EXERCITATION 25.

THE OFFICE OF PRIESTHOOD. 1. Excellence and usefulness of this Epistle — Doctrine of the priesthood of Christ fully revealed and taught therein alone. 2. This doctrine abstruse and mysterious. 3. The manner of the handling of it by the apostle; that now proposed. 4. Doctrine of the priesthood of Christ variously opposed and prayed, by Papists, Socinians, and others. 5. Other reasons of handling it in these Exercitations — Prefigurations of it. 6, 7. ˆheKo, a priest — Signification of the word, <19B001>Psalm 110. 4. 8. ˆhk, to divine — Divination and prognostication by priests. 9. Of the priests of Egypt. 10. Rulers called cohanim, and why — Cohen properly & sacrificer. 11. Melchizedek the first priest, a sacrificer; corruption of the Targum — Of his bringing forth bread and wine — The tenth of the spoils offered to God. 12. Institution of a priesthood under the law to offer sacrifice — A priest and a sacrificer the same. 1. AMONGST the many excellencies of this Epistle unto the Hebrews, which render it as useful to the church as the sun in the firmament is unto the world, the revelation that is made therein concerning the nature, singular pre-eminence, and use of thePRIESTHOOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, may well be esteemed to deserve the first and principal place; for whereas the whole matter of the sacrifice that he offered, and the atonement that he made thereby, with the inestimable benefits which thence redound unto them that do believe, depend solely hereon, the excellency of the doctrine hereof must needs be acknowledged by all who have any interest in these things. It is indeed, in the substance of it, delivered in some other passages of the books of the New Testament, but yet more sparingly and obscurely than any other truth of the same or a like importance. The Holy Ghost reserved it unto this as its proper place, where, upon the consideration of the institutions of the old testament and their removal out of the church, it might be duly represented, as that which gave an end unto them in their accomplishment, and life unto those ordinances of evangelical worship which were to succeed in their room.

When our Lord Jesus says that he came to “give his life a ransom for many,” Matthew 20:28, he had respect unto the sacrifice that he had to offer as a priest. The same also is intimated where he is called “The Lamb of God,” John 1:29; for he was himself both priest and sacrifice. Our apostle also mentioneth his sacrifice and his offering of himself unto God, Ephesians 5:2; on the account whereof he calleth him “a propitiation,” Romans 3:25; and mentioneth also his “intercession,” with the benefits thereof, chap. 8:34. The dearest testimony to this purpose is that of the apostle John, who puts together both the general acts of his sacerdotal office, and intimates withal their mutual relation, 1 John 2:1,2; for his intercession as our “advocate” with his Father respects his oblation as he was a “propitiation for our sins.” So the same apostle tells us to the same purpose, that he “washed us in his own blood,” Revelation 1:5, when he expiated our sins by the sacrifice of himself. These are, if not all, yet the principal places in the New Testament wherein immediate respect is had to the priesthood or sacrifice of Christ. But in none of them is he called “a priest,” or “an high priest,” nor is he said in any of them to have taken any such office upon him; neither is the nature of his oblation or intercession explained in them, nor the benefits rehearsed which accrue unto us from his discharge of this office in a peculiar manner. Of what concernment these things are unto our faith, obedience, and consolation, — of what use unto us in the whole course of our profession, in all our duties and temptations, sins and sufferings, — we shall, God assisting, declare in the ensuing Exposition. Now, for all the acquaintance we have with these and sundry other evangelical mysteries belonging unto them or depending on them, with all the light we have into the nature and use of Mosaical institutions, and the types of the old testament, which make so great a part of the Scripture given and continued for our instruction, we are entirely obliged unto the revelation made in and by this Epistle. 2. And this doctrine, concerning the priesthood of Christ and the sacrifice that he offered, is on many accounts deep and mysterious. This our apostle plainly intimates in sundry passages of this Epistle. With respect hereunto he saith, the discourse he intended was dusermh>neutov , “hard to be uttered,” — or rather, hard to be understood when uttered, chap. 5:11; as also another apostle, that there are in this Epistle dusno>nta> tina , 2 Peter 3:16, “some things hard to be understood,” which relate hereunto. Hence he requires that those who attend unto this doctrine should be past the condition of living on “milk” only, or being contented with the first rudiments and principles of religion; and that they be able to digest “strong meat,” by having “their senses exercised to discern both good and evil,” Hebrews 5:12-14. And when he resolves to proceed in the explication of it, he declares that he is leading them “on unto perfection,” chap. 6:1, or to the highest and most perfect doctrines in the mystery of Christian religion. And several other ways he manifests his judgment, as of the importance of this truth, and how needful it is to be known, so of the difficulty there is in coming to a right and full understanding of it. And all these things do justify an especial and peculiar inquiry into it. 3. Now, although our apostle, in his excellent order and method, hath delivered unto us all the material concernments of this sacred office of Christ, yet he hath not done it in an entire discourse, but in such a way as his subject-matter and principal design would admit of, and indeed did necessitate. He doth not in any one place, nor upon any one occasion, express and teach the whole of the doctrine concerning it, but, as himself speaks in another case, polumerw~v kai< polutro>pwv , “by various parts,” or degrees, and “in sundry ways,” he declares and makes known the several concernments of it: for this he did partly as the Hebrews could bear it; partly as the series of his discourse led him to the mention of it, having another general end in design; and partly as the explanation of the old Aaronical institutions and ordinances, which, for the benefit of them that still adhered unto them, he aimed at, required it of him. For me to have undertaken the discourse of the whole upon any particular occasion, would have lengthened out a digression too much, diverting the reader in his perusal of the Exposition; and had I insisted on the several parks and concernments of it as they do occur, I should have been necessitated unto a frequent repetition of the same things. Neither way could I have given an entire representation of it, whereby the beauty and the symmetry of the whole might be made evident. This, therefore, inclined my thoughts, in the first place, to comprise a summary of the entire doctrine concerning it in these previous Exercitations. From hence, as the reader may take a prospect of it singly by itself, so he may, if he please, carry along much insight with him from it into the most abstruse passages in the whole Epistle. And this, added unto what we have discoursed on chap. 1:2, concerning the kingly right and power of Christ, will give a more full and complete account of these his two offices than, it may be, hath as yet been attempted by any. 4. Moreover, the doctrine concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of the Lord Christ hath in all ages, by the craft and malice of Satan, been either directly opposed or variously corrupted; for it contains the principal foundation of the faith and consolation of the church, which are by him chiefly maligned. It is known in how many things and by how many ways it hath been obscured and depraved in the Papacy. Sundry of them we have occasion to deal about in our exposition of many passages of the Epistle; for they have not so much directly opposed the truth of the doctrine, as, disbelieving the use and benefit of the thing itself unto the church, they have substituted various false and superstitious observances to effect the end whereunto this priesthood of Christ and his holy discharge thereof are alone of God designed. These, therefore, I shall no otherwise consider but as their opinions and practices occur occasionally unto us, either in these Exercitations or in the Exposition ensuing. But there is a generation of men, whom the craft of Satan hath stirred up in this and the foregoing age, who have made it a great part of their preposterous and pernicious endeavors in and about religion to overthrow this whole office of the Lord Christ, and the efficacy of the sacrifice of himself depending thereon. This they have attempted with much subtilty and diligence, introducing a metaphorical or imaginary priesthood and sacrifice in their room; so, robbing the church of its principal treasure, they pretend to supply the end of it with their own fancies. They are the Socinians whom I intend. And there are more reasons than one why I could not omit a strict examination of their reasonings and objections against this great part of the mystery of the gospel. The reputation of parts, industry, and learning, which the bold curiosity of some hath given unto them, makes it necessary, at least upon unavoidable occasions, to obviate the insinuation of their poison, which that opens a way for. Besides, even among ourselves, they are not a few who embrace and do endeavor to propagate their opinions. And the same course, with their faces seeming to look another way, is steered by the Quakers, who have at last openly espoused almost all their pernicious tenets, although in some things as yet they obscure their sentiments in cloudy expressions, as wanting will or skill to make a more perspicuous declaration of them. And there are others also, pretending unto more sobriety than those before mentioned, who do yet think that these doctrines concerning the offices and mediation of Christ are, if not unintelligible by us, yet not of any great necessity to be insisted on; for of that esteem are the mysteries of the gospel grown to be with some, with many among us. With respect unto all these, added unto the consideration of the edification of those that are sober and godly, I esteemed it necessary to handle this whole doctrine of the priesthood of Christ distinctly, and previously unto our exposition of the uses of it as they occur in the Epistle. 5. There are also sundry things which may contribute much light unto this doctrine, and be useful in the explication of the terms, notions, and expressions, which are applied unto the declaration of it, that cannot directly and orderly be reduced under any singular text or passage in the Epistle. Many dawnings there were in the world unto the rising of this Sun of Righteousness, — many preparations for the actual exhibition of this High Priest unto the discharge of his office. And some of these were greatly instructive in the nature of this priesthood, as being appointed of God for that purpose. Such was the use of sacrifices, ordained from the foundation of the world, or the first entrance of sin; and the designation of persons in the church unto the office of a figurative priesthood, for the performance of that service. By these God intended to instruct the church in the nature and benefit of what he would after accomplish, in and by his Son Jesus Christ. These things, therefore, – that is, what belonged unto the rite of sacrificing and the Mosaical priesthood, – must be taken into consideration, as retaining yet that light in them which God had designed them to be communicative of. And, indeed, our apostle himself reduceth many of the instructions which he gives us in the nature of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ unto those institutions which were designed of old to typify and represent them. Besides all these, there may be observed sundry things in the common usages of mankind about this office, and the discharge of it in general, that deserve our consideration; for although all mankind, left out of the church’s enclosure, through their own blindness and the craft of him who originally seduced them into an apostasy from God, had, as to their own interest and practice, miserably depraved all sacred things, every thing that belonged to the worship or service of the Divine Being, yet they still carried along with them something that had its first fountain and spring in divine revelation, and a congruity unto the inbred principles of nature. In these also, — where we can separate the wheat from the chaff, what was from divine revelation or the light of nature from what was of diabolical delusion or vain superstition, — we may discover what is useful and helpful unto us in our design. By these means may we be enabled to reduce all sacred truth in this matter unto its proper principles, and direct it unto its proper end. And these are the reasons why, although we shall have frequent occasion to insist on this office of Christ, with the proper acts and effects of it, in our ensuing Exposition, both in that part of it which accompanies these Exercitations and those also which, in the goodness and patience of God, may follow, yet I thought meet to handle the whole doctrine of it apart in preliminary discourses. And let not the reader suppose that he shall be imposed on with the same things handled in several ways twice over: for as the design of the Exposition is to open the words of the text, to give their sense, with the purpose and arguings of the apostle, applying all unto the improvement of our faith and obedience, whereof nothing will here fall under our consideration; so what may be here discoursed, historically, philologically, dogmatically, or eristically, will admit of no repetition or rehearsal in the expository part of our endeavors. These things being premised, as was necessary, we apply ourselves unto the work lying before us. 6. Our Lord Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament, as prophesied of, called ˆheKo , “cohen:” <19B004> Psalm 110:4, µl;wO[l] ˆhekoAhT;aæ ; — “Thou art cohen for ever.” And Zechariah 6:13, wOas]KiAl[æ ˆheko hy;h;w] ; — “And he shall be cohen upon his throne.” We render it in both places “a priest ;” that is, iJereu>v , “sacerdos.” In the New Testament, — that is, in this Epistle, — he is frequently said to be iJereu>v and ajrciereu>v ; which we likewise express by “priest” and “high priest,” — “ pontifex,” “pontifex maximus.”

And the meaning of these words must be first inquired into. 7. ˆhæK; , the verb, is used only in Piel, “cihen;” and it signifies “sacerdotio fungi,” or “munus sacerdotale exercere,” — “to be a priest,” or “to exercise the office of the priesthood;” iJerourge>w . The LXX mostly render it by iJerateu>w , which is “sacerdotio fungor,” — “ to exercise the priestly office;” although it be also used in the inauguration or consecration of a person to the priesthood. Once they translate it by leitourge>w , Chronicles 11:14, “in sacris operari,” — “to serve (or minister) in (or about) sacred things.” JIerourge>w is used by our apostle in this sense, and applied unto the preaching of the gospel: Eijv to< ei+nai> me letourgolion tou~ Qou~ , Romans 15:16; — “Employed in the sacred ministration of the gospel.” He useth both leitourgo>v and iJerourge>w metaphorically, with respect unto the prosfora> or sacrifice which he made of the Gentiles, which was also metaphorical. And iJerateu>w is used by Luke with respect unto the Jewish service in the temple, chap. 1:8; for originally both the words have respect unto proper sacrifices.

Some would have the word ˆheKe to be ambiguous, and to signify “officio fungi, aut ministrare in sacris aut politicis,” — “to discharge an office, or to minister in things sacred or political.” But no instance can be produced of its use to this purpose. Once it seems to be applied unto things not sacred. Isaiah 61:10, ˆt;j;K, ; — “As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments;” or, “adorneth himself with beauty;” that is, beautiful garments. If the word did originally and properly signify “to adorn,” it might be thence translated unto the exercise of the office of the priesthood, seeing the priests therein were, by especial institution, to be clothed with garments tr,a;p]til]W dwbk;l] , Exodus 28:40, “for glory and for beauty.”

So the priests of Moloch were called “chemarims,” from the color of their garments, or their countenances made black with the soot of their fire and sacrifices. But this is not the proper signification of the word; only, denoting the priesthood to be exercised in beautiful garments and sundry ornaments, it was thence traduced to express adorning. The LXX render it by periti>qhmi , but withal acknowledge somewhat sacerdotal in the expression: JWv numfi>w| perie>qnke> moi mi>tran? — “He hath put on me” (restraining the action unto God) “a mitre as on a bridegroom;” which was a sacerdotal ornament. And Aquila, “as a bridegroom, iJerateume>nov stefa>nw|? .” — “ bearing the crown of the priesthood,” or discharging the priest’s office in a crown. And the Targum, observing the peculiar application of the word in this place, adds, akd anhkkw , — “And as an high priest is adorned.” All agree that an allusion is made to the garments and ornaments of the high priest. The place may be tendered, “As a bridegroom, he” (that is God, the bridegroom of the church) “doth consecrate me with glory,” — “ gloriously set me .apart for himself.” The word therefore is sacred; and though ˆheKo be traduced to signify other persons, as we shall see afterwards, yet ˆheKo [properly] is only used in a sacred sense. 8. The Arabic ˆhk , “cahan,” is “to divine, to prognosticate, to be a soothsayer, to foretell;” and ˆhak , “caahan,” is “a diviner, a prophet, an astrologer, a figure-caster.” This use of it came up after the priests had generally taken themselves unto such arts, partly curious, partly diabolical, by the instigation of the false gods whom they ministered unto.

Homer puts them together, as they came afterwards mostly to be the same, Iliad. A. 62: — jAll j a]ge dh> tina ma>ntin ejrei>omen , h] iJerh~a ]H kai< ojneiropo>lon? — “A prophet, or a priest, or an interpreter of dreams.”

Ma>gouv kai< ajstrono>mouv te kaitav metepe>mpeto , Herod., lib. iv.; — “He sent for magicians, astronomers, and priests,” for qu>thv is a priest; for the priests first gave out oracles and divinations in the temples of their gods. From them proceeded a generation of impostors, who exceedingly infatuated the world with a pretense of foretelling things to come, of interpreting dreams, and doing things uncouth and strange, unto the amazement of the beholders. And as they all pretended to derive their skill and power from their gods, whose priests they were, so they invented, or had suggested unto them by Satan, various ways and means of divination, or of attaining the knowledge of particular future events.

According unto those ways which in especial any of them attended unto were they severally denominate. Generally they were called µymik;j\ , “wise men ;” as those of Egypt, Genesis 41:8, and of Babylon, Daniel 2:12,13. Hence we render ma>goi , the followers of their arts, “wise men,” Matthew 2:1. Among the Egyptians they were divided into two sorts, µyMifur]jæ and µypiV]kæm] , Exodus 7:11; the head of one sort in the days of Moses being probably Jannes, and of the other Jambres, 2 Timothy 3:8. We call them “magicians and sorcerers.” Among the Babylonians there is mention of these, and two sorts more are added unto them, namely, µypiV;aæ and µyDic]Kæ , Daniel 2:2. Of the difference and distinction among these we shall treat afterwards. From this practice of the generality of priests did ˆhæK; come to signify “to soothsay” or “divine.” 9. ˆheKo is then a priest; and he who was first called so in the Scripture, probably in the world, was Melchizedek, Genesis 14:18. On what account he was so called shall be afterwards declared. Sometimes, though rarely, it is applied to express a priest of false gods; as of Dagon, Samuel 5:5; of Egypt, Genesis 41:45, “Joseph married the daughter of Poti-pherah, ˆao ãheKo ,” — “priest of On,” that is, of Heliopolis, the chief seat of the Egyptian religious worship. Nor is there any color why the word should here be rendered “prince,” as it is, abr , by the Targum, — the Latin is “sacerdos,” and the LXX. iJereu>v , — for the dignity of priests, especially of those who were eminent among them, was no less at that time in Egypt, and other parts also of the world, than was that of princes of the second sort; yea, we shall consider instances afterwards wherein the kingly and priestly orifices were conjoined in the same person, although none ever had the one by virtue of the other but upon special reason. It was therefore, as by Pharaoh intended, an honor to Joseph to be married unto the daughter of the priest of On; for the man, according unto their esteem, was wise, pious, and honorable, seeing the wisdom of the Egyptians at that time consisted principally in the knowledge of the mysteries of their religion, and from their excellency therein were they exalted and esteemed honorable. Nor can it be pleaded, in bar to this exposition, that Joseph would not marry the daughter of an idolatrous priest, for all the Egyptians were no less idolatrous than their priests, and he might as soon convert one of their daughters to the true God as one of any other; which no doubt he did, whereon she became a matriarch in Israel. In other places, where, by ˆheKo , an idolatrous priest is intended, the Targum renders it by armwk ; “comara,” whence are chemarims. Yet the Syriac translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls a priest and an high priest, even when applied unto Christ, ar;m;WK and arem;WK bræ , though elsewhere in the New Testament he useth an;h\K; , “chahana,” constantly.

The reason hereof I have declared elsewhere. 10. It is confessed that this name is sometimes used to signify secondary princes, those of a second rank or degree, but is never once applied unto a chief, supreme prince, or a king, though he that is so was sometimes, by virtue of some special warrant, cohen also. The Jews, therefore, after the Targum, offer violence to the text, <19B004> Psalm 110:4, where they would have Melchizedek to be called a cohen because he was a prince. But it is said expressly he was a king, of which rank none is, on the account of his office, ever called cohen; but unto those of a second rank it is sometimes accommodated: 2 Samuel 20:26, “Ira the Jairite was dwid;l] ˆheKo ,” — “a chief ruler,” say we, “about David.” A priest he was not, nor could be; for, as Kimchi on the place observes, he is called the “cohen of David,” but a priest was not a priest unto one man, but unto all Israel. So David’s sons are said to be cohanim: 2 Samuel 8:18, Wyh; µynih\Ko dwid; yneb]W, — “And the sons of David were cohanim;” that is, “princes,” though the Vulgate renders it “sacerdotes.” So also Job 12:19, we translate it “princes.”

And in those places the Targum useth abr , “rabba;” the LXX sometimes aujla>rchv , “a principal courtier,” and sometimes suneto>v , “a counsellor.”

It is, then, granted that princes were called µynih\Ko , but not properly, but by way of allusion, with respect unto their dignity; for the most ancient dignity was that of the priesthood. And the same name is therefore used metaphorically to express especial dignity: Exodus 19:6, µynih\Ko tk,l,m]mæ yliAWyh]ti ; — “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,” speaking of the whole people. This Peter renders basi>leion iJera>teuma , 1 Peter 2:9, — “ A kingly” (or “royal”) “priesthood.” The name of the office is hN;huK] , Exodus 40:15, ijera>teuma , “pontificatus, sacerdotium,” “the priesthood.” Allowing, therefore, this application of the word, we may inquire what is the first proper signification of it. I say, therefore, that ˆheKo , “cohen,” is properly qu>thv , “a sacrificer;” nor is it otherwise to be understood or expounded, unless the abuse of the word be obvious, and a metaphorical sense necessary. 11. He who is first mentioned as vested with this office is Melchizedek: Genesis 14:18, ˆwOyl][, lael] ˆheko aWhw] ; — “And he was a priest unto the most high God.” The Targumists make a great difference in rendering the word ˆheKo . Where it intends a priest of God properly, they retain it, ˆhk and anhk ; where it is applied unto a prince or ruler, they render it by abr , “rabba;” and where an idolatrous priest, by armwk . But in this matter of Melchizedek they are peculiar. In this place they use çmçm , “meshamesh:” hal[ la µdq çmçm awhw , — “And he was a minister before the high God.” And by this word they express the ministry of the priests: Exodus 19:22, ˆybyrqd aynhk yyy µdq açmçl , — The priests who draw nigh to minister before the Lord;” whereby it is evident that they understood him to be a sacred officer, or a priest unto God. But in <19B004> Psalm 110:4, where the same word occurs again to the same purpose, they render it by abr , “a prince,” or great ruler: “Thou art a great ruler like Melchizedek:” which is a part of their open corruption of that psalm, out of a design to apply it unto David; for the author of that Targum lived after they knew full well how the prophecy in that psalm was in our books and by Christians applied unto the Messiah, and how the ceasing of their law and worship was from thence invincibly proved in this Epistle.

This made them maliciously pervert the words in their paraphrase, although they durst not violate the sacred text itself. But the text is plain, “Melchizedek was cohen to the high God,” — “a priest,” or one that was called to the office of solemn sacrificing to God; for he that offereth not sacrifices to God is not a priest to him, for this is the principal duty of his office, from which the whole receives denomination. That he offered sacrifices, those of the church of Rome would prove from these words, Genesis 14:18, ˆyiy;w; µj,l, ayxiwOh ; — “He brought forth bread and wine.” But neither the context nor the words will give them countenance herein; nor if they could prove what they intend would it serve their purpose. Coming forth to meet Abraham (as our apostle expounds this passage, Hebrews 7), he brought forth bread and wine, as a supply for the relief and refreshment of himself and his servants, supposing them weary of their travel. So dealt Barzillai the Gileadite with David and his men in the wilderness, 2 Samuel 17:27-29. They brought out necessary provision for them, for they said, “The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.” And Gideon punished them of Succoth and Penuel for not doing the like, Judges 8:5-8, 13-17. But the aim of these men is to reflect some countenance on their pretended sacrifice of the mass; which yet is not of bread and wine, for before the offering they suppose them to be quite changed into the substance of flesh and blood.

The weakness of this pretense shall be elsewhere more fully declared. At present it may suffice that ayxiwOh is no sacred word, or is never used to express the offering of any thing unto God. Besides, if it were an offering he brought forth, it was a hj’n]mi , or “meat-offering,” with a Ës,ne , or “drink-offering,” being of bread and wine. Now, this was only an acknowledgment of God the Creator as such, and was not an immediate type of the sacrifice of Christ; which was represented by them alone which, being made by blood, included a propitiation in them. But that Melchizedek was by office a sacrificer appears from Abraham delivering up unto him lKomi rce[\mæ , Genesis 14:20, “the tenth of all;” that is, as our apostle interprets the place, tw~n ajkroqini>wn , “of the spoils” he had taken. rce[\mæ is a sacred word, and denotes God’s portion according to the law. So also those who had only the light of nature, and it may be some little fame of what was done in the world of old, whilst God’s institutions were of force among men, did devote and sacrifice the tenth of the spoils they took in war. So Camillus framed his vow unto Apollo when he went to destroy the city of Veil: “Tuo ductu Pythice Apollo, tuoque numine instinctus, pergo ad delendam urbem Veios, tibique hinc decumam partem praedae voveo,” Liv., lib. v. cap. xxi.

The like instances occur in other authors. jAkroqi>nia is not used for the spoils themselves anywhere but in this place. In other authors, according to the derivation of the word, as it signifies the top or uppermost part of an heap, it is used only for that part or portion of spoils taken in war which was devoted and made sacred: Herod. lib. i. cap. lxxxvi., Ei]te dh< ajkroqi>nia tau~ta katagiei~n qew~n oJtew|dh> . And again, lib. viii. cap. cxxi., Prw~ta me>n nun toi~si qeoi~si ejxei~lon ajkroqi>nia? , — “They took out the dedicated spoils for the gods.” And the reason why our apostle useth the word for the whole spoils, whence a tenth was given to Melchizedek, is, because the whole spoil was sacred and devoted unto God, whence an honorary tenth was taken for Melchizedek, as the priests had afterwards out of the portion of the Levites; for all Levi was now to be tithed in Abraham. Among those spoils there is no question but there were many clean beasts meet for sacrifice; for in their herds of cattle consisted the principal parts of the riches of those days, and these were the principal spoils of war. See Numbers 31:32,33. And because Saul knew that part of the spoils taken in lawful war was to be given for sacrifices unto God, he made that his pretense of saving the fat cattle of the Amalekites, contrary to the express command of God, 1 Samuel 15:15. Abraham therefore delivered these spoils unto Melchizedek, as the priest of the most high God, to offer in sacrifice for him. And it may be there was somewhat more in it than the mere pre-eminence of Melchizedek, which was the principal consideration hereof, and his being the first and only priest in office, by virtue of especial call from God, — namely, that Abraham himself, coming immediately from the slaughter of many kings and their numerous army, was not yet ready or prepared for this sacred service; for even among the heathens they would abstain from their sacred offices after the shedding of blood, until they were, one way or other, purified to their own satisfaction. So in the poet, Virg. Aeneid. 2:717: — “Tu, genitor, cape sacra manu patriosque penates; Me, bello e tanto digressum et caede recenti, Attrectare nefas, donec me flumine vivo Abluero.” 12. The matter is yet made more evident by the solemn election of a priesthood of old among the people of God, or the church in the wilderness. Sacrificing from the foundation of the world had been hitherto left at liberty. Every one who was called to perform any part of solemn religious worship was allowed to discharge that duty also. But it pleased God, in the reducing of his church into an especial peculiar order, – to represent in and by it more conspicuously what he would afterwards really effect in Jesus Christ, – to erect among them a peculiar office of priesthood. And although this respected in general ta< pron , all things that were to be done with God on the behalf of the people, yet the especial work and duty belonging unto it was sacrificing. The institution of this office we have Exodus 28, whereof afterwards. And herein an enclosure was made of sacrificing unto the office of the priests; that is, so soon as such an office there was by virtue of especial institution. And these two things belonged to them: — (1.) That they were sacrificers ; and, (2.) That they only were so: which answers all that I intend to evince from this discourse, namely, that a priest is a sacrificer. Whereas, therefore, it is in prophecy foretold that the Messiah should be a priest, and he is said so to be, the principal meaning of it is, that he should be a sacrificer, one that had right and was called to offer sacrifice unto God. This was that for which he was principally and properly called a priest, and by his undertaking so to be, an enclosure of sacrificing is made unto himself alone.

This is the general notion of a priest amongst all men throughout the world; and a due consideration hereof is of itself sufficient to discharge all the vain imaginations of the Socinians about this office of Christ, whereof we shall treat afterwards.

EXERCITATION 26.

OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. 1. Of the origin of the priesthood of Christ — The eternal counsels of God; how to be inquired into. 2. No priest or sacrifices in the state of innocence. 3. Priesthood and sacrifices related. 4. The nature of the office of the priesthood, <580501>Hebrews 5:1, explained. 5. In the state of innocence some [might act] for God towards men, none for other men towards God. 6. No sacrifices in that state — To sacrifice is properly to slay. 7. Killing essential to sacrifices. 8. No revelation concerning sacrifices before the fall. 9. Opinion of some, that the Son of God should have been incarnate though man had not sinned — Of the necessity of sacrifices in all religious worship. 10. Pretences of reasons for the incarnation of Christ, without respect to sin or grace. 11. The whole unwritten; 12. Contrary to what is written; 13. And destitute of countenance from spiritual reason. 14. Pleas of the Pelagians and ancient schoolmen for the incarnation of the Son of God in the state of innocence — Their first argument, from the glory of God and good of the universe, proposed and answered. 15. The second argument, from the capacity of the human nature for the grace of union in the state of innocence, answered. 16. [The third argument], the mystery of the incarnation revealed to Adam in the state of innocence — The meaning of these words, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” 17. The order of God’s decrees concerning his glory in the salvation of mankind considered — No order of them to be conceived that is consistent with the pre-ordination of the incarnation without respect to sin and redemption. 18. The arguments of Osiander — The Son, how the image of the Father — The order of subsistence and operation in the Trinity — Christ, how the head of angels and men. 19. The image of God in man, wherein it consisted. 20. How Adam was made in the image of Christ, and Christ made in the image of Adam. 21. The incarnation, how occasioned by the fall — The Son of God the head of angels and men even had not sin entered into the world. 22. [In a state of innocence, men would not have died naturally.] 23. No sacrifices in the state of innocence — Bellarmine’s arguments for the necessity of a proper sacrifice in all religion. 24. The mass not proved a sacrifice thereby — The use and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in our religion. 25. An answer to Bellarmine’s arguments — His general assertion overthrown by his own instances. 26. The conclusion. 1. We have seen that Jesus Christ is a priest, that as such he was prophesied of under the old testament, and declared so to be in the new.

The original of this office is in the next place to be inquired after. This, in the general, all will acknowledge to lie in the eternal counsels of God; for “known unto him are all his works from the beginning of the world,” Acts 15:18.

But these counsels, absolutely considered, are hid in God, in the eternal treasures of his own wisdom and will. What we learn of them is by external revelation and effects: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 29:29.

God frequently gives bounds to the curiosity of men, like the limits fixed to the people in the station at Sinai, that they should not gaze after his unrevealed glory, nor pry into the things which they have not seen. It was well said, that “scrutator majestatis absorbetur a gloria” Our work is, to inquire wherein, how, and whereby, God hath revealed his eternal counsels, to the end that we may know his mind, and fear him for our good. And so even the angels desire to bow down and to look into these things, 1 Peter 1:12 ; — not in a way of condescension, as into things in their nature beneath them; but in a way of humble diligence, as into things in their holy contrivance above them. Our present design, therefore, is to trace those discoveries which God hath made of his eternal counsels in this matter, and that through the several degrees of divine revelation whereby he advanced the knowledge of them, until he brought them to their complement in the external exhibition of his Son, clothed in human nature with the glory of this office, and discharging the duties thereof. 2. The counsels of God concerning us, with our relation unto him and his worship, are suited unto the state and condition wherein we are, for they also are effects of those counsels. Our first condition, under the law of creation, was a condition of innocency and natural righteousness. In reference unto this estate, God had not ordained an establishment in it of either priest or sacrifice; for as they would have been of no use therein, so there was nothing supposed in that condition which might be prefigured or represented by them. Wherefore God did not pre-ordain the priesthood of Christ with respect unto the obedience of man under the law of creation; nor did he appoint either priesthood or sacrifice, properly so called, in that state of things whilst it did continue; nor should any such have been, upon a supposition of its continuance. And this we must confirm against the opposition of some. 3. We have declared in our preceding discourse that a priest, properly so called, is a sacrificer. There is, therefore, an indissoluble relation between these two, — namely, priesthood and sacrifice, — and they do mutually assert or deny each other; and where the one is proper, the other is so also; and where the one is metaphorical, so is the other. Thus, under the old testament, the priests who were properly so by office had proper carnal sacrifices to offer; and under the new testament, believers being made priests unto God, that is, spiritually and metaphorically, such also are their sacrifices, spiritual and metaphorical. Wherefore arguments against either of these conclude equally against both. Where there are no priests, there are no sacrifices; and where there are no sacrifices, there are no priests. I intend only those who exercise the office of the priesthood for themselves and others. I shall therefore, first, manifest that there was no priesthood to be in the state of innocency; whence it will follow that therein there could be no sacrifice: and, secondly, that there was to be no sacrifice, properly so called; whence it will equally follow, that there was no priesthood therein. That which ensues on both is, that there was no counsel of God concerning either priesthood or sacrifice in that state or condition. 4. Pa~v gapwn lamqano>menov uJpepwn kaqi>statai ta< prorh| dw~ra> te kai< qusi>av uJpeapostle, Hebrews 5:1. What is here affirmed of the high priest ( lwOdN;hæ ˆheKohæ ) is true in like manner concerning every priest; only, the high priest is here mentioned by way of eminence, because by him our Lord Christ, as unto this office and the discharge of it, was principally represented. Every priest, therefore, is one ejx ajnqrw>pwn lamqano>menov , — “ taken from amongst men.” He is “naturae humanae particeps,” — in common with other men partaker of human nature; and antecedently unto his assumption of his office, he is one of the same rank with other men, and he is taken or separated unto this office from among them. He is vested with his office by the authority, and according to the will of God. This office, therefore, is not a thing which is common unto all, nor can it take place in any state or condition wherein the whole performance of divine service is equally incumbent on all individually; for none can be “taken from among others” to perform that which those others are every one obliged personally to attend unto.

But every priest, properly so called, kaqi>statai uJpepwn , — “is ordained and appointed to act for other men.” He is set over a work in the behalf of those other men from among whom he is taken; and this is, that he may take care of and perform ta< proGod; µyhiloa’h; lWm , — that is, to pacify, to make atonement and reconciliation, Exodus 18:19. And this he was to do by offering dw~ra> te kai< qusi>av , various sorts of “gifts and sacrifices,” according unto God’s appointment. Now, all slain sacrifices, as we shall manifest afterwards, were for sin. This office, therefore, could have no place in the state of innocency; for it will not hear an accommodation, of any part of this description of one vested therewithal. 5. I do acknowledge, that in the state of uncorrupted nature there should have been some ujpefor and in the name of God; for some would have been warranted and designed to instruct others in the knowledge of God and his will. This the state and condition of mankind did require; for both the first relation of man and wife, and that which was to ensue thereon of parents and children, include subordination and dependence. “The head of the woman is the man,” 1 Corinthians 11:3, — that is, “the husband,” Ephesians 5:23; and the duty of the man it had been to instruct the woman in the things of God. For a pure nescience of many things that might be known to the glory of God and their own advantage was not inconsistent with that estate, and their knowledge was capable of objective enlargements; and the design of God was, gradually to instruct them in the things that might orderly carry them on unto the end for which they were created. Herein would he have made use of the man for the instruction of the woman, as the order of nature required: for man was originally “the head of the woman;” only, upon the curse, natural dependence was turned into troublesome subjection, Genesis 3:16. But the entrance of sin, as it contained in it the seeds of all disorder, so it plainly began in the destruction of this order; for the woman, undertaking to learn the mind of God from herself and the serpent, was deceived, and first in the transgression: 1 Timothy 2:13,14, “Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

From Adam being first formed, and the woman out of him and for him, she should have learned her dependence on him for instruction by divine institution. But going to learn the mind of God of the serpent, she was deceived. She might have learned more than yet she knew, but this she should have done of him who was her head by the law of creation. The case is the same as to the other relation, that would have been between parents and children. Yea, in this the dependence was far greater and more absolute; for although the woman was made out of the man, which argues subordination and dependence, yet she was made by the immediate power of God, man contributing no more to her being than the dust did to his.

This gave them in general an equality. But children are so of their parents as to be wholly from them and by them. This makes their dependence and subjection absolute and universal. And whereas parents were in all things to seek their good, — which was one of the prime dictates of the law of nature, — they were, in the name and stead of God, to rule, govern, and instruct them, and that in the knowledge of God and their duty towards him. They were uJpeGod,” or in his stead unto them, to instruct them in their duty, suitably to the law of their creation and the end thereof. But every one thus instructed was in his own name and person to attend unto the things of God, or what was to be performed on the behalf of men; for in reference unto God, there would have been no common root or principle for men to stand upon. Whilst we were all in the loins of Adam we stood all in him, and we also fell all in him ejf j w=| pa>ntev h[marton , Romans 5:12. But so soon as any one had been born into this world, and so should have had a personal subsistence of his own, he was to stand by himself, and to be no more, as to his covenant interest, concerned in the obedience of his progenitors; for the covenant with mankind would have been distinct with each individual, as it was with angels. There might have been, there would have been, order, subordination, and subjection, among men, in respect of things from God unto them, — so probably there is among the angels, although the investigation thereof be neither our duty nor in our power, — but, as was said, every one, according to the tenor of the covenant then in force, was in his own person to discharge all duties of worship towards God. Neither could any one be taken out from the residue of men to discharge the works of religion towards God for them, in the way of an office, but it would be to the prejudice of their right and the hinderance of their duty. It follows, therefore, that the office of a priest was impossible in that condition, — that is, of one who should be ordained uJpepwn ta< pron , — and had any such office been possible, there would not have been in it any prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, as will afterwards appear. 6. The same is the state of things with reference unto sacrifices. There is, as was said before, a relation between them and the priesthood. Hence is that saying in Bereshith Rabba: ˆk jbzmk wynhk ; — “ As is the altar for sacrifice, so are the priests that belong unto it.” And by sacrifices in this inquiry, we understand those that are properly so: for that which is proper in every kind is first; nor is there any place for that which is improper or metaphorical, unless something proper from whence the denomination is taken have preceded, for in allusion thereunto doth the metaphor consist. Now, the first possible instance in this matter being in the state about which we inquire, there must be proper sacrifices therein, or none at all; for nothing went before with respect whereunto any thing might be so called, as now our spiritual worship and service are, with allusion unto them under the old testament.

And concerning those sacrifices, we may consider their nature and their end. A sacrifice is jbæz, ; that is, qusi>a , “victima, sacrificium mactatum,” — “ a slain or killed offering;” yea, the first proper signification of jbæz; is “mactavit, jugulavit, decollavit, occidit,” — “to kill, to slay by the effusion of blood,” and the like. Neither is this signification cast upon it from its affinity unto jbæf; , “to kill or slay” (the change of f and z being frequent, as in the Chaldee almost perpetual), but it is its own native signification: Genesis 31:54, jbæz, bqo[\yæ jBæz]Yiwæ . Say we, “Jacob offered sacrifices.”

Junius, “Mactavit animalia,” — “He slew beasts;” which we allow in the margin, “He killed beasts.” Targum, atskn bq[y sknw skn is “to kill or slay,” and is constantly so used; and atskn is no more but “mactatio,” “a slaughter;” but because all sacrifices were offered by slaying, it is applied to signify a sacrifice also. So Isaiah 34:6. It is true, there was a covenant made between Jacob and Laban, and covenants were sometimes confirmed by sacrifices, with a feast of the covenanters ensuing thereon; but it is not likely that Jacob and Laban would agree in the same sacrifice, who scarcely owned the same God. It is, therefore, only the provision and entertainment that Jacob made for Laban and his company, for which he slew the cattle, that is intended; otherwise the sacrifice would have been mentioned distinctly from the feast. So are these things expressed Exodus 18:12. And so jbæz, is rendered by us “to kill or slay” absolutely, 1 Samuel 28:24; Deuteronomy 12:15,16; 1 Kings 19:21, 1:9; and so also ought it to be translated Numbers 22:40, where it is “offered” in our books. jbæz] , the substantive, is also “mactatio, jugulatio, occisio:” so Isaiah 34:6; Zephaniah 1:7; which James expresseth by sfagh> , chap. 5:5. And µyjib;z] are absolutely no more than sfa>gia , as from the slaughter of the sacrifices the altar is called jæBez]mi .

Qu>w , also, and qusi>a , do no otherwise signify but “to sacrifice,” or sacrifice by mactation or killing. 7. It is therefore evident that there neither is nor can be any sacrifice, properly so called, but what is made by killing or slaying of the thing sacrificed; and the offerings of inanimate things under the law, as of flour or wine, or the fruits of the earth, were improperly so called, in allusion unto or by virtue of their conjunction with them that were properly so.

They might be twOlwO[ , “offerings” or “ascensions,” but µyjib;z] , “sacrifices,” they were not. And the act of sacrificing doth principally consist in the mactation or slaying of the sacrifices, as shall afterwards be manifested. And whereas the oblation, as it is used to express the general nature of a sacrifice, is commonly apprehended to consist in the actings of the sacrificer after the killing of the sacrifice or victim, it is so far otherwise that it principally consists in brining of it to be slain, and in the slaying itself, all that follows belonging unto the religious manner of testifying faith and obedience thereby. This also discovers the proper and peculiar end of sacrifices, firstly and properly so called, especially such as might prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, unto which our present discourse is confined. All such sacrifices must respect sin, and an atonement to be made for it. There never was, nor ever can be, any other end of the effusion of blood in the service of God. This the nature of the action (“quod in ejus caput sit”) and the whole series of divine institutions in this matter do manifest; for to what end should a man take another creature into his power and possession, which also he might use to his advantage, and, slaying it, offer it up unto God, if nat to confess a guilt of his own, or somewhat for which he deserved to die, and to represent a commutation of the punishment due unto him, by the substitution of another in his room and place, according to the will of God? And this casteth all such sacrifices as might be any way prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ out of the verge of paradise, or state of innocency; for as therein there should have been no bloody mactation of our fellow-creatures, so a supposition of sin therein implies an express contradiction. 8. Again, sacrifices require faith in the offerer of them: Hebrews 11:4, “By faith Abel offered a sacrifice.” And faith in the subject respects its proper object, which is divine revelation. Men can believe no more with divine faith than is revealed, and all our actings in faith must answer the doctrines of faith. Now, not to insist upon this particular, that sacrifices were not revealed before the fall (which that they were cannot be proved), I say that there was no doctrine in or belonging unto the covenant of creation that should directly or analogically require or intimate an acceptance of any such religious worship as sacrifices. This might be manifested by a just consideration of the principles of that revelation which God made of himself unto man under the first covenant, and what was necessary for him to know that he might live unto God; but this I have done at large elsewhere, nor have I any thing of moment to add unto former discourses to this purpose. And this also renders it impossible that there should be any sacrifices properly so called, and prefigurative of the sacrifice of Christ, in the state of innocency. 9. But these things are opposed, and must be vindicated. And this opposition is made unto both the positions laid down, the one concerning a priest, the other concerning sacrifices: for some have been and are of a mind, that “though man had not sinned, yet the Son of God should have taken our nature on him,” both for the manifestation of the glory of God and the cherishing of the creation; and if so, he should have been in some sense the priest of the world.

And those of this persuasion are of two sorts : — First, Such as knowledge a pre-existence of the Lord Christ in a divine nature. These affirm that [even] had not sin entered into the world, he should have been so made flesh by the uniting of our nature unto himself in his own person, as now it is come to pass. This some of the ancient schoolmen inclined unto, as Alexander ab Ales., Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Rupertus; as it is opposed by Aquinas, p. 3, q. 3; Bonaventure in Sentent., lib. iii. dist. i. ar. 2, q. 1, and others. Immediately on the Reformation this opinion was revived by Osiander, who maintained that Adam was said to be made in the image of God, because he was made in that nature and shape whereunto the Son of God was designed and destinated. And he also was herein opposed by Calvin, Instit. lib. ii. cap. xii., lib. iii. cap. xi.; by Wigandus de Osiandrismo, p. 23; and Schlusselburgius, lib. vi. Yet some are still of this judgment, or seem so to be.

The other sort are the Socinians, who contend that God would have given such a head unto the creation as they fancy Christ to be; for as they lay no great weight on the first sin, so they hope to evince by this means that the Lord Christ may discharge his whole office without making any atonement for sin by sacrifice. And this, with most of their other opinions, they have traduced from the ancient Pelagians, as an account is given in this particular by Cassianus de Incarnatione, lib. i. p. 1241. “Quo factum est,” saith he of the Pelagians, “ut in majorem quoque ac monstruosiorem insaniam prorumpentes, dicerent Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, hunc in mundum, non ad praestandum humano generi redemptionem, sed ad praebenda bonorum actuum exempla venisse; videlicet, ut disciplinam ejus sequentes, homines, dum per eandem virtutis viam incederent, ad eadem virtutum praemia pervenirent.”

Those who assert sacrifices to have been necessary in the state of innocency are the Romanists. Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, and others, do expressly contend for it. And these also have their peculiar design in this their peculiar opinion; for they endeavor to establish a general maxim, “That proper sacrifices are indispensably necessary unto all religious worship,” thereby to make way for their missatical oblation. I shall consider the pretences of both sorts, and so proceed with our design. 10. As to the first opinion, concerning the incarnation of the Son of God without respect unto sin and redemption, there are many pretences given unto it, which shall be afterwards particularly considered. They say that “the manifestation of the glory of God required that he should effect this most perfect way of it, that so he might give a complete expression of his image and likeness. His love and goodness also were so perfectly to be represented, in the union of a created nature with his own. And herein, also, God would satisfy himself in the contemplation of this full communication of himself unto our nature. Besides, it was necessary that there should be a head appointed unto the whole creation, to conduct and guide it, man especially, unto its utmost end.” And sundry other things they allege out of the Bible of their own imaginations. It is granted that even in that state all immediate transactions with the creatures should have been by the Son; for by him, as the power and wisdom of God, were they made, John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16,17. He, therefore, should have immediately guided and conducted man unto his happiness, and that both by confirming him in his obedience and by giving him his reward; an express document whereof we have in the angels that sinned not. But for the opinion of his being incarnate without respect unto redemption and a recovery from sin and misery, the whole of it is a]grafon , or unwritten, and therefore uncertain and curious; yea, ajnti>grafon , or contrary to what is written, and therefore false; and a]logon , or destitute of any solid spiritual reason for the confirmation of it. 11. First, It is unwritten , — nowhere revealed, nowhere mentioned in the Scripture; nor can an instance be given of the faith of any one of the saints of God, either under the old testament or the new, in this matter. The first promise, and consequently first revelation, of the incarnation of the Son of God, was after the entrance of sin, and with respect unto the recovery of the sinner, unto the glory of God. Hereby are all other promises, declarations, and revelations concerning it, as to their end, to be regulated; for that which is the first in any kind, as to an end aimed at, is the rule of all that follows in the same kind. And therefore that which men ground themselves upon in this opinion is indeed neither argument nor testimony, but conjecture and curiosity. They frame to themselves a notional state of things, which they suppose beautiful and comely, (as who are not enamored of the fruits of their own imaginations?) and then assert that it was meet and according unto divine wisdom that God should so order things unto his own glory as they have fancied! Thus they suppose, that, without respect unto sin or grace, God would take unto himself the glory of uniting our nature unto him. Why so? Because they find how greatly and gloriously he is exalted in his so doing. But is this so absolutely from the thing itself, or is it with respect unto the causes, ends, effects, and circumstances of it, as they are stated since the entrance of sin, and revealed in the Scripture? Setting aside the consideration of sin, grace, and redemption, with what attends them, a man may say, in a better compliance with the harmony and testimony of Scripture, that the assumption of human nature into union with the divine, in the person of the Son of God, is no way suited unto the exaltation of divine glory, but rather to beget false notions and apprehensions in men of the nature of the Godhead, and to disturb them in their worship thereof; for the assumption of human nature absolutely is expressed as a great condescension, as it was indeed, Philippians 2:5-8, and that which served for a season to obscure the glory of the Deity in him that assumed it, John 17:5. But the glory of it lies in that which caused it, and that which ensued thereon; for in them lay the highest effects and manifestations of divine love, goodness, wisdom, power, and holiness, Romans 3:24-26. And this is plainly revealed in the gospel, if any thing be so. I fear, therefore, that this curious speculation, that is thus destitute of any scriptural testimony, is but a pretense of being wise above what is written, and a prying into things which men have not seen, nor are they revealed unto them. 12. Secondly, This opinion is contradictory to the Scripture, and that in places innumerable. Nothing is more fully and perspicuously revealed in the Scripture than are the causes and ends of the incarnation of Christ; for whereas it is the great theater of the glory of God, the foundation of all that obedience which we yield unto him, and of all our expectation of blessedness with him, and being a thing in itself deep and mysterious, it was necessary that it should be so revealed and declared. It were endless to call over all the testimonies which might be produced to this purpose; some few only shall be instanced in. First, therefore, On the part of the Father, the sending of the Son to be incarnate is constantly ascribed unto his love to mankind, that they might be saved from sin and misery, with a supposition of the ultimate end, or his own glory thereby: John 3:16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Romans 3:25, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation.” Chap. 5:8, “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ, died for us.” Chap. 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” 1 John 4:9; Galatians 4:4,5. Secondly, On the part of the Son himself, the same causes, the same ends of his taking flesh, are constantly assigned: Luke 19:10, “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” 1 Tim. 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Hebrews 2:14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” Galatians 2:20; John 18:37, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth,” — namely, of the promises of God made unto the fathers concerning his coming; Romans 15:8. See Philippians 2:6-11. And all this is said in pursuit and explication of the first promise concerning him, the sum whereof was, that he should be manifested in the flesh to “destroy the works of the devil,” as it is expounded 1 John 3:8. This the whole Scripture constantly and uniformly giveth testimony unto, this is the design and scope of it, the main of what it intends to instruct us in; the contrary whereunto, like the fancying of other worlds, or living wights in the moon or stars, dissolves the whole harmony of it, and frustrates its principal design, and therefore is more carefully to be avoided than what riseth up in contradiction unto some few testimonies of it. I say, that to ascribe unto God a will or purpose of sending his Son to be incarnate, without respect unto the redemption and salvation of sinners, is to contradict and enervate the whole design of the revelation of God in the Scripture; as also, it riseth up in direct opposition unto particular testimonies without number. Origen observed this, Hom. xxiv. in Numer.: “Si non fuisset peccatum, non necesse fuerat Filium Dei agnum fieri; sod mansisset hoc quod in principio erat, Deus Verbum.

Verum quoniam introiit peccatum in hunc mundum, peccati autem necessitas propitiationem requirit, propitiatio vero non sit nisi per hostiam, necessarium fuit provideri hostiam pro peccato;” — “ If sin had not been, there would have been no necessity that the Son of God should be made a lamb; but he had remained what he was in the beginning, God the Word. But seeing that sin entered into the world, and stood in need of a propitiation, which could not be but by a sacrifice, it was necessary that a sacrifice for sin should be provided.” So Austin, Serm. 8 de Verbis Apostoli, tom. x., “Quare venit in mundum peccatores salvos facere. Alia causa non fuit quare veniret in mundum.” 13. Thirdly, This opinion is destitute of spiritual reason, yea, is contrary unto it. The design of God to glorify himself in the creation and the law or covenant of it, and his design of the same end in a way of grace, are distinct; yea, they are so distinct as, with reference unto the same persons and times, to be inconsistent. This our apostle manifests in the instance of justification and salvation by works and grace: “If it be by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work,” Romans 11:6.

It is impossible that the same man should be justified by works and grace too. Wherefore God, in infinite wisdom, brought the first design, and all the effects of it, into a subordination unto the later; and so he decreed to do from eternity. There being, by the entrance of sin, an aberration in the whole creation from that proper end whereunto it was suited at first, it pleased God to reduce the whole into a subserviency unto the design of his wisdom and holiness in a way of grace; for his purpose was to reconcile and gather all things into a new head in his Son, Jesus Christ, Ephesians 1:10; Hebrews 1:3, 2:7, 8. Now, according to this opinion, the incarnation of the Son of God belonged originally unto the law of creation, and the design of the glory of God therein. And if this were so, it must, with the whole old creation and all that belonged thereunto, be brought into a subordination and subserviency unto the succedaneous design of the wisdom of God to glorify himself in a way of grace. But this is not so, seeing itself is the fundamental and principal part of that design. “Known,” indeed, “unto God are all his works from the beginning.”

Therefore, this great projection of the incarnation of his Son lying in the counsel of his will from eternity, he did, in wisdom infinite and holy, order all the concernments of the creation so as they might be disposed into an orderly subjection unto his Son incarnate. So that although I deny that any thing was then instituted as a type to represent him, — because his coming into the world in our flesh belonged not unto that estate, — yet I grant things to have been so ordered as that, in the retrieval of all into a new frame by Jesus Christ, there were many things in the works of God in the old creation that were natural types, or things meet to represent much of this unto us. So Christ himself is called the “second Adam,” and compared to the “tree of life,” whereof we have discoursed in our exposition on the first chapter. 14. Let us, therefore, now consider the arguments or reasons in particular which they plead who maintain this assertion. The principal of them were invented and made use of by some of the ancient schoolmen; and others have since given some improvement unto their conceptions, and added some of their own. Those of the first sort are collected by Thomas,3 p. q. l, a. 3, as traduced from the Pelagians. I shall examine them as by him proposed, omitting his answers, which I judge insufficient in many instances.

His first argument, the substance whereof I have lately heard pleaded with some vehemency, is as follows: — “ It belonged unto omnipotent power and infinite wisdom to make all his works perfect, and to manifest himself by an infinite effect. But no mere creature can be said to be such infinite effect, because its essence is finite and limited. But in the work of the incarnation of the Son of God alone, an infinite effect of divine power seems to be manifested, as thereby things infinitely distant are conjoined, God being made man. And herein the universality of things seems to receive its perfection, inasmuch as the last creature, or man, is immediately conjoined unto the First Principle, or God.”

Answer. This argument hath little more in it than curiosity and sophistry; for, — (1.) That God made all his works “good,” that is, perfect in their kind, before the incarnation, we have his own testimony. He saw and pronounced of the whole that it was daom\ bwOf , “valde bonum,” — every way good and complete. It was so in itself, without the addition of that work which is fancied necessary unto its perfection. (2.) It is merely supposed that it was necessary that divine omnipotency should be expressed unto the utmost of its perfection. It was enough that it was manifested and declared in the creation of all things out of nothing. (3.) It is not possible that any effect in itself infinite should be produced by the power of God: for then would there be two infinites, — the producing and the produced; and consequently two Gods, — the making God and the made: for that which is in itself absolutely infinite is God, and what is produced is not infinite. Wherefore the work of the incarnation was not of itself an infinite effect, although it was an effect of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; and so also was the work of the first creation. And although they are all in themselves finite and limited, yet are they the effects of, and do abundantly declare, the infinite power and wisdom whence they were educed, Romans 1:19,20. (4.) The perfection of the universe, or universality of beings, is to be regulated by their state, condition, and end. And this they had in their first creation, without any respect unto the incarnation of the Son of God; for the perfection of all things consisted in their relation unto God, according to the law and order of their creation, and their mutual regard unto one another, with respect unto the utmost end, or the manifestation of his glory. And also, their perfection consisted in their subserviency unto the bringing of that creature to the enjoyment of God in blessedness for ever which was capable of it. And herein consisted the conjunction of the last creature unto the First Principle, when, by the documents and helps of them that were made before, he was brought unto the enjoyment of God; for, — (5.) That the conjunction of the last creature unto the First Principle, by way of personal union, was necessary unto the good of the universe, is a fancy that every one may embrace and every one reject at pleasure. But it may be justly conceived that it was more suitable unto order that the conjunction mentioned should have been between God and the first creature, namely, the angels; and reasons would have been pleaded for that order had it so come to pass. But the Son of God took not on him their nature, because he designed not to deliver them from sin, Hebrews 2:16,17. 15. Secondly, It is further pleaded, “That human nature is not become more capacious of grace by sin than it was before; but now, after the entrance of sin, it is capable of the grace of union, which is the greatest grace. Wherefore, if man had not sinned human nature had been capable of this grace, neither would God have withheld any good from human nature whereof it was capable: therefore if man had not sinned God had been incarnate.” Ans. (1.) Place angelical nature in the argument, as to that part of it which pleads that it must have all the grace which it is capable of, instead of human nature, and the event will show what force there is in this ratiocination; for angelical nature was capable of the grace of union, and God would not, it is said, withhold any thing from it whereof it was capable. But why, then, is it otherwise come to pass? (2.) It must be granted (though, indeed, this argument is not much concerned therein one way or other) that human nature is both capable of more grace, and actually made partaker of more, after the fall, than it was capable of, or did receive before; for it is capable of mercy, pardon, reconciliation with God, sanctification by the Holy Ghost, all which are graces, or gracious effects of the love and goodness of God; and these things in the state of innocency man was not capable of. Besides, there is no difference in this matter; for the individual nature actually assumed into union was and was considered as pure as in its first original and creation. (3.) The ground of this reason lies in a pretense, that whatever any creature was capable of, not in, by, or from itself, but by the power of God, that God was obliged to do in it and for it. And this is plainly to say that God did not communicate of his goodness and of his power unto the creatures according to the counsel of his will, but, producing them by the unavoidable destiny of some eternal state, he acted naturally and necessarily, “ad ultimum virium,” in their production. But this is contrary to the nature and being of God, with all the properties thereof. Wherefore, the creation is capable, in every state, of what God pleaseth, and no more.

Its capacity is to be regulated by the will of God; and no more belonged unto its capacity in the state of nature than God had assigned unto it by the law of creation. (4.) It is a presumptuous imagination, to talk of the grace of union being due unto our nature in any condition. Why is it not so unto the nature of angels? or did our nature originally excel theirs? Besides, the Scripture everywhere expressly assigns it as an effect of free love, grace, and bounty, John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10. (5.) That there should be an advance made both of the glory of God and the good of the creature itself by the entrance of sin, is an effect of infinite wisdom and grace. Nor did God permit the entrance of sin but with a design to bring about a glory greater and more excellent than the antecedent order of things was capable of. The state of grace exceeded the state of nature. In brief, God permitted that greatest evil, the fall of man, to make way for the introduction of the greatest good, in our restoration by the incarnation and mediation of his Son. 16. Thirdly, It is also pleaded, “That the mystery of the incarnation was revealed unto Adam in the state of innocency; for upon the bringing of Eve unto him, he said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.’

But ‘this,’ saith the apostle, ‘is a great mystery;’ but he speaks it ‘concerning Christ and the church,’ Ephesians 5:32. But man could not foresee or foreknow his own fall; no more than the angels could theirs; it follows, therefore, that he considered the incarnation as it should have been had the state of innocency continued.” Ans. (1.) It seems to be supposed in this argument that there was indeed a revelation made unto Adam, Genesis 2:23, of the incarnation of Christ; so that nothing remains to be proved but that he did not foreknow his fall, whence it would ensue that the pretended revelation belonged unto the state of innocency. But, indeed, there is no intimation of any such revelation; for, — (2.) I have manifested elsewhere how God, in his infinite wisdom, ordered the things of the first creation so as they might be laid in a subserviency, in a way of representation, unto the new creation, or the renovation of all things by Jesus Christ; that is, he so made them as that they might be natural types of what he would do afterwards. This doth not prove that they were designed to make any revelation of Christ and his grace, or prefigure them, but only were meet to be brought into an useful subordination unto them, so that from them instructive allusions might be taken. Thus was it in the first marriage in the law of creation. It had no other nature, use, nor end, but to be the bond of individual society of two persons, male and female, for the procreation and education of children, with all mutual assistances unto human life and conversation. And the making of woman out of the man, “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh,” was intended only for the laying that society, whose intimacy was to be unparalleled, in a singular foundation. But both these things were so ordered, in the wisdom of God, as that they might represent another union, in a state that God would bring in afterwards, namely, of Christ and his church. What Adam spake concerning the natural condition and relation of himself and Eve, that our apostle speaks concerning the spiritual and supernatural condition and relation of Christ and the church, because of some resemblance between them. Aquinas himself determines this whole matter, with an assertion which would have been to his own advantage to have attended unto upon other occasions. Saith he, “Ea quae ex sola Dei voluntate proveniunt supra omne debitum creaturae, nobis innotescere non possunt, nisi quatenus in sacra Scriptura traduntur, per quam divina voluntas innotescit. Unde cum in sacra Scriptura ubique incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi hominis assignetur, convenientius dicitur incarnationis opus ordinatum esse a Deo in commodum contra peccatum, quod peccato non existente incarnatio non fuisset.” 17. There is yet another argument mentioned by Aquinas, and much improved by the modem Scotists, insisted on also by some divines of our own, which deserves a somewhat fuller consideration; and this is taken from the predestination of the man Christ Jesus. This the schoolmen consider on that of our apostle, Romans 1:4, “Concerning Jesus Christ, oJrisqe>ntov UiJou~ Qeou~ ejn duna>mei :” which the Vulgate renders, “Qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute;” — “ Predestinate the Son of God with power,” as our Rhemists. But oJrisqe>ntov there is no more than ajpodedeicqe>ntov , “manifested, declared,” as it is well rendered by ours.

Nor can expositors fix any tolerable sense to their “predestinate” in this place. But the thing itself is true. The Lord Christ was predestinated or preordained before the world was. We were “redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, proegnwsme>nou pro< katazolh~v ko>smou ,” 1 Peter 1:20, — “foreordained” (“predestinated’’) “before the foundation of the world.” Now, it is pleaded that “this predestination of Christ unto the grace of union and glory was the first of God’s purposes and decrees in order of nature, and antecedent unto the predestination of the elect, at least as it should comprise in it a purpose of deliverance from the fall. For God first designed to glorify himself in the assumption of human nature, before he decreed to save the elect by that nature so assumed; for we are said to be ‘chosen it him,’ that is, as our head, Ephesians 1:4, whence it necessarily ensues that he was chosen before us, and so without respect unto us. So in all things was he to have the preeminence, Colossians 1:19; and thence it is that we are ‘predestinated to be conformed to his image,’ Romans 8:29. This preordination, therefore, of the Lord Christ, which was unto grace, and glory, was antecedent unto the permission of the fall of man; so that he should have been incarnate had that never fallen out.”

These things are by some at large deduced and explained, but this is the sum of what is pleaded in the pursuit of this argument, which shall be as briefly examined as the nature of the matter itself will permit.

The order of the divine eternal decrees, as to their priority one unto another in order of nature and reason, so as not the decrees themselves, which are all absolutely free and irrespective, but the things decreed, should be one for another, hath been at large discoursed of and discussed by many. But there are yet not a few who suppose those very discourses on all hands to have more of nicety and curious subtilty than of solid truth unto edification. And because this is a matter wherein the Scripture is utterly silent, though one opinion may be more agreeable to sound reason than another, yet none is built upon such certain foundations as to become a matter of faith, or the principle of any thing that is so. That which explains this order most conveniently and suitably unto divine wisdom, will, and sovereignty, and which best answers the common apprehensions of rational natures and the rules of their actings, is to be preferred before any opinion that includes what is opposite unto or alien from any of these things, which that order hath respect unto. From any such order in the decrees of God no advantage can be drawn unto the opinion under consideration; but if men may be allowed to suppose what they will, they may easily infer thereon what they please. Let us, therefore, take a view of the several series of divine decrees, which have been confirmed with a considerable suffrage of learned men, setting aside particular conjectures, which never received entertainment beyond the minds of their authors.

And these may be reduced unto three: – All agree that the glory of God is the utmost and supreme end that he intendeth in all his decrees. Although they are free acts of his will and wisdom, yet, on the supposition of them, it is absolutely necessary, from the perfection of his being, that he himself or his glory be their utmost end.

His absolute all-sufficiency will not allow that he can in them have any other end. Accordingly, in pursuit of them he makes all for himself, Proverbs 16:4; and they serve to declare and make known the perfection of his nature, Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:19,20. And it is his glory, in the way of justice and mercy, which he ultimately intends in his decrees concerning the salvation of man by Jesus Christ. Whereas many things are ordered by him in a subserviency hereunto, the decrees of God concerning them are conceived by some in that order which answers the order of their accomplishment; — as, first, they say, God decreed to make the world, and man therein upright in his image; secondly, to permit the fall and the consequents thereof, man being to that end left unto the liberty of his will; thirdly, he designed to send his Son to be incarnate, for the work of their redemption; fourthly, he decreed to give eternal life unto as many as should believe on him and obey him; and, lastly, he determined to bestow effectual grace on some persons in particular, to work faith and obedience in them infallibly, and thereby to bring them unto glory, unto the praise of his grace and mercy. According unto this order of God’s decrees, it is plain that in the order of nature the predestination of Christ is antecedent unto the election of other particular or individual persons, but withal that it is consequential unto the decree concerning the permission of the fall of Adam; and, accordingly, his incarnation doth suppose it; which is inconsistent with the opinion under examination.

Others take a contrary course, and, by a misapplication of a common rule, that what is first in intention must be last in execution, they suppose the order of God’s decrees, being his intentions or purposes, to be best conceived in a direct retrogradation unto the order of their execution.

Supposing, therefore, the decree of glorifying himself in the way before mentioned, they judge God’s first decree in order of nature to be for the eternal salvation and glory of some certain persons, who axe actually at last brought thereunto; for this being the last thing executed must be first intended. Secondly, In subserviency hereunto, he purposeth to give them grace, and faith, and obedience thereby, as the way to bring them unto the possession of glory. Thirdly, Unto these purposes of God they make the decrees concerning the creation and permission of the fall of man, with the incarnation and mediation of Christ, to be subservient, some in one method, some in another. But that all their conceptions must have an inconsistency with the predestination of Christ unto his incarnation antecedent unto a respect unto sin and grace, is plain and evident.

But whereas both these ways are exposed unto insuperable objections and difficulties, some have fixed on another method for the right conception of the order of God’s eternal decrees in these things, which hath a consistency in itself, and may be fairly brought off from all opposition, — which is the utmost that with sobriety can be aimed at in these things, — namely, that nothing be ascribed unto God in the least unsuited unto the infinite perfections of his nature, nor any thing proposed unto the minds of men inconsistent with the general principles and rules of reason. And those lay down the general rule before mentioned, namely, that what is first in intention is last in execution. But, secondly, they say withal, that this rule concerns only such things as in their own nature, and in the will of him that designs them, have the relation of end and means unto one another; for it hath no place among such things as are not capable of that relation. And, moreover, it is required that this end be ultimate and supreme, and not subordinate, which hath also the nature of the means.

The meaning of it, therefore, is no more but that in all rational purposes there are two things considered, — first, the end aimed at, and then the means of its effecting or accomplishment; and that in order of nature, the end, which is the last thing effected, is the first designed, and then the means for it; which things are true, and obvious unto the understanding of all men. According unto this rule, they ascribe unto God but two decrees that have any order of priority between them. The first is concerning his end, which is first intended and last executed; the other concerning all those means which, being in the second place intended for the production of the end, are first accomplished and wrought. The first of these, which is the supreme end of all the dispensations of God towards the things that outwardly are of him, is his own glory, or the declaration of himself in a way of justice and mercy, mixed with infinite wisdom and goodness, as he is the first Being, sovereign Lord and Ruler over all. The second decree, of things subordinate and subservient hereunto, consisteth in an intention concerning all intermediate acts of divine wisdom, power, and goodness, which tend unto the production of this ultimate end. Such are the creation, the permission of the fall, the pre-ordination of Christ, and others in him, unto grace and glory, by the way and means thereunto appointed. Now, although these things are evidently subordinate and subservient unto one another, and although there may be apprehended singular decrees concerning them, yet because none of them do lie in the order of the means and ultimate end, there is no priority of one decree before another to be allowed therein; only a decree is supposed of disposing them in their execution, or the things executed, into that order, both in nature and time, as may constitute them all one suitable means of attaining the supreme end intended. Now, it is evident that, according unto this order, there cannot be a priority in the pre-ordination of Christ unto the decree of the permission of the fall and entrance of sin.

It is true, indeed, Christ was pre-ordained, or [rather] the Son of God was so, to be incarnate before the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:20. But how? Even as he was “manifested in these last times.” As he was preordained to be incarnate, so he was to be so of the blessed Virgin: and this neither was nor could be but with respect unto the redemption of mankind; for he took flesh of her in answer to the first promise concerning the seed of the woman, which respected our recovery from sin. As he was born or made of her, he was the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world. Besides, he was not ordained unto the grace of union before and without the consideration of glory and exaltation. But this included a supposition of his suffering for sin; for he was first to “suffer,” and then to “enter into his glory,” Luke 24:26. Accordingly, he ordered his own prayer, John 17:4,5, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self.”

To fancy a pre-ordination of the Son of God unto incarnation not of the blessed Virgin after the entrance of sin, not as the Lamb of God, not as one to be exalted after suffering, is that which neither Scripture nor reason will admit of. It is said, indeed, that we are “predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ,” Romans 8:29, which seems to imply an antecedency in his predestination unto ours; but “the image of Christ” there intended includes his suffering, holiness, and exaltation unto glory on his obedience, all which have respect unto sin and redemption. And, moreover, the predestination here intended is subordinate unto our election unto glory, being our designation unto the assured and infallible means thereof, Ephesians 1:4,5. It is true, it was the design of God that he “in all things should have the pre-eminence,” Colossians 1:18; which, as it denotes excellency, worth, use, dignity, supremacy, nearness unto God for the receiving, and unto us for the communicating, of all good, so no respect therein is had unto such a pre-ordination as should imply his incarnation without an intention of glorifying God in the redemption of sinners thereby, which alone we have undertaken to disprove. 18. The arguments of Osiander in this case have been discussed by others, Calvin. Institut. lib. ii. cap. xii. sect. 4, etc.; Wigandus de Osiandrismo, p. 23; Tarnovius, in cap. iii. in Evang. S. Johan. I shall only touch so far upon them as is necessary unto our present design, and that in such instances wherein they have no coincidence with what hath been already discussed.

And some few things may be premised, which will take away the suppositions on which all his reasonings were founded; as, – (1.) The Son was the essential and eternal image of the Father antecedent unto all consideration of his incarnation. He is in his divine person “the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15; “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” Hebrews 1:3: for having his essence and subsistence from the Father by eternal generation, or the communication of the whole divine nature and all its infinite perfections, he is the perfect and essential representation of him. (2.) The order of operation in the blessed Trinity, as unto outward works, answereth unto and followeth the order of their subsistence. Hence the Son is considered as the next and immediate operator of them. Thus, as he is said to have made all things, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, so the Father is said to make all things by him, Ephesians 3:9; not as an inferior, subordinate, instrumental cause, but as acting his wisdom and power in him, to whom they were communicated by eternal generation.

Hence, the immediate relation of all things so made is unto him; and by and in his person is God even the Father immediately represented unto them, as he is his image, and as the brightness of his glory shines forth in him.

Hereon follows his rejoicing in the creation, and his delights in the sons of men, Proverbs 8:30,31, because of their immediate relation unto him. (3.) Therefore should he have been the immediate head and ruler of angels and men, had they all persisted in their original integrity and innocency, Colossians 1:16; for the representation of God unto them, as the cause and end of their being, the object and end of their worship and service, should have been in and by his person, as the image of the Father, and by and through him they should have received all the communications of God unto them. He should have been their immediate head, lord, and king, or the divine nature in his person; for this the order of subsistence in the blessed Trinity, and the order of operation thereon depending, did require.

These things being premised, it will not be difficult to remove out of our way the reasons of Osiander for the incarnation of Christ without a supposition of sin and grace; which we would not engage in, after they have been so long ago put into oblivion, but that they axe by some revived, and the consideration of them will give occasion unto the clearing of some truths not of small importance. 19. First, His principal plea was taken from the “image of God” wherein man was created: “For this,” he saith, “was that human nature, consisting of soul and body, in the outward shape, lineaments, and proportion, which it hath in our persons, which the Son of God was to take upon him. God having ordained that his Son should take human nature, he created Adam in a conformity unto the idea or image thereof.”

Ans. This, doubtless, is a better course for the unfolding of our creation in the image of God than that of the old Anthropomorphites, who, in the exposition of this expression, made God in the image of man; but yet is it not therefore according unto the truth. The image of God in man was in general those excellencies of his nature wherein he excelled all other creatures here below. In especial, it was that uprightness and rectitude of his soul and all its faculties, as one common principle of moral operations, whereby he was enabled to live unto God as his chiefest good and utmost end, Ecclesiastes 7:29. This by our apostle is termed “righteousness and true holiness,” where he treats of the renovation of it in us by Jesus Christ, Ephesians 4:24; whereunto he adds that which is the principle of them both, in the renovation of our minds, Colossians 3:10. Nor doth this image of God consist, as some fancy, in moral duties, in distinction from and opposition unto any other effect of the grace of Christ in the hearts of men, which acts itself in any duty according to the will of God. “To pray, to hear the word, to celebrate religious worship,” they say, “is no part of the image of God; because God doth none of these things, and an image must always correspond unto the thing it represents.” But our likeness unto God doth not consist in doing what God doth, neither is his image in us in any thing more express than in our universal dependence on him and resignation of ourselves unto him, which is a thing the divine nature is incapable of; and when we are commanded to be holy as he is holy, it is not a specificative similitude, but analogical only, that is intended. Wherefore, as the image of God consists in no outward actions of any kind whatever, so the internal grace that is acted in prayer, hearing, and other acts of sacred worship, according to the will of God, doth no less belong unto the image of God than any other grace, or duty, or virtue whatever. In like manner faith doth so also, and that not only as it is an intellectual perfection, but with respect unto all its operations and effects, as the Lord Christ himself and the promises of the gospel are in their several considerations the objects of it: for as in our first creation the image of God consisted in the concreated rectitude of our nature, whereby we were disposed and enabled to live unto God according to the law of our creation, — wherein there was a great representation of His righteousness, or universal, absolute rectitude of his nature, by whom we were made, – so whatever is communicated unto us by the grace of Jesus Christ, whereby our nature is repaired, disposed, and enabled to live unto God, with all acts and duties suitable thereunto, according to the present law of our obedience, belongs to the restoration of the image of God in us; but yet with special respect unto that spiritual light, understanding, or knowledge, which is the directive principle of the whole, for “the new man is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him,” Colossians 3:10.

This, therefore, being the image of God, it is evident that in the creation of man therein there was no respect unto the human nature of Christ, which, as the Son of God, he afterwards assumed. Only, it is granted that we are both formed and re-formed immediately in his image; for as he was and is, in his divine person, the express image of the Father, the divine qualifications wherein the image of God originally consisted in us were immediately wrought in us by him, as those wherein he would represent his own perfection. And in the restoration of this image unto us, as God implanted in him incarnate all fullness of that grace wherein it doth consist, who therein absolutely represents the invisible God unto us, so we are transformed immediately into his likeness and image, and unto that of God by him, 2 Corinthians 3:18. 20. It is further pleaded, “That if the Son of God should not have been incarnate if Adam had not sinned, then Adam was not made in the image of Christ, but Christ was made in the image of Adam.”

Ans. How Adam was made in the image of the Son of God hath been declared, — namely, as to the principles of his nature, and their rectitude with respect unto the condition wherein and the end for which he was made; in which there was a representation of his righteousness and holiness. And in some sense Christ may be said to be made in the image of Adam, inasmuch as he was “made flesh,” or partaker of the same nature with him: “Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same,” Hebrews 2:14. “He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,” Philippians 2:7.

And this he was of God designed unto, even to take on himself that nature wherein Adam was created, and wherein he sinned. He was to be made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, Hebrews 4:15. Whence, in his genealogy after the flesh, he is reduced by Luke unto the first Adam, chap. 3:38; and he is called not the first, or the exemplar of the creation of men, but the second Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:47, being to recover and restore what was lost by the first. Wherefore, in respect of the substance and essence of human nature, Christ was made in the image of Adam; but in respect of the endowments and holy perfections of that nature, he was made in the image of God. 21. Moreover, it is objected, “That the incarnation of Christ was a thing decreed for itself, and as to its futurition depended only on the immutable counsel of God; but this supposition, that it had respect unto the fall of man and his recovery, makes it to depend on an external accident, which, as to the nature of the thing itself, might not have been.”

Ans. The resolution hereof depends much on what hath been before discoursed concerning the order of the divine decrees, which need not to be here repeated. Only, we may remember that the foresight of the fall, and the decree of the permission of it, cannot with any reason be supposed to be consequential to the decree concerning the incarnation of the Son of God: for the reparation of man is everywhere in the Scripture declared to be the end of Christ’s taking flesh; for “when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law,” Galatians 4:4,5.

Neither can his incarnation be properly said either to be “for itself” on the one side, or by “accident” on the other; for it was decreed and foreordained for the glory of God. And the way whereby God intended to glorify himself therein was in our redemption, which, in his infinite love to mankind, was the moving cause thereof, John 3:16. Of the same importance is it, “That if the Son of God had not been incarnate, neither angels nor men could have had their proper head and king;” for, as we have premised, the Son of God should have been the immediate head of the whole creation, ruling every thing in its subordination unto God, suitably unto its own nature, state, and condition. For as he was “the image of the invisible God,” so he was “the first-born of every creature,” Colossians 1:15; that is, the Lord, ruler, and inheritor of them, as we have at large elsewhere declared. 22. It is pleaded in the last place, “That had men continued in their integrity, there should have been a season when they were to be changed and translated into heaven. Now, this being to be done by the Son of God, it was necessary that he should be incarnate for that purpose.” And so far is this consideration urged by Osiander. But this is carried on by the Socinians, and improved on another supposition of their own. Vid. Smal.

Refut. Thes. Franzii Disput. xii. p. 429.

Man, they tell us, was created absolutely mortal, and should have actually died, although he had never sinned. That he might be raised again from the dead, God would have sent a Messiah, or one that should have been the means, example, and instrumental cause of our resurrection.

Ans . All persons of sobriety will acknowledge that there is nothing in these reasonings but groundless curiosities and vain speculations, countenanced with false suppositions; for as God alone knows what would have been the eternal condition of Adam had he persisted in the covenant of his nature, so whatever change was to be wrought concerning him as the reward of his obedience, God could have effected it by his infinite wisdom and power, without any such instrumental cause as these men imagine. “Secret things belong unto the LORD our God ;” nor are we to be “wise above what is written.” The Socinians’ superfetation, that man should have died naturally, though not penally, is a figment of their own, that hath been elsewhere discussed, and is very unmeet to be laid as the foundation of new assertions that cannot otherwise be proved.

From what hath been discoursed it appears that there was no revelation of the incarnation of the Son of God in the state of innocency; neither did it belong unto that state, but was designed in order unto his priesthood, which could therein have no place nor use. 23. Our next inquiry is concerning sacrifices, and whether they were to have had either place or use in the state of innocency. This being determined, way will be made for the fixing of the original of the priesthood of Christ, whereof we are in the investigation, upon its right foundation. And this inquiry is made necessary unto us by some of the Roman church, particularly Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia, They have not, indeed, fixed any special controversy in this inquiry, whether there should have been any sacrifices in the state of innocency; but, in an attempt to serve a principal concern of their own, they assert and contend for that which determines the necessity of sacrifices in that state and condition of things between God and men; for they plead in general, “That there neither is, nor ever was in the world, nor can be, any religion without a true and real sacrifice.” Their design herein is only to hedge in the necessity of their sacrifice of the mass; for on this supposition it must be esteemed to be of the very essence of Christian religion, which some, on the contrary, judge to be overthrown thereby. Now, it is certain that there was and should have been religion in the state of innocency, continued if that state had continued; yea, therein all religion and religious worship were founded, being inlaid in our nature, and requisite unto our condition in this world, with respect unto the end for which we were made. Herein, therefore, on this supposition, sacrifices were necessary, which Bellarmine includes in that “syllogism,” as he calls it, whereby he attempts the proof of the necessity of his missatical sacrifice in the church of Christ, De Missa, lib. i. cap. 20: “Tanta,” saith he, “conjunctio est inter legem seu religionem et sacrificium, externum ac proprie dictum, ut omnino necesse est aut legem et religionem vere et proprie in Christi ecclesia non reperiri, aut sacrificium quoque externum et proprie dictum in Christi ecclesia reperiri. Nullum autem est si missam tollas. Est igitur missa sacrificium externum proprie dictum ;” — “There is such a conjunction between the law or religion and a sacrifice, external and properly so called, that it is altogether necessary either that there is no law or religion truly and properly to be found in the church of Christ, or there is a sacrifice, external and properly so called, to be found therein; but take away the mass, and there is none: wherefore the mass is an external sacrifice, properly so called.” 24. The invalidity of this argument unto his especial purpose may easily be laid open; for setting aside all consideration of his mass, Christian religion hath not only in it a proper sacrifice, but that alone and single sacrifice with respect whereunto any services of men in the worship of the church formerly were so called, and whereby they were animated and rendered useful. For all the sacrifices of the law were but obscure representations of, nor had any other end or use but to prefigure, that sacrifice which we enjoy in Christian religion, and to exhibit the benefits thereof unto the worshippers. This is the sacrifice of Christ himself, which was external, visible, proper, yea, the only true, real, substantial sacrifice, and that offered once for all. And it is merely ejx ajmetri>av ajnqolkh>v, or an immeasurable concern in a corrupt imagination, which carried Bellarmine to put in his frivolous and captious exception unto the sufficiency of this sacrifice in and unto Christian religion; — for he pretends and pleads that “this sacrifice did not belong to the Christian church, which was founded in the resurrection of Christ, before which Christ had offered himself;” as also, that “this sacrifice was but once offered,” and now ceaseth so to be, so that if we have no other sacrifice but this, we have none at all: for notwithstanding these bold and sophistical exceptions, our apostle sufficiently instructs us that we have yet an high priest, and an altar , and a sacrifice and the blood of sprinkling , all in heavenly things and places. And, on purpose to prevent this cavil about the ceasing of this sacrifice as to be offered again, he tells us that it is always zw~sa kai< pro>sfatov , — “living and new-slain.” And, beyond all contradiction, he determined either this one sacrifice of Christ to be insufficient, or that of the mass to be useless; for he shows that where any sacrifices will make perfect them that come to God by them, there no more will be offered. And it is an undoubted evidence that no sacrifice hath obtained its end perfectly, so as to making reconciliation for sin, where any other sacrifice, properly so called, doth come after it. Nor doth he prove the insufficiency of the Aaronical sacrifices unto this purpose by any other argument but that they were often offered from year to year, and that another was to succeed in their room when they were over, Hebrews 10:1-5; and this, upon the supposition of the Romanists, and the necessity of their missatical sacrifice, falls as heavily on the sacrifice of Christ as on those of the law. It is apparent, therefore, that they must either let go the sacrifice of Christ as insufficient, or that of their mass as useless, for they can have no consistency in the same religion. Wherefore they leave out the sacrifice of Christ, as that which was offered before the church was founded. But the truth is, the church was founded therein. And I desire to know of these men whether it be the outward act of sacrificing or the efficacy of a sacrifice that is so necessary unto all religion? If it be the outward act that is of such use and necessity, how great was the privilege of the church of the Jews above that of the Romanists! for whereas these pretend but unto one sacrifice, and that one so dark, obscure, and unintelligible, that the principal mu>stai and ejpo>ptai of their “sacra” cannot possibly agree amongst themselves what it is, nor wherein it doth consist, they had many plain, express, visible sacrifices, which the whole church looked on and consented in. But this whole pretense is vain.

Nor is any thing of the least account or worth in religion but upon the account of its efficacy unto its end. And that we have with us the continual efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in all our religious worship and approaches unto God, the Scripture is full and express. But these things are not of our present concernment; the consideration of them will elsewhere occur. 25. As unto our present purpose, I deny the major proposition of Bellarmine’s syllogism, if taken absolutely and universally, as it must be if any way serviceable unto his end. This, therefore, he proves. “Propositio,” saith he, “prima probatur primo ex eo quod fere omnis religio, seu vera seu falsa, omni loco et tempore, semper ad cultum Dei sacrificia adhibuerit; hinc enim colligitur, id prodire ex lumine et instinctu naturae, et esse primum quoddam principium a Deo nobis ingenitum;” — “It is proved from hence, that almost all religion, whether true or false, in all places and times, hath made use of sacrifices in the worship of God; for hence it is gathered that this proceeds from the light and instinct of nature, being a certain principle inbred in us from God himself.” And hereon he proceeds to confute Chemnitius, who assigned the original of sacrificing among the heathen unto an instinct of corrupt nature, which is the root of all superstition. I shall not now inquire expressly into the original of all sacrifices; it must be done elsewhere. We here only discourse concerning those that are properly so called, and not only so, but propitiatory also; for such he contendeth his mass to be. It is, indeed, suitable to the light of nature that of what we have left in our possession we should offer unto the service of God, when he hath appointed a way for us so to do; but it is denied that in the state of innocency he had appointed that to be by the way of sacrificing sensible things. All eucharistical offerings should then have been moral and spiritual, in pure acts of the mind and its devotion in them. Sacrifices of or for atonement were first instituted, and other offerings had their name from thence, by reason of some kind of analogy. And so far as thank-offerings were materially the same with them that were propitiatory, in the death and blood of any creature, they had in them the nature of a propitiation also.

That these were instituted after the fall I have elsewhere sufficiently proved. Being therefore at first enjoined unto all mankind in general, as tokens of the recovery promised, they were retained and perpetuated amongst all sorts of men, even when they had lost all notion and remembrance of the promise whereunto they were originally annexed; for they had a double advantage for the perpetuating themselves: — First, A suitableness unto the general principle of giving an acknowledgment unto God, in a returnal of a portion of that all which comes from him. Secondly, They had a compliance with the accusation of conscience for sin, by an endeavor to transfer the guilt of it unto another. But their first original was pure divine and supernatural revelation, and not the light or conduct of nature, nor any such innate principle as Bellarmine imagineth. No such inseparable conjunction as is pretended between sacrifices and religion can hence be proved, seeing they were originally an arbitrary institution, and that after there had been religion in the world. He proceeds, therefore, further to confirm his first proposition: “Sacrificium cum ipsa religione natum est, et cum illa extinguitur; est igitur inter ea conjunctio plane necessaria;” — “Sacrificing was born with religion, and dies with it; there is, therefore, between them a plain necessary conjunction.” So he. This is only a repetition of the proposition in other words; for to say that there is such a conjunction between sacrifices and religion that the one cannot be without the other, and to say they are born and die together, is to say the same thing twice over. He adds, therefore, his proof of the whole: “Nam primi homines qui Deum coluisse leguntur filii Adami fuerunt, Cain et Abel, illi autem sacrificia obtulisse dicuntur,” Genesis 4; whereon he proceeds unto other instances under the Old Testament. Now, it is plain that by this instance he hath overthrown his general assertion; for he excludes from proof the state of innocency, wherein there was unquestionably religion in the world, and that without sacrifices, if Cain and Abel were the first that offered them. He doth, therefore, by his instances neither prove what himself intends, nor touch upon our cause, that there were no sacrifices in the state of innocency, though that state is necessarily included in his general assertion. 26. From what hath been spoken it appears that there was no decree, no counsel of God, concerning either priest or sacrifice, with respect unto the law of creation and the state of innocency. A supposition of the entrance of sin, and what ensued thereon in the curse of the law, lie at the foundation of the designation of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. Now, concerning the fall of man, the nature of that sin whereby he fell, the propagation of it unto all mankind, the distress, misery, and ruin of the world thereby, I have at large discoursed in our former Exercitations, prefixed unto the exposition of the first two chapters of this Epistle. I have also in them evinced in general, that it was not the will, purpose, or counsel of God, that all mankind should utterly perish in that condition, as he had determined concerning the angels that sinned, but from the very beginning he gave not only sundry intimations but express testimonies of a contrary design. That, therefore, he would provide a relief for fallen man, that this relief was by the Messiah, whose coming and work he declared in a promise immediately upon the entrance of sin, hath been also demonstrated in those Exercitations. Building on these foundations, and having now removed some objections out of our way, it remains that we proceed to declare the especial original of the priesthood of Christ in the counsel of God, with respect unto the especial manner of deliverance from sin and wrath designed therein.

EXERCITATION 27.

THE ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 1. The design. 2. The end of God in his works in general; in the creation of man — Personal transactions in the holy Trinity concerning him. 3. Genesis 1:26. 4. Plurality of persons in the holy Deity here first revealed. 5. God speaks not “more regio.” 6. Sentiments of the Jews on the words of this text inquired into and rejected. 7. Objections of Enjedinus unto this testimony examined at large. 8. Personal internal transactions in the holy Trinity with respect to mankind proved. 9. Proverbs 8:22-31 — Corrupt translation of the LXX. — Arian pretences rejected. 10. The Jewish interpretation of this place discussed and rejected — Objections of the Socinians. 11. A divine person intended; proved from the text and context in sundry instances. 12. The application of this scripture to the Son of God vindicated at large from the objections of Enjedinus. 13. Christ, with respect to God the Father, said to be ˆwOma; wOlx]a,; in what sense. 14. The mutual delight and satisfaction of God and Wisdom in each other; what they were, and with respect whereunto, Psalm 40:7,8. 15. The joy and delight of Wisdom with the sons of men had respect to their redemption and salvation. 16. Objections of the Jews and Mohammedans to the testimony given to Christ as the Son of God, Psalm 2:7. 17. The opposition of Enjedinus to the same purpose removed. 18. Eternal transactions between the Father and Son about the redemption of mankind hence confirmed. 1. FROM what hath been discoursed, it is manifest that the counsel of God concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of his Son, to be incarnate for that purpose, had respect unto sin, and the deliverance of the elect from it, with all the consequents thereof; and the same truth hath also been particularly discussed and confirmed in our exposition of the second chapter of this Epistle. That which now lies before us is to inquire more expressly into the nature of the counsels of God in this matter, and their progress in execution. And as in this endeavor we shall carefully avoid all curiosity, or vain attempts to be wise above what is written, so, on the other hand, we shall study with sober diligence to declare and give light unto what is revealed herein, to the end that we should so increase in knowledge as to be established in faith and obedience. To this end are our ensuing discourses designed. 2. God, in the creation of all things, intended to manifest his nature, in its being, existence, and essential properties; and therein to satisfy his wisdom and goodness. Accordingly, we find his expressions of and concerning himself in the work of creation suited to declare these things.

See Isaiah 40:12-17. Also, that the things themselves that were made had in their nature and order such an impress of divine wisdom, goodness, and power upon them, as made manifest the original cause from whence they did proceed. To this purpose discourseth our apostle, Romans 1:19-21, To< gnwstoPsalm 19:1,2; as do sundry other divine writers also.

Wherefore the visible works of God, man only excepted, were designed for no other end but to declare in general the nature, being, and existence of God. But in this nature there are three persons distinctly subsisting; and herein consists the most incomprehensible and sublime perfection of the divine being. This, therefore, was designed unto manifestation and glory in the creation of man; for therein God would glorify himself as subsisting in three distinct persons, and himself in each of those persons distinctly.

This was not designed immediately in other parts of the visible creation, but in this, which was the complement and perfection of them. And therefore the first express mention of a plurality of persons in the divine nature is in the creation of man; and therein also are personal transactions intimated concerning his present and future condition. This, therefore, is that which in the first place we shall evince, namely, “That there were from all eternity personal transactions in the holy Trinity concerning mankind in their temporal and eternal condition, which first manifested themselves in our creation.” 3. The first revelation of the counsels of God concerning the glorifying of himself in the making and disposal of man is declared Genesis 1:26: µY;hæ tgæd]bi WDr]yiw] WnteWmd]Ki Wnmel]xæB] µd;a; hc,[\næ µyhiloa’ rm,aoYwæ “And God said, Let us make man in our image, according unto our likeness, and let them have dominion.” This was the counsel of God concerning the making of µd;a; ; that is, not of that particular individual person who was first created and so called, but of the species or kind of creature which in him he now proceeded to create. For the word Adam is used in this and the next chapter in a threefold sense: — First, For the name of the individual man who was first created. He was called Adam from adamah, “the ground,” from whence he was taken, chap. 2:19-21; a]nqrwpov ejk gh~v , coi`ko>v , 1 Corinthians 15:47, “of the earth, earthy.” Secondly, It is taken indefinitely for the man spoken of, chap. 2:7, µd;a;h;Ata, µyhiloa’ hwO;hy] rx,yYwæ hm;d;a\h;Aˆmi rp;[; ; — “ And the Lord God created man;” not him whose name was Adam, for “He hajediah” [He emphatic] is never prefixed unto any proper name, but the man indefinitely of whom he speaks.

Thirdly, It denotes the species of mankind. So is it used in this place, for the reddition is in the plural number, “And let them have dominion,” the multitude of individuals being included in the expression of the species.

Hence it is added, chap. 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them;” which is not spoken with respect unto Eve, who was not then made, but unto the kind or race, wherein both sexes were included. 4. Concerning them God saith, hc,[\næ , “Let US make,” in the plural number; and so are the following expressions of God in the same work:

Wnmel]xæB] , “In OUR image;” WnteWmd]Ki , “According to OUR likeness.”

This. is the first time that God so expresseth himself, and the only occasion whereon he doth so in the story of the creation. As unto all other things, we hear no more but µyhila’ rm,aYOwæ , “And God said;” in which word also I will not deny but respect may be had unto the plurality of persons in the divine essence, as the Spirit is expressly mentioned, chap. 1:2. But here the mystery of it is clearly revealed. The Jews constantly affirm that the elders, who translated the Law on the request of Ptolemy king of Egypt, changed or corrupted the text in thirteen places, whereof this was the first; for hc,[\næ , “Let us make,” they rendered by Poih>sw , “I will make,” and not Poih>swmen , in the plural number. And this, they say, they did lest they should give occasion unto the king or others to imagine that their law allowed of any more Gods than one, or on any account departed from the singularity of the divine nature. Whether this were so or no I know not, and have sufficient reason not to be too forward in giving credit unto their testimony, if nothing else be given in evidence of what they affirm; for no footsteps or impressions of any such corruptions remain in any copies or memorials of the translation intended by them which are come down unto us. But this is sufficiently evident, that the reporter of this story apprehended an unanswerable appearance of a plurality of subsistences in the Deity, which they by whom the Trinity is denied, as we shall see immediately, know not what to make of or how to solve. 5. It is an easy way which some have taken, in the exposition this place, to solve the difficulty which appears in it. God, they say, in it speaks “more regio,” “in a kingly manner,” by the plural number. “Mos est,” saith Grotius, “Hebraeorum de Deo, ut de rege loqui; reges res magnas agunt de consilio primorum, I Reg. 12:6, 2 Paral. 10:9; sic et Dens,1 Reg. 22:20;” — “ It is the manner of the Hebrews to speak of God as of a king; and kings do great things on the counsel of the chief about them.” But the question is not about the manner of speaking among the Hebrews (whereof yet no instance can be given unto this purpose of their speaking in the first person, as here), but of the words of God himself concerning himself, and of the reason of the change of the expression constantly used before. God is king of all the world, of the whole creation; and if he had spoken “more regio” therein, he would have done it with respect unto the whole equally, and not signally with respect unto man. Besides, this “mos regius” is a custom of a much later date, and that which then was not, was not alluded unto. And the reason added why this form of speech is used, namely, “because kings do great things on the counsel of their principal attendants,” requires, in the application, that God should consult with some created princes about the creation of man; which is an antiscriptural figment, and shall be immediately disproved. Least of all is any countenance given unto this interpretation from the place alleged, 1 Kings 22:20, — the application whereof unto this purpose is borrowed from Aben Ezra on this place, in his attempt to avoid this testimony given unto the Trinity, — “Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ?” for as there is nothing spoken in the plural number to parallel this expression, so if that allegorical declaration of God’s providential rule be literally pressed, Satan or a lying spirit must be esteemed to be one of the chiefs with whom he consulted. But “who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being the man of his counsel hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who made him understand ?” Isaiah 40:13,14.

The ancients unanimously agree that a plurality of persons in the Deity is here revealed and asserted; yea, the council of Sirmium, though dubious, yea, Arianising in their confession of faith, yet denounceth anathema unto any that shall deny these words, “Let us make man,” to be the words of the Father to the Son, Socrat. lib. ii. cap. 26. Chrysostom lays the weight of his argument for it upon the change in the manner of expression before used; as he may do justly and solidly. “Apparet,” saith Ambrose, “concilio Trinitatis creatum esse hominem.” Neither have any of those who of late have espoused this evasion answered any of the arguments of the ancients for the sense we plead for, nor replied with any likelihood of reason unto their exceptions against that interpretation, which they took notice of as invented long ago. Theodoret, in his in Gen., quaest. 20, urgeth, “That if God used this manner of speech concerning himself merely to declare his mind ‘more regio,’ he would have done it always, at least he would have done it often.” However, it would unavoidably have been the form of speech used in that kingly act of giving the law at Sinai, for that, if any thing, required the kingly style pretended; but the absolute contrary is observed. God, in that whole transaction with his peculiar people and subjects, speaks of himself constantly in the singular number. 6. But there are two sorts of persons who, with all their strength and artifices, oppose our exposition of this place, — namely, the Jews and the Socinians, with whom we have to do perpetually in whatever concerns the person and offices of Christ the Messiah, and in what any way relates thereunto. We shall, therefore, first consider what they offer to secure themselves from this testimony against their infidelity, and then further improve the words unto the end peculiarly designed. And although there is a great coincidence in their pretensions, yet I shall handle them distinctly, that it may the better appear wherein the one receiveth aid and assistance from the other.

The Jews are at no small loss as to the intention of the Holy Ghost in this expression, and, if we may believe some of them, have been so from of old; for, as we observed before, they all affirm that these words were changed in the translation of the LXX., because they could not understand how they might be properly expressed without giving countenance unto polytheism. Philo, de Opificio Mundi, knows not on what to fix, but after a pretense of some reason for satisfaction, adds, Ththn aijti>an Qeogkh mo>non eijde>nai? — “The true reason hereof is known unto God alone.” The reason which he esteems most probable is taken out of Plato in his Timaeus. “For whereas,” he saith, “there was to be in the nature of man a principle of vice and evil, it was necessary that it should be from another author, and not from the most high God.” But as the misadventure of such woful mistakes may be passed over in Plato, who had no infallible rule to guide him in his disquisition after truth, so in him, who had the advantage of the scriptures of the Old Testament, it cannot be excused, seeing this figment riseth up in opposition to the whole design of them. Some seek an evasion in the word hc,[]næ , which they would have to be the first person singular in Niphal, and not the first person plural in Kal. Having, therefore, a passive signification, the meaning is, that “homo factus est;” man, or Adam, was made in our image and likeness, — that is, of Moses and other men. Of this exposition of the words Aben Ezra says plainly, bl rsj çwryp hz , — “ It is an interpretation for a fool;” and well refutes it from these words of God himself, Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man,” with other considerations of the text. R. Saadias would have it that God spake these words ˆyklm ghnm l[ , “secundum consuetudinem regum;” or ˆwçl µyklmh ghnm ˆkç ybr , as Aben Ezra, “the plural number, which is the custom of kings.” This we have already rejected, and must yet further call it into examination as it is managed by the Socinians.

But plainly the introduction of this style is comparatively modern, and which nothing but usage or custom hath given reverence or majesty unto.

Joseph Kimchi would have it that God speaks unto himself, or the earth, or the four elements; for as the soul of man was to be immediately created by God, so his body was to be from the earth, by a contemperation of the principles and qualities of it. And this man falls on the rock which he principally aims to avoid, — namely, an appearance of polytheism; for he makes the earth itself to be a god, that hath a principle of operation in itself, with a will and understanding whereby to exert it. Some of them affirm that in these words God consulted hl[m lç aylmpb , “with his family above,” — that is, the angels; which Aben Ezra on the place principally inclines unto. This must afterwards be distinctly examined.

Others say it is God and wnyd tyb , “his house of judgment.” ktk µaw wmx[ µ [ ala wnyd tyb µ[ rbdm ayhç wndml al µda hç[a , says Kishi on the place; “If it had been written, ‘Let me,’ or ‘I will make man,’ he had not taught us that he spake unto his house of judgment, but unto himself;” whereof he shows the danger, from the expressions in the plural number. Hence some learned men have supposed that of old by “God and his house of judgment,” they intended the persons of the holy Trinity, the Father, Word, and Spirit; but the explication which they frequently give of their minds herein will not allow us so to judge, at least as unto any of their post-Talmudical masters.

Other vain and foolish conjectures of theirs in this matter I shall not repeat. These instances are sufficient as to my present intention; for hence it is evident into what uncertainties they cast themselves who are resolved upon an opposition unto the truth. They know not what to fix upon, nor wherewith to relieve themselves. Although they all aim at the same end, yet what one embraceth another condemns, and those that are wisest reckon up all the conjectures they can think of together, but fix on no one as true or as deserving to be preferred before others; for error is nowhere stable or certain, but fluctuates like the isle of Delos, beyond the skill of men or devils to give it a fixation. And thus much also of their sense was necessary to be expressed, that it might appear whence and from whom the Socinians and those who syncretize with them in an opposition unto these testimonies given unto the Trinity do borrow their exceptions. Little or nothing have they to offer for the supportment of their cause but what they have borrowed from those avowed enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7. I shall not in this instance collect the sentiments of the Socinians out of several of their writers, but take up with him who was one of the first that made it his professed design to elude all the testimonies of the Scriptures which are usually pleaded in the defence of the doctrine of the Trinity.

This is Georgius Enjedinus, whose writings, indeed, gave the first countenance unto the Anti-trinitarian cause. And I shall the rather deal with him, because his perverse discourses, which were almost worn out of the world, are lately revived by a new edition, and are become common in the hands of many. Besides, indeed, there is little or nothing material added in this cause by his followers unto his sophistical evasions and exceptions, though what he came short of in the New Testament, being prevented by death, is pursued in his method by Felbinger. The title of his book is, “Explicationes locorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, ex quibus Trinitatis dogma stabiliri solet;” whereof this under consideration is the second. To the argument from hence for a plurality of persons in the same divine essence, he gives sundry exceptions, mostly borrowed from the Jews, invented by them out of their hatred to the Christian faith. And both sorts of these men do always think it sufficient unto their cause to give in cavilling exceptions unto the clearest evidence of any divine testimony, not regarding to give any sense of their own which they will abide by as the true exposition of them.

He therefore first pleads: “Si ex hoc loquendi formula numerus et natura Dei venanda et colligenda est, dicimus primo, Non plus esse Trinitariis in hoc dicto ad tres Deitatis personas stabiliendas praesidii, quam gentibus et omnibus idololatris, ad sua multiplicia et numero carentia numina confirmandum. Illud enim ‘Faciamus ad nostram,’ etc., tam potest ad decem, centum, mille, quam ad tria referri, neque quidquam est futilius et ineptius quam sic argumentari. Hic dicuntur esse multi; ergo sunt tres, nam possunt esse viginti, triginta, quinquaginta, etc.

Ergo siquid roboris in hoc argumento est, hoc tantum concludit Deos esse multos. Absit autem a nobis, certe abest a Mose ista prophanitas, ut multitudinem deorum, sacrarum literarum testimonio introducamus aut stabiliamus.”

But these things are sophistical and vain. The vanity of the divine nature is always supposed in our disquisitions concerning the persons subsisting therein. And this is so clearly and positively asserted in the Scripture, particularly by Moses, Deuteronomy 6:4, besides that any apprehensions to the contrary are directly repugnant unto the light of nature, that no expressions can be observed to give the least countenance unto any other notion without ascribing direct contradictions unto it; which, if certain and evident, were a sufficient ground to reject the whole.

No pretense, therefore, unto any imagination of a plurality of Gods can be made use of from these words. And the whole remaining sophistry of this exception lies in a supposition that we plead for three distinct persons in the Trinity from this place; which is false. That there is a plurality of subsistences in the divine nature we plead from hence; that these are three, neither more nor less, we prove from other places of Scripture without number. Many of these I have elsewhere vindicated from the exceptions of these men. Without a supposition of this plurality of persons, we say no tolerable account can be given of the reason of this assertion by them who acknowledge the unity of the divine nature; and we design no more but that therein there is mutual counsel , — which without a distinction of persons cannot be fancied. This whole pretense, therefore, founded on a vain and false supposition, that this testimony is used to prove a certain number of persons in the Deity, is altogether vain and frivolous.

He adds, “Secundo illud quodque hic perpendendum est, quod ex his Mosis verbis, non sequitur hoc, Deum, qui dixit ‘Faciamus,’ fuisse multiplicem, sive non unum fuisse locutum, sed hoc tantum, haec verba prolata coram pluribus. Unus ergo erat qui loquebatur, sed loquebatur praesentibus aliis. Hinc autem non immediate sequitur creatores hominis fuisse multos. Nam ad hanc conclusionem pluribus adhuc consequentiis opus est. Nimirum quaerendum statim est, quinam illi fuerint, quos Deus allocutus est. Deinde creaturae, an increati? Tum an illi quoque aequaliter cum Deo operati sint in formatione hominis.”

Although he only here proposeth in general what he intendeth afterwards to pursue in particular, yet something must be observed thereon, to keep upright the state of our inquiry, which he endeavors perpetually to wrest unto his advantage. And, — (1.) The invidious expressions which he makes use of, as “Deum multiplicem,” and the like, are devoid of ingenuity and charity, nothing that answers them being owned by those whom he opposeth. (2.) It follows not from our exposition of these words, nor is it by us asserted, that man had many creators; which he need not pretend that there is need of many consequences to prove, seeing none was ever so fond as to attempt the proof of it. I confess that expression in Job, yc;[O HæwOla’ hYeaæ , chap. 35:10, “Where is God my creators?” doth prove that he is in some sense many who made us. But whereas creation is a work proceeding from and an effect of the infinite properties of the one divine nature, our Creator is but one, although that one be equally Father, Son, and Spirit. (3.) It is granted that one speaks these words, not more together; but he so speaks them that he takes those unto whom he speaks into the society of the same work with himself; neither is the speaker more or otherwise concerned in “Let US make,” and “in OUR image,” than are those unto whom he speaks. Neither, indeed, is it the speaking of these words before many concerned that Moses expresseth, but it is the concurrence of many unto the same work, with the same interest and concernment in it. And whosoever is concerned, speaking or spoken unto, in the first words, “Let us make,” is no less respected in the following words, “in our image and likeness.” They must, therefore, be of one and the same nature; which was to be represented in the creature to be made in their image. These things being premised, we may take a view of the pursuit and management of his particular exceptions: — “Atque quod ad primum attinet; quinam scilicet illi fuerint, quos sit Deus allocutus; primo dicere possumus non necessarium esse, propter hujusmodi locutionum formas, multa individua constituere.

Saepe enim scriptores aliquem secum deliberantem et disceptantem introducunt. Ex quo non statim sequitur ei plures in consultatione adesse, sed tantum hoc, illum diligenter et solicite omnia considerare et expendere. Ita ergo Deus animal omnium praestantissimum creaturus, introducitur a Mose consultabundus ajnqrwpopaqw~v more Scripturae. Unde tamen non sequitur, Deum in istud consilium alios adhibuisse.”

Herein this author exceeds the confidence of the Jews, for they constantly grant that somewhat more than one individual person must be intended in these words, or no proper sense can be elicited from them. But the whole of this discourse, and what he would insinuate by it, is merely petitio principii accompanied with a neglect of the argument which he pretends to answer: for he only says that “one may be introduced, as it were, deliberating and consulting with himself,” whereof yet he gives no instance, either from the Scripture or other sober writer, nor can give any parallel unto this discourse here used; but he takes no notice that the words directly introduce more than one consulting and deliberating among themselves about the creating of man in their image. And of a form of speech answering hereunto, where one only and absolutely is concerned, no instance can be given in any approved author.

Again, what he concludes from his arbitrary supposition, — namely, that hence “it doth not follow that God took counsel with others besides himself,” — is nothing to the argument in hand; for we prove not hence that God consulted with others besides himself, nor would it be unto our purpose so to do. But this the words evince, that he who thus consulted with himself is in some respect more than one. But will this author abide by it, that this is the sense of the place, and that thus the words are to be interpreted? This he hath not the least thought of, nor will maintain that it is according unto truth: for so they can invent exceptions against our interpretation of any testimony of Scripture, they never care to give one of their own which they will adhere unto and defend; which way of dealing in sacred things of so great importance is very perverse and froward. Thus our author, here relinquishing this conjecture, proceeds : — “Sed demus esto, Deum hic aliquos compellasse, quaeramus quinam isti fuerint. Aiunt adversarii hos omnino debuisse esse sermonis et rationis capaces. Quomodo enim Deus alloqueretur eos, qui nec loqui nec intelligere possint; sed hoc non satis firmum est. Nam scimus Deum saepe etiam cum sensu et ratione carentibus colloquium instituere; ut in Esa. i., ‘Audite, coeli.’” Rather than this man would omit any cavil, he will make use of such as are sapless and ridiculous. God doth not here speak unto others that are not himself, but by speaking as he doth, he declares himself to exist in a plurality of persons, capable of mutual consultation and joint operation.

But here he must be supposed, as some of the Jews fancied before him, to speak unto the inanimate parts of the creation, as he speaks in the first of Isaiah, “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth.” But in such rhetorical apostrophes they are in truth men that are spoken unto, and that scheme of speech is used merely to make an impression on them of the things that are spoken. Apply this unto the words of God in the circumstance of the creation of man, and it will appear shamefully ridiculous. Wherefore he trusteth not unto this subterfuge, but proceeds to another: – “Sed demus etiam hoc, istos Deo praesentes fuisse rationales, quid postea? Addunt hos non fuisse creaturas, quia Deus non soleat in suum consilium adhibere creaturas; oportet ergo ut fuerint creatores, Filius cum Spiritu. Verum isti meminisse debebant, Scripturam sacrum nusquam Deum solitarium statuere, sed semper illi apparitores et agmina angelorum attribuere, ut ex visionibus prophetarum patet. Quod autem in consultationem non adhibeat creaturas Deus, hoc quoque ex eisdem visionibus refellitur. Nam etsi verum est Deum proprie cum nullo consulere, neque ullius egere consilio, tamen prophetae illum consultantem cum spiritibus representant, 3 Reg. xxii.; Esa, vi.; Job. i. Jam vero cure Adamus formabatur, extitisse angelos sequens historia Mosis docet. Ergo potuerunt illi Deo de condendo homine consultanti assistere, et coram illis potuit Deus haec protulisse.”

This man seems willing to grant any thing but the truth. That which this whole discourse amounts unto is, that “God spake these words unto the angels,” as the Jews pretend. So Jarchi says that God spake unto them lçm °rdb , “by way of condescension,” that they should not be troubled to see a creature made little less excellent than themselves. Others of them say that God spake unto them as he is attended with them, or as they wait upon his throne, which they call his “house of judgment;” and this sense Enjedinus and those that follow him fence withal. But this we have disproved already, so that it need not here be much insisted on. The Scripture expressly denies that God took counsel with any besides himself in the whole work of the creation, Isaiah 40:12-14. Creation is a pure act of infinite monarchical sovereignty, wherein there was no use of any intermediate, instrumental causes, as there is in the government of the world. Wherefore, in the course of providence, God may be introduced as speaking with or unto the creatures whom he will employ in the execution thereof, and who attend his throne to receive his commands; but in the work of creation, wherein none were to be employed, this can have no place, nor can God be represented as consulting with any creatures in the creation without a disturbance of the true notion and apprehension of it.

Besides, nothing of this nature can be proved, no not even with respect unto providential dispensations, from the places alleged. For Isaiah 6, it is the prophet only whom God in vision speaks unto, calling out his faith and obedience, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” verse 8; but whereas he speaks both in the singular and plural number, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?” there is also a plurality of persons in the same individual essence expressed; and unto the other persons besides the Father is this place applied by the Holy Ghost, John 12:41; Acts 28:26. In the other two places, 1 Kings 22, Job1, God is introduced speaking to the devil; which it is some marvel to find cited unto this purpose by persons of more sobriety and modesty than Enjedinus.

Again, man was made in the image and likeness of him that speaks and all that are as it were conferred with: “Let us make man in our image.” But man was not made in the image and likeness of angels, but in the image and likeness of God, — that is, of God alone, as it is expressed in the next verse. And the image here mentioned doth not denote that which is made to answer another thing, but that which another is to answer unto: “Let us make man in our image,” — that is, conformable unto our nature. Now, God and angels have not one common nature, that should be the exemplar and prototype in the creation of man. Their natures and properties are infinitely distant. And that likeness which is between angels and men doth no way prove that man was made in the image of angels, although angels should be supposed to be made before them; for more is required hereunto than a mere similitude and likeness, as one egg is like another, but not the image of another. A design of conforming one to another, with its dependence on that other, is required hereunto; so was man made in the image of God alone. But he further excepts: – “Sed quid tum, si omnia demus, Deum non creaturis praesentibus, neque illis esse allocutum his verbis? Sequitur ne eum qui locutus est cum illis quos allocutus est ejusdem esse naturae et essentiae?

Hoc enim isti moliuntur. Certe fatuum est ita colligere. Ille qui loquitur et illi quos alloquitur sunt ejusdem essentiae. Sic enim serpens erit Eva, et homo diabelus et quid non?”

At whose door the censure of folly will rest, a little examination of this sophism will discover. For, whatever this man may imagine, it will certainly follow, that if God spake unto any, and they were not creatures, those to whom he spake were of the same nature and essence with him that spake; for God and creatures divide the whole nature of beings, and therefore if any be spoken unto that is not a creature, he is God, — unless he can discover a middle sort of being, that is not God nor a creature, neither the Maker nor made. Again, it is a wondrous vain supposition, that our argument from hence is taken from such a general proposition, “He that speaks and he that is spoken unto are of the same nature;” the absurdity whereof is obvious unto children. But here is such a speaking of one as declares him in some respect to be more than one; and they are all assumed into the same society in the forming of man in the likeness of that one nature whereof they are equally partakers. All these pretences, therefore, are at last deserted by our author, who betakes himself unto that which is inconsistent with them: — “Sed excipient fortasse, Mosem non tantum hoc significare, Deum esse allocutum praesentes illos, sed eos in societatem operis vocasse, et creationis participes fecisse? ‘Faciamus,’ inquit. At qui Creator est hominis, est etiam universi; qui universi, est solus et verus Deus. Hoc igitur jam diligentius excutiendum est; an Deus in hoc verbo ‘Faciamus,’ secum alios incluserit, atque creationem hominis aliis quoque communicavit? Nos enim dicimus, illud ‘Faciamus,’ etiamsi forma et voce sit plurale, tamen significatione et vi esse singulare; neque de ullo alio nisi de solo loquente, hoc est de Deo esse intelligendum.”

As he here at once overthrows all his former pretences, with some others also that he adds from the Jews in the dose of his discourse, sufficiently manifesting that it is not truth, or the true sense of the words, which he inquires after, but merely how he may multiply captious exceptions unto the sense by us pleaded for, so now, when he comes to own a direct opposition unto it, his discourse, wherein he states the matter in difference, is composed of sophistical expressions; for whereas he pretends that our judgment is, that “God by these words calls in others besides himself unto himself into the society of this work,” whereby it is proved that both he that speaks and they that are spoken unto are of the same nature, he doth but attempt to deceive the unwary reader. For we say not that God speaks unto others besides himself, nor calls in others to the work of creation; but God alone speaks in himself and to himself, because as he is one in essence, so as to personal subsistence there are three in one, as many other places of the Scripture do testify. And these three are each of them intelligent operators, though all working by that nature, which is one, and common to or in them all. Therefore are they expressed as speaking thus in the plural number, which could not be, in any congruity of speech, were he that speaks but one person as well as one in nature. And were not the doctrine of the Trinity clearly revealed in other places of Scripture, there could be no proper interpretation given of these words, so as to give no countenance unto polytheism; but that being so revealed and taught elsewhere, the interpretation of this place is facile and plain, according to the analogy thereof. But that one person alone is intended in these words, he proceeds to prove: — “Primo enim hoc omnibus linguis usitatum est, ut numero plurali, cum de se cum de aliis etiam singularibus passim sine discrimine utantur, sic Christus cum de se solo loqueretur. Job. 3:11, ait, ‘Quod scimus loquimur, et quod videmus testamur;’ in quibus verbis Christum de se pluraliter loqui sequentia ostendunt; ‘si,’ inquit, ‘terrena dixi vobis.’ Sic Deus de seipso solo, Esa 41:22, ‘Accedant, et nuntient nobis quaecunque ventura sunt: et ponemus cor nostrum et sciemus novissima eorum, et quae ventura sunt indicate nobis.’ Quin etiam illud observari potest, de eodem et unico singulari permixtim, nunc singularem nunc pluralem usurpari numerum. Et Esa 6:8, dicit Deus, ‘Quem mittam, ant quis ibit pro nobis?’ Ex quibus et similibus locis et loquendi usu vulgari apparet, posse verbum plurale de uno solo, recte intelligi et dici. Ergo etiamsi Deus hic dicat ‘Faciamus,’ tamen tantundem est, ac dicerat ‘Faciam.’“ What he saith is so usual in all languages , that one speaking of himself should speak in the plural number, having respect unto no more than himself, nor letting any others into a concernment with himself in the things spoken, he can give no instance of in any language, out of any ancient approved author. (1.) That phrase of speech is a novice in the use of speaking. Particularly it is a stranger unto the Scripture. As this author could not, no more can any of his successors, produce any one instance out of the Old Testament of any one, unless it were God alone, were he never so great or powerful, that spake of himself in the first person in the plural number. Aben Ezra himself on this place grants that no such instance can be given. He is therefore at once deprived of the Hebrew language, wherein yet alone his instances ought to be given, if he will argue from the use of speaking. (2.) The places he cites relieve him not. John 3:11, our Savior’s words respect not himself only, but his disciples also, who taught and baptized in his name, whose doctrine he would vindicate as his own. And as for what he adds afterwards, “If I have told you earthly things,” it relates directly unto that discourse which in his own person he had with Nicodemus, with respect whereunto he changeth his phrase of speech unto the singular number; which overthrows his pretensions. The words of the prophet, Isaiah 41:22, are either spoken of God alone, or of God and the church, whom he called and joined with himself in bearing witness against idols and idolaters; and he may take his choice in whether sense he will admit of them. If they are spoken of God alone, we have another testimony to confirm our doctrine, that there must be, and is, a plurality of persons in the one singular, undivided nature of God; if of the church also, there is no exception in them unto our rule, that one person speaks of himself in the Scripture only in the singular number. (3.) His other instance out of the same prophet, Isaiah 6:8, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” is home to his purpose of proving that the singular and plural numbers are used mixedly or promiscuously of one and the same. But who is that one? It is God alone. No such instance can be given in any other. And why are things so expressed by him and concerning him? Who can give any tolerable reason but this alone, namely, because his nature is one and singular, but subsisting in more persons than one? And indeed this place, considered with its circumstances, and the allegations of it in the New Testament, doth infallibly confirm the truth we contend for. He hath not yet, therefore, attained to a proof that the word may be so used as he pretends; which, with these men, is enough to secure them from the force of any Scripture testimony. He adds, therefore:- “Secundo, Non solum posse, sed omnino necessarium esse, ut hic ‘Faciamus,’ singulare denotet individuum, inde probatur, quia si illa vox multitudinem in se includeret, nunquam ausi fuissent sacri scriptores eam immutare et in singularem numerum vertere. At prophetae, ipse Christus, et apostoli, ubicunque de hac creatione loquuntur eam uni et quidem in singulari usurpata voce attribuunt.

Nam statim ipse Moses subjicit, ‘Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam.’ Quod proxime dixerat ‘Faciamus,’ hic exprimit per ‘Deus creavit;’ quod ibi ‘in imaginem nostram,’ hic in singulari, ‘ad imaginem suam.’ Sic cap. 6:7, ‘Delebo hominem quem creavi.’ Et Christus, Matthew 19:4, ‘Qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et foeminam fecit eos.’

Marc. 10:6, ‘Masculum et foeminam fecit eos Deus.’ Paulus, Act, 17:26, ‘Deus fecit ex uno omne genus humanum.’ Act Colossians 3:10, ‘Induentes novum hominem, eum qui renovatur ad agnitionem secundum imaginem illius qui creavit illum.’ Cum ergo omnes testantur unicum esse illum, qui hominem creavit, sequitur etiam hoc loco per verbum ‘Faciamus,’ non nisi unum significari. Posse enim unum per plurale significari jam monstravimus.”

Nothing can be more effectually pleaded in the behalf of the cause opposed by this man than what is here alleged by him in opposition thereunto; for it is certain that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation of all unto one, and expressed it in the singular number, as they do most frequently, had it not been one God, one Creator, by whom all things were made. This is the position which he lays down as the foundation of his exception; and he was not so brutish as once to imagine that we believed there were more Creators, and so consequently more Gods, than one. But take this assertion also on the other side, namely, that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation unto more than one, unless that one in some sense or other had been more than so.

Wherefore, 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, without which they cannot so be.

And all these exceptions or cavils are managed merely against the necessary use and signification of the word “Faciamus,” “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 work of creation, God is introduced speaking constantly in the singular number, here the phrase 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 after OUR likeness.” To imagine this to be done without some peculiar reason, is to dream rather than to inquire into the sense of Scripture. And other reason besides what we have assigned, with any tolerable congruity unto the common use of speaking, cannot be given. But supposing that he hath sufficiently evinced his intention, he proceeds to give a reason of the use of this kind of speech, where one is spoken of in the plural number: – “Quae sit autem causa cur liceat per pluralem numerum significare unum, et quando hoc soleat fieri, variae afferri solent causae.

Quidam censent fieri honoris gratia, ut de eminentibus et excellentibus personis pluraliter loquamur. Id usitatum esse linguae Hebraeae annotant docti; inter quos Cevallerius in sua syntaxi hunc tradit canonem. Quae dignitatem significant pluraliter usurpantur ad ampliorem honorem. Ut Joshua 24:19, ‘Dii sancti ipse;’ Exodus 21:29, ‘Domini ejus,’ pro dominus; Isaiah 19:4, ‘In manu dominorum duri,’ pro domini; Genesis 42:30, ‘Domini terrae,’ pro dominus. Imo hoc non tantum in Hebrea, sed in aliis quoque linguis esse usitatum, patet ex scol . Sophoclis, qui in OEdipo Coloneo [v. 1490] annotavit poetam dixisse, dou~nai> , pro dou~nai , et addit scriptum esse kata< timh 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 importance of it is otherwise.

Neither can that expression concerning God, Joshua 24:19, aWh µyvidq] µyhiloa’ , “Dii sancti ipse,” be used honoris gratia, seeing it is no honor to God to be spoken of as many Gods, for his glory is that he is one only. It hath, therefore, another respect, namely, unto 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; but this 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 unto this his last refuge, betakes himself unto 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 Spirit. The scheme of speech here used is in genere deliberativo, — by way of consultation. But whereas this cannot directly and properly be ascribed unto God, an anthropopathy must be allowed in the words. The mutual distinct actings and concurrence of the several persons in the Trinity are 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 unto 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 there is enough to confirm our general assertion, that such distinct actings there were with respect unto mankind; and the application hereof unto 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 an intimation 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 further revealed and confirmed, Proverbs 8:22-31, “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, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills 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 the deep: when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then was I by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his 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 improve it unto our present purpose. In the ancient church none questioned but that the Wisdom which here discourseth is the Son of God; only the Arians greatly endeavored to corrupt the sense of one passage in it, and thereby to wrest the whole to give countenance unto their heresy. Those of late who agree with them in an opposition unto 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 unto what they substitute in the room thereof.

It is Wisdom that speaks and is spoken of. This we believe to be him 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 unto 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 have endeavored to give countenance unto their opinions, or unto them who maintained them, Sand. Hist. Ecclesiastes Enucl. lib. 3. It was the 22d 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 ejx oujk o]ntwn , and that there was [a time] when he was not.

This they did from these words, wOKr]Dæ tyviare ynin;q; jwO;jy] ; which words were rendered by the LXX., or the Greek translation then in common use, JO Ku>riov e]ktise> me , ajrchLatin reads, “Possedit,” “Possessed me.”

On this corrupt translation the Arians bare themselves so high as to provoke their adversaries unto 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 ejkth>sato , “he possessed.” Nor doth hn;q; in any place, or on any occasion, signify to make or create, or any thing of the like importance. 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 unto him and is his own, he is hneqo , 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 1:1,2, jEn ajrch~| oJ Lo>gov h+n pron? — “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 derive from them, and who 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, “Haec de ea sapientia quae in lege apparet, exponunt Hebraei ;” — “The Hebrews expound these things of that wisdom which is seen in the law.” And as to many of them this information is true. Whereunto he adds of his own, “Et sane ei si non soli, at praecipue, haec attributa conveniunt ;” — “And thereunto, indeed, the things here attributed unto wisdom do agree, if not only, yet principally;” which whether it be so or no, the ensuing examination will evince.

The Jews, then, affirm that the wisdom here intended is the wisdom of the law, as in the law, or the wisdom that God used in giving the law; but how the things here ascribed unto Wisdom can belong unto the law given on Sinai is hard to conceive. To 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, verse 22, “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,” yea, and that, as they say, two thousand years before creation, signified by the two alephs in that sentence; Midrash Bamidmar, in cap. 8. But Aben Ezra, in his preface unto 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 are said to be made before the world, twbwfw twlwdg ypl , “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 unto, shall be examined. The Socinians are not solicitous what the things mentioned are ascribed unto, so they can satisfy themselves in their exceptions unto our ascription of them unto the Son of God. I shall, therefore, first confirm our exposition of the place, and then remove their exceptions out of our way. 11. First, It is an intelligent person that is here intended; for all sorts of personal properties are ascribed unto it. It cannot, therefore, be a mere essential property of the divine nature, nor can the things spoken concerning it with respect unto 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: Verses 15, 16, “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.” (3.) Personal promises upon duties to be performed towards it, due unto God himself: Verse 17, “I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me;” which is our respect unto God, Psalm 63:1, “O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee,” and which is elsewhere often expressed. (4.) Personal divine actions: Verses 20, 21, “I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.”

Verses 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, verses 23-25, “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was;” wisdom, verse 14, “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding; I have strength.”

Secondly, The name of Wisdom is the name of the Son, who is the wisdom of God. For the Wisdom mentioned, chap. 9:1, the Jews themselves confess that it is one of the twdm , or distinct properties that are in the divine twçy , that is, substance or essence; whereby the Son of God alone can be intended.

Thirdly, The things here spoken of Wisdom are all of them, or at least the principal, expressly elsewhere attributed unto the Son, verse 11, Philippians 3:8; verse 15, Revelation 19:16; verse 22, John 1:1-3; verses 23, 24, Colossians 1:15-17; verse 30, John 1:14; verse 32, Revelation 22:14.

Fourthly, The relation of the Wisdom that speaks unto God declares it to be his eternal Word or Son: “I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;” as he did in whom his soul is always well pleased.

And, lastly, as we shall further see, they are the eternal transactions of the Father and Son that are here described, which are capable of no other interpretation. 12. It is not my design to plead here the eternal existence of the Son of God antecedent unto his incarnation. I have done it also at large elsewhere.

But because the faith thereof is the foundation of what I shall further offer concerning the original of his priesthood, the testimonies produced unto that purpose must be vindicated from the exceptions of the professed adversaries of that fundamental truth; and these, as to this place, are summed up and put together by Enjedinus. And his manner is, as was before observed (wherein also he is followed by all those of his way and persuasion), to multiply sophistical exceptions, that so by any means they may distract the mind of the reader and render him uncertain; and therefore they consider not whether what they offer be true or no, but commonly their evasions contradict and overthrow one another. But so the truth may be rejected, they regard not what is received. First, 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 praescripta a sapientia dici. Si enim versio Pagnini, Merceri, et textus Hebraicus consulatur, apparebit verba illa proferri ab intelligentia vel prudentia, quae in hoc capite tum conjuncte, tum separatim, cum sapientia ponitur, ut apparet ex ver. 1 et 14, in cujus posteriori parte incipit intelligentia de se loqui, Nam, ver. 14, secundum Pagninum haec est interpretatio, ‘Penes me est consilium et sapientia;’ et hucusque loquitur de se sapientia. Postea sequitur, ‘Ego sum intelligentia, mea est fortitudo,’ etc. Ita ut sequentia omnia ad finem capitis ab intelligentia proferantur. Cum ergo Paulus Christum non intelligentiam sed sapientiam vocet, et verba praescripta 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 unto 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 fourteenth gives no countenance unto it; for, — (1.) In verse 1, the mention of hn;WbT] is not the introduction of a new person or thing, but another name of the same person or thing, as all expositors agree, whatever they apply the words unto. (2.) The words hn;WbT] , verse 1, and hn;ybi , verse 14, both rendered “understanding,” and both from the same root, are yet not absolutely the same, so that several things may be intended by them. (3.) The whole context makes it plain that it is Wisdom which speaks those words, verse 14, hr;Wbg] yli hn;ybi ynia\ hY;viWtw] hx;[eAylio . The preceding words are, “I wisdom dwell with prudence, ..... and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate,” verses 12, 13; whereon it follows, “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom” (or “substance”): “I am understanding; I have strength” As in the beginning Wisdom says, hx;[eAyli , so in the close, by a continuation of the same form of speech, hr;Wbg] yli hn;ybi ynia\ is a defective expression, and there is no verb following to be regulated by hn;ybi . 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, verse 12, hm;k]j; ynia\ “I wisdom;” but it is not defective because of the verb following, yTin]kæv; , “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 hn;ybi ynia\ of any other signification than hr;Wbg] yli , “I have” (or “am”) “understanding,” and “I have strength.” This plea, therefore, evinceth nothing but the boldness of them that use it. He proceeds to another:- “Deinde hic sapientiam pro substantiva et persona esse accipiendam, non aliunde probari potest aut solet, quam quod hic loqui et clamare dicitur, atque actiones quaedam ei attribuuntur. At id usitatissimum in sacris est, ut etiam accidentibus actiones adscribantur per prosopopoeiam. Sic misericordia et pax de coelo 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 prosopopoeiam 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 which evince it besides that here mentioned. But this prosopopoeia, 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 prosopopoeia, or the fiction of a person, those things being assigned unto a quality or an accident which really belong unto 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 occur in the Scripture.

Unto a thing which is not a person, that is sometimes ascribed which is indeed proper only to a person; 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 unto that which never had it. “Nam certe,” saith he, “sermo fingi non potest, ut non personae 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 an instance of such an attribution of speech unto things inanimate in good authors, unless it be where, by another figure, they introduce countries or cities speaking or pleading for themselves; wherein, by a metonymy, the inhabitants of them are intended. But such an ascription is not to be found in the Scripture at all; for a prosopopoeia, or fiction of a person, is a figure quite distinct from all sorts of allegories, pure or mixed, apologues, fables, parables; wherein, when the scheme is evident, any thing may be introduced speaking, — like the trees in the discourse of Jotham, Judges 9. The instance of mercy and peace looking down from heaven and kissing each other, is mixedly figurative. The foundation is a metonymy of the cause for the effect, or rather of the adjunct for the cause, and the prosopopoeia 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 unto one certain person, as all the things here mentioned are unto the Son of God, who yet is no person, never was a person, nor representeth any person, without the least intimation of any figure therein, or any thing inconsistent with the nature of things and persons treated of, and that in a discourse didactical and prophetical, is such an enormous, monstrous fiction, as nothing in any author, much less in the Old or New Testament, will give the least countenance unto.

There are in the Scripture, allegories, apologues, parables, but all of them so plainly, evidently, and professedly such, and so unavoidably requiring a figurative exposition from the nature of the things 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 unto any thing or 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 further excepts: — ‘‘Quod secundo loco contendunt, hic nihil figurate, sed omnia proprie dici, nimis absurdum est. Nam etiamsi daremus hic sapientiam esse personam quandam, quam ipsi lo>gon appellant; tamen certum esset illum tempore Solomonis in plateis non clamasse, nec cum hominibus hilariter conversatum esse, nec domum aedificasse, excidisse septem columnas, victimas obtulisse, miscuisse vinum, et caetera quae hic recitantur proprie fecisse.

Alias debuerunt fateri, Christum ab aeterno fuisse incarnatum, quando quidem hae actiones proprie non possunt nisi homini jam nato competere. Itaque et impudentis et indocti est negare hanc orationem Solomonis esse figuratam.”

He names not who they are who say 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 so he should do. These men will not deny God to be a person, nor yet that he often speaketh of himself and his works figuratively. The same doth Wisdom also here, in the declaration of some of his works. But that which animates this exception is a false supposition, that the eternal Word cannot be said to do or act 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 unto the fear of the Lord, he performed the most of them; and the remainder of the things intended he effected in his ordinances and institutions of divine worship. Besides, there is a prophetical scheme in these words. It is here declared not only what Wisdom then did, but especially what it should do, namely, in the days of the gospel; for the manner 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 Peter 1:11,12, 3:19.

But utterly to remove this pretense of prosopopoeias and figures, it need only to be observed, which none will deny, that the Wisdom that speaks here, chap. 8, is the same that speaks, chap. 1, from verse 20 unto the end.

And if Wisdom there be not a person, and that a divine person, there is none in heaven; for to whom or what else can those words be ascribed which Wisdom speaks, verses 23-26, 28: “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you, I 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 also will 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? Whom is it that men sin against in refusing to be obedient? Whom is it that in their distress they call upon, and seek early in their trouble? The whole Scripture declares unto whom, and unto whom alone, these things belong and may be ascribed.

After an interposition of some things nothing unto the purpose, he yet puts in three more exceptions unto this testimony to the eternal personal existence of this Wisdom; as, — “Praeterea haec sapientia de qua agit Solomon, loquitur, docet, instituit homines. At Jesus Christus postremis tantum diebus, teste apostolo ad Hebrews 1, locutus est hominibus; ergo non aetate Solomonis.”

The apostle says not that Jesus Christ spake only in the latter days, Hebrews 1, but that God in the last days spake unto us in his Son. And the immediate speaking unto 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 Peter affirms him to have done, 1 Epist. 1:11.

And by this Spirit did he speak, — that is, teach and instruct men, — in the days of Solomon, and from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 3:18-20. “Denique prophetia ilia, Esa. 42:1, 2, ‘Ecce servus meus quem elegi, non clamabit, neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem ejus,’ applicatur Christo, Matthew 12:18,19. At haec 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 cavil. The prophet Isaiah, setting out 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 unto him, expresseth it, among others, by these words, “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street;” intending no more but that he should do nothing by way of strife, contention, or violence, in private or public places. And this prophecy is applied unto him by Matthew at that very season when “great multitudes followed him” in the streets and fields, whom he taught and healed, Matthew 12:15-17.

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 aeterno genita; sed tantum ut in Hebraeo habetur a seculo formata; quod longe aliud significat, quam ab aeterno gigni. Et potest aliquid a seculo, hoc est a mundi creatione vel etiam ante illam extitisse; inde tamen non sequitur esse aeternum.”

He tells us not where in the Hebrew text wisdom is said to be “formata a seculo;” nor is there any such passage in the context. It says, indeed, verse 23, yTik]Sæni µl;wO[me ; 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 µl;wO[me is here particularly explained to denote the existence of Wisdom before the whole creation or any part of it, as it is at large in the whole ensuing discourse, especially verses 25, 26, 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 verse 25, yTil]l;wOj , which we have rendered, “I was brought forth,” doth more than intimate that generation.

This being the whole of what the enemies of the sacred Trinity have to object unto our application of this discourse to the eternal Word or Son of God, we may upon its removal proceed unto the improvement of this testimony unto 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 unto divine love and favor, 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 distinction from him, manifests withal his joint creation of all things, especially his presence with God when he made lbeTe twOrp][æ varo , verse 26, “the highest part of the dusts of the habitable world ;” that is, µda ˆwçayrh , “The first Adam,” as Jarchi interprets it, and that not improbably. Then he declares that he was wOlx]a, ,”by him,” with him, before him, verse 30; that is, pron , John 1:1,2. And he was with him, ˆwOma; , “Nutricius,” “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 unto hm;k]j; , 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 Genesis 4:7. The word may have various significations, and is accordingly variously rendered by interpreters. The Chaldee render it ˆmyhm , that is, “faithful,” “I was faithful with him;” and the LXX., ajrmo>zousa , “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, hldg wm[ , brought up with him;” which sense of the words our translation follows.

And it is used unto that purpose, Lamentations 4:5, µygimua’h; [l;wOt yle[\ , “brought up in scarlet.” And although it may be not undecently taken in an active sense, yet I rather judge it to be used passively, “nutricius, 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 unto 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 unto the love of a father unto a son, and the dependence of a son on his father. Therefore most translations, with respect unto this allusion, supply “as” to the words, “As one brought up.” Again, ˆwOma; , “alumnus,” “one brought up,” is always so with and unto some especial end or purpose, or to some work and service. And this is principally here intended. It is with respect unto 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 everywhere commits himself and his undertaking unto the care, love, assistance, and faithfulness of the Father, whose especial grace was the original thereof, Psalm 22:9-11,19,20; Isaiah 50:7-9. 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 unto this work, he is said to be ˆwOma; wOlx]a, , “before him,” as one whom he would take care of, and stand by with love and faithfulness, in the prosecution of the work which was in their mutual counsel, when he should be clothed with that nature which stood in need of it. 14. With respect hereunto he adds, µwOy µwOy µy[iWv[\væ hy,h]a,w; ; — “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: Jeremiah 31:20, µy[iWv[\væ dl,y, ; — “A pleasant child, a child of delights.” But the delights here intended have respect unto 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 cooperation with him therein, he descends to manifest the especial design of God and Wisdom with respect unto 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 into the form of a servant; in the prospect whereof he delighted in him continually.

So he expresseth it, Isaiah 42:1-7, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth.” ( yvip]næ ht;x]r; , the same with µwOy µwOy wOl µy[iWv[\væ . See Matthew 12:18, 17:5; Ephesians 1:6.) “I have put my Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 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 spread 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, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prisonhouse.”

This is the delight of the Father, and [such is] his presence with the Son in his work, whereof an eternal prospect is here presented. In answer whereunto the Son delights in him, whose delight he was, t[e lk;B] wyn;p;l] tq,j,c;m] , “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 is this delight of the Son in answering the delight of the Father in him, with respect unto the work he had to do, the psalmist declares, Psalm 40:7,8, “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.”

This rp,seAtLægim] , this “volume of the book,” which our apostle calls kefali>da bibli>ou , “the beginning” (or “head”) “of the book,” Hebrews 10:7, 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 unto Adam after the fall. This counsel being established between Father and Son, the Son with respect thereunto rejoiceth continually before God, on the account of that delight which he had to do and accomplish his will, and in our nature assumed to answer the law of mediation which was prescribed unto him. 15. For, this being declared to be the mutual frame of God and his Wisdom towards one another, Wisdom proceeds to manifest with what respect towards outward things it was that they were so mutually affected: Verse 31, “Rejoicing in the habitable part 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 eternal counsels, therefore, and purposes of God and Wisdom, with respect unto the sons of men, are here expressed. The Word was now “foreordained,” even “before the foundation of the world,” unto the work of mediation and redemption, 1 Peter 1:20; and many of the sons of men were “chosen in him” unto grace and glory, Ephesians 1:4; and the bringing of them unto that glory whereunto they were chosen was committed unto 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 effectual of his grace, wherein he sought his glory and not his own primarily, John 7:18, he speaketh of him as a distinct person, and the sovereign Lord of the whole. He did it wOxr]aæ lbeteB] , “in the world of his earth.” And the same word which he used to express his frame towards God, tq,j,c;m] , verse 30, “rejoicing, exulting,” he useth here in reference unto his work, to intimate that it was on the same account that he is said to rejoice before the Father and in the habitable part 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 µy[Owv[\væ , the same word whereby he declares the Father’s delight in himself with respect unto his work.

And these things cannot refer unto the first creation, seeing they regard µd;ak yneB] , “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 unto 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 put an end unto, with all the confusion and misery which it brought into the world, — 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. And it is expressed by the mutual delight of the Father and Son in the work and effect of it, whereunto the Son was designed; 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 respect holiness and justice also. 16. And this also seems to be expressed by the psalmist, Psalm 2:7, “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

The direct sense and importance of these words hath been declared in our Exposition on Hebrews 1:5,6; and the testimony that is given in them unto the divine nature of Jesus Christ I have also formerly vindicated, Vindiciae Evangelicae; and I have in like manner elsewhere declared the perverse iniquity of some of the later Jewish masters, who would apply this psalm singly to David, without any respect unto 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 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, Matthew 26:63, “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” were the same. The same confession on the same principle made Nathanael, John 1:49, “Thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” And Peter’s confession, Matthew 16:16, John 6:69, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” was nothing but a due application of the faith of the Judaical church unto the person of our Savior; which was all that he then called for. “Unless,” saith he, “ye believe that I am he, ye 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: tbwçtlw w[mçm yplw jyçmh °lm l[ ˆyn[h ta wçrd wnytwbr wmx[ dwd l[ wrtwpl wrtwpl ˆwkn µynymh ; — “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 unto 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 these words, µynymh tbwçtlw , “and for an answer unto 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, unto excellent advantage, are collected by the learned Dr. Pococke, Notae 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 Mohammedans 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 Koran, in that summary of his Mussulman confession, “He is one God, God eternal, who neither begetteth nor is begotten, and to whom none is equal.” The reasons of their infidelity are putid and ridiculous, as is commonly known, and their evasion of this testimony a violent escape: for 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 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 unto that confidence as to deny that the things mentioned in this psalm had any direct accomplishment in Jesus Christ; and his next attempt is to prove that these words, Psalm 22:16, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” had no respect unto him.

To this purpose doth he here discourse:— “Ea quae hic dicuntur si litera urgeatur, nunquam in Jesu Christo completa sunt. Nam ejus divinitati haec non competere; clarum est.

Jam veto, ne cum natus quidem ex Maria est, historice haec illi evenerunt. Qui enim sunt isti, quaeso, populi, quae gentes, qui reges, qui contra Jesum jam regem constitutum consurrexerunt?

Certe nec Pilatus, qui tamen rex non erat, nec 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 bominem contempsit, et illaesum cum in potestate sua haberet dimisit. Pilatus Johan. 18:35, fatetur, ‘Gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt te mihi;’ soli ergo Judaei fuerunt hostes Jesu, et eorum consilia adversus eum non fuerunt inita; sed optatum finem consecuta; cujus contrarium hic narratur. In summa, taurus concursus, tanta consectatio, tantus armorum strepitus, et apparatus bellicus, quantum haec verba psalmi significant, nunquam contra Jesum extitit; praeterea isti reges et populi dicunt, ‘Dirumpamus vincula eorum,’ etc. At Jesus nec Judaeis nec gentibus imperitavit, nec vincula injecit, nulla tributa imposuit, non leges praescripsit, quibus illos constrictos tenuisset, et a quibus illi liberari concupivissent. Nam siquis haec ad doctrinam Jesu accommodet, spiritualem et mysticum introducet sensum,” etc.

Having 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 unto when they are pressed with plain Scripture testimonies; for not any of the Jews themselves, who despise the application of this prophecy to Christ in the New Testament, do more perversely argue against his concernment 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 as 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 showed, the elder masters were of that mind), so 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 unto 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 unto 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 unto his kingly office. But what ensues in this author, namely, that these things belong none of them properly unto 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 4:24-28, “They lifted up their voice to 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 the people of Israel, were 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 in and over that people, with respect unto 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 µyiwOg , or “heathen,” they took to be the “Gentiles,” who adhered unto Pilate in the execution of his Gentile power, and the µyMiaul] mentioned to be “the people of Israel.”

Let us, therefore, consider what this man excepts 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 exceptions are miserably weak and sophistical. “Pilate,” he says, “was not a king.” But he acted regal power, the power of a supreme magistrate among them, and such are everywhere called kings in the Scripture. Besides, he acted 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 acted against Christ. Herod he grants to have been a king, who yet was inferior in power and jurisdiction unto Pilate, and received what authority he had by delegation from the same monarch with Pilate himself.

Secondly, He denies that these or either of them opposed Christ as to his kingdom; for “Pilate moved once for his delivery, 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 be a Christian. Did they not 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 ways possible endeavored to hinder all the ways and means whatsoever whereby it was erected and established? Certainly never had prophecy a more sensible accomplishment.

Thirdly, And for what he adds in reference unto 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 it can be excused from 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 ever should esteem him or believe in him as the Messiah, the Savior 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 religion.

Fourthly, For that “concourse of people, consultations, and noise and preparation for war,” which though, 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 Micah 5:2, where Christ is called the ruler of Israel. “Answer them,” saith he, wb wlçm µh lba larçyb lçm al , — “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 and a lawgiver for ever; 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 all his enemies are made his footstool. It is granted that in some of these words spiritual things are figuratively expressed, but their literal sense is that which the figure intends; so that no mystic or 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 concernments of his kingdom might be typed out 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 manifestation thereof in and after his incarnation. He that speaks the words is the Son himself; and he is the person spoken unto, as <19B001> Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said unto my Lord,” wherein the same eternal transaction between the Father and Son is declared. So here, “The LORD,” that is the Father, “hath 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 his firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. And therefore are these words applied several ways unto the manifestation of his divine filiation. For instance, he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,” Romans 1:4. And this very decree, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” is used by our apostle to prove the priesthood of Christ, which was confirmed unto him therein, Hebrews 5:5; 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.

EXERCITATION FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON. 1. Personal transactions between the Father and Son about the redemption of mankind, federal. 2. The covenants between God and man explained. 3. “Foedus,” a covenant, whence so called. 4. Sunqh>kh, why not used by the LXX. 5. The various use of tyriB] in the Scriptures — The tables of stone, how called the covenant; and the ark — The same use of sunqh>kh — 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 and glory — The true nature of the merit of Christ. 19. Things prescribed to the Lord Christ in this covenant reduced to three heads — The sacred spring of his priesthood discovered. 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 which, in general, we have declared from the Scripture in our foregoing Exercitation. And these were carried on “per modum foederis,” “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 work peculiarly. And therefore are those counsels of the will of God, wherein lies the foundation of the priesthood of Christ, expressly declared as a covenant in the Scripture; for there is in them a respect unto various objects and various effects, disposed into a federal relation one to another.

I shall therefore, in the first place, manifest that such a covenant there was 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 I 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 reward, is by all acknowledged. After the fall he entered into another covenant with mankind, which, from the principle, 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 do so to the consummation of all things. And the nature of this covenant, as being among the principal concernments 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 unto 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 enwrapping all the commands thereof also. And he was the surety of it, in that he undertook unto God whatever by the terms of the covenant was to be done for man, to accomplish it in his own person, and whatever was to be done in and by man, to effect it by his own Spirit and grace; 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; but it 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 tyriB] , the Greeks sunqh>kh , and the Latins “foedus;” the consideration of which words may be of some use, because of the original and most famous translations of the Scripture. “Foedus” 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,” Psalm 50:5, offering sacrifice in the solemn confirmation of it.

And when God solemnly confirmed his covenant with Abraham, he did it by causing a token of his presence to pass between the pieces of the beasts provided for sacrifice, Genesis 15:17,18. So when he made a covenant with Noah, it was ratified by sacrifice, Genesis 8:20-22, 9:9, 10. And to look backwards, it is not improbable but that, upon the giving of the first promise, and laying the foundation of the new covenant therein, Adam 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, Hebrews 9:18-20, from Exodus 24:5-8. 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 others was represented. Hence is the phrase, “foedera ferire,” “to strike a covenant:” Cicero pro Coelio, [cap. 14,] “Ideone ego pacem Pyrrhi diremi, ut tu amorum turpissimorum quotidie foedera ferires?” “Foedera,” “ferire,” and “percutere,” have the same rise and occasion. And the Hebrews also express the making of a covenant by striking hands, though with respect unto another ceremony. Some derive the word “a porcâ foede caesâ;” for a hog was clean in the devil’s sacrifices: — “Caesâ jungebant foedera porcâ.” — Virg. AEn., 8:641.

And hence was the ancient formula of ratifying covenants by the striking and therewith killing of a hog, mentioned by the Roman historian, Liv. 1:24, “Qui prior defexit publico consilio dolo malo, tu illum Jupiter sic ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hodie feriam; tantoque magis ferito 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 Jeremiah 34:18-20, 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 sunqh>kh , 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 tyriB] , “berith,” in the Hebrew was of a larger signification, applied unto things of another nature than sunqh>kh (denoting a precise compact or convention) could be extended unto, they rendered it constantly by diaqh>kh , whereof we must treat elsewhere. Genesis 14:13, they render tyrib] yle[\Bæ , “covenanters,” by sunwmo>tai , “confederati,” or “conjurati,’ “confederates sworn together.” Wherefore of the word sunqh>kh there is no use in this matter; and the nature of the thing intended must be inquired into. 5. tyriB] is largely and variously used in the Old Testament, nor are learned men agreed from what original it is derived. ar;B; , and hr;B; , and rræB; , are considered to this purpose.

Sometimes it intends no more but peace and agreement, although there were no compact or convention unto 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 end of all these sorts of covenants is mutual peace and security. Hence they are expressed by tyriB] , “a covenant.” So Job 5:23, Út,yrib] hd,V;hæ yneb]aæAµ[i ; — “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, Hosea 2:18, a covenant is said to be made with the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and the creeping things of the earth. Security from damage by them, and their quiet use, 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: Exodus 34:28, “He 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 be a 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 unto the promises wherewith it was accompanied. Hence the tables of stone whereon this law was written are called “The tables of the covenant:” Deuteronomy 9:11, tyriB]hæ twOjlu µynib;a\h; tjolu ynæv]Ata, ; — “The two tables of stone, the tables of the covenant.” These tables were first made by God himself, Exodus 31:18, and given into the hands of Moses; and when they were broken, he was commanded lsoP; , to effigiate them, or cut stones after their image, into their likeness, for the first were seen only by himself, Deuteronomy 10:11; Exodus 34:1.

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 8:9.

So among the Grecians, the tables or rolls wherein covenants were written, engraven, or enrolled, were called sunqh~kai . So Demosthenes, Kata< jOlmpiod . kef . ib j : Suggwrw~ aJnoicqh~nai takav ejntauqoi~ eJpi< tou~ dikasthri>ou? — “I require that the covenants may be opened here in the court,” or “before the judgment-seat;” that is, the rolls wherein the agreement was written. And Aristot. Rhetor. lib. i.: j JOpoi~oi gasin oiJ eJpigegramme>noi , h[ fula>ttontev , tou>toiv aiJ sunzh~kai pistai> eijsi? — “Covenants are of the same credit with those that wrote and keep them;” that is, the writings wherein such conventions are contained. For covenants that were solemnly entered into between nations were engraven in brass, as the league and covenant made between the Romans and Jews in the days of Judas Maccabeus, 1 Mac. 8:22; or in marble, as that of the Magnesians and Smyrnians, illustrated by the learned Selden; and other covenants were enrolled in parchment by public notaries.

Thirdly, An absolute promise is also called tyriB] , “a covenant,” the covenant of God: Isaiah 59:21, “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 in 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: Jeremiah 33:20, “Thus saith the LORD; If ye 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 there is 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 foedus” and “sanctio foederis” are “a sanguine,” 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 in that between the Romans and Albans, whose form 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 the princes of Judah in Jeremiah: Oij Molottoi< ejn toi~v oJrkwmosi>aiv katako>ptontev eijv mikra< tou~v Bou~v takav ejpoiou>nte , 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 laevam viae ponitur; inter hanc divisam hostiam copiae armatae traducuntur.” And hence it is that troK] , which signifies “to cut” or “divide,” is used in the Scripture absolutely for the making of a covenant, without any addition of tyriB] , 1 Samuel 20:16, 1 Kings 8:9. And although such outward things did never belong unto the essence of a covenant, yet were they useful significations of fidelity, intended and accepted in the performance of what was engaged 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 absolutely complete covenant is a voluntary convention, pact, or agreement, between distinct persons, about the ordering and disposal of things in their power, unto their mutual concern and advantage: — (1.) Distinct persons are required unto a covenant, for it is a mutual compact. As “a 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, Galatians 3:20, — so a covenant, properly so called, is not of one. In the large sense wherein tyriB] is taken, a man’s resolution in himself with respect unto any especial end or purpose may be called his covenant, as Job 31:1, “I made a covenant with mine 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 convented about. Hence tyriB] is by some derived from ar;B; , 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 convent 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, at the Furcae Caudinae.

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 felix 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 unto 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 introduceth 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 observeth his prescriptions and trusteth 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 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 have I elsewhere proved the Father and Son to be, and in this discourse I 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 further to be manifested. And in general this is that which the Scripture intends, where God, that is the Father, is called by the Son his 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 constantly declares his relation unto any in a way of covenant, Jeremiah 31:33, 32:38; Hosea 2:23.

For God, declaring that he will be a God unto any, engageth himself unto the exercise of his holy properties, which belong unto 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: Psalm 16:2, “Thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord.”

These are the words of the Son unto the Father, as is evident from verses 9-11. Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God.” Psalm 40:8, “I delight to do thy will, O my God.” Psalm 45:7, “God, thy God, hath anointed thee.” Micah 5:4, “He shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.” John 20:17, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” Revelation 3:12, “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 Savior says his Father is greater than he, John 14:28. 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 unto God or the Father is a thing so unquestionable as needed no declaration or solemn attestation, and the mention of it is no way suited unto the design of the place. But our Savior 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 further manifest, the Father was the prescriber, the promiser, 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: Zechariah 6:13, µwOlv; txæ[\wæ µh,ynev] ˆyB, hy,h]Ti . 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 jmæx, , “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 hx;[e , or “counsel,” between God and him; “for who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” Romans 11:34. And, besides, the Son in his human nature was merely the servant of the Father to do his will, Isaiah 42:1. 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,” Isaiah 4:2. Hereunto regard also is had in his name: Isaiah 9:6, “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; but there is in them a respect unto the work which he had to do as he was to be a “child born” and “a son given” unto us. And on the same account is he called “The everlasting Father,” a name not proper unto the person of the Son with mere respect unto his personality. There is, therefore, a regard in it unto the work he had to do, which was to be a father unto all the elect of God. And therein also was he “The Prince of Peace,” — he who is the procurer and establisher of peace between God and mankind. On the same account God speaking of him, says that he is ytiymi[\ rb,G, y[iro , — “My shepherd, and the man my fellow,” Zechariah 13:7; such an one as with whom he had sweetened and rejoiced in secret counsel, as Psalm 55:14, according unto what was before declared on Proverbs 8:30,31. 11. Particularly, the will of the Father and Son concurred in this matter; which was necessary, that the covenant might be voluntary and of choice.

And the original of the whole is referred to the will of the Father constantly. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ on all occasions declares solemnly that he came to do the will of the Father: “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:5-10; for in this agreement the part of the enjoiner, prescriber, and promiser, whose will in all things is to be attended unto, is on the Father. And his will was naturally at a perfect liberty from engaging in that way of salvation which he accomplished by Christ. He was at liberty to have left all mankind under sin and the curse, as he did all the angels that fell; he was at liberty utterly to have destroyed the race of mankind that sprang from Adam in his fallen estate, either in the root of them, or in the branches when multiplied, as he almost did in the flood, and have created another stock or race of them unto his glory. And hence the acting of his will herein is expressed by grace , — which is free, or it is not grace, — and is said to proceed from love acting by choice; all arguing the highest liberty in the will of the Father, John 3:16; Ephesians 1:6.

And the same is further evidenced by the exercise of his authority, both in the commission and commands that he gave unto the Son, as incarnate, for the discharge of the work that he had undertaken; for none puts forth his authority but voluntarily, or by and according unto his own will. Now, he both sent the Son, and sealed him, and gave him commands; which are all acts of choice and liberty, proceeding from sovereignty. Let none, then, once imagine that this work of entering into covenant about the salvation of mankind was any way necessary unto God, or that it was required by virtue of any of the essential properties of his nature, so that he must have done against them in doing otherwise. God was herein absolutely free, as he was also in his making of all things out of nothing. He could have left it undone without the least disadvantage unto his essential glory or contrariety unto his holy nature. Whatever, therefore, we may afterwards assert concerning the necessity of satisfaction to be given unto his justice, upon the supposition of this covenant, yet the entering into this covenant, and consequently all that ensued thereon, is absolutely resolved into the mere will and grace of God. 12. The will of the Son also was distinct herein. In his divine nature and will he undertook voluntarily for the work of his person when the human nature should be united thereunto, which he determined to assume; for what is spoken of the second person is spoken with respect unto his purpose to assume our nature, for the obedience whereof, in all that was to be done upon it or by it, he undertook. This the Scripture fully declares, and that for a double end: — First, To demonstrate that the things which he underwent in his human nature were just and equal, inasmuch as himself whose it was voluntarily consented thereunto. Secondly, To manifest that those very acts which he had in command from his Father were no less the acts of his own will. Wherefore, as it is said that the Father loved us, and gave his Son to die for us; so also it is said that the Son loved us, and gave himself for us, and washed us in his own blood. These things proceeded from and were founded in the will of the Son of God; and it was an act of perfect liberty in him to engage into his peculiar concernments in this covenant. What he did, he did by choice, in a way of condescension and love. And this his voluntary susception of the discharge of what he was to perform, according to the nature and terms of this covenant, was the ground of the authoritative mission, sealing, and commanding, of the Father towards him. See Psalm 60:7,8; Hebrews 10:5; John 10:17,18. And whatever is expressed in the Scripture concerning the will of the human nature of Christ, as it was engaged in and bent upon its work, it is but a representation of the will of the Son of God when he engaged into this work from eternity. So then he freely undertook to do and suffer whatever on his part was required; and therein owns himself the servant of the Father, because he would obey his will and serve his purposes in the nature which he would assume for that end, Isaiah 42:1,6, 49:8, 9; Zechariah 13:7; and therein acknowledgeth him to be his Lord, Psalm 16:2, unto whom he owed all homage and obedience: for this mind was in him, that whereas he was in the form of God, he humbled himself unto this work, Philippians 2:5-8, and by his own voluntary consent was engaged therein. Whereas, therefore, he had a sovereign and absolute power over his own human nature when assumed, whatever he submitted unto, it was no injury unto him, nor injustice in God to lay it on him. 13. But this sacred truth must be cleared from an objection whereunto it seems obnoxious, before we do proceed. “The will is a natural property, and therefore in the divine essence it is but one. The Father, Son, and Spirit, have not distinct wills. They are one God, and God’s will is one, as being an essential property of his nature; and therefore are there two wills in the one person of Christ, whereas there is but one will in the three persons of the Trinity. How, then, can it be said that the will of the Father and the will of the Son did concur distinctly in the making of this covenant?”

This difficulty may be solved from what hath been already declared; for such is the distinction of the persons in the unity of the divine essence, as that they act in natural and essential acts reciprocally one towards another, — namely, in understanding, love, and the like; they know and mutually love each other. And as they subsist distinctly, so they also act distinctly in those works which are of external operation. And whereas all these acts and operations, whether reciprocal or external, are either with a will or from a freedom of will and choice, the will of God in each person, as to the peculiar acts ascribed unto him, is his will therein peculiarly and eminently, though not exclusively to the other persons, by reason of their mutual in-being. The will of God as to the peculiar actings of the Father in this matter is the will of the Father, and the will of God with regard unto the peculiar actings of the Son is the will of the Son; not by a distinction of sundry wills, but by the distinct application of the same will unto its distinct acts in the persons of the Father and the Son. And in this respect the covenant whereof we treat differeth from a pure decree; for from these distinct actings of the will of God in the Father and the Son there doth arise a new habitude or relation, which is not natural or necessary unto them, but freely taken on them. And by virtue hereof were all believers saved from the foundation of the world, upon the account of the interposition of the Son of God antecedently unto his exhibition in the flesh; for hence was he esteemed to have done and suffered what he had undertaken so to do, and which, through faith, was imputed unto them that did believe. 14. Moreover, a covenant must be about the disposal of things in the power of them that enter into it, otherwise it is null or fraudulent. And thus things may be two ways; — first, Absolutely; secondly, By virtue of some condition or something in the nature of the covenant itself. (1.) Things are absolutely in the power of persons, when they are completely at their disposal antecedently unto the consideration of any covenant or agreement about them; as in the covenant of marriage, where the several persons engaging are sui juris, — they have an absolute power in themselves to dispose of their own persons with respect unto the ends of marriage. So it is in all covenants. When the things to be disposed of according to the limitations of the covenant are lawful and good antecedently unto any agreement made about them, and because they are in the power of the covenanters, they may be disposed of according to the terms of the compact. So was it in this covenant. To do good unto mankind, to bring them unto the enjoyment of himself, was absolutely in the power of the Father. And it was in the power of the Son to assume human nature, which becoming thereby peculiarly his own, he might dispose of it unto what end he pleased, saving the union which ensued on its assumption, for this was indissoluble. (2.) Again, some things are made lawful or good, or suited unto the glory, honor, or satisfaction and complacency, of them that make the covenant, by virtue of somewhat arising in or from the covenant itself. And of this sort are most of the things that are disposed in the covenant between the Father and the Son under consideration. They become good and desirable, and suited unto their glory and honor, not as considered absolutely and in themselves, but with respect unto that order, dependence, and mutual relation, that they are cast into by and in the covenant.

Such was the penal suffering of the human nature of Christ under the sentence and curse of the law. This in itself absolutely considered, without respect unto the ends of the covenant, would neither have been good in itself, nor have had any tendency unto the glory of God; for what excellency of the nature of God could have been demonstrated in the penal sufferings of one absolutely and in all respects innocent? Nay, it was utterly impossible that an innocent person, considered absolutely as such, should suffer penally under the sentence and curse of the law; for the law denounceth punishment unto no such person. Guilt and punishment are related; and where the one is not, real, or supposed, or imputed, the other cannot be. But now, in the terms of this covenant, leading unto the limitations and use of these sufferings, they are made good, and tend unto the glory of God, as we shall see. So the pardoning and saving of sinners absolutely could have had no tendency unto the glory of God; for what evidence of righteousness would there have been therein, that the great Ruler of all the world should pass by the offenses of men without animadverting upon them? What justice would have appeared, or what demonstration of the holiness of the nature of God would there have been therein? Besides, it was impossible, seeing it is the judgment of God that they who commit sin are worthy of death. But, as we shall see, through the terms and conditions of this covenant, this is rendered righteous, holy, and good, and eminently conducing to the glory of God. 15. The matter of this covenant, or the things and ends about which and for which it was entered into, are nextly to be considered. These are the things which, as we observed before, are to be disposed of unto the honor, and as it were mutual advantage, of them that make the covenant. And the matter of this covenant in general is the saving of sinners, in and by ways and means suited unto the manifestation of the glory of God. So it is compendiously expressed where the execution of it is declared, John 3:16, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

And upon the coming of the Son into the world he was called Jesus, because he was to “save his people from their sins,” Matthew 1:21; even Jesus the deliverer, who saves us from the wrath to come, Thessalonians, 1:10. To declare this design of God, or his will and purpose in and by Jesus Christ to save his elect from sin and death, to bring his many sons unto glory, or the full enjoyment of himself unto eternity, is the principal design of the whole Scripture, and whereunto the whole revelation of God unto men may be reduced. This was that on the prospect whereof the Son or Wisdom of God rejoiced before him, and had his delights with the children of men before the foundation of the world, Proverbs 8:30,31. Man having utterly lost himself by sin, coming short thereby of the glory of God, and being made obnoxious unto everlasting destruction, the prevision whereof was in order of nature antecedent unto this covenant, as hath been declared, the Father and Son do enter into a holy mutual agreement concerning the recovery and salvation of the elect in a way of grace. This we place as the matter of this covenant, the thing contracted and agreed about. The distinction of the parts of it into persons and things, the order and respect in it of one thing unto another, are not of our present consideration; the explanation of them belongs unto the covenant of grace which God is pleased to enter into with believers by Jesus Christ. But this was that in general that was to be disposed of unto the mutual complacency and satisfaction of Father and Son. 16. The end of these things, both of the covenant and the disposition of all things made thereby, was the especial glory both of the one and the other.

God doth all things for himself. He can have no ultimate end in any thing but himself alone, unless there should be any thing better than himself or above himself. But yet in himself he is not capable of any accession of glory by any thing that he intendeth or doth. He is absolutely, infinitely, eternally perfect, in himself and all his glorious properties, so that nothing can be added unto him. His end therefore must be, not the obtaining of glory unto himself, but the manifestation of the glory that is in himself.

When the holy properties of his nature are exercised in external works, and are thereby expressed, declared, and made known, then is God glorified.

The end therefore in general of this covenant, which regulated the disposal of the whole matter of it, was the exercise, exaltation, and manifestation, of the glorious properties of the divine nature; other supreme end and ultimate it could have none, as hath been declared. Now, such is the mutual respect of all the holy properties of God in their exercise, and such their oneness in the same divine being, that if any one of them be exerted, manifested, and thereby glorified, the residue of them must be therein and thereby glorified also, because that nature is glorified in which they are, and whereunto they do belong. But yet, in several particular works of God, his design is firstly, immediately, and directly, to exercise in a peculiarly eminent manner, and therein to advance and glorify, one or more of his glorious properties, and the rest consequentially in and by them. So in some of his works he doth peculiarly glorify justice, in some mercy, in some his power. We may therefore, as to the end of this holy, eternal compact, consider what are those properties of the divine nature which were peculiarly engaged in it, and are peculiarly exerted in its execution, and were therefore designed to be exalted in a peculiar manner. Now these are three: — (1.) Wisdom, attended with sovereignty. (2.) Justice, springing from holiness. (3.) Grace, mercy, goodness, love, which are various denominations of the same divine excellency.

That this covenant sprang from these properties of the divine nature, that the execution of it is the work and effect of them all, and that it is designed to manifest and glorify them, or God in and by them, unto eternity, the Scripture doth fully declare. (1.) The infinite, sovereign wisdom of God, even the Father, exerted itself, — [1.] In passing by the angels in their fallen condition, and fixing on the recovery of man, Hebrews 2:16; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6. [2.] In the projection or provision of the way in general to bring about the salvation of man, by the interposition of his Son, with what he did and suffered in the pursuit hereof, Acts 2:23, 4:28. [3.] In the disposal of all things in that way in such a holy and glorious order, as that marks and footsteps of infinite divine wisdom should be imprinted on every part and passage of it, 1 Corinthians 1:23-31; Romans 11:33-36; Ephesians 3:10,11. (2.) His justice, accompanied with or springing from holiness, gave as it were the especial determination unto the way to be insisted on for the accomplishment of the end aimed at, and it was effectually exerted in the execution of it; for upon a supposition that God would pardon and save sinners, it was his eternal justice which required that it should be brought about by the sufferings of the Son, and it was itself expressed and exercised in those sufferings, as we shall afterwards more fully declare, Romans 3:25,26, 8:3; Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21. (3.) Grace, love, goodness, or mercy, chiefly induced unto the whole. And these the Scriptures most commonly cast the work upon, or resolve it into. See John 3:16,17; Romans 5:8, 11:6; 1 Corinthians 1:29-31; Ephesians 1:5-7, 3:7, 8.

In these things, in the exercise, manifestation, and exaltation, of these glorious excellencies of the divine nature, with their effects in and upon the obedience of angels and men, doth consist that peculiar glory which God, even the Father, aims at in this covenant, and which supplies the place of that security or advantage which amongst men is intended in such compacts. 17. There must also, moreover, be an especial and peculiar honor of the Son, the other party covenanting, intended therein; and was so accordingly, and is in like manner accomplished. And this was twofold: — First, what he had conjunctly with the Father, as he is of the same nature with him, “over all, God blessed for ever;” for on this account the divine excellencies before mentioned belong unto him, or are his, and in their exaltation is he exalted. But as his undertaking herein was peculiar, so he was to have a peculiar honor and glory thereby, not as God, but as the Mediator of the covenant of grace, which sprang from hence. For the accomplishment of the ends of this covenant, as we shall see, he parted for a season with the glory of his interest in those divine perfections, emptying himself, or making himself of no reputation, Philippians 2:5-9. And he was to have an illustrious recovery of the glory of his interest in them, when he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,” Romans 1:4, when he was again glorified with the Father, with that glory which he had with him before the world was, John 17:5, — namely, that peculiar glory which he had and assumed upon his undertaking to be a Savior and Redeemer unto mankind, then when his delights were with the sons of men, and he rejoiced before the Father, and was his delight on that account. And this, secondly, was attended with that peculiar glorious exaltation which in his human nature he received upon the accomplishment of the terms and conditions of this covenant. What this glory was, and wherein it doth consist, I have manifested at large in the Exposition on Hebrews 1:3. See Isaiah 53:12; <19B001> Psalm 110:1,6, 2:8, 9; Zechariah 9:10; Psalm 72:8; Romans 14:11; Isaiah 45:23; Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:10; Hebrews 12:2, etc. 18. The manner how these things were to be accomplished, — that is, the condition and limitation of this covenant, as it had respect unto a prescription of personal obedience and promises of reward, — is lastly to be considered; for herein lies the occasion and spring of the priesthood of Christ, which we are inquiring after. And this sort of covenants hath most affinity unto those relations which are constituted by the law of nature; for every natural relation, such as that of father and children, of man and wife, contains in it a covenant with respect unto personal services and rewards. Now, things were so disposed in this covenant, that on the account of bringing sinners unto obedience and glory, to the honor of God the Father, and of the peculiar and especial honor or glory that was proposed unto himself, he, the Son, should do and undergo in his own person all and every thing which, in the wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and grace of God, was requisite or necessary unto that end, provided that the presence and assistance of the Father were with him, and that he accepted of him and his works.

I shall a little invert the order of these things, that I may not have occasion to return again unto them after we are engaged in our more peculiar design.

We may therefore, in the first place, consider the promises that in this compact or covenant were made unto the Son upon his undertaking this work, although they more naturally depend on the prescription of duty and work made unto him. But we may consider them as encouragements unto the susception of the work. And these promises were of two sorts: — (1.) Such as concerned his person; (2.) Such as concerned the prosperity of the work which he undertook.

Those also which concerned his person immediately were of two sorts: — [1.] Such as concerned his assistance in his work; [2.] Such as concerned his acceptance and glory after his work. (1.) The person of the Son of God, not absolutely considered, but with respect unto his future incarnation, is a proper object of divine promises; and so was he now considered, even as an undertaker for the execution and establishment of this covenant, or as he became the minister of God to confirm the truth of the promises made afterwards to the fathers, Romans 15:8. And herein he had promises, — [1.] As to his assistance. The work he undertook to accomplish, as it was great and glorious, so also it was difficult and arduous. It is known from the gospel what he did and what he suffered, — what straits, perplexities, and agonies of soul, he was reduced unto in his work. All this he foresaw in his first engagement, and thereon by his Spirit foretold what should befall him, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 1:11. Whatever opposition hell and the world, — which were to prevail unto the bruising of his heel, — could make against the Son of God acting in the frail nature of man, he was to encounter withal; whatever the law and the curse of it could bring on offenders, he was to undergo it. Hence in that nature he stood in need of the presence of God with him and of his divine assistance. This, therefore, was promised unto him; in respect whereunto he placed his trust and confidence in God, even the Father, and called upon him in all his distresses. See Isaiah 42:4,6; Psalm 16:10,11, 22:1-31, 89:28; Isaiah 50:5-9. This God promised him, and gave him that assurance of, which at all times he might safely trust unto, — namely, that he would not leave him under his troubles, but stand by and assist him to the utmost of what had a consistency with the design itself whose execution he had undertaken. [2.] Promises were given unto him concerning his exaltation, his kingdom, and power, with all that glory which was to ensue upon the accomplishment of his work. See Isaiah 53:12; <19B001> Psalm 110:1,6, 2:8, 9; Zechariah 9:10; Psalm 72:8; Daniel 7:14; Romans 14:11; Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10. And these promises the Lord Christ had a constant eye unto in his whole work; and upon the accomplishment of it, made his request, and expected that they should be made good and fulfilled, — as well he might, being made unto him and confirmed with the “oath of God,” Luke 24:26; John 17:5; Hebrews 12:2. And these are an essential part of the covenant that he was engaged by. (2.) The second sort of promises made unto him are such as concern his work, and the acceptance of it with God. By them was he assured that the children whom he undertook for should be delivered and saved, should be made partakers of grace and glory. See Hebrews 2:9-11, etc., and our Exposition thereon. And this is that which gives the nature of merit unto the obedience and suffering of Christ. Merit is such an adjunct of obedience as whereon a reward is reckoned of debt. Now, there was in the nature of the things themselves a proportion between the obedience of Christ the mediator and the salvation of believers. But this is not the next foundation of merit, though it be an indispensable condition thereof; for there must not only be a proportion, but a relation also, between the things whereof the one is the merit of the other. And the relation in this case is not natural or necessary, arising from the nature of the things themselves. This, therefore; arose from the compact or covenant that was between the Father and Son to this purpose, and the promises wherewith it was confirmed. Suppose, then, a proportion in distributive justice between the obedience of Christ and the salvation of believers (which wherein it doth consist shall be declared afterwards); then add the respect and relation that they have one to another by virtue of this covenant, and in particular that our salvation is engaged by promise unto Christ; and it gives us the true nature of his merit. Such promises were given him, and do belong unto this covenant, the accomplishment whereof he pleads on the discharge of his work, Isaiah 53:10,11; Psalm 22:30,31; John 17:1, 4-6, 9, 12-17; Hebrews 7:26; Isaiah 49:5-9; Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33. 19. The conditions required of, or prescriptions made unto, the undertaker in this covenant, for the end mentioned, and under the promises directed unto, do complete it. And these may be reduced unto three heads: — (1.) That he should assume or take on him the nature of those whom, according unto the terms of this covenant, he was to bring unto God. This was prescribed unto him, Hebrews 2:9, 10:5; which, by an act of infinite grace and condescension, he complied withal, Philippians 2:6-8, Hebrews 2:14. And therein, although he was with God, and was God, and made all things in the glory of the only-begotten Son of God, yet he was “made flesh,” John 1:14. And this condescension, which was the foundation of all his obedience, gave the nature of merit and purchase unto what he did. This he did upon the prescription of the Father; who is therefore said to “send forth his Son, made of a woman,” Galatians 4:4; and to “send forth his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Romans 8:3: in answer unto which act of the will of the Father he saith, “Lo, I come to do thy will,” Hebrews 10:7. And this assumption of our nature was indispensably necessary unto the work which he had to do. He could no otherwise have exalted the glory of God in the salvation of sinners, nor been himself in our nature exalted unto his mediatory kingdom, which are the principal ends of this covenant, (2.) That in this nature so assumed he should be the servant of the Father, and yield universal obedience unto him, both according to the general law of God obliging all mankind, and according unto the especial law of the church under which he was born and made, and according unto the singular law of that compact or agreement which we have described, Isaiah 42:1, 49:5; Philippians 2:7. He came to do, to answer and fulfill, the whole will of God, all that on any account was required of him.

This he calls the “commandment” of his Father, the commands which he received of him, which extend themselves to all the prescriptions of this covenant. (3.) That whereas God was highly incensed with and provoked against all and every one of those whom he was to save and bring unto glory, they having all by sin come short thereof, and rendered themselves obnoxious to the law and its curse, he should, as the servant of the Father unto the ends of this covenant, make an atonement for sin in and by our nature assumed, and answer the justice of God by suffering and undergoing what was due unto them; without which it was not possible they should be delivered or saved, unto the glory of God, Isaiah 53:11,12.

And as all the other terms of the covenant, so this in particular he undertook to make good, namely, that he would interpose himself between the law and sinners, by undergoing the penalty thereof, and between divine justice itself and sinners, to make atonement for them. And so are we come to the well-head or the fountain of salvation. Here lieth the immediate sacred spring and fountain of the priesthood of Christ, and of the sacrifice of himself, which in the discharge of that office he offered unto God. 20. Man having sinned, the justice of God, as the supreme Lord, Ruler, and Governor over all, was violated thereby, and his law broken and disannulled. Every sin personally added to the first sin, which was the sin of our nature in Adam, doth so far partake of the nature thereof as to have the same consequents with respect unto the justice and law of God. In one or both these ways all men had sinned and come short of the glory of God, or were apostatized from the end of their creation, without power, hope, or possibility in themselves for the retrieval thereof. Neither was there any way for our recovery, unless God were propitiated, his justice atoned, and his law repaired or fulfilled. This now was that which in this eternal covenant the Son of God, as he was to be incarnate, did undertake to perform. And this could no otherwise be done but by the obedience and suffering of the nature that had offended; whereby greater glory should redound unto God, in the exaltation of the glorious properties of his nature, through their eminent and peculiar exercise, than dishonor could be reflected on him or his rule by sin committed in that nature. This was done by the death and blood-shedding of the Son of God under the sentence and curse of the law. Hereunto, in this covenant, he voluntarily and of choice gave himself up unto the will of God, to undergo the penalty due to sinners, according to the terms and for the ends of the law: for inasmuch as the sufferings of Christ were absolutely from his own will, the obedience of his will therein giving them virtue and efficacy; and seeing he did in them and by them interpose himself between God and sinners, to make atonement and reconciliation for them; and seeing that to this end he offered up himself unto the will of God, to do and suffer whatever he required in justice and grace for the accomplishment of the ends of this compact and agreement; which having effected, he would persist to make effectual unto those for whom he so undertook all the benefits of his undertaking, by a continual glorious interposition with God on their behalf; he so became the high priest of his people, and offered himself a sacrifice for them.

For when God came to reveal this counsel of his will, this branch and part of the eternal compact between him and his Son, and to represent unto the church what had been transacted within the veil, for their faith and edification, as also to give them some previous insight into the manner of the accomplishment of these his holy counsels, he did it by the institution of a priesthood and sacrifices, or a sacred office and