The Law God Gave Adam, Considered as a Law

GENES. 2. 17.

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; onely 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 very¹ 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 fitting² 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 naturall³ law in his heart. There are these reasons commonly given:

3. 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.

4. Another reason, which floweth from the former, is, that⁴ 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, and⁵ abuse of it. For such is the profane boldnesse of many men, that would have a reason of all Gods actions, whereas this is as⁶ 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 certainly⁷ 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 of⁸ the forbidden fruit. We need not run to the answer of some, that this was spoken onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely temporall, as some doe most erroneously maintain.

7. Whether Adam was mortall, before his eating of the forbidden⁹ 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 onely 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 absolute¹⁰ 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 fixed¹¹ 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 onely 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, onely 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.

Footnotes

1. Tanta fuit Adami recens conditi stupiditas, ut major in infantos cadere non postit. ↩

2. The tree of knowledge why so called. ↩

3. 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. ↩

4. 2. To try and manifest Adams obedience.
   ↩

5. The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience. ↩

6. Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum, & longè supra vires meas esse confiteor, Aug. ↩

7. The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adams posterity. ↩

8. Adam, by eating the forbidden fruit, became mortall, and in the state of death, not naturall onely, but spirituall and eternall also. ↩

9. Adam before his sin was immortall. ↩

10. A thing may be said to be immortall foure wayes. ↩

11. The mortality of the whole man cannot be evinced from this threatning, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die. ↩