« EdellinenJatka »
a striking simplicity, when he says; “Lo! this only have I
V. What I have just said of the wisdom of the first 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 consultation, 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. g'ur tubya, which literally signifies, thy husbands, thy makers, Psal. cxlix. 2. Opwi yuuya 3x5w, Let Israel rejoice and his makers Nay, requires man to attend to this, and engrave it on his mind, Eccl. xii. 1. 7'73 nx y2, remember thy creators It is criminal when man neglects it; and says not Job xxxv. 10. "Wp 77 77'X, 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 bis being and perfections 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
Seleucia, serm. 2. Take particular notice of that expression, Let us make man; again, this word used plurally, hints at the persons of the Godhead, and presents a Trinity to our knowledge. This kriomoledge therefore 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.
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 Pi whence such a knowledge of his wife's creation, as to pronounce her flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, but from divine revelation 2 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 ? That learned man therefore, was mistaken who insisted, that the knowledge of the Trinity exceeded 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 render him fitter to celebrate his praises. The learned Žanebus observes in his book de Creat. Hom, l. cl. $ 12. that most of the fathers were of opinion, 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 after, ". Christ threrefore is Hie Johovah, who brought Adam and placed him:i Paradise and spoke with him. Thus the ancients believed, that the Son of God did then also reveal himself to Adam, and conversed with him.
VIIJ. And it seems rather too bold to affirm, “ that the economy subsisting between the three persons, is so principally taken up in procuring the salvation of mankind, that the knowledge thereof could not pertain to the state of innocence; in which there was no place either for salvation or redemption." For Moses declares the economy of the divine persons at the very creation. And while the gospel explains that admirable economy, as taken up in procuring the salva
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 begioning of the creation of God," Rev, jü. 14. “By whom were created thrones and do minions, 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 us in the works of salvation and grace. Who then can refuse that Adam in innocence had the same know, ledge of God in three persons, though ignorant what each person, in his order, was to perform in saving sinners?. 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 the 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 principally 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, the expression or resemblance of God. And it is a thing quite impossible, but Got must own his own likeness to consist in this. rectitude of the whole map';, or that he should ever acknowledge j. Foolish: aqd perjersé 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 love of God. For, ónos, to which answers the Hebrew qpn, 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 loved for him.
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 righteousness, a title or right to eternal life; whích, 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. Ist. 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 praise." So Tit. iii. 5. “ Works of righteousness." And hence the denomination of just or righteous, denotes a blames less or a praiseworthy person. Since then that word signifies elsewhere such a rectitude, wby not here too ?. Especially as it is indisputable, that such righteousness belonged to the image of God in Adam. edly. It ought not to be urged, that here righteousness 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 holy Spirit,, to express the same thing by different words. " It is to be observed," says Ursinus, Quest. 18. Catech. 4 that righteousness and holiness were in us the same thing bei fore the fall; namely, an inherent conformity to God and the law.". Nor does the celebrated Cocceius himself speak otherwise on Psal. xv. 3 2. " But 09.1, 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.- Serce. him in holiness and righteousness before him: and 1 Thess. ii. 10. Ye are witnesses and God also, horo holily, and justly, and unblameably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe. And 1 Kings in. 6.-he walked before thee in truth and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart
Where righteousness, though added to holiness, can signify nothing but a virtue of the soul, and the exercise of it. Thirdnothing but a must absolutely distinguish these two things,
. it may be done many ways, ist. So as to refer holiness to God; righteousness to men. Tbus Philo, concerning Abraham, says, holiness is considered as towards God; righteousness as towards men, and the emperor Antonine, Book 7.8 60. says of Socrates, In human things, just, in divine, holy. Adly. Or so as to say, that both words denote universal virtue, (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 shall denote virtue, as it is the love and expression of the divine purity; as Plato explains holiness by the laye 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 dynasoy, right, righteous to hearken unto God, Acts iv. 19. 3dly. Ursinus, quest. 6. Catech. speaks somewhat differently, saying, " that righteousness 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 external 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, Ist: That image of God, which is renewed in us by regeneration, consists in absolute quglities inherent in the soul, which are as so many resemblances of the perfections of God: but a right for title to life is a mere relation. Adly. The image of God consists 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 entirely without us, Phil. iii. 9. Not having my own righteousness. Sdly. 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. Athly. 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 regeperated in Christ, is not the same with that, after wbich