1. Of God’s fixing the place of his abode, which was to be in paradise,
a very large and most delightful garden, of God’s own planting, an
_epitome_ of all the beauties of nature, which, as it were, presented to
his view the whole world in miniature; so that herein he might, without
travelling many miles, behold the most beautiful land-skip which the
world afforded, and partake of all the fruits, with which it was stored.
The whole world, indeed, was given him for a possession; but this was,
as it were, a store-house of its choicest fruits, and the peculiar seat
of his residence.
We find the word _paradise_ used, in scripture, sometimes to signify a
delightful garden, and sometimes it is taken, in a metaphorical sense,
to signify _heaven_, Luke xxiii. 43. 2 Cor. xii. 4. Rev. ii. 7. by which
application thereof, we may conclude, that this earthly paradise, in
which man was placed, was a kind of type of the heavenly blessedness,
which, had he retained his integrity, he would have been possessed of,
and which they, who are saved by Christ, shall be brought to.
Here we may take notice of the conjectures of some ancient and modern
writers concerning it, more especially as to what respects that part of
the world wherein it was situate; and whether it is now in being, or to
be found in any part of it, at this day. Many have given great scope to
their conception about the situation of paradise, and some conjectures
are so absurd, that they hardly deserve to be mentioned. As,
(1.) Some have thought that it was situate in some place, superior to,
and remote from this globe of the earth, in which we live; but they have
not the least shadow of reason for this supposition, and nothing can be
more contrary to the account we have thereof in scripture.
(2.) Others fancy, that there was really no such place, but that the
whole account we have thereof, in Gen. ii. is allegorical; thus Origen,
Philo, and some modern writers: but no one can justly suppose this, who
duly weighs the historical account we have of it, in scripture, with
that sobriety and impartiality that he ought; for, according to this
method of reasoning, we may turn any thing into an allegory, and so
never come to any determinate sense of scripture, but what the wild
fancies of men suggest.
(3.) Others have supposed, that the whole world was one great garden, or
paradise, and that when man was placed therein, it was so described, to
signify the beauties of nature, before they were lost, by the curse
consequent on sin: But this cannot be true, because God first made man,
and then _planted this garden_, and afterwards _put him into it_; Gen.
ii. 8. and after the fall, he _drove him out of it_, chap. iii. 24. But,
passing by these groundless conjectures, something may be determined,
with more certainty, concerning the situation thereof, and more
agreeable to scripture; therefore,
(4.) It was situate in Mesopotamia, near Babylon, to the north-east end
of the land of Canaan. This appears,
_1st_, From the country adjacent to it, which is called Eden, out of
which the river that watered it is said to proceed, chap. ii. 10. This
country was afterwards known by the same name, and is elsewhere reckoned
among those that the king of Assyria had conquered, Isa. xxxvii. 12.
_2dly_, Two of the rivers, that proceeded from Eden, which watered
paradise, were well known in after-ages, _viz._ Hiddekel, or Tigris, and
Euphrates, especially the latter, of which we often read in scripture;
and it is certain they were in Mesopotamia; therefore the garden of Eden
was there. And, as it was the finest plantation in the world, this was
one of the most pleasant climates therein, not situate too far
northward, so as to be frozen up in winter; nor too near the equator
south-ward, so as to be scorched with excessive heat in summer; this was
the place of man’s residence at first.[42]
But if any are so curious in their enquiries, as to desire to know the
particular spot of ground in which it was; that is not to be determined.
For though the place where paradise was, must still be in being, as much
as any other part of the world; yet there are no remains of it, that can
give any satisfaction to the curiosity of men, with relation thereunto;
for it is certain, that it was soon destroyed as a garden, partly by the
flaming sword, or stream of fire, which was designed to guard the way of
the tree of life, that man might no more come to it; and thereby to
signify, that it ceased to be an ordinance, for his faith concerning the
way in which eternal life was to be obtained. And it is more than
probable, that this stream of fire, which is called a flaming sword,
destroyed, or burnt up, this garden; and, besides this, the curse of
God, by which the earth brought forth briars and thorns, affected this,
as well as other parts of the world; so that, by reason thereof, and for
want of culture, it soon lost its beauty, and so could not well be
distinguished from the barren wilderness. And to this let me add, that
since the flood, the face of the earth is so altered, that it is a vain
thing for travellers to search for any traces thereof, or to pretend to
determine, within a few miles, the place where it was.
Having considered the place of man’s abode, to wit, paradise, we have,
2. An account of his secular employment therein. He was appointed to
dress, or manure it; from whence we may take occasion to observe, that a
secular employment is not inconsistent with perfect holiness, or a
person’s enjoying communion with God, and that blessedness which arises
from it: but, on the other hand, it may be reckoned an advantage,
inasmuch as it is a preservative against idleness, and those temptations
that oftentimes attend it. Notwithstanding, though man was employed in
this work, it was performed without that labour, fatigue, and
uneasiness, which now attends it, or those disappointments, and
perplexities, which men are now exposed to, whose secular callings are a
relief against poverty, and a necessary means for their comfortable
subsistence in the world, which had not man fell, would not have been
attended with those inconveniences that now they are, as the consequence
of that curse, which sin brought with it; as it is said, _In the sweat
of thy face shalt thou eat bread_, Gen. iii. 19.
3. We have a farther account of the provision that providence made for
man’s subsistence; the great variety of fruits, which the earth
produced, were given him for food, the tree of knowledge of good and
evil only excepted. From whence we may observe, the difference between
the condition of man in paradise, and that of the saints in heaven, in
which the bodies of men shall be supported, without food, when changed
and adapted to such a way of living, as is inconsistent with this
present state; which seems to be the meaning of that expression of the
apostle, _Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall
destroy both it and them_, 1 Cor. vi. 13.
Here we may take occasion to enquire, whether the fruits of the earth
were the only food which man lived on, not only before the fall, but in
several following ages? or, whether flesh was eaten before the flood? It
seems most agreeable to the dictates of nature, to suppose, that he
would never have found out such an expedient, as killing the beasts, and
eating their flesh to subsist him, had he not received an express
direction to do it from God, which rendered it a duty. And we have a
particular intimation of this grant given to Noah, after the deluge,
when God says, _Every moving thing that liveth_, namely, every clean
beast, _shall be meat for you_, Gen. ix. 3. from whence some conclude,
that there was no flesh eaten before this; and that the distinction,
which we read of, concerning clean and unclean beasts, which Noah
brought with him into the ark, respected either such as were fit or
unfit for sacrifice; or the clean beasts were such as God afterwards
designed for food; and therefore there is a kind of prolepsis in their
being called clean at that time.
The principal reason that induces some to suppose this, is, because we
read, in the scripture but now mentioned, that when God directed Noah,
and his posterity, to eat flesh, and considered this as a peculiar gift
of providence, he said, _Even as the green herb have I given you all
things_; that is, as when I created man at first, _I gave him every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, that it should be to
him for meat_; but now _have I given you all things_, Gen. i. 29. that
is, have made a considerable addition to your food by giving you a
liberty to feed on flesh; where the manner of expression seems to
intimate, that, in this respect, man’s food differed from what it was
before. This conjecture, for that is the most that I can call it, seems,
to me, to have equal, if not greater, probability in it, than the
contrary, which is the commonly received opinion relating hereunto; and,
if it be true, then we may observe, if we compare the food, by which man
subsisted, with the length of his life, in the first ages of the world,
that the most simple diet is the most wholesome; when men become slaves
to their appetites, and pamper themselves with variety of meats, they
do, as it were, dig their own graves, and render their lives shorter,
than they would be, according to the common course of nature.
If it be objected to this, that man’s not feeding on flesh, was such a
diminution of his happiness, that it seems inconsistent with a state of
innocency. To this it may be answered, that for man to feed on what the
earth produced, was no mortification or unhappiness, to him; especially
if it were, by a peculiar blessing of providence, adapted to, as well as
designed for his nourishment, as being his only food; in which case none
of those consequences would ensue, which would now attend a person’s
being wholly confined thereto. If this way of living was so far from
destroying, or weakening the constitution of men, that it tended, by the
peculiar blessing of God, not only to nourish, but to maintain health,
and was medicinal, as well as nourishing, and so conducive to long life;
and if the fruits of the earth, before that alteration, which they might
probably sustain by the deluge, or, at least, before the curse of God
was brought upon the earth by man’s sin, differed vastly from what they
now are, both as to the pleasantness of their taste, and their virtue to
nourish; if these things are supposed, it cannot be reckoned any degree
of unhappiness, though man, at this time, might have no other food, but
what the earth produced: But this I reckon among the number of those
probable conjectures, concerning which it is not very material to
determine, whether they are true or false.
4. God gave man dominion over all creatures in this world, or, as it is
expressed, he _put them under his feet_, Psal. viii. 6. which not only
argues a superiority of nature, but a propriety in, and liberty to use
them, to the glory of God, and his own advantage. No creature was in
itself a snare to him, or a necessary occasion of sin; for as the
creature at first, to use the Apostles phrase, was not liable to _the
bondage of corruption_, so it was not _subject to vanity_, Rom. viii.
20, 21. by an inclination that he had in his nature to abuse it. And as
for those creatures which are now formidable to man, as the lion, the
tyger, &c. these, as it is more than probable, had not that fierceness
in their nature, before the fall of man, and the curse consequent
thereupon, so that our first parents could make as much use of them, and
had them as much under their command, as we have the tamest creatures.
And it is not improbable, that they did not prey upon, and devour one
another, as now they do, since providence provided the produce of the
earth _for their food_, Gen. i. 30. and therefore, by a natural
instinct, they sought it only from thence; so that the beasts devouring
one another, as well as their being injurious to man, is a standing mark
of the curse of God, which was consequent on sin.
We read of a time in which the church is given to expect, that _the wolf
and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the
bullock, and dust shall be the serpent’s meat; they shall not hurt, nor
destroy, in all God’s holy mountain_, Isa. lxv. 25. which, if it shall
be literally accomplished, is an intimation that it was so at first, as
it contains a prediction of the restoring of this part of nature, in
some respects, to its first estate. But, supposing it only to be a
metaphorical description of the church’s happy state in future ages; the
prophet’s using this metaphor, argues the possibility of the thing’s
being literally true, and that it is a consequence of man’s fallen state
that it is not so now, therefore it is probable, that it was otherwise
at first. Such conjectures as these may be excused, if we don’t pretend
them to be articles of faith, nor think it worth our while to contend
with those who deny them.
5. It is farther observed, that God ordained marriage for man’s help,
and that not only in what concerns the conveniences of this life, but as
a means to promote his spiritual welfare, as such a nearness of relation
lays the strongest obligations to it; and also that the world might be
increased, without any sinful expedient conducive thereunto; and herein
there was a standing precedent to be observed by mankind, in all
succeeding ages, that hereby the unlawfulness of polygamy, and other
violations of the seventh commandment, might evidently appear[43].
II. We proceed to consider the providence of God, as conversant about
man’s spiritual concerns, and that in three respects, namely, in
granting him communion with himself, in instituting the Sabbath, and
entering into a covenant of life with him.
1. Man, in the estate in which he was created, was favoured with
communion with God: This supposes a state of friendship, and is opposed
to estrangement, separation, or alienation from him; and, as the result
hereof,
(1.) God was pleased to manifest his glory to him, and that not only in
an objective way, or barely by giving him a conviction, that he is a God
of infinite perfection, which a person may have, who is destitute of
communion with him: but he displayed his perfections in such a manner to
him, so as to let him see his interest therein, and that, as long as he
retained his integrity, they were engaged to make him happy.
(2.) This communion was attended with access to God, without fear, and a
great delight in his presence; for man, being without guilt, was not
afraid to draw nigh to God; and, being without spot, as made after his
image, he had no shame, or confusion of face, when standing before him,
as a holy, sin-hating God.
(3.) It consisted in his being made partaker of those divine influences,
whereby he was excited to put forth acts of holy obedience to, and love
and delight in him, which were a spring and fountain of spiritual joy.
Nevertheless, though this communion was perfect in its kind, as
agreeable to the state in which he was at first, yet it was not so
perfect, as to degree, as it would have been, had he continued in his
integrity, till he was possessed of those blessings, which would have
been the consequence thereof; for then the soul would have been more
enlarged, and made receptive of greater degrees of communion, which he
would have enjoyed in heaven. He was, indeed, at first, in a holy and
happy state, yet he was not in heaven, and, though he enjoyed God, it
was in ordinances, and not in an immediate way, and accordingly it was
necessary for him constantly to address himself to him, for the
maintenance of that spiritual life, which he had received, together with
his being; and this was not inconsistent with a state of innocency, any
more than the maintenance of our natural lives, by the use of proper
food, is inconsistent with health, or argues an infirm, or sickly
constitution, or any need of medicine to recover it; yet our lives would
be more confirmed, and, if we may so express it, less precarious, if God
had ordained that they should have been supported without these means.
This may serve to illustrate the difference that there is between the
happiness that the saints enjoy, in God’s immediate presence in heaven,
and that which is expected, as the result of our daily access to him, in
ordinances, wherein we hope for some farther degree of communion with
him; the former of these man would have attended to, had he stood; the
latter contained in it, that state in which he was in innocency: but
inasmuch as there can be no communion with God, but what has a
proportionable degree of delight and pleasure attending it; this our
first parents may be said to have experienced, which contributed to the
happiness of that state in which they were, though this joy was not so
complete, as that is which they are possessed of, who have not only an
assurance of the impossibility of losing that communion, which they have
with God at present, but are arrived to a state of perfect blessedness.
2. God sanctified and instituted the Sabbath for man’s more immediate
access to him, and, that he might express his gratitude for the
blessings he was made partaker of, and might have a recess from that
secular employment, which, as was before observed, he was engaged in.
This was therefore a great privilege; and, indeed, the Sabbath was a
pledge, or shadow, of an everlasting Sabbath, which he would have
enjoyed in heaven, had he not forfeited, and lost it, by his fall. But
we shall have occasion to speak more particularly to this head under the
fourth commandment;[44] and therefore all that we shall add, at present,
is, that the Sabbath was instituted as a day of rest for man, even while
he remained in a state of innocency. This appears from its being blessed
and sanctified, upon the occasion of God’s resting from his work of
creation; therefore it was, at that time, set apart to be observed by
him.
_Object. 1._ It is objected, that it might then be sanctified with this
view, that man should observe it after his fall, or, in particular, at
that time when the observation of it was enjoined.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that there never was any ordinance
instituted, but what was designed to be observed by man, immediately
after the institution thereof. Now the sanctification of the Sabbath
imports as much as its institution, or setting apart for a holy use;
therefore we cannot but suppose, that God designed that it should be
observed by man in innocency.
_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that it is inconsistent with the
happy state, in which man was created, for God to appoint a day of rest
for him, to be then observed; for rest supposes labour, and therefore is
more agreeable to that state into which he brought himself by sin, when,
by the sweat of his brow, he was to eat bread.
_Answ._ Though it is true, man, in innocency, was not exposed to that
uneasiness and fatigue that attended his employment after his fall,
neither was the work he was engaged in a burthen to him, so as that he
needed a day of rest to give him ease, in that respect; yet a cessation
from a secular employment, attended with a more immediate access to God
in his holy institutions, wherein he might hope for a greater degree of
communion with him, was not inconsistent with that degree of holiness
and happiness, in which he was created, which, as was before observed,
was short of the heavenly blessedness; so that, though heaven is a
state, in which the saints enjoy an everlasting Sabbath, it does not
follow that man, how happy soever he was in paradise, was so far
favoured therein, as that a day of rest was inconsistent with that
state.
3. We shall proceed to enquire how the providence of God had a more
immediate reference to the spiritual or eternal happiness of man, in
that he entered into a covenant of life with him, under which head we
are to consider the personal concerns of our first parents therein.[45]
(1.) The dispensation they were under was that of a covenant. This is
allowed by most, who acknowledge the imputation of Adam’s sin, and the
universal corruption of nature, as consequent thereupon. And some call
it, a _covenant of innocency_, inasmuch as it was made with man while he
was in a state of innocency; others call it, a _covenant of works_,
because perfect obedience was enjoined, as the condition of it, and so
it is opposed to the covenant of grace, as there was no provision made
therein for any display of grace, as there is in that covenant which we
are now under; but, in this answer, it is called the _covenant of life_,
as having respect to the blessings promised therein.
It may seem indifferent to some, whether it ought to be termed a
covenant, or a law of innocency; and, indeed, we would not contend about
the use of a word, if many did not design, by what they say, concerning
its being a law, and not properly a covenant, to prepare the way for the
denial of the imputation of Adam’s sin; or did not, at the same time,
consider him as no other than the natural head of his posterity, which,
if it were to be allowed, would effectually overthrow the doctrine of
original sin, as contained in some following answers. Therefore we must
endeavour to prove that man was not barely under a law, but a covenant
of works; and, that we may proceed with more clearness, we shall premise
some things, in general, concerning the difference between a law and a
covenant.
A law is the revealed will of a sovereign, in which a debt of obedience
is demanded, and a punishment threatened, in proportion to the nature of
the offence, in case of disobedience. And here we must consider, that as
a subject is bound to obey a law; so he cannot justly be deprived of
that which he has a natural right to, but in case of disobedience;
therefore obedience to a law gives him a right to impunity, but nothing
more than this; whereas a covenant gives a person a right, upon his
fulfilling the conditions thereof, to all those privileges, which are
stipulated, or promised therein. This may be illustrated, by considering
it as applied to human forms of government, in which it is supposed that
every subject is possessed of some things, which he has a natural or
political right to, which he cannot justly be deprived of, unless he
forfeit them by violating the law, which, as a subject, he was obliged
to obey; therefore, though his obedience give him a right to impunity,
or to the undisturbed possession of his life and estate, yet this does
not entitle him to any privilege, which he had no natural right to. A
king is not obliged to advance a subject to great honours, because he
has not forfeited his life and estate by rebellion: but in case he had
promised him, as an act of favour, that he would confer such honours
upon him, upon condition of his yielding obedience in some particular
instances, then he would have a right to them, not as yielding obedience
to a law, but as fulfilling the conditions of a covenant.
This may be farther illustrated, by considering the case of
Mephibosheth. He had a natural and legal right to his life and estate,
which descended to him from his father Jonathan, because he behaved
himself peaceably, and had not rebelled against David; but this did not
entitle him to those special favours which David conferred upon him,
such as _eating bread at his table continually_, 2 Sam. ix. 13. for
those were the result of a covenant between David and Jonathan; in which
David promised, that he would shew kindness to his house after him. Now,
to apply this to our present case, if we consider our first parents only
as under a law, their perfect obedience to it, it is true, would have
given them a right to impunity, since punishment supposes a crime;
therefore God could not, consistently with his perfections, have
punished them, had they not rebelled against him. I do not say, that God
could not, in consistency with his perfections, have taken away the
blessings that he conferred upon them, as creatures, in a way of
sovereignty, but this he could not do as a judge; so that man would have
been entirely exempted from punishment, as long as he had stood. But
this would not, in the least, have entitled him to any superadded
happiness, unless there had been a promise made, which gave him ground
to expect it, in case he yielded obedience; and if there were, then that
dispensation, which before contained the form of a law, having this
circumstance added to it, would afterwards contain the form of a
covenant, and so give him a right to that super-added happiness promised
therein, according to the tenor of that covenant. Therefore, if we can
prove (which we shall endeavour to do, before we dismiss this subject)
not only that man was obliged to yield perfect obedience, as being under
a law; but that he was given to expect a super-added happiness,
consisting either in the grace of confirmation in his present state, or
in the heavenly blessedness; then it will follow, that he would have had
a right to it, in case of yielding that obedience, according to the
tenor of this dispensation, as containing in it the nature of a
covenant.
This I apprehend to be the just difference between a law and a covenant,
as applicable to this present argument, and consequently must conclude,
that the dispensation man was under, contained both the ideas of a law
and a covenant: his relation to God, as a creature, obliged him to yield
perfect obedience to the divine will, as containing the form of a law;
and this perfect obedience, had it been performed, would have given him
a right to the heavenly blessedness, by virtue of that promise, which
God was pleased to give to man in this dispensation, as it contained in
it the nature of a covenant. And this will farther appear, when we
consider,
(2.) The blessing promised in this covenant, namely, life. This, in
scripture, is used sometimes to signify temporal, and, at other times,
spiritual and eternal blessings: we have both these senses joined
together in the apostle’s words, where we read of _the life that now is,
and that which is to come_, 1 Tim. iv. 8. Moreover, sometimes life and
blessing, or blessedness, are put together, and opposed to death, as
containing in it all the ingredients of evil, Deut. xxx. 19. in which
scripture, when Moses exhorts them to choose life, he doth not barely
intend a natural life, or outward blessings, for these there is no one
but chooses, whereas many are hardly persuaded to make choice of
spiritual life.
In this head we are upon, we consider life, as including in it, both
spiritual and eternal blessedness; so it is to be understood, when our
Saviour says, _Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth
unto life_; Matt. vii. 14. and elsewhere, _If thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments_, chap. xix. 17. We must therefore conclude, that
Adam having such a promise as this made to him, upon condition of
perfect obedience, he was given to expect some privileges, which he was
not then possessed of, which included in them the enjoyment of the
heavenly blessedness; therefore this dispensation, that he was under,
may well be called a covenant of life.
But, since this is so necessary a subject to be insisted on, we shall
offer some arguments to prove it. Some have thought that it might be
proved from Hos. vi. 7. which they choose to render, _They, like Adam,
have transgressed the covenant_; from whence they conclude, that Adam
was under a covenant; and so they suppose that the word Adam is taken
for the proper name of our first parent, as it is probable it is
elsewhere, _viz._ when Job says, _If I covered my transgressions, as
Adam_, Job xxxi. 33. alluding to those trifling excuses which Adam made,
to palliate his sin, immediately after his fall, Gen. iii. 12. And there
are some expositors who conclude, that this is no improbable sense of
this text:[46] yet I would not lay much stress on it; because the words
may be rendered as they are in our translation, _They, like men_, &c.
_q. d._ according to the custom of vain man, they have _transgressed the
covenant_; or, they are no better than the rest of mankind, who are
disposed to break covenant with God. In the same sense the apostle uses
the words, when reproving the Corinthians, he says, _Are ye not carnal,
and walk as men_, 1 Cor. iii. 3.
Therefore, passing this by, let us enquire, whether it may not, in some
measure, be proved from that scripture, which is often brought for this
purpose, _In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die_, Gen.
ii. 17. from whence it is argued, that, if man had retained his
integrity, he would have been made partaker of the heavenly blessedness.
Many, indeed, are so far from thinking this an argument to prove this
matter, that they bring it as an objection against it, as though God had
given man hereby to understand, that he was not, pursuant to the nature
of a covenant, to expect any farther degree of happiness than what he
was already possessed of; but, agreeably to the sanction of a law, death
was to be inflicted, in case of disobedience; and life, that is, the
state in which he was created, should be continued, as long as he
retained his integrity. As when a legislator threatens his subjects with
death, in case they are guilty of rebellion, nothing can be inferred
from thence, but that, if they do not rebel, they shall be continued in
the quiet possession of what they had a natural right to, as subjects,
and not that they should be advanced to a higher degree of dignity. This
sense of the text, indeed, enervates the force of the argument, taken
from it, to prove, that man was under a covenant. But yet I would not
wholly give it up, as containing in it nothing to support the argument
we are defending. For this threatening was denounced, not only to
signify God’s will to punish sin, or the certain event that should
follow upon it, but as a motive to obedience; and therefore it includes
in it a promise of life, in case he retained his integrity.
The question therefore is; what is meant by this life? or, whether it
has any respect to the heavenly blessedness? In answer to which, I see
no reason to conclude but that it has; since that is so often understood
by the word _life_ in scripture: thus it is said, _Hear and your soul
shall live_, Isa. lv. 3. and, _If thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments_, Matt. xix. 17, and in many other places; therefore why
should not _life_, in this place, be taken in the same sense? So, on the
other hand, when death is threatened, in several scriptures it implies a
privation of the heavenly blessedness, and not barely a loss of those
blessings, which we are actually possessed of.
Moreover, Adam could not but know God to be the Fountain of blessedness,
otherwise he would have been very defective in knowledge; and, when he
looked into himself, he would find that he was capable of a greater
degree of blessedness, than he did at present enjoy, and (which was yet
more) he had a desire thereof implanted in his very nature. Now what can
be inferred from hence, but that he would conclude that God, who gave
him these enlarged desires, after some farther degree of happiness
arising from communion with him, would give him to expect it, in case he
retained that holiness, which was implanted in his nature?
But, that it may farther appear that our first parents were given to
expect a greater degree of happiness, and consequently that the
dispensation, that they were under, was properly federal, let it be
considered; that the advantages which Christ came into the world to
procure for his people, which are promised to them, in the second
covenant, are, for substance,[47] the same with those which man would
have enjoyed, had he not fallen; for _he came to seek and to save that
which was lost_, and to procure the recovery of forfeited blessings. But
Christ came into the world to purchase eternal life for them; therefore
this would have been enjoyed, if there had been no need of purchasing
it, _viz._ if man had retained his integrity.
The apostle, speaking of the end of Christ’s coming into the world,
observes, Gal. iii. 13, 14. not only, that it was to _redeem us from the
curse_, or the condemning sentence _of the law_, but that his redeemed
ones might be made partakers of the _blessing of Abraham_, which was a
very comprehensive one, including in it, that God would be _his God, his
shield, and exceeding great reward_, Gen. xvii. 7. compared with chap.
xv. 1. and the same apostle elsewhere speaks of Christ’s having
_redeemed them that were under the law_, that is, the curse of the
violated law, or covenant, _that we might receive the adoption of sons_,
Gal. iv. 4, 5. that is, that we might be made partakers of all the
privileges of God’s children, which certainly include in them eternal
life.
Again, there is another scripture that farther supports this argument,
taken from Rom. viii. 3, 4. _What the law could not do, in that it was
weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and, for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us_; which is as though
he should say, according to the tenor of the first covenant, eternal
life was not to be expected, since it was become weak, or could not give
it, because man could not yield perfect obedience, which was the
condition thereof: But God’s sending his own Son to perform this
obedience for us, was an expedient for our attaining that life, which we
could not otherwise have enjoyed. This seems to be the general scope and
design of the apostle in this text; and it is agreeable to the sense of
many other scriptures, that speak of the advantages that believers
attain by Christ’s death, as compared with the disadvantages which man
sustained by Adam’s fall; therefore it follows, that, had Adam stood,
he, and all his posterity, would have attained eternal life.
Thus we have endeavoured to prove, that God entered into covenant with
Adam, inasmuch as he was given to expect, that, if he had yielded
perfect obedience, he should have been possessed of the heavenly
blessedness. But supposing this be not allowed of, and the arguments
brought to prove it are reckoned inconclusive, it would be sufficient to
our present purpose, and would argue the dispensation that Adam was
under to be that of a covenant, if God had only promised him the grace
of confirmation, and not to transplant him from the earthly to the
heavenly paradise; for such a privilege as this, which would have
rendered his fall impossible, would have contained so advantageous a
circumstance attending the state in which he was, as would have plainly
proved the dispensation he was under to be federal. Therefore, before we
dismiss this head, we shall endeavour to make that appear, and consider,
1. That to be confirmed in a state of holiness and happiness, was
necessary to render that state of blessedness, in which he was created
compleat; for whatever advantages he was possessed of, it would have
been a great allay to them to consider, that it was possible for him to
lose them, or through any act of inadvertency, in complying with a
temptation to fall, and ruin himself for ever. If the saints in heaven,
who are advanced to a greater degree of blessedness, were not confirmed
in it; if it was possible for them to lose, or fall from it, it would
render their joy incomplete; much more would the happiness of Adam have
been so, if he had been to have continued for ever; without this
privilege.
2. If he had not had ground to expect the grace of confirmation in
holiness and happiness, upon his yielding perfect obedience, then this
perfect obedience, could not, in any respect, in propriety of speaking,
be said to have been conditional, unless you suppose it a condition of
the blessings which he was then possessed of; which seems not so
agreeable to the idea contained in the word _condition_, which is
considered as a motive to excite obedience, taken from some blessing,
which would be consequent thereupon. But, if this be not allowed to have
sufficient weight in it, let me add,
3. That it is agreeable to, and tends very much to advance the glory of
the divine goodness, for God not to leave an innocent creature in a
state of perpetual uncertainty, as to the continuance of his holiness
and happiness; which he would have done, had he not promised him the
grace of confirmation, whereby he would, by his immediate interposure,
have prevented every thing that might have occasioned his fall.
4. This may be farther argued, from the method of God’s dealing with
other sinless creatures, whom he designed to make completely blessed,
and so monuments of his abundant goodness. Thus he dealt with the holy
angels, and thus he will deal with his saints, in another world; the
former are, the other shall be, when arrived there, confirmed in
holiness and happiness; and why should we suppose, that the goodness of
God should be less glorified towards man at first, had he retained his
integrity? Moreover, this will farther appear, if we consider,
5. That the dispensation of providence, which Adam was under, seems to
carry in it the nature of a state of probation. If he was a probationer,
it must either be for the heavenly glory, or, at least, for a farther
degree of happiness, containing in it this grace of confirmation, which
is the least that can be supposed, if there were any promise given him;
and, if all other dispensations of providence, towards man, contain so
many great and precious promises in them, as it is certain they do; can
we suppose that man, in his state of innocency, had no promise given
him? And, if he had, then I cannot but conclude, that God entered into
covenant with him, which was the thing to be proved.
_Object. 1._ The apostle, in some of the scriptures but now referred to,
calls the dispensation, that Adam was under, _a law_; therefore we have
no ground to call it a covenant.
_Answ._ It is true, it is often called a _law_; but let it be
considered, that it had two ideas included in it, which are not opposite
to, or inconsistent with each other, namely, that of a law, and a
covenant. As man was under a natural and indispensable obligation to
yield perfect obedience, and was liable to eternal death, in case of
disobedience, it had in it the form and sanction of a law; and this is
not inconsistent with any thing that has been before suggested, in which
we have endeavoured to maintain, that, besides this, there was something
added to it that contained the nature of a covenant, which is all that
we pretend to prove; and therefore the dispensation may justly take its
denomination from one or the other idea, provided, when one is
mentioned, the other be not excluded. If we call it a law, it was such a
law, as had a promise of super-added blessedness annexed to it; or if
we, on the other hand, call it a covenant, it had, notwithstanding, the
obligation of a law, since it was made with a subject, who was bound,
without regard to his arbitrary choice in this matter, to fulfil the
demands thereof.
_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, against what has been said
concerning man’s having a promise of the heavenly blessedness given him,
upon condition of obedience, that this is a privilege peculiarly adapted
to the gospel-dispensation; and that our Saviour was the first that made
it known to the world, as the apostle says, that _life and immortality
is brought to light through the gospel, and made manifest, by the
appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ_, 2 Tim. i. 10. and therefore it
was not made known by the law, and consequently there was no promise
thereof made to Adam in innocency; and the apostle says elsewhere, that
_the way into the holiest of all_, that is, into heaven, _was not yet
made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing_, till Christ
came, _who obtained eternal redemption for us_, Heb. ix. 8, 11, 12. From
whence they argue, that we have no reason to conclude that Adam had any
promise, or expectation, founded thereon, of the heavenly blessedness;
and consequently the argument taken from thence to prove, that the
dispensation he was under, was that of a covenant, is not conclusive.
_Answ._ It seems very strange, that any should infer, from the
scriptures mentioned in the objection, that eternal life was altogether
unknown in the world till Christ came into it, inasmuch as the meaning
of those scriptures is plainly this: in the former of them, when the
apostle speaks of _life and immortality as brought to light by the
gospel_, nothing else can be intended, but that this is more fully
revealed by the gospel, than it was before; or, that Christ revealed
this as a purchased possession, in which respect it could not be
revealed before. And, if this be opposed to the revelation given to Adam
of life and immortality, in the first covenant; it may be
notwithstanding, distinguished from it: for though the heavenly
blessedness was contained therein: yet it was not considered, as
including in it the idea of salvation, as it does to us when revealed in
the gospel.
As to the latter of those scriptures, concerning _the way into the
holiest of all_, that is, into heaven, _not being made manifest while
the first tabernacle was yet standing_, the meaning thereof is, that the
way of our redemption, by Jesus Christ, was not so clearly revealed, or
with those circumstances of glory under the ceremonial law, as it is by
the gospel; or, at least, whatever discoveries were made thereof, yet
the promises had not their full accomplishment, till Christ came and
erected the gospel-dispensation; this, therefore, doth not, in the
least, militate against the argument we are maintaining. Thus concerning
the blessing promised in this covenant, namely, life, by which it
farther appears to be a federal dispensation.
(3.) We are now to consider the condition of man’s obtaining this
blessing, which, as it is expressed in this answer, was personal,
perfect, and perpetual obedience.
1. He was obliged to perform obedience, which was agreeable to his
character, as a subject, and thereby to own the sovereignty of his
Creator, and Lawgiver, and the equity of his law, and his right to
govern him, according to it, which obligation was natural, necessary,
and indispensible.
2. This obedience was to be personal, that is, not performed by any
other in his behalf, and imputed to him, as his obedience was to be
imputed to all his posterity; and therefore, in that respect, it would
not have been personal, as applied to them; but as the obedience of
Christ is imputed to us in the second covenant.
3. It was to be perfect, without the least defect, and that both in
heart and life. He was obliged to do every thing that God required, as
well as abstain from every thing that he forbade him; therefore we are
not to suppose, that it was only his eating the forbidden fruit that
would ruin him, though that was the particular sin by which he fell;
since his doing any other thing, that was in itself sinful, or his
neglecting any thing that was required, would equally have occasioned
his fall.
But since we are considering man’s obligation to yield obedience to the
divine law, it follows from hence, that it was necessary that there
should be an intimation given of the rule, or matter of his obedience,
and consequently that the law of God should be made known to him; for it
is absolutely necessary, not only that a law should be enacted, but
promulgated, before the subject is bound to obey it. Now the law of God
was made known to man two ways, agreeable to the twofold distinction
thereof.
_1st_, The law of nature was written on his heart, in which the wisdom
of God did as much discover itself, as in the subject matter of this
law. In this respect, the whole law of nature might be said to be made
known to him at once; the knowledge of which was communicated to him,
with the powers and faculties of his soul, and was, as it were,
instamped on his nature; so that he might as well plead, that he was not
an intelligent creature, as that he was destitute of the knowledge of
this law.
_2dly_, As there were, besides this, several other positive laws, that
man was obliged to yield obedience to, though these could not, properly
speaking, be said to be written on his heart; yet he had the knowledge
hereof communicated to him. Whether this was done all at once, or at
various times, it is not for us to determine; however, this we must
conclude, that these positive laws could not be known in a way of
reasoning, as the law of nature might. But, since we have sufficient
ground to conclude, that God was pleased, in different ways and times,
to communicate his mind and will to man, we are not to suppose that he
was destitute of the knowledge of all those positive laws, that he was
obliged to obey.
What the number of these laws was, we know not; but, as there have been,
in all ages, various positive laws relating to instituted worship,
doubtless, Adam had many such laws revealed to him though not mentioned
in scripture. This I cannot but observe, because some persons use such
modes of speaking about this matter, as though there were no other
positive law, that man was obliged to obey but that of his not eating of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or, together with it, that which
related to the observation of the sabbath.[48]
4. The obedience, which man was to perform, was to be perpetual; by
which we are not to understand, that it was to be performed to eternity,
under the notion of a condition of the covenant, though it certainly
was, as this covenant contained in it the obligation of a law. The
reason of this is very obvious; for, when any thing is performed, as a
condition of obtaining a subsequent blessing it is supposed that this
blessing is not to be conferred till the condition is performed. But
that is inconsistent with the eternal duration of this obedience, on the
performance whereof the heavenly blessedness was to be conferred; and
therefore, though divines often use the word _perpetual_, when treating
on this subject, it must be understood with this limitation, that man
was to obey, without any interruption or defect, so long as he remained
in a state of probation; and this obedience had a peculiar reference to
the dispensation, as it was federal: but, when this state of trial was
over, and the blessing, promised on this condition, conferred, then,
though the same obedience was to be performed to eternity, it would not
be considered as the condition of a covenant, but as the obligation of a
law. And this leads us to enquire,
Whether we may not, with some degree of probability, without being
guilty of a sinful curiosity, determine any thing relating to the time
of man’s continuance in a state of trial, before the blessing promised,
at least, that part of it, which consisted in the grace of confirmation,
would have been conferred upon him. Though I would not enter into any
subject that is over-curious, or pretend to determine that which is
altogether uncertain, yet, I think this is not to be reckoned so,
especially if we be not too peremptory, or exceed the bounds of modesty,
in what respects this matter. All that I shall say, concerning it, is,
that it seems very probable that our first parents would have continued
no longer in this state of probation, but would have attained the grace
of confirmation, which is a considerable circumstance in the blessing
promised in this covenant, as soon as they had children arrived to an
age capable of obeying, or sinning, themselves, which, how long that
would have been, it is a vain thing to pretend to determine.
The reason why divines suppose, that Adam’s state of probation would
have continued no longer, is, because these children must then either be
supposed to have been confirmed in that state of holiness and happiness,
in which they were or not. If they had been confirmed therein, then they
would have attained the blessings of this covenant, before Adam had
fulfilled the condition thereof. If they had not been confirmed, then it
was possible for them to have fallen, and yet for him to have stood; and
so his performing the condition of the covenant, would not have procured
the blessing thereof for them, which is contrary to the tenor thereof.
When our first parents would have been removed from paradise to heaven,
and so have attained the perfection of the blessings contained in this
covenant, it would be a vain, presumptuous, and unprofitable thing to
enquire into.
(4.) The last thing observed, in this answer, is what some call the
seals annexed to this covenant, as an ordinance designed to confirm
their faith therein; and these were the two trees mentioned in Gen. ii.
of which the tree of life was more properly called a seal, than the tree
of knowledge of good and evil.