Page images



- a striking simplicity, when he says: “Lo I this only have I

found, that God hath made man upright.”

W. What I have . said of the wisdom of the first man, ought, I think, to be extended so far, as not to sup him, in the state of innocence, ignorant of the myst the Trinity, For it is above all things, for the perfection

of the human understanding, to be well acquainted with what

it ought to know and believe concerning its God. And it
may justly be doubted, whether he does not worship a God
entirely unknown, nay, whether he at all worships the true
God, who does not know and worship him, as subsisting in
three ns. Whoever represents God to himself in any
other light, represents not God, but an empty phantom, and
an idol of his own brain. Epiphanius seems to have had this
argument in view, when, in his Panarius, p. 9. he thus writes
of Adam: “He was no idolater, for he knew God the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost: and he was a prophet, and knew that
the Father said to the Son, Let us make man.”
VI. These last words furnish a new argument: for since
God, in the work of the creation, manifested himself a Trinity,
“ the Father made the worlds by the Son,” Heb. i. 2. the
Holy Ghost cherished the waters, by brooding upon them;
and the whole Trinity addressed themselves, by mutual con-
sultation, to the creation of man; it is not therefore credible
this mystery should be entirely unknown to the Protoplast or
first parent; unless we can suppose Adam ignorant of his
Creator, who was likewise the Son and the Holy Ghost.
It cannot certainly be without design, that the scripture, when
speaking of man's Creator, so often uses the plural number:
as Is liv. 5. Twy Tohya, which literally signifies, thy husbands,
why makers, Psal. cxlix. 2. now" ww.a brium, Let Israel rejoice
and his makers. Nay, requires man to attend to this, and
engrave it on his mind, Eccl. xii. 1. Tromann hol, remember
thy creators. It is criminal when man neglects it; and says
not Job xxxv. 10. wy mon Trn, where is God my makers?
Which phrases, unless referred to a Trinity of persons, might
appear to be dangerous. But it is absurd to suppose Adam
ignorant concerning his Creator, of that which God does not
suffer his posterity to be ignorant of at this time; especially
as God created man to be the herald of his being and perfec-
tions in the new world. . But it certainly tends to display the
glory of God, that he should particularly celebrate, not only
the divine perfections, but likewise how they subsist in the
distinct persons of the Deity, and the manner and order of
their operation. Admirably to this purpose speaks Basil of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

char. II.] PARTiles, , , - 53

Seleucia, serm. 2. Take particular notice of that expression,
Let us make man; again, this word used plurally, hints at the
rsons of the Godhead, and nts a Trinity to our know-
i. This knowledge e is coeval with the creation.
Nor should it seem strange, that afterwards it should be
taught : since it is one of those things, of which mention is
made in the very first creation. . . . . . i***
VII. I own Adam could not, from the bare contemplation
of nature, without revelation, discover this mystery. But
this I am fully persuaded of, that God revealed: some things
to man, not dictated by nature. For, whence did he know
the command about the Tree of Knowledge, and whence, the
meaning of the Tree of Life, but by God's declaring it to
him P, whence such a knowledge of his wife's creation, as to
unce her flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, but
rom divine revelation f Seeing then God had revealed to man
many things, and those indeed not of such moment, can we
believe he would conceal from him a thing, the knowledge of
which was so highly expedient to the perfection of man and
the glory of God P That learned man therefore, was mistaken
who insisted, that the knowledge of the Trinity eaceeded the
happiness of Adam's state, which was merely natural. For
it was not so merely natural, that Adam only knew what the
alone consideration of nature could suggest. The contrary
we have just shewn. And it must be deemed natural to that
state, that innocent man, who had familiar intercourse with
his God, should learn from his own mouth, what might ren-
der him fitter to celebrate his praises. The learned Zanchius
observes in his book de Creat. Hom. l. 1. c. 1. § 12. that
most of the fathers were of o: that Adam, seeing he
was such, and so great a friend of God before his fall, had
sometimes seen God in a bodily appearance, and heard, him
speak: and adds, “but this was always: the Son of God.”
And a little aster, “Christ therefore is the Jehovah, who
brought Adam and placed bin:ht Paradio; gold §
him.” Thus the ancients believed, that the Squ pod did
then also reveal himself to Adam, and conversed with him. ... . .
VIII. And it seems rather too bold to affirm, “that the
oeconomy subsisting between the three persons, is so princi-
ly taken up in procuring the salvation of mankind, that
the knowledge thereof could not pertain to the state of inno-
cence; in which there was no place either for salvation or re-
demption.” For Moses declares the geconomy of the divine'
persons at the very creation. And while the gospel explains
that admirable oeconomy, as taken up in Procuring the salva-


54 OF THE CONTRActing [Book 1.

tion of mankind, it, at the same time, earries our thoughts up to that oeconomy, manifested in the first creation of the world. If now it is, so useful and pleasant to think, that the Son of God our Saviour, “is the beginning of the creation of God,” Rev. iii. 14. “By whom were created thrones and dominions, things visible and invisible; that he might have the pre-eminence in all things,” Col. i. 16, 18. both of the works of nature and of grace: and that the holy Spirit, now fitting up a new world of grace in our hearts, did at first brood on the waters, and make them pregnant with so many, noble creatures; and thus to ascend to the consideration of the same oeconomy in the works of creation and nature, which is now revealed to ous in the works of salvation and grace. Who then can refuse that Adam in innocence had the same knowledge of God in three persons, though ignorant what each

person, in his order, was to perform in saving sinners P. Add

to this, that though in that state of Adam, there was no room for redemption, yet there was for salvation and life eternal. The symbol of which was the Tree of Life, which even then bore . image of the Son of God: see Rev. ii. 7. For in him. was life, John i. 4. which symbol had been in vain, if the meaning thereof had been unknown to Adam.

IX. In this rectitude of man o consists that image of God, which the scripture so often recommends; and which Paul expressly places in knowledge, Col. iii. 10. in righteousness and true holiness, Eph. iv. 24. In which places he so describes the image of God, which is renewed in us by the Spirit of grace, as at the same time to hint, that it is the same with which man was originally created: neither can there be different images of God. For as God cannot but be wise and holy, and as such, be a pattern to the rational creature: it follows, that, a, creature wise and holy, is, as such, thééxpressień o rejeolio of God. And it is a thing quite impossible, but &od must own his own likeness to consist in this récilitide of flie, whole hap', or that he should ever acknowledge #sookh; and periérgé creature to be like him: which would be an open denial of his perfections. It is finely observed by a learned man, that true holiness is not only opposed to hypocrisy or simulation, or to typical purity, but that it denotes a holy study of truth, proceeding from the kve of God. For, talog, to which answers the Hebrew inn, signifies in scripture, one studious in, and eager after good. This true holiness, therefore, denotes such a desire of pleasing God, as is agreeable to the truth known of, and in him, and koved for him.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

X. But I see not, why the same learned person would have

the righteousness, mentioned by Paul, Eph. iv. 24. to be a privilege peculiar to the covenant of grace, which we obtain, in Christ, and which Adam was without; meaning by the word ri ness, a title or right to eternal life; which, it is owned, Adam had not, as his state of probation was not yet at an end. In opposition to this assertion, I offer these following considerations. 1st. There is no necessity, by righteousness to understand a right to eternal life. For that term often denotes a virtue, a constant resolution of giving. every one his due, as Eph. v. 9. Where the apostle, treating of sanctification, writes, for the fruit of the Spirit is in , all goodness, righteousness, and truth. The learned person himself was aware of this, who elsewhere speaks thus, (on Gen. v. § 9.) “Righteousness is, first, the rectitude of actions, whether of the soul, or of the members; and their agreement with sound reason: namely, that, they may easily avoid condemnation or blame, and obtain commendation and i. So Tit. iii. 5. “Works of righteousness.” And

ence the denomination of just or .denotes a blameless or a praiseworthy person.” Since then that word signifies elsewhere such a ... why not here too?. Especially as it is indisputable, that such righteousness belonged to the image of God in Adam. 2dly. It ought not to be urged, that here ". is joined with holiness, and therefore thus to be distinguished from it; as that the latter shall denote an inherent good quality, and the former a right to life. For it may be answered, first, that it is no unusual thing with the o, Spirit, to express the same thing by different words. “It is to be observed,” says ursinus, Quest. 18. Catech. “that righteousness and holiness were in us the same thing be. . fore the fall; namely, an inherent conformity to God the law." Nor does the celebrated Cocceius himself speak otherwise on Psal. xv. § 2. “But phot, righteousness, if you consider the law of works, signifies, in the largest sense, every thing that is honest, every thing that is true, every thing that is holy.” Secondly, Suppose we should distinguish righteousness from holiness, it follows not, that it is to be distinguished in this manner; for there are testimonies, in which no such distinction can take place: as Luke i. 74,75.—Serve. him in holiness and righteousness before him ... and l. Thess. . ii. 10. Ye are witnesses and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblameably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe. “And I Kings iii., 6.—he walkedo before thee in . . . . truth and in righteousness, and in uprightness, of heart,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic]

56 of THE contmacTING [sook. 1.

*- # * *
Where righteuusness, though added to holiness, can i.

nothing but a virtue of the soul, and the exercise of it. Thi

ly, But if we must absolutely distinguish these two things,

it may be done many ways, 1st. So as to refer holiness to
God; righteousness to men. Thus Philo, concerning Abra-
ham, says, holiness is considered as towards God; righteous-
ness as towards men; and the emperor Antonine, Book 7.
66, says of Socrates, In human, things, just, in divine, holy.
2dly. Or so as to say, that both words denote universal vir-
tue, (for even righteousness is said of the worship of God,
Luke i. 75. and holiness referred to men; Maximus Tyrius,
Dissert. 26, says of the same Socrates, Pious towards God,
holy towards men,) but in a different respect: so as holiness
. denote virtue, as it is the love and expression of the
divine purity; as Plato explains holiness by the love of God:
righteousness, indeed, may signify the same virtue, as it is a
conformity to the prescribed rule, and an obedience to the
commands of God. Whether it be oxalay, right, righteous to
hearken unto God, Acts iv. 19. 3dly. Ursinus, quest. 6.
Catech. speaks somewhat differently, saying, “ that righte-
ousness and heliness, may, in the text of Paul, and in the
catechism, be taken for one and the same, or be distinguished;
for righteousness may be understood of those internal and ex-
ternal actions; which agree with the right judgment of mind,
and with the law of God;’ holiness be understood of the
qualities of them.” So that there is nothing to constrain us to
explain righteousness here of a right to life; but there are
many things to persuade us to the contrary. For, 1st. That
image of God, which is renewed in us by regeneration, con-
sists in absolute qualities inherent in the soul, which are as so
many resemblances of the perfections of God: but a right or
title to life is a mere relation. 2dly. The image of God con-
sists in something, which is produced in man himself, either
by the first, or the new creation: but the right to life rests
wholly on the righteousness and merits of Christ; things en-
tirely without us, Phil. iii. 9. Not having my own righte-
ousness. 3dly. The apostle in the place before us is not
treating of justification, where this right should have been
mentioned; but of sanctification, and the rule thereof; where
it would be improper to speak of any such thing. 4thly.
They who adhere to this new .explanation of righteousness,
appear without any just cause to contradict the Catechism,
quest. 6, and with less force to oppose the Socinians, who
maintain, that the image of God, after which we are rege-
nerated in Christ, is not the same with that, after which

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »