Chapter I: The covenant of works binding, though broken.
The covenant of works binding, though broken.
Nom. But, sir, you know, that when a covenant is broken, the parties that were bound are freed and released from their engagements; and therefore, methinks, both Adam and his posterity should have been released from the covenant of works when it was broken, especially considering they have no strength to perform the condition of it.
Evan. Indeed it is true, in every covenant, if either party fail in his duty, and perform not his condition, the other party is thereby freed from his part, but the party failing is not freed till the other release him; and, therefore, though the Lord be freed from performing his condition, that is, from giving to man eternal life, yet so is not man from his part; no, though strength to obey be lost, yet man having lost it by his own default, the obligation to obedience remains still; so that Adam and his offspring are no more discharged of their duties, because they have no strength to do them, than a debtor is quitted of his bond, because he wants money to pay it. And thus, Nomista, I have, according to your desire, endeavoured to help you to the true knowledge of the law of works. __________________________________________________________________
[19] The moral law is an ambiguous term among divines. (1.) The moral law is taken from the decalogue, or ten commandments, simply. So the law in the ten commandments is owned to be commonly called the moral law, Westm. Confess. chap. 19, art. 2, 3. And thus our author has hitherto used that term, reckoning the moral law not the covenant of works itself, but only the matter of it. (2.) The moral law is taken for the ten commandments, having the promise of life, and threatening of death annexed to them; that is for the law, or covenant of works. Thus the moral law is described to be, "the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all these duties of holiness and righteousness, which he oweth to God and man, promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it." Larger Catech. Quest. 93. That this is the covenant of works, is clear from Westm. Confess. chap. 19, art. 1, "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it." And this our author owns to be the sense of that term, strictly and properly taken; the reason whereof I conceive to be, that the moral law, properly signifying the law of manners, answers to the Scripture term, the law of works, by which is meant the covenant of works. And if he had added, that in this sense believers are delivered from it, he had said no more than the Larger Catechism doth, in these words: "They that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works," Quest. 97. But, in the meantime, it is evident he does not here use that term in this sense; and in the next paragraph, save one, he gives a reason why he did not so use it.
[20] Not a hired servant, for there is a covenant betwixt such an one and the master, but a bond-servant, bought with money, of another person, or born in the master's house, who is obliged to serve his master, and is liable to punishment in case he do not, but cannot demand wages, since there is no covenant between them. This was the case of mankind, with relation to the Creator, before the covenant of works was made.
[21] The soul approving, embracing, and consenting to the covenant; which, without any more, is plain language, though not unto men, yet unto God, who knoweth the heart.
[22] The covenant being revealed to man created after God's own image, he could not but perceive the equity and benefit of it; and so heartily approve, embrace, accept, and consent to it. And this accepting is plainly intimated in Eve's words to the serpent, (Gen 3:2,3), "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."
[23] Executive faculties and powers, whereby the good known and willed was to be done.
[24] That one commandment was in effect a summary of the whole duty of man, the which clearly appears, if one considers that the breach of it was a transgressing of all the ten commandments at once, as our author afterwards distinctly shows.
[25] God having given man a being after his own image, a glorious excellency, it was his natural duty to make suitable returns thereof unto the Giver, in a way of duty, being and acting for him; even as the waters, which originally are from the sea, do in brooks and rivers return to the sea again. Man, being of God as his first cause, behoved to be to him as his chief and ultimate end, (Rom 11:36).
[26] The punishment of death upon the breach of his commandment touching the forbidden fruit.
[27] That is, an equitable covenant, fair and reasonable.
[28] The author says, that some learned men think so, and that the words, (Gen 3:22), seem to imply so much; but all this amounts not to a positive determination of the point. The words are these, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever," &c. Whether or not these words seem to imply some such things, I leave to the judgment of the reader, whom I incline not to entertain with mine own or others' conjectures upon this head; but three things I take to be plain, and beyond conjecture, in this text, (1.) That there is no irony nor scoff here, as many think there is; but, on the contrary, a most pathetic lamentation over fallen man. The literal version and sense of the former part of the text runs thus: "Behold the man that was one of us," &c., compare for the version, Lamentations 3:1; Psalm 3:7; and for the sense, Genesis 1:26, 27, "And God said, Let us make man in our image.--So God created man in his own image," &c. The latter part of the text I would read thus, "And eat that he may live for ever." Compare for this version, Exodus 4:23; 1 Samuel 6:8. It is evident the sentence is broken off abruptly; the words, "I will drive him out," being suppressed; even as in the case of a father, with sighs, sobs, and tears, putting his son out of doors. (2.) That it was God's design, to prevent Adam's eating of the tree of life, as he had of the forbidden tree, "lest he take also of the tree of life"; thereby mercifully taking care that our fallen father, to whom the covenant of grace was now proclaimed, might not, according to the corrupt natural inclination of fallen mankind, run back to the covenant of works for life and salvation, by partaking of the tree of life, a sacrament of that covenant, and so reject the covenant of grace, by eating of that tree now, as he had before broken the covenant of works, by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (3.) That at this time Adam did think, that by eating of the tree of life he might live for ever. Farther I dip not here in this matter.
[29] These are two distinct questions, both of them natively arising from a legal temper of spirit: and I doubt if ever the heart of a sinner shall receive a satisfying answer as to either of them, until it come to embrace the gospel-way of salvation; taking up its everlasting rest in Christ, for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.
[30] Immutability, properly so called, or absolute unchangeableness, is an incommunicable attribute of God, (Mal 3:6, James 1:17); and mutably, or changeableness, is so of the nature of a creature, that it should cease to be a creature, or a dependent being, if it should cease to be mutable. But there is an immutability, improperly so called, which is competent to the creature, whereby it is free from being actually liable to change in some respect; the which, in reference to man, may be considered two ways. (1.) As putting him beyond the hazard of change by another hand than his own. (2.) As putting him beyond the hazard of change by himself. In the former sense, man was indeed made immutable in point of moral goodness; for he could only be made sinful or evil by himself, and not by any other. If he had been made immutable in the latter sense, that immutability behoved either to have been woven into his very nature, or else to have arisen from confirming grace. Now God did not create man thus immutable in his nature; which is it that the first question aims at; and that for this very good reason, viz: that, at that rate, man would have obeyed by fatal necessity and absolute determination, as one not having so much as a remote power in his nature to change himself. And neither glorified saints, nor angels, are thus immutable; their immutability in goodness entirely depending on confirming grace. As for immutability by confirming grace, which is it that the second question aims at, it is conferred on glorified saints and angels; but why it was not afforded to Adam at his creation, our author wisely declines to give any reason. "The reason, says he, why the Lord did not create him immutable was, because," &c.; but why he did not uphold him with strength of steadfast continuance, that resteth hidden in God's secret counsel.
[31] That is, he received so much strength, that it was not of weakness, but willfulness, that he destroyed himself.
[32] That is, all mankind.
[33] With himself.
[34] By virtue of the blessing of fruitfulness given before the fall.
[35] That is, all mankind.
[36] That is, earnestly.
[37] That is, as the apostle's, &c.
[38] That is, to justify God.
[39] The covenant of works could by no means be renewed by fallen Adam, so as thereby to help himself and his posterity out of his misery, the which is the only thing in question here; otherwise, indeed, it might have been renewed, which is evident by this sad token, that many do actually renew it in their covenanting with God, being prompted thereto by their ignorance of the high demands of the law, their own utter inability, and the way of salvation by Jesus Christ. And from the same principle our legalist here makes no question but Adam might have renewed it, and kept it too, for the after-time; only, he questions whether or not Adam might thereby have helped himself and his posterity too, out of the misery they were brought into by his sin.
[40] That being the sin in which all mankind fell with him, (Rom 5:15).
[41] (2 Thess 1:6), "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you."--(Heb 2:2), "Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense."
[42] But would have sinned again, and so fallen under the curse anew.
[43] Walking back by the way of the covenant of works, which he left by his sinning. Object. "Do we then make void the law," (Rom 3:31), leaving an imputation of dishonour upon it, as a disregarded path, by pretending to return anther way? Ans. Sinners being united to Christ by faith, return, being carried back the same way they came; only their own feet never touch the ground; but the glorious Mediator, sustaining the persons of them all, walked every bit of the road exactly, (Gal 4:4,5). Thus, in Christ, the way of free grace, and of the law, sweetly meet together; and through faith we establish the law. __________________________________________________________________