Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

DISPUTATION XXIX.

ON THE COVENANT INTO WHICH GOD ENTERED WITH OUR FIRST PARENTS.

I. THOUGH, according to his right and power over man, whom He had created after his own image, God could prescribe obedience to him in all things for the performance of which he possessed suitable powers, or would by the grace of God have them in that state; yet, that He might elicit from man voluntary and free obedience, which alone is grateful to Him, it was his will to enter into a contract and covenant with him, by which God required obedience, and, on the other hand, promised a reward; to which He added the denunciation of a punishment, that the transaction might not seem to be entirely one between equals, and as if man was not completely bound to God.

II. On this account the law of God is very often called a COVENANT, because it consists of those two parts,—that is, a work commanded, and a reward promised; to which is subjoined the denunciation of a punishment, to signify the right which God had over man and which He has not altogether [remisit] surrendered, and to incite man to greater obedience.

III. God prescribed this obedience, First, by a law placed in and imprinted on the mind of man; in which is contained his natural duty towards God and his neighbour, and therefore towards himself also; and it is that of love, with fear, honour and worship towards a superior. For as true virtue consists in [ordinatione] the government or right ordering of the affections, (of which the first, the chief, and that on which the rest depend, is LOVE,) the whole law is contained in the right ordering of Love. And as no obedience seems to be yielded in the case of a man who executes the whole of his own will without any even the least resistance: Therefore, to try his obedience, that thing was to be prescribed, to which, by a certain [affectu] feeling, man had an abhorrence; and that was to be forbidden, towards which he was drawn by a certain inclination. Therefore the love of ourselves was to be regulated or rightly ordered, which is the first and proximate cause that man should live [secundum hominem] in society with his species, or according to humanity.

IV. To this law it was the pleasure of God to add another, which was a symbolical one. A symbolical law is one that prescribes or forbids some act, which in itself is neither agreeable nor disagreeable to God, that is, one that is indifferent: And it serves VOL. II. BB

for this purpose, that God may try whether man is willing to yield obedience to Him solely on this account,--because it has been the pleasure of God to require such obedience, and though it were impossible to devise any other, reason why God imposed that law.

! V. That symbolical law was, in this instance, prohibitive of some act, to which man was inclined by some natural propensity, (that is, to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil,) though" it was pleasant to the eyes and good for food." By the commanding of an indifferent act, it does not seem to have been possible to try the obedience of man with equal advantage.

VI. This seems to be the difference between each [of these kinds of obedience, that the first (Thesis I) is true obedience and in itself pleasing to God; and the man who performs it is said truly to live according to godliness; but that the latter (Thesis IV & V) is not so much obedience itself as the external profession of willingly yielding obedience, and it is therefore an acknowledgment, or the token of an acknowledgment, by which man professes himself to be subject to God, and declares that he is willingly subject. Exactly in the same manner a vassal yields obedience to his lord, for having fought against his enemies; which obedience he confesses that he cheerfully performs to him, by presenting him annually with a gift of small value.

VII. From this comparison it appears, that the obedience which is yielded to a symbolical law is far inferior to that which is yielded to a natural law; but that the disobedience manifested to a symbolical law is not the less serious, or that it is even more grievous; because, by this very act, man professes that he is unwilling to submit himself, and indeed not to yield obedience in other matters, and those of greater importance and of more difficult labour.

VIII. The reward that corresponds with obedience to this chief law, the performance of which is of itself pleasing to God, (the analogy and difference which exist between God and man being faithfully observed,) is life eternal, [impletio] the complete satisfying of the whole of our will and desire. But the reward which answers to the observance of the symbolical law, is the free [fruitio] enjoyment of the fruits of Paradise, and the power to eat of the tree of life, by the eating of which man was always restored to his pristine [rigorem] strength. But this tree of life was a symbol of eternal life, which man would have enjoyed if, by abstaining from eating the fruit, he had professed obedience, and had truly performed such obedience to the moral law.

IX. We are of opinion, that if our first parents had remained in their integrity by obedience performed to both these laws, God would have acted with their posterity by the same compact, that is, by their yielding obedience to the moral law inscribed on their hearts, and to some symbolical or ceremonial law;-though we dare not specially make a similar affirmation, respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

X. So likewise, if they had persisted in their obedience to both laws, we think it very probable that at certain periods men would have been translated from this [animali] natural life, by the intermediate change of the natural, mortal and corruptible body, into a body spiritual, immortal, and incorruptible, to pass a life of immortality and bliss in heaven.

COROLLARY.

We allow this to be made a subject of discussion,-Did Eve receive this symbolical command about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, immediately from God, or through Adam?

[ocr errors][merged small]

THE MANNER IN WHICH MAN CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN FULFILLING THE FIRST COVENANT, OR ON THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS.

I. WHEN God had entered into this covenant with men, it was the part of man perpetually to form and direct his life according to the conditions and laws prescribed by this covenant, because he would then have obtained the rewards promised through the performance of both those conditions, and would not have incurred the punishment due and denounced to disobedience. We are ignorant of the length of time in which man fulfilled his part; but the Holy Scriptures testify, that he did not persevere in this obedience.

II. But we say, the violation of this covenant was a transgression of the symbolical law imposed concerning his not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

III. The Efficient cause of that transgression was man, determining his will to that forbidden object, and applying his power or capability to do it. But the external, moving, per se, and principal cause was the Devil, who, having accosted the woman, (whom he considered weaker than the man, and who, when persuaded herself, would easily persuade him,) employed false

arguments for persuasion. One of his arguments was deduced from the usefulness of the good which would ensue from this act : Another was deduced from the setting aside [prohibentis] of him who had prohibited it, that is, by a denial of the punishment which would follow. The Instrumental cause was the serpent, whose tongue the Devil abused to propose what arguments he chose. The Accidental cause was the fruit itself, which seemed good for food, pleasant in its flavour, and desirable to the eyes. The Occasional cause was the law of God, that circumscribed by its interdict an act which was indifferent in its nature, and for which man possessed inclination and powers, that it might be impossible for this offence to be perpetrated without sin.

IV. The Inly-moving or Antecedent cause was a two-fold [affectus] inclination in man,-a superior one for the likeness of God,—and an inferior one for the desirable fruit, "pleasant to the sight, and good for food." Both of them were implanted by God through creation; but they were to be used in a certain method, order and time. The Immediate and Proximate cause was the will of man, which applied itself to the act, the understanding preceding and shewing the way. And these are the causes which concurred to effect this sin; and all of which, as through the image of God he was able to resist, so was it his duty, through the imposing of that law, to have resisted. Not one of these therefore, nor others, if such be granted in the genus of causes, imposed any necessity on man [to commit that sin.] It was not an external cause, whether you consider God, or something from God, the Devil, or man.

V. (1.) It was not God: For since He is the Chief Good, He does nothing but what is good; and therefore He can be called neither the Efficient cause of sin, nor the Deficient cause, since He has employed whatever things were sufficient and necessary to avoid this sin. (2.) Neither was it something in God: It was neither his understanding nor his will, which commands those things which are just, performs those which are good, and permits those which are evil: And this permission is only a cessation from such an act as would in reality have hindered the act of man, by effecting nothing [extra] beyond itself, but by suspending some efficiency: This therefore cannot be the cause. (3.) Nor was the Devil the cause: For he only infused counsel, he did not impel, or force by necessity. (4.) Eve was not the cause: For she was only able to precede by her example, and to entice by some argument, but not to compel.

VI. It was not an Internal cause ;-whether you consider the

common or general nature of man which [ferebatur] was inclined only to one good ;-or his particular nature, which exactly corresponded with that which is general ;-nor was it any thing in his particular nature, for this would have been the understanding; but it could act by persuasion and advice, not by necessity. Man therefore sinned by his free will, his own proper motion being allowed by God, and himself persuaded by the Devil.

VII. The Matter of that sin was the eating of the fruit of the tree: An act indifferent indeed in its nature, but forbidden by the imposing of a law, and withdrawn from the power of man: He could also have easily abstained from it without any loss of pleasure. In this is apparent the admirable goodness of God, who tries whether man be willing to submit to the Divine command in a matter which could so easily be avoided.

VIII. The Form was the transgression of the law imposed, or the act of eating as having been forbidden: For as it had been forbidden, it [excesserat] had gone beyond the order of lawful and good acts, and had been taken away from the [allowable] power of man, that it might not be exercised without sin.

IX. There was no End for this sin: For it always assumed [rationem] the shape or habit of good An end however was proposed by man, (but it was not obtained,)—that he might satisfy both his superior [affectu] propensity towards the image of God, and his inferior one towards the fruit of the tree. But the end of the Devil was the aversion of man from his God, and, through this, his [pertractio] further seduction into exile and the society of the evil one. But the permission of God had respect to the antecedent condition of creation, which had made men possessed of free will, and for [the performance of] acts glorious to God, which might arise from it.

X. The serious enormity of that sin is principally manifest from the following particulars: (1.) Because it was a transgression of such a law as had been imposed to try whether man was willing to be [sublex] subject to the law of God, and it carried with it numbers of other grievous sins. (2.) Because after God had loaded man with such signal gifts, he [ausus] had the audacity to perpetrate this sin. (3.) Because when there was such great facility to abstain from sin, he suffered himself to be so easily induced, and did not satisfy his [affectui] inclination in such a copious abundance of things. (4.) Because he committed that sin in a sanctified place, which was a type of the heavenly Paradise, almost under the eyes of God himself, who conversed with him in a familiar manner.

« ZurückWeiter »