Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…

GENES. 2. 17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou mayest not eat; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

GENES. 2. 17. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou mayest not eate; for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.

WE come now in order to the law God gave Adam; and this may be considered two ways: First, as a Law, secondly, as a Covenant. We will handle it first in the former notion. Now, because the law God gave Adam was partly natural, and partly positive, both which did go to the making up of that covenant, I shall handle both those distinctly: and first, let us consider Gods positive law in the text, which is also called by Divines, a symbolical precept, because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God. And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature, but indifferent, and only evil because prohibited: So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two ways; first, by that which is proper to it, the tree of knowledge of good and evil: secondly, by that which is accidental to it, viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it. And that this commandment might be the better received, in the Verse before, God giveth a large commission to eat of any other tree besides this. When God made this world as a great house, he puts man into it as his tenant; and by this trial of obedience, he must acknowledge his Land-lord. That Adam did eat in the state of innocency, and was hungry, doth appear by this text; only hunger was not in him, as it is in us, with pain and trouble. The difficulties must be handled in ⟨p. 105⟩the opening of the doctrine, which is, That God besides the natural law engraven in Adams heart, did give a positive law, to try his obedience.

WE come now in order to the law God gave Adam; and this may be considered two wayes: First, as a Law, secondly, as a Covenant. We will handle it first in the former notion. Now, because the law God gave Adam was partly naturall, and partly positive, both which did goe to the making up of that covenant, I shall handle both those distinctly: and first, let us consider Gods positive law in the text, which is also called by Divines, a symbolicall precept, because the obedience unto it was a symbolum or outward testimony of our homage and service to God. And the object of this command is not a thing good or bad in its own nature, but indifferent, and only evil because prohibited: So that in the words you have the object of this negative precept described two wayes; first, by that which is proper to it, the tree of knowledge of good and evil: secondly, by that which is accidentall to it, viz. death infallibly upon the eating of it. And that this commandement might be the better received, in the Verse before, God giveth a large commission to eate of any other tree besides this. When God made this world as a great house, he puts man into it as his tenant; and by this tryall of obedience, he must acknowledge his Land-lord. That Adam did eate in the state of innocency, and was hungry, doth appeare by this text; onely hunger was not in him, as it is in us, with paine and trouble. The difficulties must be handled in