (Successivè, & suo ordine) by degrees and in their order, as it should please God to transtate them; or to suppose their continuance all together upon earth, where if we should suppose all the Generations of men that have been since Adam already existent here together; Answ to Bishop of Rochest. Letter. p. 86, 87.it is hard to conceive how the Earth should bear them all, though Dr. J. T. would hence conclude that Dissolution of Soul and Body should have been, if Adam had not sinned, which I can see no Reason to admit. Yet (as he says) the world would have been too litle to have entertained those myriads of men, which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of [Increase and Multiply] which was given at the first Creation, and to have confined Mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen, would have been a punishment of his innocency.
Another Question here, whether it was of Grace, or of Justice, for God to promise Adam life, and happiness (as he did) upon his continued Obedience?
Answ. Of strict Justice it could not be; because he might have promised less, yea, might have promised nothing at all de futuro, without any Injustice. I readily grant it inconsistent with Justice to punish, or afflict an innocent Creature eternally. Yet Justice does not require that the service, or obedience of a Creature be rewarded with everlasting, that is, infinite happiness. True it is, if Adam had tarried as he ought, doing well, he should have been accepted, continuing his Obedience, he might have expected the complacential Love of God his Creator towards him, so long as the Lord was pleased to continue him in being; that while he was innocent, God would look on him as such, not hold him guilty. but it sounds strangely to say, God cannot make a rational innocent Creature, and annihilate, or unmake it again, if he pleaseth. To hold that he is bound to perpetuate the being and happiness of such a Creature, till (by some misdemeanour) it comes to forfeit its being and happiness; is to deny that God hath such power over his Creatures, as the Potter hath over the Clay, as Mr. Ball of the Covenant, p. 273. withdraw that voluntary Covenant, and who doubteth not but that had the Creature kept his Innocency a Thousand years, God was free to have annihilated him.
Indeed God cannot be injurious to his Creatures, because of his Essential Justice, which is instead of a Law to him, and is himself, neither can he be beholden or properly indebted to his Creature; because of that infinite plenitude of perfection in himself, to which all the Creatures in the world, can make no Addition; as also because of his right and propriety in his Dominion and Authority over his Creatures. Thus Innocent Adam could never by the most perfect, unsinning Obedience have merited in a strict sence; that is, in the way of commutative Justice, the continuation of his life and happiness. While he did only pay the debt, which was indispensibly owing to his Maker, it is most unreasonable to think, he could this way oblige God to him, make that God to whom all was due, his Debtor. Again, as (if Adam would merit) what he gave to God ought to have rationemindebiti, it must not be due before (which was otherwise, he could give to God no more than his own) so it should also have rationem Lucri, be some way profitable unto him, at whose hands he would merit. But who hath given to him, and it shall be recompenced to him again, Rom. 11.35.
Again, we may cast in this as Overplus, here was no proportion betwixt the work and the promised reward, what proportion betwixt a finite Creature's giving up its self to the Service of its Maker, and God's giving back himself to be everlastingly enjoyed? What proportion betwixt a Creature's obedience, continued for a time, while he was in a probation-state, and God's remunerating it with happiness, Coccei de faed. p. 35.beyond time, even to Eternity. Turpis Error est, promissiones dei nisi proportione officii. It was congruous to the Divine goodness indeed to promise so much to an innocent, and obedient Creature, it was a promise worthy of him that made it, though his Creatures Obedience could not be properly worthy of that which was promised.
So I conclude it was not of strict Justice, or naturall Equity, but of grace and bounty, that God promised to Man's finite Service, and Obedience already due, a future, everlasting, infinite reward.
Now if innocent Adam could not properly be said to merit the promised reward, though he had performed unsinning obedience, how absurd is it to talk of the Saints meriting ex condigno by their imperfect Obedience, Exod. 20.6. Shewing mercy to them that love me, and keep my Commandments. All that God doth for such, is of his mercy. Yet I do not deny, but that if Adam had obeyed perfectly, it had been rewardable at the Bar of Gods distributive, legal Justice; as the obedience of the Faithful is rewardable at the Bar of Crace; but neither in the way of commutative Justice.
Sect. 8.
PROP. VIII. Gods promising to man life and happiness, upon Condition of perfect Obedience [Do this and live] was his part of the Covenant with Adam.
GOd in his Covenant holds forth the way how his Creatures might be sure of his favour, and attain to the Fruition of him. And thus God's Covenants are not like Mens Covenants (as one notes) Homines enim de mutuis beneficiis: Deus de suis foedus facit. Men that Covenant one with another, aim each at their own advantage; but God in Covenanting with his Creatures, does not expect any benefit, or advantage by them, but does it to shew how willing, and ready he is to communicate his benefits to them.
Sect. 9.
PROP. IX. Innocent Adam as he was bound, so he could not but accept of the Terms, or Condition, upon which God proposed, and promised the perpetuating of his happiness. And thus Man consenting to Gods terms, God and Man were formally and actually in Covenant.
A Mutual Engagement of parties, is all that is essential to a Covenant. This is the difference betwixt a Promise, and a Covenant.
A Promise is that which bindeth one party singly; A Covenant is that wherein both parties are mutually bound.
To the Covenant betwixt God and Man, it was no way necessary, that Man should indent with God, or make his own Terms; No, he was bound to accept of such Terms as it should please his Lord and Maker to set down, and offer; whatsoever God required of him, would bind him immediately, as a Law, without his consent, or liking of it. And before Man could have the liberty of making his own Terms with God, he must first satisfie and take off that Obligation on him, as a Creature to obey his Creator in all things, which Obligation a Creature can no way possibly take off, or be freed from, while he is a Creature.
Thus in the Covenant betwixt God and Man, God is to propose the Terms, and Man is obliged to accept of them, as proposed by Him.
In the first Covenant, the Covenant of Works, where the Condition was perfect Obedience; the Lord required no more, than what was due from Man, though God had not promised any further favour thereupon.
Now the condescension being wholly on Gods part, in offering to enter into Covenant, and the benefit accrueing, or likely to accrew, being solely unto Man, it could not be just or reasonable, that Man should withhold or deny his consent.
Thus Man at first was taken into Covenant with God, Man engaging to obey God in all things; Faederatio constat stipulatione & promissione.and God engaging amply to reward his Obedience, in an endless life, and felicity. We should not once doubt (as the Socinians) whether Adam was under any Law but this, [of not eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,] The Moral Law being written in his heart, and that in so fair a Character, that he needed not to have delivered it to him either by word, or in writing.
Sect. 10.
PROP. X. Though the agreement and consent of both the parties was enough to constitute the Covenant; yet for the further solemnity and ratification of it, the Lord was pleased to appoint a visible sign or signs, as a seal annexed to it.
AS Paradice and the tree of life, was to confirm the promise, that if Man obeyed, he should live and be happy; and some would have the tree of Knowledge to confirm the threatning, that if he sinned he should dye. The former to signifie the reward of Obedience, the latter to signifie the punishment of disobedience. The one a Sacrament of life, the other of death. But this which is said concerning the tree of Knowledge is more Questionable. Fuit Arbor haec non proprie Sacramentum, Coccei de Foed. c. 2. Sect. 19. p. 20.neque vitae neque mortis, sed signum dominii & subjectionis, & materia explorationis.
The Signs and Sacraments, God hath used to annex unto his Covenant, have been such as represented the blessings promised in the Covenant. This is evident in the Covenant of Grace. And that Pradice was to signifie Heaven; the tree of life to signifie eternal life to Adam, seemeth very plain; Heaven being called by the name of Paradice in Scripture. And the tree of life so called (as some good Expositors have noted) because it was to be a Symbole and Memorial to Adam as oft as he tasted, or beheld it, of his receiving his life and happiness from God, that he had not these in: and of himself. His eating of this tree was to be an Acknowledgement of his dependance upon God for life and happiness, and, Se non propriâ virtute, sed Dei unius beneficio, vivere, & perpetuò victurum, si obediret, &c.
Here by the way, observe, God thought not Sacraments useless to man in innocency. Yet some amongst us think themselves above Sacraments, and Ordinances, those means and helps God hath appointed under the Covenant of Grace.
Sect. 11.
PROP. XI. Being agreed about the thing, there can be no great Reason why we should contend much about the Name.
THis first Covenant is called Foedus Amicitiae, a league of Friendship, by way of contradistinction to the new Covenant, which is Foedus reconciliationis inter inimicos; The first Covenant was made with Man in the state of Innocency, when God and Man were Good-friends.
Again, it is called Foedus operum, the Covenant of works, sinless works, and obedience-every-way-perfect, being the Condition, the thing stipulated, and required in this Covenant.
Again, it is called Foedus Naturae, the Covenant of Nature; as the following Covenant, Foedus Gratiae, the Covenant of Grace. Yet there seems to be some doubt, whether it be so rightly called the Covenant of Nature: Though the Law of Nature bound man to obey his Creator in all things, which was the same that the Covenant of works bound him to, that we must say the preceptive part of the Covenant was natural; yet I dare not say, that the Promissory part of the Covenant was so, that God was bound to promise all he did upon Man's Obedience, or bound to promise any thing at all; I say, it was not juris Naturalis, that God should make such a promise, I dare not say, that there was an intrinsecal, natural, necessary connexion betwixt a Creature's Obedience, and everlasting life and happiness; so that God had not been just, if (supposing) Adam's Obedience continued a 1000 years, he had not thereupon confirmed his Creature in a state of endless happiness. If it had been injustice to have denyed such a reward to Man's Obedience, so that Man might have concluded upon it from a common natural principle (as that God cannot be unjust) then there was no need to have promised it, or to have entered into Covenant about it; would God have made a Covenant to do that, which his Essential justice bound him to? If he was not bound in Justice, so to reward his Creature's Obedience, then it was his free goodness (or Grace) to promise, and Covenant to do it.
Now let it be considered, if it was thus of Gods Grace, and condescension to enter into the first Covenant with Man, if it was doing more than he was bound to, then I say, let it be considered, whether it be fair for any to censure him, as if he had been over-rigorous, had he dealt with any according to the terms of that Covenant, or that God could not have held men to it.
Sect. 12.
PROP. XII. God by Covenanting with Man, had a further right in him, a new title to his Service, and Obedience. First, he might have commanded man jure creationis, as he was his Creature, had this Covenant never been; Again, he may command him jure foederis, vel foederationis, upon Account of the Covenant betwixt him, and his Creature.
THis new right was accumulative unto, not destructive, or exclusive of the Former right. Man's being obliged de novo to obey God, by what the Lord promised in the Covenant to do further for him; cannot take off, or cancel that Obligation on him from his Creation, from what God had done for him already.
That I may say here (without contradicting the Apostle) The Law (i. e. the Law of Nature) which was in force (at least, in order of Nature) before the Covenant, the Covenant did not disanull it. My meaning is, Gods condescension in Covenanting with Man, did not derogate, or take off any thing from his Authority as Law-giver, Gods Law was still binding as a Law, as the Law of our Maker; otherwise it would follow, that Man being taken into Covenant with God, he could not properly be guilty of disobedience, no disobedience but is a repugnancy against the Law, or will of a Superior, whom we ought to obey. But in case the Law of God should lose its Authority and obliging force, to Man in Covenant with God, then a Man doing contrary to his Law, could only be charged with treachery, falseness, breach of Covenant, or ingratitude (as one equal may have occasion sometimes to charge another, who hath no Authority to command, or call the other to account.) Where there is no Law, there is no Transgression.
But Adam's offence, his breach of Covenant, was properly disobedience, Rom. 5.19. That the Covenant made with Adam, did not take from the force of the Law, which he was under, as a Creature; but indeed added this further aggravation to his sin, that it was not barely the transgression of Gods Law, but the violation of his Covenant: as it was an affronting of Gods Soveraignty and justice, (a dreadful thing indeed) so it was a notorious slighting of Gods wonderful condescending love and goodness, shameful ingratitude, to be abhorred.
But this is a principle which it concerns us all to be very clear in, that God in entring into Covenant with Man, did not set aside his Autherity, did not cease to be man's Soveraign; no verily, while Man is his Creature, God cannot cease to be his rightful Governour, or the Law of God cease to bind Man to obedience, even because it is the Law of his Maker.