ture man.

Such a state of trial as this, would have justly been esteemed a great favor, granted by God to his creaFor hereby no obedience would have been laid upon him, more than was his duty before he would be no more liable to fall into sin, than he would have been, if no such covenant had been made with him: But hereby advantages would have been put into his hands of obtaining a confirmation in his happy state, which is a privilege he could not have been entitled to without such a covenant.

But God's treating with man in a covenant form, as a probationer for rewards and punishments, is a matter which wholly depends upon his sovereign pleasure; therefore we must be determined in our sentiments about it, by the light of his word.

II. I proceed to consider the covenant-dispensation of God to our first parents, in the state in which they were created.

Moses has told us, that the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, into which he put the man whom he had made, to dress it, and to keep it. In this garden," The Lord God caused to grow out of the ground, every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." This is a very short and concise account of this first covenant-dispensation: and yet, it is the fullest and most particular of any that God hath given us in his word. Doubtless, these things were more fully expressed to our first parents, than Moses has here recorded them. And although this short account is not full enough to satisfy our curiosity in several inquiries that may arise in our minds; yet, it is sufficiently full, to give us all that knowledge of these things which our present circumstances require.

We may here observe, that two trees are particularly mentioned, by way of distinction from all the rest; the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil; with a special command, more especially respecting one of them. As to the tree of life, we know but little more about it, than what is intimated to us by the name by which it is called. But as it is here mentioned in connexion with the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it is sufficiently plain, that as by their eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they were to become subject to death: so, by a proper use of the tree of life, they were to secure their title to life and blessedness; although the particular manner in which our first parents were to make use of that tree is not expressly told us. This seems plainly implied in the reason assigned for driving them out of the garden, "Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever." These two trees seem to have been appointed as sacramental tests, in this covenant: the tree of life, as a sign or pledge of the favor of God; and the tree of knowledge prohibited upon pain of death. As to the tree of life, it is not necessary for us to know more about it; since the event was, that our first parents did fall; and that way of life is now forever done with: But with respect to the tree of know-ledge of good and evil, by eating of which, our first parents broke covenant with God; and involved themselves, and their posterity, in a state of sin and misery; it concerns us carefully to attend to it. Several things relating to it should be carefully ob

served.

1. Death was expressly threatened only for the sin of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There was no express declaration, that they should be liable to death for any other sin, or in any other way. Indeed, the wages of sin is death, by the moral law; and every other sin (had they been guilty of it) would have deserved death, as well as this. But as the threatening of death is limited to

this sin in particular; it shows the limitation of the trial of the obedience of our first parents. The whole trial of their obedience was confined to their conduct with respect to the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And this implies the special protection which God would exercise over them, while that state of trial lasted, that their innocency should not be endangered, by their falling into temptation to the commission of any other sin. This special care and watchfulness of God over them, in that state of trial, seems to be intimated by his putting them into the garden of Eden. God did not leave them to the wide world, nor suffer them to be tried in any other matter; no other temptation could then approach them, whereby their innocency could be endangered. And herein appears the rich grace of God, in this first covenant-dispensation to his creature, man. If God had been pleased to have promised life, as the reward of his obedience, for any limited time; yet, he might justly have appointed to him, to pass through the trial of his obedience, in the various branches of duty required in the whole law; in many of which, he would have been as liable to have fallen into sin, as he was in this particular point expressly mentioned. Yea, the command which prohibited him from eating of the forbidden fruit, seems to have been the most easy precept that could have been devised. And consequently, man was put under all imaginable advantages for obtaining divine favor. If it was proper, the obedience of man should be tried at all, surely, such a light trial as this, was the most gracious and favorable that could be proposed. And yet, the whole trial of man's obedience, for life or death, lay in so narrow a compass, as far as we have any account about it in the word of God.

Although the event shows, that we are brought into an estate of sin and misery by the breach of the first covenant; yet, no blaine can be cast upon God, nor fault found with the covenant. For man would have been as liable to have sinned against the moral

law, which is the law of nature, if it had remained in the mere form of law; as he was, to sin against it when it was cast into this covenant form; yea, and much more liable; for here was but one single precept upon which his obedience was to be tried: whereas, if God had not made this covenant with him, but had left him under the law in the state in which he was created; the whole law, in all the branches of duty, would have lain before him, as the matter of the trial of his obedience; against which, he would have been as liable to have sinned, as he was of sinning against this particular precept which was singled out, as the special matter of his trial; and death would have been his due by the law, as much as it was by this covenant. The risk therefore, of falling into sin, would have been much greater, had it not been for this covenant; and that, without any opportunity of ever obtaining a confirmed state of life, or being entitled to any reward for his obedience.

Although I have here represented man as put upon the trial of his obedience for life or death, only in the particular precepts concerning the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge; yet we are not to suppose, this was the whole duty he was under obligation to perform. No, the moral law was not set aside; but was taken into this covenant-dispensation, and still remained to be to man a rule of duty. It is easy to conceive, that a man may be made a probationer under a perfect rule of righteousness; and yet, that the trial of the perfection of his obedience should be limited to a single point. Man was under obligation to maintain conformity to God, by the law of his creation, if there had been neither promises nor threatenings set before him. But in this covenantdispensation, God subjoined a particular test of obedience, adding promises and threatenings which stood in a special connexion with this instituted test. The constitution therefore, under which man was made a probationer, was not to be considered as the

faw merely; but the tenor of the divine government was changed so as to put on the form, and partake of the nature of a covenant. And although the fidelity of man was not brought upon trial in every branch of duty; yet, had he been faithful in those points wherein his special trial consisted, to the end of his proba tion; his obedience to the whole law would have been complete; yea, herein would have been a complete trial of man, with respect to the whole of that image and likeness of God in which he was created. For he would have exercised and expressed his dependence on God, his complacency in him, and subjection to him, with the integrity, faithfulness, truth and holiness which the law required: His wholeconformity to God would have passed through a proper trial, although his obedience had not been tried in every point of duty.

2. The death threatened in this covenant, is that death which is the proper wages of sin. The word death, is what we are apt to confine to the body, as if no more was intended by it than a bodily death. But this is far short of the import of it, as that word is used in the Bible, when the punishment or wages of sin is thereby expressed. Indeed, the death of the body is doubtless included in it; but yet, it has a reference to the soul as well as the body, and includes the future sufferings of the wrath of God.

The

threatening was in these words :-" In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Or as it is translated in the margin, "Dying thou shalt die,” which doubling of the expression makes it a more strong and emphatical way of speaking, to denote something very great and fearful; as well as to express the greater certainty of it. And it is evident from the very nature of sin, that the soul must suffer for it, as well as the body. For the soul being forined, in its original make, for an everlasting duration, it must still exist after the death of the body: but having the guilt of sin upon it, its union with God must be broken up; its conformity to him defaced ;