# Hosea 6:7 men or Adam?



## Manuel (May 8, 2011)

Hos 6:7 But they like *men* have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. (KJV)

(ESV) But like *Adam* they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. 

Does this verse suggest that Adam was in a covenant relationship with God (the covenant of works) or should it be translated as "men" like the KJV does?


----------



## blhowes (May 8, 2011)

Manuel said:


> Does this verse suggest that Adam was in a covenant relationship with God (the covenant of works) or should it be translated as "men" like the KJV does?


Manuel, I wondered the same thing, and got some good responses here.


----------



## louis_jp (May 8, 2011)

According to O. Palmer Robertson:

"in either case, something would be implied about the relation of non-Israelite man to his Creator God.... If "Adam" is taken individually, the term would refer to the original representative man. His violation of the covenant would refer to the specific breaking of the test of probation described... in Genesis. If "Adam" is taken generically, the term would refer to the broader covenantal obligation that falls on man... in God's world by creation. In either case, Hosea 6:7 would appear to apply covenantal terminology to the relation of God to man established by Creation."


----------



## discipulo (May 8, 2011)

louis_jp said:


> According to O. Palmer Robertson:
> 
> "in either case, something would be implied about the relation of non-Israelite man to his Creator God.... If "Adam" is taken individually, the term would refer to the original representative man. His violation of the covenant would refer to the specific breaking of the test of probation described... in Genesis. If "Adam" is taken generically, the term would refer to the broader covenantal obligation that falls on man... in God's world by creation. In either case, Hosea 6:7 would appear to apply covenantal terminology to the relation of God to man established by Creation."



Louis I do appreciate Palmer Robertson's works, like the Christ of the Covenants, but he doens't affirm a Meritorious Legal Covenant with Prelapsarian Adam - so his latitude for this verse is in my opinion influenced by not affirming a Covenant of Works. In light of Scripture explaining Scripture it is my belief that this passage means without doubt the disobedience in the garden of historical Adam as a first example of covenant breaking.

B B Warfield has an important article about Hose 6:7, you can read a summary of his position here.

The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A ... - Google Livros

Cound't find the complete article online though:

B. B. Warfield, “Hosea VI.7: Adam or Man?” in Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 1 (USA: P & R, 1970), pp. 116-129.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2011)

discipulo said:


> Louis I do appreciate Palmer Robertson's works, like the Christ of the Covenants, but he doens't affirm a Meritorious Legal Covenant with Prelapsarian Adam - so his latitude for this verse is in my opinion influenced by not affirming a Covenant of Works.



His writings suggest he should be given more credit than this.


----------



## discipulo (May 8, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > Louis I do appreciate Palmer Robertson's works, like the Christ of the Covenants, but he doens't affirm a Meritorious Legal Covenant with Prelapsarian Adam - so his latitude for this verse is in my opinion influenced by not affirming a Covenant of Works.
> ...



Rev. Winzer, can you explain a bit more. I actually found his works very profitable and edifying. Having said this I regret the departure of some from the wide consensus on XVIIth century Covenant Theology

concerning the Covenant with Adam. Theologians like John Murray, Robertson, Hoeksema, Schilder, Berkouwer, Kamphuis, etc, brought in my opinion a breach into this consensus. But please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 8, 2011)

discipulo said:


> but he doens't affirm a Meritorious Legal Covenant with Prelapsarian Adam



What, in Robertson's work, leads you to this conclusion as I have found his writings to affirm the Reformed view?


----------



## discipulo (May 8, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > but he doens't affirm a Meritorious Legal Covenant with Prelapsarian Adam
> ...



Rich, I read Christ of the Covenants several years ago and I don't have the book here in the US with me, so I can´t check this, but what I recall is that Robertson didn't state a Covenat of Works.

I may be wrong, if so, I stand corrected.

But notice I mentioned Robertson is not alone within confessional reformed orthdoxy (please also notice I didn't mention FV writers above).


----------



## MW (May 9, 2011)

discipulo said:


> Rev. Winzer, can you explain a bit more. I actually found his works very profitable and edifying. Having said this I regret the departure of some from the wide consensus on XVIIth century Covenant Theology
> 
> concerning the Covenant with Adam. Theologians like John Murray, Robertson, Hoeksema, Schilder, Berkouwer, Kamphuis, etc, brought in my opinion a breach into this consensus. But please correct me if I am wrong.


 
OK, I will correct you, but only because you asked me to. 

"Meritorious legal covenant" is not the reformed consensus in the 17th century; it has not even gained consensus into the 21st century. Many orthodox theologians of the 17th century rejected the concept of "merit" in the "covenant made with Adam." It has really only been Meredith Kline's reconstruction of covenant theology, with a desire to create an absolute antithesis between works and grace, which has given rise to this unusual concept of "merit" in relation to the prelapsarian covenant. Those who are acquainted with the older theology have resisted Kline's antithesis.

You are correct to perceive a trend in modern theologians to understand the "Adamic administration" in terms other than a "covenant of works." To begin with, it is only a term. The Westminster Confession, which is acknowledged as incorporating a federal theological system, only goes so far as to say that it is "commonly called" the covenant of works. Further, it is a term which gains credence from a mature biblical theology, particularly the two Adam structure of Pauline thought. It is recognised that the term "covenant" nowhere appears in the Adamic administration itself, and that the narrative of the fall is naturally understood without any reference to it. The trend in modern biblical studies is simply an honest appraisal of the text without the imposition of later theological categories. I believe some of these theologians go too far because they fail to recognise the "seeds" of the covenant of works in the text and thereby undermine the validity of the later Pauline development; but I wouldn't discredit their exegetical honesty or claim they were being guided by dogmatic prejudice in their reading of the text.


----------



## discipulo (May 9, 2011)

I don't want to highjack the thread, but Rev Winzer are we not here referring to different kinds of merit?

I agree that Adam wouldn't earn eternal life by condign or congruent merit.

But wouldn't his obedience – assuming as I do that this was a Legal Covenant – the antithesis having in my opinion biblical warrant: 

_And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work._ Romans 11:6

by fulfilling the condition of the Covenant would constitute therefore - *Pactum Merit*

Quote follows from Whilelm á Brakel, CRS (also I added a bit more on the topic of the thread)


_If God gave Adam a law which is identical in content to the ten commandments;
promised him eternal life (the same which Christ merited for the elect in the
covenant of grace); appointed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for him
as a means whereby he would be tested and the tree of life to be a sacrament of
life to him; and Adam, having accepted both the promise and the condition, thus
bound himself to God—then a covenant of works between God and Adam
existed. Since all of this is true, it thus follows that such a covenant existed.

We have thus observed the activity of the one party: God giving the law to Adam,
which in content was identical to the ten commandments, promising him that
same eternal felicity which Christ has merited for the elect and grants unto them
upon faith. We have observed that God gave the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil as a sign of a probationary nature, and the tree of life as a sign of a
sealing nature. Thus all the required conditions have been shown as far as the one
side of the covenant is concerned.

Having established the former, the following proof is that much more clear. We
base our proof on Hosea 6:7, “But they like men have transgressed the
covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.”Here mention is made
of a covenant—a covenant with Adam—and the breaking of a covenant. Two
difficulties must be removed here: whether the word “Adam”ought to be
translated as “man” here, the reference not being to Adam but rather to other men, 
and whether the word Berith should not be translated as “law”; so that
there is no reference to a covenant here at all.
My response to the first difficulty is as follows: Since the word “Adam” can be
and frequently is translated as “man,” it does not therefore follow that it must be
translated in such a manner here. 
Whoever insists on this must prove it, and this
he will not be able to do. We maintain that in this text the word “Adam” is the
proper name of the first man. Our reasons for this are as follows:
(1) If one were to translate it with the word “man,” it would take away the
emphasis of this text, for the words “as 
(2) Frequently in the first book of Moses, and in Deuteronomy 32:8 and 1
Chronicles 1:1, the Holy Scriptures use the word “Adam” as the proper name of
the first man, and we find this coalescence especially in Job 31:33. “If I covered 
my transgressions ( ke Adam ) as Adam . . .” This is an express reference to
Adam’s covering up his crime, and since the reference is to the first man, the 
proper name Adam must be used here. Since the reference in Hosea 6:7 is to a sin
which Adam had committed, that is, a sin of a similar nature, why then not 
translate ( ke Adam ) as “Adam”?
(3) The original text also does not present any reason to prevent us from using the
proper name. No h ( emphaticum , a symbol for emphasis) may be placed next to 
a proper name. If, however, this word means “man” it is frequently accompanied
by an h . An h is not used here, which would be most appropriate if the reference 
were to other men, whereas the word “Adam” is used with great emphasis here.
(4) The matter in question is true in regard to Adam. He was involved in a 
covenant as we have observed above. He has broken the covenant, and therefore we must 
maintain that the reference is to Adam as long as necessity does not compel us to conclude
otherwise._


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2011)

Well, you made me curious so I pulled my copy of _Christ and the Covenants _off the shelf. He refers to it as the Covenant of Creation and discusses its general aspects and focal aspect. Under the general aspects he demonstrates that the Sabbath, Marriage, and Labor are established in this Covenant. He then goes on to discuss its focal aspect on pages 81-87.

Some excerpts:



> In considering the prohibition of Genesis 2:17, it is essential to appreciate the organic unity between this commandment and the total responsibility of man as created. The requirement concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must not be conceived of as a somewhat arbitrary stipulation without integral relation to the total life of man. Instead, this particular prohibition must be seen as the focal point of man's testing.





> Adam under the covenant of creation did not have one set of duties relating to the created world, and another more specific duty of an entirely different nature which could be designated as "spirituaL" All that Adam did had direct bearing on his relation to the covenant God of creation. The creational ordinances of marriage, labor, and Sabbath did not have a distinctive existence separated from Adam's responsibility to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. His life as a covenant creature must be viewed as a unified whole.





> If the covenant of creation is thought not to exceed Adam's probation-test, a curious brand of Christianity ultimately emerges. It is a brand of Christianity greatly at odds with that in which the probation-test is understood as the focal point of a total life embracing covenantal relationship. The difference between the two views is the difference between "fundamentalism" narrowly conceived and the broader covenantal theology of Scripture. The "fundamentalist" may conceive of the significance of Christianity more narrowly in terms of the salvation of the "soul." Too often he may fail to consider adequately the effect of redemption on the total life-style of man in the context of an all-embracive covenant. That view results frequently in a by-passing of the responsibility of redeemed man to carry forward the implications of his salvation into the world of economics, politics, business, and culture.





> The total life-involvement of the covenant relationship provides the framework for considering the connection between the "great commission" and the "cultural mandate." Entrance into God's kingdom may occur only by repentance and faith, which requires the preaching of the gospel. This "gospel," however, must not be conceived of in the narrowest possible terms. It is the gospel of the "kingdom." It involves discipling men to Jesus Christ. Integral to that discipling process is the awakening of an awareness of the obligations of man to the totality of God's creation. Redeemed man, remade in God's image, must fulfil-even surpass-the role originally determined for the first man. In such a manner, the mandate to preach the gospel and the mandate to form a culture glorifying to God merge with one another.
> 
> In a somewhat similar fashion, the prohibition concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the more general demands on man must be seen to relate to one another. It is not that man had fulfilled all his obligations under the covenant of creation by refusing to eat of the tree. He had larger demands on his life as well.
> 
> ...





> As has been indicated, man was required to do many things under the provisions of the covenant of creation. But the probationary test concerning the tree established a focal point at which man's submission to the Creator could be scrutinized. Now the point of testing reduces itself to man's willingness to choose obedience for the sake of obedience alone. The raw word of God in itself must become the basis of man's action.
> 
> When this focal character of the probationary test is appreciated, something of the reality of the entire scene becomes apparent. The narrative does not recount a silly story about a stolen apple. Instead, a most radical test of the original man's willingness to submit to the specific word of the Creator is involved.
> 
> ...





> Only radical obedience may provide a proper basis for restoration of men guilty of radical disobedience. Herein lies the significance of the ultra-drama enacted in Gethsemane. Christ, the second Adam, genuinely grappled with the demand for radical obedience. Three times in great agony Christ struggled with this ultimate of decisions (d. Matt. 26:39; 26:42;John 18:11). In evident progress of obedience he moves from: "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me;' to: "If this cannot pass away unless I drink it, thy will be done"; to: "The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" Though he was a son, he learned obedience through the things which he suffered (Heb. 5:8). As obedient unto death, he is able to save all that come to God by him.
> 
> The ultimate alternatives of the covenant of creation are spelled out quite explicitly. *Clearly this relationship between man and his Creator may be described as a "bond of life and death sovereignly administered."*
> 
> ...


----------



## discipulo (May 9, 2011)

Rich, my huge mistake, I do apologize for misrepresenting the Covenantal teaching of Dr. Palmer Robertson concerning the Covenantal relationship between God and Adam.

While in fact, as you posted above, Robertson is "adamantly"  clear about it. 

I recalled there was a certain Covenant that Robertson didn't find enough evidence in the Bible to unequivocally affirm, and I ended up making quite a confusion about it. 

It is rather concerning the Covenant of Redemption, within the Persons of the Father and the Son, in the Trinity, that Palmer Robertson mentions in this way.

You can confirm this in the pages 53-53 of The Christ of the Covenants.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2011)

Cesar,

No need to apologize to me. I find you to be a very honorable and decent man. I just wanted to determine what you might have seen. I'll take a look at the section you're referring to when I get back home again.


----------



## py3ak (May 9, 2011)

discipulo said:


> Rich, my huge mistake, I do apologize for misrepresenting the Covenantal teaching of Dr. Palmer Robertson concerning the Covenantal relationship between God and Adam.
> 
> While in fact, as you posted above, Robertson is "adamantly"  clear about it.
> 
> ...


 
I made the exact same mistake, once. Also here on the board.


----------



## MW (May 9, 2011)

discipulo said:


> I don't want to highjack the thread, but Rev Winzer are we not here referring to different kinds of merit?
> 
> I agree that Adam wouldn't earn eternal life by condign or congruent merit.
> 
> ...


 
In "pactum merit" one still has to reckon with the concept of merit and its intrinsic nature. There are only two kinds of merit, condign and congruent. If one denies the deserving nature of the work (condign) then the only other alternative is to say that there is something in the work which makes the doer prepared to receive the reward (congruent). By adding the adjective "pactum" the statement is qualified to ensure that the provision is made by mutual agreement between the doer and the rewarder, but the statement still requires the acceptance of congruent merit. This was rejected by reformed divines. The covenant made with Adam was regarded as a dispensation of works specifically because he was an innocent person whose standing with God was already one of righteousness. This he had by creation. Grace was already operative in his created state. Hence the covenant was conceived as one of grace in disposition but of works in dispensation. Further, what was promised to Adam was not congruent with the nature of the obedience demanded of him. What was promised to Adam would have been a reward due to him by grace, not by debt.


----------



## MW (May 9, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> > Clearly this relationship between man and his Creator may be described as a "bond of life and death sovereignly administered."


 
This is the key statement. First, it is recognising that the Adamic administration was a part of a broader covenant of creation. Secondly, "covenant" has been redefined as a bond of life and death sovereignly administered. The "mutual" aspect of covenant, as seen in the excerpt from a Brakel, has been removed. The older divines only perceived a covenant in the Adamic administration because of the two elements of promise and condition tied up with the probation. Remove the mutuality of covenant, as they conceived it, and there is really no basis for saying that the Adamic administration is a covenant. One is forced, then, to posit a broader covenant of creation which incorporates more than the probation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 9, 2011)

Can I clarify what you're saying Matthew? Are you saying that it doesn't make sense simply to conceive of the Covenant of Works as only embracing the probation but, as Robertson does, to think of the other general aspects in addition to the focal aspect of probation?


----------



## MW (May 9, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Can I clarify what you're saying Matthew? Are you saying that it doesn't make sense simply to conceive of the Covenant of Works as only embracing the probation but, as Robertson does, to think of the other general aspects in addition to the focal aspect of probation?


 
Robertson is struggling to find a covenant in the prelapsarian account. He has redefined covenant to be a bond in blood sovereignly administered, and then adapted that to the blood-threatening (death) included in the prohibition to eat of the tree. The sovereign aspect takes in the unilateral arrangements which are so apparent in the Hebrew berith. In redefining covenant in this way he has shut out the concept of mutuality which was part of the "pactum" of the older theology. Mutuality was seen in the promise and condition relative to the probation. Without mutuality Robertson is trying (unsuccessfully in my view) to find "covenant themes" in the broader creation account. I think he has wandered down the wrong track but I admire the exegetical skill with which he does it. If we are going to redefine "covenant" so as to make it fit with the Hebrew berith then we simply have to concede that it is not and cannot be present in the prelapsarian administration. The Hebrew berith emerges in a fallen world where lying predominates. As a formal category it could not be a part of an unfallen administration. It is only by seeing covenant as mutual arrangement in a broader systematic theology that one can perceive the "shadow" or the "outline" of a covenant in Genesis 2, and this is only accomplished by reflecting on the relationship of Adam to Christ.


----------



## Manuel (May 10, 2011)

Very interesting thread, I appreciate the responses.


----------



## discipulo (May 10, 2011)

Rich and Ruben, thank you so much for your very kind encouragement and understanding.

Rev Winzer, I am considering what you wrote above, but it will take me time to work trough it.

But I would like you to comment, only if you find it relevant of course, on the subject of Adam's Covenantal Merit – the following excerpt of 

*Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology.* Vol 2, part 3, chapter 5, page 365

Emphasis mine, and I also noticed that on the proper Chapter of the Covenant of Works Hodge is silent on Merit, but here he adds more on the CoW. 

The Condition of the Covenant (of Grace)

_The condition of the covenant of grace, so far as adults are concerned, is faith in Christ. That is, in order to partake of the benefits of this covenant we must receive the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God in whom and for whose sake its blessings are vouchsafed to the children of men. Until we thus believe we are aliens and strangers from the covenant of promise, without God and without Christ. We must acquiesce in this covenant, renouncing all other methods of salvation, and consenting to be saved on the terms which it proposes, before we are made partakers of its benefits.
*The word “condition,” however, is used in two senses. Sometimes it means the meritorious consideration on the ground of which certain benefits are bestowed.* *In this sense perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant originally made with Adam.* Had he retained his integrity *he would have merited* the promised blessing. For to him that worketh the reward is not of grace but of debt. In the same sense the work of Christ is the condition of the covenant of redemption. It was the meritorious ground, laying a foundation in justice for the fulfilment of the promises made to Him by the Father. But in other cases, by condition we merely mean a sine qua non. A blessing may be promised on condition that it is asked for; or that there is a willingness to receive it. There is no merit in the asking or in the willingness, which is the ground of the gift. It remains a gratuitous favour; but it is, nevertheless, suspended upon the act of asking. It is in this last sense only that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace. There is no merit in believing. It is only the act of receiving a proffered favour. In either case the necessity is equally absolute. Without the work of Christ there would be no salvation; and without faith there is no salvation. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. He that believeth not, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him._

It seems to me that even if Kline's formulation of 2 Adams - 2 CoW may bring Federalism to a certain extreme, the concept of Merit on the CoW may not be out of place, as long as proper Creator Creature distinction and Condescension to relate under Covenant remarks are made to properly clarify that God cannot be in way in debt to His creature.


----------



## Peairtach (May 10, 2011)

I suppose God "owed it" to His own righteousness to treat the unfallen Adam in a certain way. 

The Covenant of Works - or what one would like to call it - was over and above this, of God's bountiful goodness and love to unfallen Mankind, as a very easy means of confirming all Mankind in original righteousness. Adam had to do precisely nothing i.e. not eat from this solitary Tree. 

Adam in avoiding the eating of the Tree was fulfilling a condition, but wasn't doing anything "extraordinary", because obedience to this command, as in all else, was his reasonable service to His Father and Creator.

The word "merit" has the idea of buying involved but fulfilling the condition that God gave wouldn't have cost Adam anything.

The word "works" has the idea of strenuous effort towards achievement.

Nevertheless there was a condition, which if Adam had fulfilled - and not someone else for him, as with the CoG - would have had blessed consequences for him and the race.

If Adam had fulfilled the probation he wouldn't be able to say, "Look at me. I've done something great". Because he would only have done his reasonable service, and the condition was so easy and involved him in doing precisely nothing.

It would be seen by the human race that the confirmation of original righteousness was another free gift of God their Father kindly lavished on them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 10, 2011)

I have wondered about this a bit. He was in charge and had dominion. He was also called to tend the garden wasn't he Richard? I have wondered about this. What if he didn't rest on the Seventh day? What if he didn't work? By what you are saying Rich all Adam had to do was just sit in one place and do nothing. He was also commanded to procreate wasn't he? I know this is speculative.


----------



## Peairtach (May 10, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have wondered about this a bit. He was in charge and had dominion. He was also called to tend the garden wasn't he Richard? I have wondered about this. What if he didn't rest on the Seventh day? What if he didn't work? By what you are saying Rich all Adam had to do was just sit in one place and do nothing. He was also commanded to procreate wasn't he? I know this is speculative.



I mean that in order to break his original righteousness he had to eat of the Tree. His original righteousness wouldn't have been broken otherwise. If his original righteousness wasn't broken he wouldn't have sinned in those other ways you are talking about Martin. Eating of the Tree was the only door to those other types of sin because the withdrawl of original righteousness and the experience of spiritual death was concomitant on eating of the Tree.

I'm quite happy with the language of "the Covenant of Works". There was a condition given which Adam had to fulfil. But fulfilling that particular condition didn't involve much and was part of Adam's reasonable service. But it was Adam that had to do it. No graciously provided substitute was given.

If Adam had completed the probation of the CoW there would have been no room for boasting on his part, not that he would have wanted to boast anyway. 

Although it would have been done by Adam and not another, all the glory would have gone to God for His gracious gift of providing a way (the CoW) whereby original righteousness had been confirmed in Adam, Eve and their offspring forever and whereby they had become impeccable, incapable of sin.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2011)

discipulo said:


> It seems to me that even if Kline's formulation of 2 Adams - 2 CoW may bring Federalism to a certain extreme, the concept of Merit on the CoW may not be out of place, as long as proper Creator Creature distinction and Condescension to relate under Covenant remarks are made to properly clarify that God cannot be in way in debt to His creature.


 
Just to be clear, if Kline's antithetical understanding is accepted, it means no grace is to be found in the prelapsarian covenant. As he stated the matter, "By clarifying the biblical-theological concept of grace we may further expose the fallacy of those who would inject the idea of grace into the analysis of the creational covenant, thereby clouding and indeed contradicting the meritorious character of the probationary obedience and the works-justice nature of the covenant. Grace lives and moves and has its being in a legal, forensic environment. In the biblical proclamation of the gospel, grace is the antithesis of the works principle. Grace and works could thus be contrastively compared only if they were comparable, that is, only if the term grace, like works, functioned in a forensic context. Grace does not exist then except in relation to the rendering of divine judgment on situations involving acts of human responsibility, acts of man as accountable to God for compliance with appointed duty."

Hodge is Hodge. We accept him with his numerous inconsistencies. He claims the works of Adam are a meritorious condition but the faith of a believer is merely a sine qua non condition. Both are conditions which God has promised to reward. His only basis for raising Adam's obedience to this status is his comparison with Christ; but Christ is the God man, not mere man; there is no basis for comparison.

Let's allow a 17th century orthodox reformed theologian to speak for himself and make his own case. Writes Anthony Burgess, in Vindiciae Legis, "Yet, although it were a covenant of works, it cannot be said to be of merit. Adam, though in innocency, could not merit that happiness which God would bestow upon him: first, because the enjoying of God, in which Adam’s happiness did consist, was such a good, as did far exceed the power and ability of man. It’s an infinite good, and all that is done by us is finite. And then in the next place, Because even then Adam was not able to obey any command of God, without the help of God. Though some will not call it grace, because they suppose that only cometh by Christ; yet all they that are orthodox do acknowledge a necessity of God’s enabling Adam to that which was good, else he would have failed. Now then, if by the help of God Adam was strengthened to do the good he did, he was so far from meriting thereby, that indeed he was the more obliged to God."


----------

