Nom. But it seemeth that Adam did not continue in that holy and happy estate.

Evan. No, indeed; for he disobeyed God's express command, in eating the forbidden fruit, and so became guilty of the breach of the covenant.

Nom. But, sir, how could Adam, who had his understanding so sound, and his will so free to choose good, be so disobedient to God's express command?

Evan. Though he and his will were both good, yet were they mutually good; so that he might stand or fall, at his own election or choice.

Nom. But why then did not the Lord create him immutable? or, why did he not so over-rule him in that action, that he might not have eaten the forbidden fruit? ¹

Evan. The reason why the Lord did not create him immutable, was because he would be obeyed out of judgment and free choice, and not by fatal necessity and absolute determination; ² and withal, let me tell you, it was not reasonable to restrain God to this point, to make man such an one as would not, nor could not sin at all, for it was at his choice to create him how he pleased. But why he did not uphold him with strength of steadfast continuance; that resteth hidden in God's secret council. Howbeit, this we may certainly conclude, that Adam's state was such as served to take away from him all excuse; for he received so much, that of his own will he wrought his own destruction; ³ because this act of his was a willful transgression of a law, under the precepts whereof he was as necessarily and righteously subject, if he transgressed: for, as being God's creature, he was to be subject to his will, so by being God's prisoner, he was as justly subject to his wrath; and that so much the more, by how much the precept was most just, the obedience more easy, the transgression more reasonable, and the punishment more certain.

[Back] [1] These are two distinct questions, both of them natively arising from a legal temper of spirit: and I doubt if ever the heart of a sinner shall receive a satisfying answer as to either of them, until it come to embrace the gospel-way of salvation; taking up its everlasting rest in Christ, for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.

[Back] [2] Immutability, properly so called, or absolute unchangeableness, is an incommunicable attribute of God, (Mal 3:6, James 1:17); and mutably, or changeableness, is so of the nature of a creature, that it should cease to be a creature, or a dependent being, if it should cease to be mutable. But there is an immutability, improperly so called, which is competent to the creature, whereby it is free from being actually liable to change in some respect; the which, in reference to man, may be considered two ways. (1.) As putting him beyond the hazard of change by another hand than his own. (2.) As putting him beyond the hazard of change by himself. In the former sense, man was indeed made immutable in point of moral goodness; for he could only be made sinful or evil by himself, and not by any other. If he had been made immutable in the latter sense, that immutability behoved either to have been woven into his very nature, or else to have arisen from confirming grace. Now God did not create man thus immutable in his nature; which is it that the first question aims at; and that for this very good reason, viz: that, at that rate, man would have obeyed by fatal necessity and absolute determination, as one not having so much as a remote power in his nature to change himself. And neither glorified saints, nor angels, are thus immutable; their immutability in goodness entirely depending on confirming grace. As for immutability by confirming grace, which is it that the second question aims at, it is conferred on glorified saints and angels; but why it was not afforded to Adam at his creation, our author wisely declines to give any reason. "The reason, says he, why the Lord did not create him immutable was, because," &c.; but why he did not uphold him with strength of steadfast continuance, that resteth hidden in God's secret counsel.

[Back] [3] That is, he received so much strength, that it was not of weakness, but willfulness, that he destroyed himself.