Page images


which I had with thee before the world was.” What then
can be supposed wanting to complete the form of a covenant,
which we have not here P
XI. In fine, all these things may be confirmed from this,
that Christ likewise made use of the Sacraments; not only as
to the matter of these institutions, as they were divine com-
mands, the observance of which was to him meritorious; but
as to the form, as they were signs and seals, of the covenant;
God the Father, by the use of them, sealed the federal pro-
mise concerning justification from sins, not his own personal
sins, either of commission or omission, (for such he had none,
2 Cor. v. 21. 1 Pet. ii. 18) but from those, which, by a
voluntary engagement, he took upon himself as his own, and
from which, as surety, he was justified in the Spirit, 1 Tim.
ifi. 16; and also concerning life eternal, to be bestowed on
him and his; God the Son, in the use of them, acknowkdged
himself a debtor to fulfil all righteousness: as these things
have been already observed and explained by the celebrated
Voetius, disput. de fide Christi, ejusque sacramentorum usu.
Disput. T. ii. p. 160, and Essenius, de subjectione Christi ad
legem divinam, c. 10. § 11. But let us illustrate this by
an example. In the baptism of Christ, there was an evident
sealing of the covenant of both sides. Christ declared, that
it was his province to fulfil all righteousness. To that he
bound himself by baptism; telling John, o his refusing to
baptize him, “suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us
to fulfil all righteousness,” Matt. iii. 16. The Father declared,
that he accepted the suretiship: “in thee I am well pleased,”
Luke iii. 22. and put him in mind of the inheritance; “thou
art my Son.” And all these o he sealed by the symbol of
the #. Ghost descending upon him.
XII. As these things are evident, and contain a demonstra-
tion of the truth to the conscience, I would not have Psal.
xvi. 2. strained to this purpose: “thou hast said unto the
Lord, thou art my Lord: Toby on "nail, my goodness (is not
upon thee) extendeth not to thee.” As if in these words there
was an address of God the Father to the Son, to this purpose:

I require nothing more of thee as a satisfaction to me, in

order to display my grace. For thus a learned author paraphrases these words. Thou hast said to the Lord, &c. Thou Son of man hast acknowledged, that Jehovah is the Lord, and hast engaged thy obedience to him. Thou by loving and obeying as a servant, even unto death (to which thou offerest thyself) hast declared me to be Lord, and honoured me with a perfect obedience. As to any advantage to be obtained, my

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small]

goodness, that is, my grace, and the benefits depending there-
on, eatendeth not to thee, (is not upon thee) that is, thou art
rolixusuioc, an absolute and perfect Saviour. What was laid
upon thee, or what thou wast bound by suretiship to perform,
that my ness might extend to mankind, that thou hast
performed, and I accept of the whole. Thus by generally de-
notes something new, both among the Hebrews, and in the
sacred writings. - - -
XIII. But I think these things are strained, and do not
run with that smoothness one could wish. For, 1st. There
is nothing which obliges us to humagine, unless we incline so
to do, that there is in these words, an address God the

Father to the Son; since the whole of this P has not

the least appearance of a dialogue, but only represents a sin-
gle person speaking in one continued discourse, whom Pis.
cator, by weighty o proves to be the Lord Jesus.
The learned person himself ks thus: “It is certain this
discourse may be ascribed to the Son, as addressing himself.”
And therefore I say it is certainly possible, that this discourse
cannot contain the approbation of the Father, acquiescing in
the obedience of the Son. For if the Son addresses his own
soul, which said to Jehovah, “ thou art my Lord, and m
goodness extendeth not to thee;” doubtless the Son said this
to the Father, and not the Father to the Son. 2dly. I own
that these words which the Son says to the Father, or the
Father to the Son, are so emphatical, that they cannot, in
their full signification, be supposed to be spoken by either of
them to the other, on account of the peculiar erce which
is in the Son, Heb. i. 4. But I question whether any can be
easily persuaded that the approbation of the most perfect
†: of the Son, and the acquiescence of the Father there-
in are expressed in such slender terms. Thou hast, said, thou
art my Lord. I appeal to any who teaches the good know-
ledge of the Lord, as it is said of the Levites, 2 Chron.
xxx. 22. whether those words of scripture be such, as that
nothing can be devised more proper to illustrate that sense .
which the very learned person elsewhere requires, before he
uiesces in the meaning assigned, Sum. Theol. c. 3., § 30.
i. It is very true, that by sometimes, among the Hebrews,
signifies something due. The very learned De Dieu, on Gen.
xvi. 5. has long ago observed this, from the writings of the
Hebrews and also of the Arabs. But that signification does
not seem proper to this place. For, Christ was neither, in-lo
debted to God for his goodness or grace, and the blessings
depending upon it: Nor did he properly owe the grace of

[ocr errors]

----------------------------------, -, -, -, ------------... ...------,

174 The coven ANT BETWEEN [book 11.

God to believers. But it was by virtue of a compact that he
owed obedience to God; on performing which, God owed to
Christ, and to them who are Christ's, the reward promised by
the compact, which is given to Christ as a due debt. The
signification of being due might be insisted upon, had it been
said my law, or satisfaction to my justice, or something to
that purpose, is no more upon thee, no longer extendeth to
thee. But we must fetch a strange compass to make these
words, my goodness extendeth not to thee (is not upon thee)
to signify, Thou art no *. indebted to my goodness, and
again, that the meaning of them should be, Thou hast done
every thing to which thou wast bound, that my so mig
be eartended to men. And I verily doubt whether it could
ever come into any one's mind, that, “such an explication is
the fullest, the most simple, and most suited to the connexion:
In fine, that it is such, that none who compares it with the
words of scripture can devise a more happy manner of ex-
pressing the thing; and that therein an inexpressible degree
of light, truth, and wisdom, may be discovered.” For these
are laws of interpretation which the very learned person him-
self has laid down. Sum. Theol. c. 6. § 38.
XIV. 4thly. Another sense may be fairly brought from
the words of the Psalm, which has nothing either harsh or
strained, and contains what is becoming the wisdom of God,
as thus: the Lord Jesus being deeply engaged in holy medi-
tations, addresses his soul, or himself: and declares, that
while in his meditation he said to Jehovah the Father, thou
art the Lord, all-sufficient to and by thyself for all happiness;
and therefore by this whole work of my Mediation, and
consequently by all my obedience, no accession of new or
greater happiness is made to thee, nor canst thou be enriched
by my satisfaction; my goodness extendeth not to thee: Thou
receivest no benefit thereby: all the fruit of my satisfaction
redounds to thy pious ...' chosen people. See Job xxii. 2.
and xxv. 7. The comment of Ben Nachman on the former
place is elegant, agreeing very much with the . in
our text; he declares, “That no addition of good is made to
God, when any good is done.” All which words contain a
salutary truth, instructing us concerning the all-sufficiency of
God, to whom no new good can accrue from any quarter, and
concerning the fruit of Christ's satisfaction, as redounding
to the godly : and are most adapted to the words and analogy
of the whole Psalm. For by many times in scripture signifies
the same as on, to. I shall produce a place or two which
occurred to me when meditating on these things in reading

[ocr errors]

*** *** ... ------ *.****** *** *** --------- ******* *** * * * *


the scriptures: what Micah says, chap. iv. 1. borny Yoby Yonx,
and people shall flow unto it: This Isaiah expresses as
follows, chap. ii. 2 boxn be obn Yinz, and all nations shall
flow unto it. Where by and bw are taken in the same
signification. In like manner, 2 Chron. xxx. 1. Wrote let-
ters, bonnn by, that is, to the Ephraimites; it is still more to
the purpose, what we have, 1 Sam. chap. i. 10. pr
ed unto the Lord, and Psal. xviii. 41. They cried unto .
Lord, but he answered them not. Sometimes it signifies the
same thing as Ty up to, or quite to, as 2 Chron. xxxii. 5.
and raised (the wall) to the "towers : not that it is credi-
ble the wall exceeded the towers in height. Jer. iv. 18. it
reacheth unto thine heart. You may add other instances from
Glassius Phil. Sacr. p. 773. As therefore the use of this
particle is very extensive, we have no reason to restrain its sig-
nification to owing or being due, which seems less adapted to
this place.
XV. I speak not these things with a view to detract any
thing from the due praises of the very learned interpreter, to
whom I profess myself greatly indebted, but because nothing
is dearer to me than to search out the true meaning of the
Spirit speaking in the scriptures. And while I am wholly
intent upon this, I cannot avoid sometimes examining the
opinions of others; even of those for whom I have otherwise
the greatest veneration. Faith is none of those things which
may be imposed by any human authority; neither is any in-
jury done even to the greatest of men, when we declare our
o in a modest manner: whether we have done so here
or not, must be left to the determination of the impartial
reader, who may also judge whether by these observations,
I have deserved that severe language which the very famous
person Dr. John van der Waeyen, was pleased to throw out
against me in Sum. Theol. Christ. lib,i. c. 4, 5, 267. Seq.
He very much complains that I called that explication of the
celebråted Cocceius harsh and forced, and that the words of
the Psalm were wrested to that meaning. I own indeed, I,
had formerly wrote in this manner out of my simplicity, nor
did I imagine there was either reproach or injury contained.
in these words: But there is no force of argument in the ,
tartness of language : and that the least appearance of that
may not remain, I now alter it, and instead of wrested, say
harsh, not running so smoothly. The rest. I cancel. Ifreely
forgive the ill, language of my Reprover, as becomes a Chris-
tian. It does not i. to him, but to our common Lord,
to pass a judgment on my intention. As to the subject itself,

[ocr errors]

176 The Coven ANT BETWEEN [Book 11.

I beseech the reader to compare my reasonings with his; and if he thinks that mine are solidly confuted, I am not against his differing in every respect from me as I differ o and the simple o: of the words which I maintain, with the generality of expositors, began the more to please me, the more I saw my reprover stand in need for the defence of his opinion of such a compass of words, and so far

fetched and intricate subtleties: I have no inclination minute

ly to consider the rest. . Each one has his own temper, his

own way of writing: which is I cannot commend, I endea-
VOur to with. But I return from this unwilling digres-
XVI. As the doctrine of the covenant between the Father
and the Son is so expressly delivered in scripture, it is un-
justly traduced as a new and a late invention. Though I find
few among the more ancient who have professedly handled
this subject, yet some of the greatest divines have sometimes
made mention of this covenant. I say nothing now of Armi-
nius, who does not carelessly discourse on this covenant, in
his oration for the degree of doctor; from which the very
accurate Amesius produces and commends some things in
Rescriptione ad Grevinchovium, c. i. Amesius himself, in
Anti-Synodalibus, de morte Christi, c. 1. § 5. charges a cer-
tain distinction of the Remonstrants with this absurdity, that
“it denies that the covenant entered into with Christ (he
shall see his seed, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper
in his hand,) had been ratified.” Gomarus, treating of the
baptism of Christ, on Matt. iii. 13. says, that it was the
“sign and seal of the covenant between God and Christ;
namely, that God would be his God, and the bestower of
salvation; but he himself was bound to perform obedience
from a principle of perpetual gratitude.” In like manner, on
Luke ii. 21. of the circumcision of Christ, he says, that it
was “a sign and seal of the covenant with God: which co-
venant consisted in this; partly that God was the God of
Christ, according to the general promise, made also to him,
Gen. xvii. 7. as to the seed of Abraham, Gal. iii. 16. and
according to the singular character given of him, Psal. xlv. 7.
Heb. i. 9, partly, that Christ was bound to obey the will of
God,” John vi. 38. Matt. v. 17. See his disput. de merito
Christi, § 1. The very learnei Cloppenburgius, disput, 3.
de foedere Dei, not . slightly mentions this subject, but
fully and accurately handles it. The very famous Voetius, Dis-
put. T. ii. p. 266. says, “He (Christ) was subject for us to
a special law of paying our debt by a condign punishment, as

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »