The Close of the Discourse on Adam's Law and Covenant

GENES. 2. 17.

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:

2. That it cannot be denied, but that in Adam such qualities¹ 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.

3. In the next place, we doe not hold in such a manner his² 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 help³ 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 onely 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, onely 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:

3. 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.

4. The second Reason of Calvin is, that the obedience of the⁴ 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 onely 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 […], to reconcile; and that to the Ephesians, […], 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 onely: 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 onely 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 had⁵ 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, or⁶ 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; onely 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 onely 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 was⁷ 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 onely 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 reparation⁸ 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 made⁹ 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 to¹⁰ 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 onely 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 onely 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 he¹¹ 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 different¹² 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.

Footnotes

1. 1. In Adam such qualities and actions may be considered, as did flow from him as aliving creature, endued with a rational soul.
   ↩

2. 2 The principle and habit of righteousnesse was naturall to Adam, but help from God to persevere, supernaturall. ↩

3. Adam in the state of innocency needed not Christ by way of reconciliation, but of conservation in righteousnesse. ↩

4. The obedience of Angels may be said to be imperfect negatively, not privatively. ↩

5. Christs incarnation cannot be supposed, but upon supposition of Adams fall. ↩

6. The tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam. ↩

7. The Scripture doth not affirme any revelation of a Christ unto Adam. ↩

8. The state of innocency excelled the state of reparation in rectitude, immortality, and outward felicity. ↩

9. The state of reparation more happy then that of innocency, in respect of the certainty of perseverance in the state of grace. ↩

10. The imputation of Christs righteousness doth not inferre, that therefore we are more righteous then Adam. ↩

11. What God requireth of us, is not greater then what he demanded of Adam in innocency. ↩

12. Adams immortality in the state of innocency different from, and short of that which shall be in heaven. ↩