The Marrow of Modern Divinity - Chapter 1, Sections 4–5
Section for Marrowcast Episode 4 (7/28/26)
Sect. 4. — No Recovery by the Law, or Covenant of Works.
Nom. But sir, would it not have been possible for Adam to help himself and his posterity out of his misery by renewing the same covenant with God, and keeping it afterwards?
Evan. No, by no means; for the Covenant of Works was a covenant in no way capable of renovation.1 Once he had broken it, he was gone forever, because it was a covenant between two friends, but now fallen man had become an enemy. And besides, it was an impossible thing for Adam to have performed the conditions now, which the justice of God necessarily required at his hands; for he had now become liable for the payment of a double debt; namely, the debt of satisfaction for his sin committed in time past, and the debt of perfect and perpetual obedience for the time to come; and he was utterly unable to pay either of them.
Nom. Why was he unable to pay the debt of satisfaction for his sin committed in the past?
Evan. Because his sin in eating the forbidden fruit (which is the sin I mean)4 was committed against an infinite and eternal God,2 and therefore it merited an infinite and eternal satisfaction: either some temporal punishment equivalent to eternal damnation, or eternal damnation itself. Now Adam was a finite creature. Therefore, between finite and infinite, there could be no proportion; so Adam couldn't make satisfaction by any temporal punishment. And if he had undertaken to satisfy by an eternal punishment, he would always be satisfying and never have satisfied it, as is the case of the damned in hell.
Nom. And why was he unable to pay the debt of perfect and perpetual obedience for the time to come?
Evan. Because his former power to obey was utterly impaired by his fall. For by his fall, his understanding was both enfeebled and drowned in darkness; and his will was made perverse, and utterly deprived of all power to will good; and his affections were set completely out of order; all things belonging to the blessed life of the soul were extinguished, both in him and us; so that he had become impotent, indeed, dead — and therefore he was not able to stand in the lowest terms to perform the meanest condition. The truth is, our father Adam, in falling from God, so dashed himself and all of us into pieces by it, that there was no whole part left either in him or in us, that was fit to base such a covenant upon. And the apostle witnesses this, both
Nom. But, sir, might not the Lord have pardoned Adam’s sin without satisfaction?
Evan. Oh no! For justice is essential in God, and it is a righteous thing with God that every transgression receives a just recompense:3 and if recompense is just, then it is unjust to pardon sin without satisfaction. Though the Lord had pardoned and forgiven his former transgression, and thus restored Adam to his former condition of amity and friendship, yet having no power to keep the law perfectly, Adam could not have continued in it.4
Nom. And is it also impossible for any of his posterity to keep the law perfectly?
Evan. Yes, no mere man in this life can keep it perfectly; indeed, even if he is a regenerate man. For the law requires from man that he “love the Lord with all his heart, soul, and might;” and the holiest man alive is but flesh as well as spirit, in all the parts and faculties of his soul; therefore, he cannot love the Lord perfectly. Yes, and the law forbids all habitual concupiscence, not only saying, “You shall not consent to lust,” but, “You shall not lust:” it not only commands the binding of lust, but it also forbids the existence of lust: and who can say in this case, “My heart is clean?”
Ant. Then, Nomista, take notice, I ask, that as it was altogether impossible for Adam to return into that holy and happy estate in which he was created by the same way that he left it,5 so it is impossible for any of his posterity. Therefore, I remember one says very wittingly, “The law was Adam’s lease when God made him a tenant of Eden; and when he did not keep the conditions of that bond, he forfeited all for himself and us.” God read a lecture of the law to him before he fell, to be a hedge to him to keep him in paradise. But when Adam would not keep within its compass, this law has now become like the flaming sword at Eden’s gate, to keep him and his posterity out.
Sect. 5. — The Covenant of Works binding, though broken.
Nom. But sir, you know that when a covenant is broken, the parties that were bound are freed and released from their engagements; and therefore I think both Adam and his posterity should have been released from the Covenant of Works when it was broken, especially considering they have no strength to perform its condition.
Evan. Indeed, it is true that in every covenant, if either party fails in his duty and does not perform his condition, the other party is thereby freed from doing his part; but the party that fails is not freed until the other party releases him. Therefore, even though the Lord is freed from performing his condition, that is, from giving man eternal life, man is not freed from his part, even though the strength to obey is lost. Having lost it by his own default, the obligation to obedience remains. Thus, Adam and his offspring are no more discharged from their duties because they lack the strength to do them than a debtor is acquitted of his bond because he lacks the money to pay it. And thus, Nomista, according to your desire, I have endeavoured to help you to the true knowledge of the Law of Works.
To get your own copy of the Marrow, click here
The Covenant of Works could by no means be renewed by fallen Adam so as to thereby help himself and his posterity out of his misery, which is the only thing in question here; otherwise indeed it might have been renewed, which is evident by this sad token, that many do actually renew it in their covenanting with God, being prompted to it by their ignorance of the high demands of the law, their own utter inability, and the way of salvation by Jesus Christ. And from the same principle, our legalist here does not question that Adam might have renewed it, and kept it too for the after-time; he questions only whether Adam might thereby have helped himself, and his posterity too, out of the misery they were brought into by his sin.
That being the sin in which all mankind fell with him, Rom. 5.15.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1265-1274), 1st part of the Second Part, Q. 87. “The Debt of Punishment.”
2 Thess. 1.6, “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to those who trouble you.” Heb. 2.2, “Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense.”
Rather, Adam would have sinned again, and thus fallen under the curse anew.
Objec. “Do we then make void the law” (Rom. 3.31), leaving an imputation of dishonour upon it, as a disregarded path, by pretending to return another way? Ans. Sinners being united to Christ by faith, return, being carried back the same way they came — only their own feet never touch the ground; but the glorious Mediator, sustaining them all, walked every bit of the road exactly, Gal. 4.4, 5. Thus, in Christ, the way of free grace and of the law, sweetly meet together; and through faith we establish the law.