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.
-
Why God would give a positive law, besides that of the naturall3 law in his heart. There are these reasons commonly given:
-
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.
-
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.