Part One: On Natural Theology, or the Theology of the First Man

The theology of the first man — its description — in what sense it is natural — the degrees, force, and efficacy of innate light — the idle speculation of the Scholastics, the error of the Socinians, and of others — the origin and necessity of natural theology — the obedience of the first man — an exposition of the promised reward, of sin, and of punishment — the corruption of original theology — the manner of that corruption — the first covenant abolished, together with the theology resting upon it.

I. All theology of all men either looks to the innate word (verbum innatum) and is called natural — at least for the most part, since it is never called simply that — or it looks to the revealed word. We must deal first with the former. It can and must be considered as pure, as corrupt, and as apostate.

II. The state of integral nature — that is, of men placed under the law of creation alone — presents itself to us in the first place. In that state, theology was innate and natural, yet not throughout purely natural. For from the beginning it was enlarged by revelation, and was moreover to be further enlarged. In that state it is called pure. Now the light consisted in a saving knowledge of God as Creator, Lawgiver, Ruler, and Rewarder. We call it light, since that term is appropriate to all theology according to the usage of Scripture. This light was implanted in man by God in the very act of creation; and it was immediately enlarged by an outward revelation of the divine will in the sacramental precept, and was to be further enlarged day by day through the contemplation of God's works. And this was able to make him wise in the obedience rightly to be rendered to God according to the covenant of works, for his own happiness and for the glory of the power, wisdom, goodness, grace, and justice of God — this is the theology of the first man.

III. Now this light (or spiritual wisdom) God implanted in the mind of man in the very act of his creation. It was suited to the condition in which he was made and to the end for which he was made — indeed absolutely necessary (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Although, therefore, with respect to its nature, use, and end, it was entirely supernatural (for that man should obey God in accordance with a covenant promising an eternal reward was of God's most free appointment); yet, because it was innate and natural to him, we say that it was natural to him. Strictly speaking, that is called natural which necessarily accompanies nature itself, or derives its origin from the principles of nature. In that sense it is evident that this light was not natural to man. For it does not necessarily follow from human nature such that it cannot be separated from it; nor can it be drawn out from the natural faculties of the soul by their own proper and native power. Yet because it pertained to the rectitude of his nature with respect to his original state, and was implanted in him at his creation — man being placed under law, with regard to his ultimate end — it cannot be denied that it was natural. But concerning these things in opposition to the papists, the dispute has been carried on sufficiently and more than sufficiently elsewhere.

IV. Concerning this light — or the knowledge of man in the state of uncorrupt nature — with respect to its degrees and efficacy, there is no small clash of opinions. The Scholastics extol it magnificently enough, while meanwhile, as everywhere, they are full of idle speculations and of presumption in their curious determinations. The Socinians pretend that the first man was a fungus and a block of wood, scarcely possessed of reason — they set him up as an object of ridicule, as though he were ignorant of God, of himself, of his wife, and of other creatures. They maintain that only the single precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given to him by God. Whether he had a mind or conscience, whether he acknowledged any dependence upon God — they do not know, or at least they pretend not to know; for the pretense of ignorance is very often the cover for the most insolent boasting of knowledge. They have found it fitting thus to lend support to the most foul errors concerning the fall of the first man, which they cherish, and concerning the state of sin: "Adam, like an infant or a child, did not know that he was naked," as though he had truly been blind before he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and, "Concerning his own wife, he knew only what was obvious to the senses," as the very leader of the flock himself says; "Nor," he says, "had he any clear understanding of the power of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," as though the entire effect of the first sin arose from the power of that tree; and again, "Although he was mortal, yet he did not know that he was mortal": plainly, one lie must be covered with more lies, lest it leak through. To prove that Adam lost almost nothing through sin, they assert that he never had anything — since he could not lose what he never possessed. A lid worthy of the dish! We, with as even a balance as possible, shall weigh briefly the theology of the first man — neither inclining toward their arrogant presumption in asserting, nor toward the bold impudence of those others in denying.

V. That God, by right of creation, is the supreme Lord of all things, is acknowledged by all creatures. Hence a dependence upon God necessarily accompanies the existence of all things, and is suited to the principles of nature which He has communicated to each one. All creatures therefore, as such, and each according to the capacity and disposition with which they are endowed, celebrate the Creator and serve Him (Psalm 145:10): "All Your works shall praise You, O Lord;" and therefore, by personification (kata prosopopoiian), the Psalmist many times exhorts all of them, each and every one, to duly perform that duty.

The holy choir of the church, whether militant or triumphant, confirms this eternal and unchangeable principle of divine worship with unanimous consent (Revelation 4:11): "Worthy are You, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created."

And were created." To which the universal assembly of all creatures responds in chorus, chap. 5.

13: “And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, I heard saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.’” For since God has worked all things for Himself — that is, for His own glory (Proverbs 16:4) — it was right that all those things should render glory and honor to Him. Moreover, just as it belongs to that supreme right of God and dominion over all things to designate for each creature its own proper and ultimate end, so it belongs to that dependence to have a law and rule governing operations that tend toward that end. All creatures, by virtue of being creatures, enjoy a fixed end and a law of operation. That law, therefore, was innate to all of them. But the rational creature, since it sustains a twofold relation — namely, as a creature, and as a being capable of reason and consecrated to eternity — receives from God a twofold dependence: one common or natural (of which we have spoken), and another proper or moral. The latter is the obedience owed to God befitting the creature’s condition. To require this obedience from creatures, it is sufficient that God be set before them as the supreme and best Lord — nothing more is required. He therefore demands fear and worship, because He is Adon (that is, the Lord of all) (Malachi 1:6, “If I am the Lord, where is My fear?”). That this should not be known from the very act of creation was impossible. That innate law ought to have been sufficient for duly rendering that obedience. Thus at length both the ultimate end and the creature’s dependence upon God are established. Now concerning that innate law, two things may be considered: the law itself, that is, the obedience required.

the standard and knowledge of the law. That this supreme and greatest Benefactor, this highest Ruler and Rewarder, is to be loved, worshipped, and feared — so that the moral order of this dependence, which, because God the Creator is supremely just and holy, embraces all justice and holiness, and that it may be continued until its ultimate end is reached — this is the sum of this law. And this law is that word which is innate and immutable, and altogether infallible, which, as it were, as a doctrine.

was in the theology of the first man. Now the knowledge of this law did not really differ from the law itself. It is evident that it consisted in a saving light of such a kind that, by its force and guidance, man could rightly render to God the obedience owed according to the law, so that he might attain his proper end. And this was the theology of the first man. Established in the state of moral dependence on God, and subjected to the authority of God, and thereby capable of blessedness in the enjoyment of the eternal Creator, he had as inborn and connatural (σύμφυτον) the law of those actions that were necessary for attaining that end. Moreover, he was furnished with the wisdom by which he had knowledge of God and of all the means of His worship, and by whose force he was able rightly to render the obedience prescribed in the law, according to the will and mind of God shining in it. But since this law which is connatural (σύμφυτος), which in this theology supplies the place of doctrine — or rather the word dwelling within (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) — was innate to the mind of man, it did not, as regards the thing itself, or speaking materially as they say, differ from that light, or habit of mind, by which the doctrine concerning God and His worship is savingly perceived. Nor was it anything more than the source and origin of that order of dependence of the rational creature upon God. But with respect to exercise, and actual obedience, and speaking formally, it was distinct from it.

6. Since therefore God made man upright (Ecclesiastes 7:29), in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27), which consists in wisdom, justice, and holiness (Colossians 1:10, Ephesians 4:23-24), and commanded him to rule over the other creatures by his authority for His own glory — for which dominion he would have been altogether unfit unless their natures had been thoroughly known to him — and since He required obedience from him under penalty of eternal death, together with the promise of a blessed life as a reward, it is established that he was furnished with the wisdom and moral light by which he was able to know God, and to understand perfectly the innate law (σύμφυτος νόμος) and the revelation of the attributes of God in the creation of all things, and the sacramental legislation (νομοθεσία). And for one furnished with this theology, nothing at all was lacking either for worshipping God rightly or for living well and blessedly.

7. And from this an assessment can be made of the obedience of the first man and of the reward set before him, together with the nature of his sin and also of the threatened punishment. For the obedience to be rendered by the force of the covenant had to be conformable to his innate light, or to the theology delineated above. And the covenant itself was known to Adam as something innate to him. For it is established that by the force of this theology he knew both his duty and his reward. But the additionally superadded sacramental precept did not reveal the covenant, but opened the way for its being sealed. The proposed reward consisted in nothing other than the eternal enjoyment of God. The same voice of the law still sounds: “Do this, and you shall live;” for God never ordained any other reward for obedience to be rendered by the force of the covenant. But what interval of time must have elapsed before it would have befallen Adam to enjoy God in the capacity of a reward — since God Himself never foreknew it as something future — is a subtle and dangerous dispute. That the first man, had he continued in his original state, would have obtained the reward, and that that reward itself would have been God, is established from the very nature of the covenant —

— is established. The time and manner in which it would have befallen him to enjoy God in this way, neither the nature of the thing nor the sacred page indicates. The obedience of the first man would therefore have been a universal and express exemplar of the image of God in all things; the reward would have been God Himself. But that his first sin, since it was committed against the directing force of this theology, consisted in the total subversion of the order of the moral dependence of the creature upon God, is plain; hence the punishment of that sin is eternal separation from God, with the additional sense of torment beyond that, which avenging justice could not but require. After therefore the body and soul of the sinner had experienced the first death in their mutual separation from one another, they had to be reunited — by divine power serving justice to that extent — in order to undergo the second death, which consists in eternal separation from God under the most grievous punishments; from this condition, of course, we have been liberated through Christ. Therefore, as regards the substance — if I may speak thus — of the reward and punishment annexed to the first covenant, and those things that follow upon the new covenant, there was no difference. God Himself, and separation from

God contain the nature of both on either side. Nor can any other reward or any other punishment be assigned; although perhaps it can be said that both have been increased by the addition of certain degrees by the force of the new covenant. Hence the reward is now called, "An eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (καθ' ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης), (2 Corinthians 4:17); and the punishment is "death to death" (θάνατον εἰς θάνατον), ch. 2:16. Scripture is indeed silent concerning the resurrection of Adam apart from the word of the incarnation (ἐκτὸς τοῦ λόγου ἐνανθρωπήσεως); for it does not pursue vain speculations, nor does it curiously discourse from the supposition of a state that was never to come about. But concerning the state of those who are altogether strangers to the mediation of Christ — since they never believed in Him, nor sinned against His grace, of which they never heard anything — Scripture speaks plainly enough. But to hold that Christ merited the resurrection from the dead of those persons to condemnation on account of sins committed without law and without any knowledge of Christ — this

is impious. Since therefore the immortality of Adam in his original state depended in no way on internal principles of nature, but solely on the most free good pleasure of God — that external preserving cause being removed by sin — it was necessary that Adam should die at some certain point in time, and that by the force of the covenant he should be raised from the state of natural death to judgment.

VIII. And let this suffice to have discoursed concerning natural theology considered in its original and native purity; it remains that we briefly survey its weakening (ἀμαύρωσιν) through the entrance of sin.

IX. Now the entrance of sin, and the abolition of the divine covenant through that entrance, are known from elsewhere and are here presupposed; therefore we must deal here only with the removal of this theology through those events.

X. It will be granted that every theology must be sufficient to attain its proper end. This end consists in the glory of God and the eternal happiness of the theologians themselves. Therefore, since the image of God in man was abolished by the entrance of sin, that law — the type of divine knowledge of which we have spoken (the Greek term here being OCR-damaged, likely denoting a congenital or innate form of the knowledge of God) — is entirely stripped of its theological nature and use, so that the whole human race must rightly be judged to have been disinherited from all true theology through sin; and these things must be taught. So close was the union between that original doctrine and the habit of the mind that, once torn apart, they could not each maintain their place. Moreover, that salvific light, by which we have shown that the proper form, as it were, of this primeval theology was constituted, was extinguished through sin; and so theology itself suffered destruction (the Greek term here being OCR-damaged, likely ἀφανισμόν, meaning obliteration or disappearance). Furthermore, no doctrine can properly be called theology unless it rests upon some divine covenant, by the force of which the theologians themselves can please God and at last enjoy Him. For all theology of wayfarers directs men in the knowledge of God, and urges them to render the obedience due according to the norm of the covenant that it has pleased God to enter into with them. But that covenant, which was the foundation of this primeval theology, has been abolished, as I said. For what would it now accomplish? Seeing that, although it commands all things rightly, there is nevertheless no one who can obey. The doctrine of that covenant is indeed still most true: "for he who does the things of the law shall live in them." But the covenant itself, after the entrance of sin, retained no power to bring men to God. Nor, because men are compelled to bear the authority of its commandments, are they to be called parties to the covenant, since they are held by its bond only from the right and supreme dominion of God, which He cannot abdicate. Indeed, misery through sin has gone so far that even the doctrine set forth in the law of nature, however much accompanied by the primeval light, was nevertheless not sufficient to direct sinners in the way of life; nor, even if it most greatly desired to, could it altogether save sinners. For to know God and to obey Him as Creator, Governor, and Rewarder is not sufficient for anyone's salvation after the entrance of sin, unless one is also furnished with knowledge of His grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. Therefore the innate and congenital light (the Greek term here being OCR-damaged, likely ἐνδίδακτον, meaning inborn or implanted knowledge) truly lost through sin the ends of theology — its salvific use and its power to direct theologians effectively in the way of life.

XI. And this is the reason why, from the apostasy of the theologians, theology itself was also entirely abolished — a thing we shall not find to have occurred afterward. For since all theology, as we have said, is founded upon a covenant, when the covenant was destroyed, it was necessary that theology itself should also fall. Now that covenant entered into with Adam rested upon an absolute and universal moral dependence upon God. It was therefore in no way possible that it should not be rendered void by the first sin. The matter stands in the same way with the new covenant. The theology of those in covenant rests upon the covenant. Whether any of those in covenant can fall away or be cast out of that covenant, we do not now dispute. The covenant itself cannot be abolished, because it was established in and with Christ the Mediator; nor consequently can the theology resting upon it be shaken. However often, therefore, theologians may defect from its doctrine — as we shall see frequently — yet theology itself remained altogether stable and unchangeable, this being demanded by the nature of the covenant. Such is the account of this theology; and it is sufficient to have treated it briefly, since it lasted only for a short time, and the doctrine concerning it is drawn from only very few passages of Scripture.