IN THE COUNSEL OF GoD.
fore they do not change, as is pretended, the plural expression into a singular, but the Holy Ghost expressing the same thing of making man in the image of God, sometimes expresseth it in the singular number, by reason of the singularity of the nature of God, which is the original of all divine operations, for God works by his nature; and sometimes in the plural, because of the plurality of persons in that nature. On which supposition these different expressions are reconciled, and without it they cannot be reconciled.
And all these objections and cayils are brought merely against the necessary use and signification of the word factamus, ‘ Let us make,’ in the plural number. What is alleged by the ancients and others, to clear the intention of the expression in this place particularly, he takes no notice of. For he makes no inquiry, why seeing in the whole antecedent account of, the worl: of creation, God is introduced speaking constantly in the singular number, here the mode of speech is changed, and God speaks as consulting or deliberating in the plural number. And he says not only, ‘ Let us make,’ but adds, ‘ In our image, and in our likeness.’ To imagine this to be done without some peculiar reason, is to dream rather than inquire into the sense of Scripture. And other reason besides what we have assigned, cannot be given with any tolerable congruity to the common use of speaking. But supposing that he hath sufficiently evinced what he intended, he proceeds to give a reason of the use of this kind of speech, where one is spoken of in the plural number.
Que sit autem causa cur liceat per pluralem numerum significare unum, et quando hoc soleat fieri, varice afferri solent causee. Quidam censent fieri honoris gratia, ut de eminentibus et excellentibus personis pluraliter loquamur. Id usitatum esse lingue Hebreee annotant docti; inter quos Cevallerius in sua syntaxi hune tradit canonem: Que dignitatem significant pluraliter usurpantur ad ampliorem honorem. Ut, Jos. xxiv. 20, Dii sancti ipse. Exod. xxi. 29, Domini ejus pro Dominus. Isa. xix. 4, In manu Dominorum duri; pro Domini. Gen. xlii. 40, Domini terre; pro Dominus. Imohoc non tantum in Hebrea, sed in aliis quoque linguis esse usitatum, patet «x σχολ. Sophoclis; qui in C&dipo Coloneo annotavit poetam dixisse δουναι σφιν pro Sovva αὐτῳ et addit scriptum esse Kara τιμὴν πληθυν- τικως; propter honorem seu dignitatem pluraliter.’
We also grant that it is one who is here intended, only we say, he is not spoken of under that consideration of being one. Nor is it enough to prove that the word may in the plural number be used in a singular sense, but that it is so in this place, seeing the proper import of it is otherwise. Neither can that expression concerning God, Josh. xxiv. 20, 87 DwWIP DTN, ¢ Dii sancti ipse, be used, ‘ Honoris Gratia,’ seeing it is no honour to God to be spoken of as many gods, for his glory is that he is one only. It hath therefore another respect, namely, to the persons in the unity of the same nature. I could easily give the reasons of all his other instances in particular, wherein men are spoken of, and manifest that they will yield him no relief. Butthis may suffice in general, that they are all speeches concerning others in the third person, and all our inquiry is concerning any one thus speaking of himself in the first person, whereof no one can be given. Wherefore our author not confiding to this his last refuge, takes himself to foolish imaginations ‘ of God's speaking to the superior parts of the world, whence the soul of man was to be taken, and the inferior whence his body was to be made; to a design ‘for the instruction of men, how to use counsel and deliberation in great undertakings; to ‘a double knowledge in God, universal and particular;) which are all of them rabbinical fopperies, evidently — manifesting that he knew not what to confide in or rest upon, as to the true - cause of this expression, after he had resolved to reject that alone which is So. ᾿
§ 8. The foundation of our intention from this place being thus cleared, we may Safely build upon it. And that which hence we intend to prove is, that in the framing and producing the things which concern mankind, there were peculiar internal personal transactions, between the Father, Son, and Spinit.. The scheme of speech here used is, in genere deliberativo; by way of consultation. But whereas this cannot directly and properly be ascribed to God, an anthropopathy must be allowed in the words. The mutual distinct actings and concurrence of the several persons in the Trinity is expressed by way of deliberation; and that because we can no otherwise, determine or act. And this was peculiar in the work of the creation of man, because of an especial designation of him to the glory of God, as three in one. Neither could he have been created in the accidental image of God but with immediate respect to the Son, as he was the essential image of the Father. The distinct personal actings of the Trinity, wherein the priesthood of Christ is founded, are not I confess, contained herein. For these things preceded the consideration of the fall, whereby the image now proposed and resolved to be communicated unto man in his creation was lost, which Christ was designed to recover. But here is enough to confirm our general assertion, that such distinct actings there were with respect to mankind; and the application hereof to our present purpose, will be directed in the ensuing testimonies. This therefore I have only laid down and proved as the’general principle which we proceed upon. Man was peculiarly created unto the glory of the Trinity, or of God as three in one. Hence in all things concerning him, there is not only anintimation of those distinct subsistences, but also of their distinct actings with respect unto him. So it was eminently in his creation; his making was the effect of special counsel. Much more shall we find this fully expressed with respect unto his restoration by the Son of God.;
§ 9. The same truth is farther revealed and confirmed, Prov. viii. 22—31, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, 1 was brought forth: when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hiils was I brought forth. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he set a compass upon the face of the depth. When he established the clouds above, when he strengthened the fountains of thedeep. When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundation of the earth. Then was I by him, as one brought up with him; and Iwas daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. Rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
We must first secure this testimony against those who have attempted to deprive the church of God of its use and advantage; and then apply it unto our purpose. In the ancient church, none questioned but that the wisdom which here discourseth is the Son of God. Only the Arians greatly endeavoured to corrupt the sense of my passage in it, and thereby to wrest the whole to give countenance to their heresy. Those of late who agree with them in an opposition to the same truth, upon other principles, observing how they failed in their attempt, do leave the sense of particular passages unquestioned; and call into question the whole subject of the discourse, wherein if they prevail, the sense of particular places must be accommodated to what they substitute in the room thereof..
It is wisdom that speaks and is spoken of. This we believe to be he who is the wisdom of God, even his eternal Son. This they will not grant; although they are not agreed what it is that is intended. A property, say some, of the divine nature; the exercise of divine wisdom in making the world, say others; the wisdom that is in the law, say the Jews; or as some of them, the wisdom that was given to Solomon; and of their mind have been some of late. With the Arians I shall not much contend, because their heresy seems to be much buried in the world, although some of late haye endeavoured to give countenance to their opinions, or them who maintained them. Sand. Hist. Eccles. enucl. lib. 3. It was the 22nd verse which they principally insisted on. For whereas it was granted between them and the Homoousians, that it is the Son of God which is here spoken of, they hence pleaded for his creation before the world, or his production, εξ οὐκ ovrwy, and ‘that there was, when he was not.’ This they did from*these words, IT MWS 8323p Mmm which words were rendered by the LXX. or the Greek translation then in common use, ὁ κυριος exricé pe, ἀρχὴν ὅδων avrov. ‘Dominus condidit me initium viarum suarum.’ And this is followed by all the old translations, “3872 say the Targum; and the Syriac, ‘ Creavit me; and the Arabic follows them; only the vulgar Latin reads, ‘ possedit,’ possessed me. On this corrupt translation the Arians bare themselves so high, as to provoke their adversaries to a decision of the whole controversy between them, by the sentence of this one testimony. But the corruption of the common translation is long since confessed. Aquila and Theodotion both render the word by ἐκτήσατο ‘he possessed.’ Nor doth 2p in any place, or on any occasion, signify to make or create, or any thing of the like import. Its constant use is either to acquire and obtain, or to possess and enjoy. That which any one hath, which is with him, which belongs to him, and is his own, he is 73) the possessor of. So is the Father said to *‘ possess wisdom, because it was his, with him, even his eternal Word or Son. No more is intended hereby, but what the apostle more clearly declares, John i. 1, 2, ev apyy ὁ λογος nv προς τον Θεον. ‘In the beginning the Word was with God.’ But with these I shall not contend.
§ 10. The Jews, and those who in the things concerning the person of Christ, borrow their weapons to combat his deity, we must not pass by. For an examination of their pretences and sophisms in this cause, at least occasionally as they occur unto us, I do not guess, but know to be necessary.;
Grotius on this place tells us, ‘Heec de ea Sapientia que in lege apparet, exponunt Hebrei;’ the Hebrews expound these things of that wisdom which is seen in the law. And as to many of them, this information is true; to which he adds of his own, ‘ Et sane ei si non soli, at preecipue hee Attributa conveniunt; and indeed the things here attributed to wisdom do agree to it, if not only, yet principally. Whether this be the case or not, the ensuing examination will evince.;
The Jews then affirm that the wisdom here intended, is the wisdom of the law, as this appears in the law, or the wisdom that God used in giving the law. But how the things here ascribed to wisdom, can belong to the law given on Sinai, it is hard'to conceive. ΤῸ take off this difficulty they tell us that the law was one of the seven things which God made before the creation of the world; which they prove from this place, ver. 22, ‘In the beginning of his ways he possessed me;’ ‘yea, and that as they say, two thousand years before the creation, signified by the two Alephs in that sen-~ tence. Midrash Bamidbar, in cap. 1. But Aben Ezra, in his preface to his annotations on the bible, tells us, that they are mystical allegories, and not true in their literal sense; as doth also the author of Nizachon, Sec. Beresh. sect. 3, who likewise informs us, that these things said to be made before the world, ma1w mdr 55; ‘because of their excellency and worth,’ whence they were first thought upon. But these figments we need not trouble ourselves about. Their apprehension, that the wisdom intended is that of the law, which Grotius gives countenance to, shall be examined. The Socinians are not solicitous to what the things mentioned are ascribed, if they can satify themselves in their objections to our ascription of them to the Son of God. I shall therefore first confirm our exposition of the place, and then remove their objections out of our way.
§ 11. First. It is an intelligent person that is here intended; for all sorts of personal properties are ascribed to it. It cannot therefore be merely an essential property of the divine nature. Nor can the things spoken concerning it with respect to God, be any way verified in his essential attributes. Much less is it wisdom in general, or wisdom in man; as by some it is expounded: no one thing here mentioned being in any tolerable sense applicable thereunto. For, 1. in the whole discourse Wisdom speaks as an intelligent person; whereof almost every verse in the whole chapter is an instance. 2. Personal authority and power are assumed by it, ver. 15, 16. ‘By me kings reign, and princes decree justice; by me princes rule; and nobles, even the judges of the earth. 3. Personal promises upon duties to be performed towards it, due unto God himself, ver. 17, “1 love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me; which is our respect to God. Ps. Ixiii. 1, ‘O God, thou art my God, early will I seek thee; which is elsewhere often expressed. 4. Personal divine actions, ver. 20, ‘I lead in the way of righteousness, mn the midst of the paths of judgment.’ ver. 20, ‘That I may cause them that love me to inherit substance, and I will fill their treasures.’ Ver. 30, 31, ‘I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, and my delights were with the sons of men.’ 5. Personal properties, as eternity. Ver. 23, ‘I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. Ver. 24, 25, Wisdom, ver. 14, ‘Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom, I have understanding and strength.’
‘Secondly. The name of Wisdom is the name of the Son, who is the wisdom of God. For the wisdom mentioned, chap. ix. 1, the Jews themselves confess that it is one of the ΠΥ ΤΣ. or distinct properties that are in the divine ΤΊ", that is substance or essence; whereby the Son of God alone can be intended.
Fourthly. The relation of the Wisdom that speaks to God, declares it to be his eternal Word or Son: ‘I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him; as he did in whom his soul is always well pleased. And lastly, as we shall farther see, they are the eternal transactions of the Father and Son that are here described, which are capable of no other interpretation.
. § 12. Itis not my design to plead here the eternal existence of the Son of God, antecedent to his incarnation; I have done it also at large elsewhere. But because the faith thereof is the foundation of what I shall farther offer concerning the origin of his priesthood, the testimonies produced to that - purpose, must be vindicated from the exceptions of the professed adversaries of that fundamental truth. And these, as to this place, are collected and summed up by Eniedinus. And his manner is, as was before observed, to multiply sophistical exceptions, that so by any means they may distract the mind of the reader, and render him uncertain, and in this he is followed by all who are of his persuasion. They consider not whether what they offer be true or no; and commonly their evasions contradict and overthrow one another. Butso the truth may be rejected, they regard not what is received. Virst, therefore, he lays his exception to the whole matter; and affirms, ‘That it is not wisdom but prudence that speaks these words, and is the subject of the whole discourse.
‘Quod ad primum attinet, ne illud quidem indubitatum est, verba preseripta a Sapientia dici. Si enim versio Pagnini, Merceri, et Textus Hebraicus consulatur, apparebit verba illa proferri ab intelligentia vel prudentia, quze in hoe capite tum conjuncte, tum separatim cum Sapientia ponitur, ut apparet ex ver. 1. and 14, in cujus posteriori parte incipit intelligentia de se loqui. Nam ver. 14, secundum Pagninum hec est interpretatio: Penes me est consilium et sapientia; et hucusque loquitur de se Sapientia. Postea sequitur: Ego sum intelligentia, mea est fortitudo, &c. Ita ut sequentia omnia ad finem capitis ab imtelligentia proferantur. Cum ergo Paulus Christum non intelligentiam sed sapientiam vocet, et verba preescripta ab intelligentia proferantur, sequitur locum hunc ad Christum non pertinere,’
What those names of Pagnin, Mercer, and the Hebrew text are produced for, I cannot well conjecture. Both in the original, and in the versions of those learned men, the context is as clear to our purpose, as in any other translation whatever. And the view of the text will ease us of this forlorn exception. The comparing of the first verse with the 14th gives no countenance unto it. For Ist. in ver. 1, the mention of T713N is not the introduction of a new person, or thing, but another name of the same person or thing, asexpositorsiagree whatever they apply the words‘unto. 2d. The words TAN, ver, 1, and". ver. 14, rendered both understanding, and both from the same root, are yet not absolutely the same, so that several things may be intended by them. 3d. The whole context makes it plain, that it is wisdom, which speaks those words, ver. 14, ‘> aya ὋΝ MDM my > ΤΣ}. The preceding words are, ‘I Wisdom dwell with prudence, and the evil tongue and froward mouth do I hate,’ ver. 12, 13, whereon it follows, ‘counsel is mine, and sound wisdom, or substance, I am understanding, 1 have strength.’ As in the beginning Wisdom says, ΓᾺΡ %, so in the close, by a continuation of the same form of speech, 7722 > mp2 SSN) is ἃ defective expression, and there is no verb following to be regulated by 72. Wherefore, according to the perpetual use of that language, the verb substantive is to be supplied, as it is in our translation, ‘ I am Understanding.’ Understanding therefore cannot be the person speaking, but a descriptive adjunct of him that speaks. There is the same expression concerning Wisdom, ver. 12, M727 ὋΝ “1 Wisdom; but is not defective because of the verb following, ‘n2>W, ‘ have dwelt, or do dwell. Supply the verb substantive here where there is no defect, and the whole sense will be corrupted. But in this place, if it be omitted, there will be no sense remaining. Neither is 72°28 of any other significtion than ΤῚΣ %> “1 have or am Un« derstanding, and ‘I have strength.’ This plea therefore evinceth nothing but the boldness of them that use it. He proceeds to another:
ς Deinde hic Sapientiam pro substantiva et Persona esse accipiendam, non aliunde probari potest aut solet, quam quod hic loqui et clamare dicitur, atque actiones queedam ei attribuuntur. At id usitatissimum in sacris est, ut etiam accidentibus actiones adscribantur per prosopopceiam. Sic misericordia et pax de ccelo prospicere, se mutuo osculari dicuntur. Et ne longe abeamus; hic Prudentia seu Intelligentia, vociferare, stare in semitis, clamare ad portas urbium dicitur. Neque tamen quisquam ita stolidus est ut non intelligat, misericordiam, pacem et prudentiam esse accidentia, et in his loquendi formulis prosopopeeiam non agnoscat.’
How we prove a person to be here intended, that is, the eternal Word of God, hath been declared. There are other considerations wich eyince it, besides that here mentioned. But this ‘ prosopopeeia, or fiction of a person, is of great use to the Antitrinitarians. By this one engine they presume they can despoil the Holy Ghost of his Deity and Personality. Whatever is spoken of him in the Scripture, they say it is by a ‘ prosopopeia, or the fiction of a person, those things being assigned to a quality or an accident which really belong to a person only. But as to what concerns the Holy Spirit, I have elsewhere taken this engine out of their hands, and cast it to the ground, so that none of them alive will erect it again. Here they make use of it against the Deity of Christ; as they do also on other occasions. I do acknowledge there is such a scheme of speech used by rhetoricians and orators, whereof some examples do occur in the Scripture. That which is indeed proper only to a person, is sometimes ascribed to a thing, or a person who is dead or absent may be introduced as present and speaking. But yet Quintilian the great master of the art of oratory, denies, that by this figure, speech can be ascribed to that which never had it. ‘Nam certe,’ saith he, ‘sermo fingi non potest, ut non persone sermo fingatur.’ If you feign speech, you must feign it to be the speech of a person, or one endowed with a power of speaking. And it is hard to find in good authors, an instance in which speech is thus ascribed to things inanimate, unless it be where, by another figure, they introduce countries or ities speaking or pleading for themselves, wherein by a metonomy the inhabitants of them are intended. But such an ascription is not to be found in the Scripture at all. For a ‘ prosopopeeia, or fiction of a person, is a figure quite distinct from all sorts of allegories, pure, or mixed, from apologues, fables, and parables, wherein when the scheme is evident, any thing may be introduced speaking, like the trees in the discourse of Jotham, Jude. ix. The instance of ‘mercy and peace looking down from heaven and kissing each other, is an example of a mode of speech, in which different figures are mixed. The foundation is a metonomy of the cause for the effect, or rather of the adjunct for the cause; and the ‘prosopopeeia, is evident. But that a person should be introduced, speaking in a continued discourse, ascribing to himself all personal properties, absolute and relative, all sorts of personal actions, and those the very same which in sundry other places are ascribed to one certain person, (as all the things here mentioned are to the Son of God,) who yet is no person, never was a person, nor represents any person; and that this should be done without the least intimation of any figure therein, or of any thing inconsistent with the nature of things and persons treated of, and that in a discourse didactical and prophetical, is such an enormous fiction, as that nothing in any author, much less in the Old or New Testament, will give the least countenance to it.
There are in the Scripture, allegories, apologues, and parables; but all of them are so plainly, evidently, and professedly such, and so unavoidably require a figurative exposition from the nature of the thimgs themselves, (as where stones are said to hear, and trees to speak,) that there is no danger of any mistake about them, nor difference concerning their figurative acceptation. And the only safe rule of ascribing a figurative sense to any expression in the Scripture, is when the nature of things will not bear that which is proper; as where the Lord Christ calls himself a door and a vine, and says that bread is his body. But to make allegories of such discourses as this, founded in the fiction of persons, is a ready way to turn the whole Bible into an allegory, which may be done with as much ease and probability of truth. He farther objects:
‘Quod secundo loco contendunt, hic nihil figurate, sed omnia proprie dici, nimis absurdum est. Nam etiamsi daremus hic sapientiam esse Personam quandam, quam ipsi Aoyoy appellant; tamen certum esset illum tempore Solomonis in plateis non clamasse, nec cum hominibus hilariter conversatum esse, nec demum eedificasse, excidisse septem columnas, victimas obtulisse, miscuisse vinum, et cetera que hic recitantur proprie fecisse. Alias debuerunt fateri, Christum ab eterno fuisse incarnatum, quando quidem he actiones proprie non possunt nisi homini jam nato competere. Itaque et impudentis et indocti est negare hance orationem Solomonis esse figuratam.’
He does not tell us who they are, who say that no expressions in this discourse are figurative. Neither doth this follow upon a denial, that the whole is founded in the fiction of a person. For a true and real person may speak things figuratively; and sometimes it is necessary that he should do so. These men will not deny God to be a Person, nor yet that he often speaketh of himself and of his works figuratively. The same doth Wisdom also here, in the declaration of some of his works. But that which animates this objection, is a false supposition, that the eternal Word cannot be said to do or to effect any thing, but what he doth immediately in his own Person, and that as incarnate. What God doth by the ministry of others, that He also doth himself. When He gave the law by the ministry of angels, He gave the law himself; and when He speaks by the prophets, He is everywhere said to speak himself. That therefore which was done in the days of Solomon, by the command, appointment, authority, and assistance of Wisdom, was done then by Wisdom itself. And so all things here ascribed unto it, some properly, some figuratively, were done by the Word in the means by him appointed. In the ministry of the priests, levites, prophets, teachers of the law, inviting all sorts of persons to the fear of the Lord, he performed the most of them. And the remainder of the things mtended, he effected in his ordinances, and by the institutions of divine worship. Besides, there is a prophetical scheme in these words. There is here declared, not only what Wisdom then did, but especially what it should do, namely, in the days of the gospel. For the mamner of the prophets is, to express things future as present or past, because of the certainty of their accomplishment. And these things they spake of the coming of Christ in the flesh. See 1 Pet. i. 11, 12, 11. 15.
But utterly to remove this pretence of prosopopoeias and figures, it is necessary only to observe that which none will deny, namely, that the Wisdom that speaks here, ch. viii. is the same that speaks, ch. i. from ver. 20, to the end. And if Wisdom there be not a Person, and that a divine Person, there is none in heayen. For to whom or to what else can those ee be ascribed, which Wisdom speaks, ver. 23—27, ‘Turn you at my reproof: behold I will pour out my Spirit upon you, [ will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I will also laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer: they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me.’ If these things express not a Person, and that a divine Person, the Scripture gives us no due apprehension of any thing whatever. Who is it that pours out the Holy Spirit? Who is it that men sin against in refusing to be obedient? Who is it that in their distress they call upon, and seek early in their trouble? The whole Scripture declares to whom, and to whom alone, these things belong, and may be ascribed.
After introducing some things nothing to the purpose, he yet makes three objections more to this testimony, to the eternal personal existence of this Wisdom. As,
‘Preeterea hee Sapientia de qua agit Solomon, loquitur, docet, instituit homines. At Jesus Christus postremis tantum diebus, teste Apostolo ad Heb. i. locutus est hominibus; ergo non ztate Solomonis.’
The apostle says not that Jesus Christ spake only in the latter days, Heb. i., but that ‘God in the last days spake unto us in his Son.’ And the immediate speaking to us by the Son in the last days, as he was incarnate, hinders not but that he spake before by his Spirit in the prophets, as the apostle affirms him to have done, 1 Pet. i. 11. And by this Spirit did he speak, that is, teach and instruct men in the days of Sclomon, and from the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. iii. 18—20.
‘Denique Prophetia illa, Isa. xlii. 2, Eece servus meus quem elegi, non clamabit, neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem ejus, applicatur Christo, Matt. xii. 28. At heec Sapientia dicitur clamasse in plateis. Itaque falsum est hanc Sapientiam Solomonis fuisse Jesum Christum.’
A man of gravity and learning ought to have been ashamed of such a puerile cayil. The prophet Isaiah, setting owt the meekness and peaceableness of the Lord Christ in the discharge of his office, with his tenderness and condescension towards the poorest and meanest that come to him, expresseth it among others by these words, ‘ He shall not ery, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets; intending no more, but that he should do nothing by way of strife, contention, or violence, in private or in public places. And this prophecy is applied to him by.Matthew at that very season when great multitudes followed him in the streets and fields, whom he taught and healed, Matt. xii. 15—17. Hence this man would conclude, that because Wisdom is said to cry in the streets, that is, to instruct men in public places, which he did formerly by his Spirit, and in the days of his flesh in his own person, the Son of God cannot be intended. Yet he further adds:
‘Postremo de Sapientia ista, non dicitur quod sit ab zeterno genita; sed tantum ut in Hebreeo habetur a seculo formata; quod longe aliud significat, quam ab eterno gigni. Et potest aliquid a seculo, hoe est a mundi creatione vel etiam ante illam extitisse; inde tamen non sequitur esse eeternum.’
He tells us not. where in the Hebrew text Wisdom is said to be ‘ formata seculo.. Nor is there any such passage in the context. It says, indeed, ver. 23, 203 pin, which words of themselves do not absolutely and necessarily. declare eternity, though no other expression or antecedent eternity be commonly made use of. But as this D> yy is particularly explained in the whole ensuing discourse, especially in verses 25, 26, to denote the existence of Wisdom, before the whole creation or any part of it, it doth necessarily denote eternity, nor can it be otherwise expressed. And although we do not particularly prove the relation of the Son to the Father by eternal generation from this place, yet as Wisdom is not said here to be formed or created, so the word used, ver. 25, ΠΣ ΓΤ, which we have rendered, ‘I was brought forth, doth more than intimate that generation. This being the whole of what the enemies of the sAcrrep Trinity have to object to our application of this discourse to the Eternal Word or Son of God, we may upon its removal proceed to the application of this testimony to our present design.
§ 13. ‘A personal transaction before the creation of the world, between the Father and the Son, acting mutually by their One Spirit, concerning the state and condition of mankind, with respect to divine love and fayour,’ is that which we inquire after, and. which is here fully expressed. For the Wisdom or Word of God, having declared his eternal existence with the Father, and his personal, distinction from him, manifests withal his joint creation of all things; especially his presence with God, when he made, dn nypy wr, ver. 26, ‘The highest part of the dusts of the habitable world,’ that is, WNT DTN, ‘the first Adam,’ as Jarchi interprets it, and that not improbably. Then He declares that He was 1>3x, by Hin, with Him, before Him, ver. 30, that is, προς τὸν Θεὸν, John i. 1, 2. And He was with Him, jx, Nutritus, ‘One brought up with Him.’ The word seems to be of a passive signification, or the participle Pahul, and is of the masculine gender, though referring to T7227, ‘Wisdom,’ which speaks of itself, and is of the feminine; and that because it is a Person which is intended: such constructions being not infrequent in the Hebrew, where the adjunct agrees with and respects the nature of the subject, rather than the name or some other name of the same thing; see Gen. iv. 7. The word may have various significations, and is accordingly variously rendered by interpreters. The Chaldee render it, a°772, that is, Faithful: ‘I was faithful with him; and the LXX. ἁφρμοζουσα, ‘framing, forming,’ that is, all things with him. So also Ralbag on the place expounds it actively, ‘One nourishing all things, as Jarchi doth passively, Way my, Ὁ brought up with him,’ which sense of the words our translation follows. And it is used unto that purpose, Lam. iy. 5, y>in sy D-27NT, ‘brought up in scarlet.’ And although it may not improperly be taken in an active sense, yet I rather judge it to be used passively: Nutritus, Alumnus, one that is in the ‘care’ and ‘love of another, and to be disposed by him.
And we may inquire in what sense this is spoken of the Son with respect to the Father. The foundation of the allusion lies in the eternal mutual love that is between the Father and the Son. Thereunto is added, the consideration of |the natural dependence of the Son on the Father, compared to the love of a father to a son, and the dependence of a son on his father. Therefore, most translations, with respect to this allusion, supply as to the words, ‘as one brought up. Again, jas, Alumnus, ‘one brought up, always implies brought up for some special end or purpose, or to some work and service. And this is principally here intended. It is with respect to the work that he had to accomplish, that he is called Alumnus Patris, ‘one brought up of the Father. And this was no other but the work of the redemption and salvation of mankind, the counsel whereof was then between the Father and the Son, In the carrying on of that work, the Lord Christ every-where commits himself and his undertaking to the care, love, assistance, and faithfulness of the Father, whose special grace was the origin thereof, Ps. xxii. 9, 10, 11, 19, 20; Isa. 1. 7—9. And in answer hereunto, the Father promiseth him, as we shall see afterwards, to stand by him, and to carry him through the whole of it; and that because it was to be accomplished in such a nature as stood in need of help and assistance. Wherefore, with respect to this work, he is said to be }1728 1>3n, ‘ before him,’ as one whom he would stand by with love and faithfulness, and whom he would take care of, when in the prosecution of the work which proceeded from their mutual counsel, he should be clothed with that nature which stood in need of divine care. ι
ὁ 14. With respect hereunto, he adds, DY OY Dy wyw Mmm, ‘And was delights every day.’ There are ineffable mutual delights and joys in and between the persons of the sacred Trinity, arising from that infinite satisfaction and complacency which they have in each other from their respective in-being, by the participation of the same nature, wherein no small part of the blessedness of God doth consist. And by this word, that peculiar delight which a father hath in a son is expressed, Jer. xxxi. 20, Dy ww 1, ‘A pleasant child, a child of delights.’ But the delights here intended, have respect to the works of God ad extra, as a fruit of that eternal satisfaction, which ariseth from the counsels of God concerning the sons of men. This the next verse makes manifest: ‘Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights with the sons of men.’ For after he had declared the presence of Wisdom with God before the first creation, which is a notation of eternity, and its co-operation with him therein, he descends to manifest the special design of God and Wisdom, with respect to the children of men. And here such an undertaking on the part of the Son is intimated, as that the Father undertakes the care of him, and his protection, when he was to be humbled in the form of a servant, in the prospect whereof he delighted in him continually.
So he expresseth it, Isa. xl. 1—7, ἡ Behold, my servant whom I uphold, my elect in whom my soul delighteth, (5 MN34, the same with Dy wyw or oy 1, see Matt. xii. 18, xvii. 5; Eph. i. 6,) 1 have put my Spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment unto the Gentiles. He shall not ery, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets. <A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench. He shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law. Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out, he that spreadeth forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it, he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles: to open the blind eyes, and to bring out the prisoners out of the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.’ This is the delight of the Father, and such is his presence with the Son in his work, whereof an eternal prospect is here represented. In answer | whereunto the Son delights in him, whose delight he was, b53 yop> mpm ny, ‘rejoicing with exultation, with all manner of expressions of joy,’ For the word properly signifies an outward expression of an inward delight, the natural overflowings of an abounding joy. And what this delight of the Son is, in answer to the delight of the Father in him, with respect to the work he had to do, the Psalmist declares, Ps. xl. 7, 8, ‘Then I said, Lo I come, in the volume of thy book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.’ This 15D nd27, ‘this volume of the book,’ which our apostle calls κεφαλις βιξλιου, ‘the beginning or head of the book, Heb. x. 7, is no other but the counsel of God concerning the salvation of the elect by Jesus Christ, enrolled as it were in the book of life, and thence transcribed into the beginning of the book of truth in the first promise given to Adam after the fall. This counsel being established between Father and Son, the Son with respect to it, rejoiceth continually before God, on account of that delight which he had to accomplish his will; and also on account of that delight which he had in our nature, which was ὃ be assumed to answer the law of mediation, which was prescribed unto im.
§ 15. Now this being declared to be the mutual affection of God and of his Wisdom towards one another, Wisdom proceeds to manifest with what respect towards outward things it was that they were so mutually affected, ver. 31, ‘Rejoicing in the habitable parts of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men.’ That the things here spoken of were transacted in eternity, or before the creation, is evident in the context. The counsels of eternity, and the purposes of God and Wisdom, with respect to the sons of men, are here expressed. The Word was now foreordained, even before the foundation of the world, to the work of mediation and redemption, 1 Pet. 1. 20. And many of the sons of men were chosen in him to grace and glory, Eph. i. 4, and the bringing of them to that glory to which they were chosen, was committed to him as the Captain of their salvation. This work, and the contemplation of it, he now delights in, because of that eternity of divine glory which was to ensue thereon. And because he was designed of the Father hereunto, and the work which he had to accomplish » was principally the work of the Father, or the fulfilling of his will, and the making his grace effectual, wherein he sought his glory, and not his own primarily, John vii. 18, he speaketh of him as a distinct person, and the sovereign Lord of the whole. He did it, 1858 dana, ‘in the world of his earth.’ And the same word which he useth to express his frame towards God, npmwn, ver. 30, ‘rejoicing, exulting,’ he useth here in reference to his work, to intimate that it was on the same account that he is said to ‘rejoice before the Father, and in the habitable parts of his earth; that is, on account of the work he had undertaken. So also he expresseth his delight in the children of men, because of the concernment of the glory of God therein, by DYy wy, the same word whereby he declares the Father's delight in himself, with respect to his work.
And these things cannot refer unto the first creation, seeing they regard DIN 23, ‘the children of men,’ the sons or posterity of him who was at first singly created. And these things are revealed for our consolation, and the strengthening of our faith, whereunto they may be improved. For if there were such mutual delights between the Father and the Son in the counsel and contrivance of the work of our redemption and salvation; and if the Son so rejoiced in the prospect of his own undertaking to that end, we need not doubt but that he will powerfully and effectually accomplish it. For all the difficulties of it lay open and naked under his eye, yet he rejoiced in the thoughts of his engagement for their removal and conquest. He now saw the law of God established and fulfilled, the justice of God satisfied, his glory repaired, Satan under his feet, his works destroyed, sin, and all the confusion and misery which it brought into the world, destroyed 5 these are all matters of everlasting joy. Here we place the first spring of the priesthood of Christ; the first actings of God towards man for his reparation. These first actings of God he expressed by the mutual delight of the Father and Son in the work to which the Son was designed, and in the effects of it. And this was intimate love, grace, complacency, and infinite wisdom. God, foreseeing how the designed effect of love and grace in the recovery of mankind, by the interposition of his Son, would issue in his own eternal glory, was pleased therewith, and rejoiced therein. And the Son, considering the object of his love, and the peculiar glory set before him, delighted in the counsel of the Father. Wherefore, the foundation of Christ’s priesthood herein designed, was in love, grace, and wisdom, though in its exercise it respects holiness and justice also.
§ 16. And this also seems to be expressed by the Psalmist, Ps. ii. 7, 1 will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ The direct sense and import of these words hath been declared in our exposition of chap. i. 6, and the testimony that is given in them to the divine nature of Jesus Christ, I have also formerly vindicated, Vindic. Evangel. p. 236. And I have in like manner elsewhere declared the perverse iniquity of some of the more modern Jewish masters, who would apply this psalm singly to David, without any respect to the Messiah. This Rashi confesseth that they do on purpose to oppose the heretics or Christians. But this is contrary to the conceptions and expositions of all their ancient doctors, and to the express faith of their church whilst it continued. For from this place they constantly acknowledged, that the Messiah was to be the Son of God, or rather, that the Son of God was to be the Messiah. Hence was that inquiry of the high priest, Matt. xxvi. 63. ‘I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.’ According to the faith of their church, he takes it for granted that the Christ and the Son of God was the same. The same confession on the same principle made Nathaniel, John i. 49, ‘ Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. And Peter's confession, Matt. xvi. 16; John vi. 69, ‘Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God, was nothing but a due application of the faith of the Jewish church to the person of our Saviour, which was all that he then called for. ‘ Unless, saith he, ‘ you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins.’ And this faith of the church was principally built on this testimony, where God expressly calls the Messiah his Son, and that on the account of his eternal generation..
So Maimonides, Jarchi himself, and Kimchi, do all confess that their ancients interpreted this Psalm of the Messiah. The words of Jarchi are plain, DAT awn aymawa wd) wan Fd dy pay nN WIT Ima yasy TT by yaMpd 125, “ Our masters expounded this Psalm,’ or the construction of it, ‘ concerning the king Messiah; but as the words sound, and that an answer may be returned to the heretics, it is expedient to interpret it of David himself.’ His confession is plain, that their ancient doctors looked on this Psalm as a prophecy of the Messiah, as is also expressly acknowledged by Maimonides and Kimchi in their expositions. But as to those words which originally formed a part of what Jarchi wrote, n2a1wn>) m7, and for an answer to the heretics, the reader will not find them either in the edition of Basil or of Venice; that is, of the Bible with their Masoretical criticisms, and Rabbinical annotations; being expunged by such as had the oversight of those editions, or before razed out of the copies they made use of.
A great number of instances of this sort, to excellent advantage, are collected by the learned Dr. Pococke, Note Miscellan. cap. 8. And in the same place, that we go no farther for it, the same learned author gives us an account of the evasions invented by some of the Mahometans against the force of this testimony, which yet they allow to respect Jesus Christ, whom they will by no means grant to be the Son of God. A Prophet, if we please, he shall be, but that none may believe him to be the Son of God, the impostor himself laid in provision, in the close of his Alcoran, in that summary of his confession of a mussulman, ‘He is one God, God eternal, who neither begetteth, nor is begotten, and to whom none is equal. The reasons of their infidelity are putrid and ridiculous, as is commonly known, and their evasion of this testimony, a violent escape. Tor they tell us the text is corrupted; and instead of ‘My Son,’ it should be, ‘ My prophet; and instead of, ‘I have begotten thee, it should be, ‘I have cherished thee; the former words in the ‘Arabic language, consisting of the same letters transposed, and the latter differing in one letter only, and the fancied allusion between, or the change of the words, is not much more distant in the Hebrew. But it is ridiculous to suppose, that the Jews have corrupted their own text, to the ruinous disadvantage of their own infidelity.
§ 17. There is, therefore, an illustrious testimony in these words, given unto the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Christ, in his divine nature before his incarnation. And this causeth the adversaries of that sacred truth, to turn themselves into all shapes to avoid the force of it. He with whom we have before concerned ourselves, raiseth himself to such confidence, as to deny that the things mentioned in this Psalm had any direct accomplishment in Jesus Christ, as his next attempt is to prove that those words, Ps. xxii. 16, ‘They pierced my hands and my feet,’ had no respect unto him. To this purpose doth he here discourse: —
‘Ha que hic dicuntur si litera urgeatur, nunquam in Jesu Christo completa sunt. Nam ejus divinitati hac non competere clarum est. Jam vero, ne cum natus quidem ex Maria est, historice hee illi evenerunt. Qui enim sunt isti queso populi, que gentes, qui reges, qui contra Jesum jam regem constitutum consurrexerunt: Certe nec Pilatus, qui tamen rex non erat, nee Herodes ei hoc nomine ut illum solio et dignitate regia deturbarent illi molesti fuerunt; neque consilia adversus ejus regnum contulerunt, nec copias collegerunt. Imo Pilatus quamvis illum regem dici audiret, tamen liberare et dimittere paratus erat. Et Herodes adversus eum non fremuit, sed hominem contempsit, et illesum cum in potestate sua haberet dimisit. Pilatus Johan. xviii. fatetur; gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt te mihi; soli ergo Judei fuerunt hostes Jesu, et eorum consilia adversus eum non fuerunt irrita; sed optatum finem consecuta; cujus contrarium hic narratur. In summa, tantus concursus, tanta consectatio, tantus armorum strepitus, et apparatus bellicus, quantum heee verba Psalmi significant, nunquam contra Jesum extitit; praeterea isti reges et populi dicunt; dirumpamus vincula eorum, &c. At Jesu nec Judeis nec gentibus imperitavit, nec vincula injecit, nulla tributa imposuit, non leges preescripsit, quibus illos constrictos tenuisset, et a quibus illi liberari concupivissent. Nam siquis hee ad doctrinam Jesu accommodet spiritualem et mysticum introducet sensum, &c.
Tlaving elsewhere handled, expounded, and vindicated this testimony, I should not here have diverted to the consideration of this discourse, had it not been to give an instance of that extreme confidence which this sort of men betake themselves to, when they are pressed with plain Scripture testimonies. For the Jews themselves, who despise the application of this prophecy to Christ in the New Testament, do not argue more perversely against his concern therein, than this man doth. He tells us in the entrance of his discourse on this Psalm, that all the Hebrews whose authority in the interpretation of the Scripture no sober man will despise, are against the application of this Psalm unto Christ. But he is deceived if he thought that they all agree in denying this Psalm to be a prophecy of the Messiah; for, as we have shown, the elder masters were of that mind. And he that shall be moved with the authority of the later doctors in the interpretation of those places of Scripture which concern the promised Messiah, that is Jesus Christ, and yet pretend himself to be a Christian, will scarce retain the reputation of a sober person among such as are not stark mad. However, no Jew of them all can more perversely oppose the gospel than this man here doth, as will appear in the examination of what he says.
First. That the things spoken in this Psalm, regard the Lord Christ with respect to his divine nature alone, or as absolutely considered, none ever affirmed or taught. For they all regard him as incarnate, or as he was to be incarnate, and as exalted, or as he was to be exalted to his kingly rule and throne. But yet, some things here spoken are distinctly verified in his divine nature; some in his human, as I have elsewhere declared. In general they all regard his person with respect to his kingly office. But what ensues in this author, namely, that none of these things belong properly to Jesus Christ, is above the rate of ordinary confidence. All the apostles do not only jointly and with one accord apply the things here spoken unto the Lord Jesus, but also give a clear exposition of the words, as a ground of that application; a thing seldom done by the sacred writers, Acts iv. 24— 28. ‘They lifted up their voice unto God with one accord, and said, ‘ Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, was gathered together: for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. In their judgment, Herod and Pontius Pilate, with their adherents, as exercising supreme rule and power over that people, with respect to them on whom they depended, and whose authority they exerted, namely, the Romans, the great rulers over the world, were the kings and rulers intended in this Psalm. And so also the Da, ‘or heathen, they took to be the Gentiles, who adhered unto Pilate in the execution of his Gentile power; and he ΣΝ mentioned to be the people of Israel. Let us, therefore, consider what the objections of this man are, against the exposition and application of these words made by the apostles, and which they expressed as the solemn profession of their faith; and we shall quickly find that all his objections are miserably weak and sophistical. Pilate, he says, was not a king; but he exerted regal power, or the power of a supreme magistrate among them; and such are every-where called kings in the Scripture. Besides, he exerted the power of the great rulers of the world, who made use of kings as instruments of their rule, so that in and by him the power of the Gentile world was used against Christ. Herod he grants to have been a king; who yet was inferior im power and jurisdiction to Pilate, and who received what authority he had by delegation from the same monarch with Pilate himself. - ms
Secondly. He denies that these or either of them opposed Christ as to his kingdom. For Pilate moved once for his deliverance, and Herod rather scorned him, than raged against his kingdom. But this unbridled confidence would much better become a Jew, than one professing himself to bea Christian. Did not they oppose the Lord Christ? Did they not rage against him, who persecuted him, who reviled him, who apprehended him as a thief or murderer, who mocked him, spit upon him, scourged him, crucified him, if not with their hands, yet with their power? Did they not oppose him as to his kingdom, who by all possible efforts, endeavoured to hinder all the ways and means whatsoever, whereby it was erected and established? Certainly, never had prophecy a more sensible accomplishment.
Thirdly. As to what he adds in reference to the Jews, that their counsels were not in vain against Christ, as those were that are here mentioned, but obtained their wished end; I cannot see how this can be viewed in any other light, than as a great outrage and excess of blasphemy. They did indeed, whatever the hand and counsel of God determined before to be done, but that their own counsels were not vain, that they accomplished what they designed and aimed at, is the highest blasphemy to imagine. They took counsel against him as a seducer and a blasphemer, they designed to put an end to his work, that none might ever esteem him or believe in him as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, the Son of God; was this counsel of theirs not in vain? did they accomplish what they aimed at? Then say there is not a word of truth in the gospel or Christian reli-
Fourthly. For that concourse of people, consultations, that noise and preparation for war, which being, as he says, mentioned in the text, he cannot find in the actings of men against the Lord Christ, it is all an imagination of the same folly. For there is no mention of any such preparation for war in the text, as he dreameth of. | Rage and consultation, with a resolution to oppose the spiritual rule of the Son of God, are indeed described, and were all actually made use of, originally against the person of Christ immediately, and afterwards against him in his gospel, with the professors and publishers of it.
Fifthly. He adds hereunto, that Christ ruled neither Jews nor Gentiles, that he made no laws, nor put any bonds upon them, that they might be said to break. So answers Kimchi the testimony from Mic. y. 2, where Ὁ Christ is called the Ruler of Israel; answer them, saith he, ’s7w*2 Dwr xd ya ἸῺ on ban; ‘that Jesus ruled not over Israel, but they ruled over him, and crucified him.’ But, notwithstanding all this petulancy, his enemies shall all of them one day know, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ. That he is a king for ever, and a lawgiver, that he came to put the holy bands and chains of his laws on the world, which they in vain strive to reject and cast out of the earth; for he must reign until ail his enemies are made his footstool. Itis granted that in some of these words, spiritual things are figuratively expressed; and their literal sense is that which the figure intends. So that no mystic nor allegorical sense is here to be inquired after; it being the Lord Christ the Son of God, with respect unto his kingly office, who is here treated of, primarily and directly, however any of the concerns of his kingdom might be typified in David; and he it is who says, ‘I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’
§ 18. The foundation of this expression is laid in the divine and eternal filiation of the Son of God, as I have elsewhere evinced. But the thing directly expressed, is spoken in reference unto the manifestion thereof, in and after his incarnation. He that speaks the words is the Son himself; and he is the person spoken unto, as Ps. cx. 1, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord; wherein the same eternal transaction between the Father and Son it declared. So here, He, (that is, the Father) said unto me; how, by the way of an eternal statute, law, or decree, as he was the Son of God, so God declares unto him that in the work he had to do, he should be his Son, and he would be his Father, and make him as his first-born, higher than the kings of the earth. And, therefore, are these words applied several ways to the manifestation of his divine filiation, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead, Rom. i. 4, And the words of this very decree, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ are used by our apostle to prove the priesthood of Christ, which was confirmed to him therein, Heb. v. 5. And this could no otherwise be, but that God declared therein unto him, that in the discharge of that office, as also of his kingdom and rule, he would manifest and declare him so to be. It appears, therefore, that there were eternal transactions between the Father and Son, concerning the redemption of mankind by his interposition or mediation.
§ 1. Personal transactions between the Father and Son, about the redemption of mankind, Federal. § 2. The covenants between God and man explained. § 3. Fadus a covenant, whence so called. § 4. Συνϑηκη why not used by the LXX. §5. The various use of ma in the Scriptures. The tables of stone, how called the covenant; and the ark, The same use of SvySuxn; The certain nature of a covenant not precisely signified by this word. § 6. Covenants how ratified of old. § 7. Things required to a complete and proper covenant. § 8. Of covenants with respect unto personal services. § 9. The covenant between Father and Son express. How therein the Father is a God unto him; and the Son less than the Father. § 10. Joint counsel of the Father and Son in this covenant, as the foundation of it. § 11. The will of the Father in this covenant, absolutely free. § 12, The will of the Son engaged in this covenant. The Son of God undertakes for himself when clothed with our nature. § 13. The will of God how the same in Father and Son; yet acting distinctly in their distinct persons. § 14. Things disposed of in a covenant to be in the power of them that make it. This they may be two ways: first, absolutely; secondly, by virtue of the compact itself. § 15, The salvation of sinners the matter of this covenant; or the thing disposed of to the mutual complacency of Father and Son, § 16. The general end of this covenant; the manifestation of the glory of God. Wherein that consists. What divine properties are peculiarly glorified thereby. § 17. The especial glory of the Son, the end of this covenant; what it is. § 18. Means and way of entering into this covenant. Promises made to the Son as incarnate. Of assistance, acceptance, glory. The true nature of the merit of Christ. ᾧ 19. Things prescribed to the Lord Christ in this covenant reduced to three heads. The sacred spring of his priesthood discovered. ᾧ 20. The original reason and nature of the priesthood of Christ. Occasion and use of priesthood and sacrifices under the law. § 21. The sum of the whole. Necessity of Christ’s priesthood.
§ 1. Our next inquiry is after the nature of those eternal transactions, the existence of which in general we have declared from the Scripture, in our foregoing exercitation. And these were carried on ‘ per modum feede-
‘ ABOUT THE WORK OF REDEMPTION. 461 ris, ‘by way of covenant,’ compact and mutual agreement between the Father and the Son. For although it should seem that because they are single acts of the same divine understanding and will, they cannot be properly federal, yet because those properties of the divine nature are acted distinctly in the distinct persons, they have in them the nature of a covenant. Besides, there is in them a supposition of the susception of our human nature into personal union with the Son. On the consideration hereof he comes to have an absolute distinct interest, and to undertake for that which is his own peculiar work. And therefore these counsels of the will of God, wherein lies the foundation of the priesthood of Christ, are expressly de~ clared as a covenant in the Scripture. For there is in them a respect to various objects and various effects, disposed into a federal relation one to another. I shall therefore in the first place manifest that there was such a covenant between the Father and the Son, in order to the work of his mediation, called therefore the covenant of the Mediator or Redeemer. And afterwards shall insist on that in it in particular, which is the original of his priesthood.
§ 2. First. We must distinguish between the covenant that God made with men concerning Christ, and the covenant that he made with his Son concerning men. That God created man in and under the terms and law of a covenant with a prescription of duties, and promise. of rewards, is by all acknowledged. After the fall he entered into another covenant with mankind; which from the principal nature and end of it, is commonly called the covenant of grace. This, under several forms of external administration, hath continued ever since in force, and shall continue till the consummation of all things. And the nature of this covenant, as being among the principal concerns of religion, hath been abundantly declared and explained by many. The consideration of it is not our present business. That the Lord Jesus Christ was the principal subject-matter of this covenant, the undertaker in it, and surety of it, the Scriptures expressly declare. For the great promise of it was concerning him, and his mediation, with the benefits that should redound to mankind thereby in grace and glory, And the preceptive part of it required obedience in and unto him, new and distinct from that which was exacted by the law of creation, although it also contained all the commands of this law. And he was the surety of it, ih that he undertook unto God to accomplish in his own person, whatever by the terms of the covenant was to be done for man; and he engaged to effect by his own Spirit and grace, whatever was to be done in and by man, that so the covenant on every side might be firm and stable, and the ends of it fulfilled. This is not that which at present we inquire into. Butit is the personal compact that was between the Father and the Son, before the world was, as it is revealed in the Scripture, that is to be declared.
§ 3. To clear things in our way, we must treat somewhat of the name and nature of a covenant in general. The Hebrews call a covenant m2, and the Greeks Συνθηκη,, the Latins ‘ Feedus; the consideration of which words may be of some use, because of the original and most.famous translations of the Scripture. ‘ Fadus some deduce a feriendo, from striking And this was from the manner of making covenants, by the striking of the beast to be sacrificed in their confirmation. For all solemn covenants were always confirmed by sacrifice, especially between God and his people. Hence are they said to ‘make a covenant with him by sacrifice,’ Ps. 1. 5, offering sacrifice in the solemn confirmation of it. And when God solemnly confirmed his covenant with Abraham, he did it by causing a token
462 FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE FATHER AND SON ἢ of his presence to pass between the pieces of the beasts provided for sacrifice, Gen. xv. 17, 18, So when he made a covenant with Noah, it was ratified by sacrifice, Gen. viii. 20, 21, ix. 9,10. And to look still farther backwards, it is not improbable, but that upon the giving of the first promise, and laying the foundation of the new covenant therein, that Adam. had offered the beasts in sacrifice with whose skins he was clothed. And how the old covenant at Horeb was dedicated with the blood of sacrifices, our apostle declares, ch. ix. 18—20, from Exod. xxiv. 5—9. And all this was to let us know, that no covenant could ever be made between God and man after the entrance of sin, but upon the account of that great Sacrifice of our High Priest, which by those other was represented. Hence is the phrase Feedera ferire, ‘to strike a covenant.’ ‘Cicero pro Celio. Ideone ego pacem Pirrhi diremi ut tu amorum turpissimorum quotidies Federa ferires? J eedera ferire, and percutere, have the same rise and occasion. And the Hebrews express the making of a covenant by striking hands, though with respect unto another ceremony. Some derive the word ‘a Porca feede ceesa.’ For an hog was clean in the devil’s sacrifices. ‘ Ceesa jungebant federa Porca.’ Virg. And thence was the ancient formula of ratifying covenants by the striking and therewith killing of a hog, mentioned by the Roman historian. ‘Qui prior defexit publico consilio dolo malo tu illum Jupiter sic ferito, ut ego hune Porcum hodie feriam; tantoque magis, quanto magis potes pollesque. Upon the pronouncing of which words he killed the hog with a stone. And there was the same intention among them who in making a covenant, cut a beast in pieces, laying one equal part against another, and so passing between them. For they imprecated as it were upon themselves, that they might be so destroyed and cut into pieces if they stood not. unto the terms of the covenant. See Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19, where respect is had to the covenant made with the king of Babylon. But in the use and signification of this word, we are not much concerned.
§ 4. The Greek word is Συνθηκὴ; and so it is constantly used in all good authors for a solemn covenant between nations and persons. Only the translation of the LXX. takes no notice of it. For observing that mA ‘ Berith, in the Hebrew was of a larger signification, being applied to things of another nature than Συνθηκὴ (which denotes a precise compact or convention) could be extended unto, they rendered it constantly by διαθηκη, whereof we must treat elsewhere. Gen. xiv. 13. They render moa ὍΣ, covenanters, by cvvwpora, “ confeederati, or conjurati, confederates swom together. Wherefore of the word συνθηκὴ there is no use in this matter; the nature of the thing intended must be inquired ‘into.
§ 5, m2 is largely and variously used in the Old Testament. Nor are learned men agreed from what original it is derived: N72, and rma, and A are considered to this purpose. Sometimes it intends no more but peace and agreement, although there were no compact or convention to that purpose. For this is the end of all covenants, which are of three sorts, as the Macedonian ambassador declared to the Romans; for either they are between the conqueror and the conquered, or between enemies in equal power, or between those who were never engaged in enmity. The ends of all these sorts of covenants is mutual peace and security. Hence they are expressed by M3 a covenant: so Job ν. 23, J 2 AM ΣΝ oy, ‘Thy covenant shall be with the stones of the field, say we, ‘Thy league shall be; that is, thou shalt have no hurt from them. And Hos. ii. 18, a covenant is said to be made with the beasts of the field, and the fowls of hea- ven, and the creeping things of the earth. Security from damage by them, and the quiet use of them, is called a covenant metonymically and metaphorically, because peace and agreement are the end of covenants.
Secondly. Synecdochically, the law written on the two tables of stone was called the covenant, Exod. xxxiv. 28. ‘Ife wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Now this law was purely preceptive and an effect of sovereign authority, yet is it called a covenant. But this it is not absolutely in its own nature; seeing no mere precept nor system of precepts as such, nor any mere promise can bea covenant properly so called. But it was a principal part of God’s covenant with the people, when accepted by them as the rule of their obedience, with respect to the promises wherewith it was accompanied. Hence the tables of stone wherein this law was written, are called the tables of the covenant, Deut. ix. 1]. man mm> oar nm ow ms; ‘The two tables of stone, the tables of the covenant.’ These tables were first made by God himself, Exod. xxxi., ult, and given into the hands of Moses. And when they were broken, he was commanded 505 to efigiate them, or cut stones after their image, into their likeness; for the first were seen only by himself, Deut. x. 1; Exod. xxxiv. 1. And when they were broken, whereby their use and signification ceased, they were not kept as relics, though cut and written by the finger or divine power of God, which doubtless the superstition of succeeding ages would have attempted. But the true measure of the sacredness of any thing external, is use by divine appointment. And also the ark was hence called the ark of the covenant, and sometimes the covenant itself; because the two tables of stone, the tables of the covenant, were in it, 1 Kings vill. 9.
Thirdly. An absolute promise is also called M72 a covenant, the covenant of God, Isa. lix. 21. ‘ As for me this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth.’ And God also calls his decree constitutive of the law of nature, and its continuance his covenant, Jer. xxx. 20. ‘Thus saith the Lord, If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night,, that there should not be day and night in their season.’ It is therefore certain that where God speaks of his covenant, we cannot conclude, that whatever belongs unto a perfect complete covenant is therein intended. And they do but deceive themselves who, from the name of a covenant between God and man, do conclude always unto the nature and conditions of it. For the word is used in great variety, and what is intended by it must be learned from the subject-matter treated of; seeing thereis no precept or promise of God, but may be so called.
§ 6. In the making of covenants between men, yea in the covenant of God with men, besides that they were always conceived verbis expressis, there was some sign and token added for their confirmation. This was generally the slaying of some creature, and the dividing of it into parts before mentioned. Hence ‘sancire feedus’ and ‘sanctio feederis, ‘are asanguine,’ from the blood shed in their confirmation. Of the slaying of a beast, there is mention in all who have spoken of ancient covenants. So was it between the Romans and Albans, the form of which is reported by Livy, as that whose tradition was of greatest antiquity among them. And there are likewise instances of the division of the slain beasts into two parts, like what we observed before concerning Abraham; and concerning the princes of Judah in. Jeremiah. Ot Modorro: ἐν τοις ὁρκωμοσιαις κατακοπτοντες ELC μικρα τους Bove τας συνθηκας exovovvro: Herod. ‘The Molossians in their confederations cut oxen into small pieces, and so entered into covenants. And how these pieces or parts were disposed, Livy declares, lib. 39.‘ Prior pars ad dextram cum extis, posterior ad levam vie ponitur; inter hance divisam hostiam copie armate traducuntur. And thence it is that m3, which signifies to cut or divide, is used in the Scripture absolutely for making of a covenant without any addition of m72,-1 Sam. xx. 16; 1 Kings vii. 9. And although such outward things did never belong to the essence of a covenant, yet were they useful significations of fidelity, intended and accepted in the performance of what wasengaged in it. And therefore God himself never made a covenant with men, but he always gave them a token and visible pledge thereof. And whosoever is interested in the covenant itself, hath thereby a right unto, and is obliged to the use of the sign or token according to God’s appointment.
§ 7. An absolute complete covenant, is a voluntary convention, pact, or agreement between distinct persons, about the ordering and disposal of all things in their power, unto their mutual concern and advantage. Ist. Distinct persons are required unto a covenant, for itis a mutual compact. Asa mediator is not of one, that is, there must be several parties, and those at variance, or there is no room for the interposition of a mediator, Gal. 111. 20, so a covenant properly so called, is not of one. In the large sense wherein m2 is taken, a man’s resolution in himself with respect unto any especial end or purpose may be called his covenant; as Job xxxi. 1,‘I made a covenant with my eyes. And so God calleth his purpose or decree, concerning the orderly course of nature, in the instance before given. But a covenant properly so called, is the convention or agreement of two persons or more.
2. This agreement must be voluntary and of choice upon the election of the terms covenanted about. Hence m2 is by some derived from N72, which signifies to choose or elect. For such choice is the foundation of all solemn covenants: what is properly so, is founded on a free election of the terms of it, upon due consideration, and a right judgment made of them. Hence when one people is broken in war, or subdued by another, who prescribe terms unto them which they are forced as it were to accept for the present necessity, it is but an imperfect covenant, and as things are in the world, not like to be firm or stable. So some Legates answered in the Senate of Rome, when their people were subdued, Pacem habebitis qualem dederitis; si bonam, firmam et stabilem, sin haud diuturnam.
3. The matter of every righteous and complete covenant must be of things in the power of them who covenant and agree about them. Otherwise any, yea the most solemn compact is vain and ineffectual. A son or daughter in their father’s house, and under his care, making a vow or covenant for the disposal of themselves, can give no force unto it, because they are not in their own power. Hence when God invites and takes men into the covenant of grace, whereunto belongs a restipulation of faith and obedience, which are not absolutely in their own power, that the covenant may be firm and stable, he takes upon himself to enable them thereunto; and the efficacy of his grace unto that purpose is of the nature of the covenant. Hence when men enter into any compact, wherein one party takes on itself the performance of that which the other thinks to be, but is not really in its power, there is dolus malus in it, which enervates and disannuls the covenant itself. And many such compacts were rescinded by the senate and people of Rome, which were made by their generals without their consent; as those with the Gauls who besieged the Capitol, and with the Samnites, ad Furcas Caudinas.
Lastly. The end of a covenant is the disposal of the things about which the covenant is made, to the mutual content and satisfaction of all persons concerned. Hence was the ancient form, ‘Quod foelix faustumque sit huic et illi populo. If either party be absolutely and finally detrimented by it, it is no absolute, free, or voluntary covenant; but an agreement of a mixed nature, where the consent of one party is given only for the avoiding of a greater inconvenience. And these things we shall find of use-in our progress.
§8. As all these things concur in every equal compact, so there is an especial kind of covenant depending solely on the personal undertakings and services of one party, in order to the common ends of the covenant, or. the mutual satisfaction of the covenanters. So it is in all agreements where any thing is distinctly and peculiarly required of one party. And such covenants have three things in them: 1. A proposal of service. 2. A promise of reward. 3. An acceptance of the proposal, with a restipulation of obedience out of respect unto the reward. And this indispensably introduces an inequality and subordination in the covenanters, as to the common ends of the covenant, however on other accounts they may be equal. For he who prescribes the duties which are required in the covenant, and giveth the promises of either assistance in them, or a reward upon them, is therein and so far superior unto him, or greater than he, who observes his prescriptions, and trusts unto his promises. Of this nature is that divine transaction that was between the Father and Son, about the redemption of mankind. There was in it a prescription of personal services, with a promise of reward. And all the other conditions also of a complete covenant before laid down, are all observed therein. And this we must inquire into, as that wherein doth lie the foundation and original of the priesthood of Christ.
§ 9. First. Unto a proper covenant, it is required that it.be made between distinct persons. Such I have elsewhere proved the Father and Son to be; and in this discourse do take that fundamental principle of our profession as granted. That there were eternal transactions in general between those distinct persons, with respect unto the salvation of mankind, hath been evinced in the foregoing Exercitation. That these were federal, or had in them the nature of a covenant, is now farther to be manifested, And in general this is that which the Scripture intends, where God, that is the Father, is called by the Son, Ais God; and where he says that he will be unto him a God and a Father. For this expression of being a God unto any one is declarative of a covenant, and is the word whereby God con-
For when God declares that he will be a God unto any, he engageth to exercise the holy properties which belong to him as God, in their behalf and for their good. And this is not without an engagement of obedience from them. Now this declaration the Scripture abounds in, Ps. xvi. 2, ‘Thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord; these are the words of the Son -unto the Father, as is evident from ver. 9—11, Ps. xxii. 1, ‘My God, my God. Ps. xl. 8, ‘I delight to do thy will, O my God.’ Ps. xlv. 7, ‘God thy God hath anointed thee.’ Micah vy. 4, ‘He shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. John xx. 17, “1 ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’ Rey. i. 12, ‘I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God.’ All which expressions argue both a covenant, and a subordination therein.
And on this account it is that our Saviour says his Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28. This place I confess the ancients expound unanimously of the human nature only, to obviate the Arians who ascribed unto him a divine nature, but made, and absolutely in itself inferior to the nature of God. But the inferiority of the human nature to God or the Father, is a thing so unquestionable, as to need no declaration or solemn attestation; and the mention of it is no way suited unto the design of the place. But our Saviour speaks with respect unto the covenant engagement that was between the Father and himself, as to the work which he had to do.. For therein, as we shall farther manifest, the Father was the prescriber, the pro- τ miser, and lawgiver; and the Son was the undertaker upon his prescription, law, and promises. He is indeed, in respect of his divine personality, said to be God of God. No more is intended hereby, but that the person of the Son, as to his personality, was of the person of the Father, who communicated his nature and life unto him by eternal generation. But the Father on that account is not said to be his God, or to be a God unto him, which includes the acting of divine properties on his behalf; and a dependence on the other side on him who is so a God unto him. And this hath its sole foundation on that covenant, and the execution of it, which we are in the consideration of.
§ 10. Again, the transactions before insisted on and declared, are proposed to have been by the way of counsel, for the accomplishment of the end designed in a covenant, Zech. vi. 13. ow pa mon mbdw yy: ‘the counsel’ about peace-making between God and man, ‘was between them both; that is the two persons spoken of, namely, the Lord Jehovah, and he who was to be ΤῊΣ the branch. And this was not spoken of him absolutely as he was a man, or was to be a man; for so there was not properly ΤῈ or counsel between God and him. For who ‘hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?’ Rom. xi. 34. And besides, the Son in his human nature was merely the servant of the Father to do his will, Isa. xlii. 1. But God takes this counsel with him, as he was his eternal Wisdom; only with respect unto his future incarnation. For therein he was to be both the branch of the Lord, and the fruit of the earth, Isa. iv. 2. Hereunto regard also is had in his name, Isa. ix. 6. ‘He shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor; for these titles, with those that follow, do not absolutely denote properties of the divine nature, though they are such divine titles and attributes as cannot be ascribed unto any but to him who is God.