« PreviousContinue »
goodness, that is, my grace, and the benefits depending thereon extendeth not to thee, (is not upon thee that is, thou art Tilasiméves, an absolute and perfect Saviour. What was laid upon thee, or what thou wast bound by suretiship to perform, that my goodness might extend to mankind, that thou hast performed, and I accept of the whole. Thus se generally de notes something new, both among the Hebrews, and in the sacred writings.
XIII. But I think these things are strained, and do not run with that smoothness one could wish. For, ist, There is nothing which obliges us to imagine, unless we incline so to do, that there is in these words, an address of God the Father to the Son ; since the whole of this Psalm has not the least appearance of a dialogue, but only represents a single person speaking in one continued discourse, whom Piscator, by weighty. arguments, proves to be the Lord Je-i13. The learned person himself speaks thus: “ It is certain this discourse may be ascribed to the Son, as addressing himseif." And therefore I say it is certainly possible, that this discourse cannot contain the approbation of the Father, acquiescing in the obedience of the Son. For if the Son addresses his own soul, which said to Jehovah, “ thou art my Lord, and my goodness extendeth not to thee ;” doubtless the Son said this to the Father, and not the Father to the Son. 2dly, I own that these words which the Son says to the Father, or the Father to the Son, are so emphatical, that they cannot, in their full signification, be supposed to be spoken by either of them to the other, on account of the peculiar.excellence, which is in the Son, Heb. i. 4. But I question whether any can be easily persuaded that the approbation of the most perfect 0bedience of the Son, and the acquiescence of the Father therein are expressed in such slender terms. Thou hast said, thor art my Lord. I appeal to any who teaches the good knowledge of the Lord, as it is said of the Levites, 2 Chron. XXX. 22. 'whether those words of Scripture be such as that nothing can be devised more proper to illustrate that sensé which the very learned person elsewhere requires, before he acquiesces in the meaning assigned, Sum. Theol. c. 3. $ 30. 3dly, It is very true, that by sometimes, among the Hebrews, signifies something due. The very learned De Dieu, on Gen. xvi. 5. has long ago observed this, from the writings of the Hebrews and also of the Arabs. But that signification does not seem proper to this place. For Christ was neither in. debted to God for his goodness or grace, and the blessings depending upon it: Nor did he properly owe the grace of
God to believers. But it was by virtue of a compact that he owed obedience to God; on performing which, God owed to Christ and to them who are Cbrist's, the reward promised by the compact, which is given to Christ as a due debt. The signification of being due might be insisted upon, had it been said my law, or satisfaction to my justice, or something to that purpose, is no more upon thee, no longer extendeth to thee. But we must fetch a strange compass to make these words, my goodness extendeth not to tbee (is not upon thee) to signify, Thou art no longer indebted to my goodness and again, that the meaning of them should be, Thou hast done every thing to which thou wast bound, that my goodness might be extended to men. And I verily doubt whether it could ever come into any one's mind, that “such an explication is the fullest, the most simple and most suited to the connection; In fine, that it is such, that none who compares it with the words of Scripture can devise a more happy manner of expressing the thing ; and that therein an inexpressible degree of light, truth, and wisdom, may be discovered.” For these are laws of interpretation which the very learned person himself has lạid down. Sum. Theol. c. 6. § 38. · XIV. 4thly, Another sense may be fairly brought from the words of the Psalm, which has nothing either harsh or strained, and contains what is becoming the wisdom of God, as thus: the Lord Jesus being deeply engaged in holy meditations addresses his soul, or himself : And declares, that while in his meditation he said to Jehovah the Father, thou art the Lord, all sufficient to and by thyself for all happiness. And therefore by this whole work of my Mediation, and consequently by all my obedience, no accession of new or greater happiness is made to thee, nor canst thou be enriched by my satisfaction: my goodness extendeth not to thee: Thou receivest no benefit thereby : all the fruit of my satisfaction redounds to thy pious and chosen people. See Job xxii. 2. and xxv. 7: The comment of Ben Nachman on the former place is elegant, agreeing very much with the phraseology in our text; he declares, “That no addition of good is made to God, when any good is done.” All which words contain a salutary fruth, instructing us concerning the all-suficiency of God, to whom no new good can accrue from any quarter, and concerning the fruit of Christ's satisfaction, as redounding to the godly: and are most adapted to the words and analogy of the whole Psalm. For by many times in scripture signifies the same as 5x, to. I shall produce a place or two which occurred to me when meditațing on these things in reading
the the Scriptures : what Micah says, chap. iv. I. biny zoby 1973, and people shall flow unto it: This Isaiah expresses as follows, chap. ii. 2. O'TA 52 705 x 97077, and all nation's shall Aow unto it. Where 50 and 5x are taken in the same signification. In like manner, 2 Chron. Xxx. I. Wrote let: ters Dynax su, that is to the Ephraimites; it is still more to the purpose, what we have i Sam, chap. i. 10. prayed unto the Lord, and Psal. xviii. 41. They cried unto the Lord, but he answered them not. Sometimes it signifies the same thing as TV up to, or quite to, as 2 Chron, xxxii. 5. and raised (the wall) up to the towers : not that it is credible the wall exceeded the towers in height. Jer. iv, 18. it reacbeth unto thine heart. You may add other instances from Glassius Phil. Sacr. p. 773. As therefore the use of this particle is very extensive, we have no reason to restrain its signification to owing or being due, which seems less adapted to this place.
XV. I speak not these things with a view to detract any thing from the due praises of the very learned interpreter, to whom I profess myself greatly indebted, but because nothing is dearer to me than to search out the true meaning of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. And while I am wholly intent upon this, I cannot avoid sometimes examining the opinions of others ; even of those for whom I have otherwise the greatest veneration. Faith is none of those things whichi may be imposed by any human authority: neither is any injury done even to the greatest of men, when we declare our dissent in a modest manner: whether we have done so here or not, must be left to the determination of the impartial reader, who may also judge whether by these observations, I have deserved that severe language which the very famous person Dr John van der Waeyen, was pleased to throw out against me in Suin. Theol. Christ. lib. i. c. 4. 5. 267. Seq. He very much complains that I called that explication of the celebrated Cocceius barsh and forced, and that the words of the Psalm were wrested to that meaning. I own indeed, I had formerly wrote in this manner out of my simplicity, nor did I imagine there was either reproach or injury contained in these words : But there is no force of argument in the tartness of language: and that the least appearance of that may not remain, I now alter it, and instead of wrested, say harsh, not running so smoothly. The rest I cancel. I freely forgive the ill language of my Reprover, as becomes a Chriscian. It does not belong to hiin, but to our common Lord, to pass a judgment on my intention. As to the subject itself, I beseech the reader to compare my reasonings with his; and if he thinks that mine are solidly confuted, I am not against his differing in every respect from me as I differ from him; and the simple explication of the words which I maintain, with the generality of expositors, began the more to please me, the more I saw my reprover stand in need for the dea fence of his opinion of such a compass of words, and so farfetched and intricate subtleties: I have no inclination minutes ly to consider the rest. Each one has his own temper, his own way of writing ; which if I cannot commend, I endeavour to bear with. But I return from this unwilling digression.
XVI. As the doctrine of the covenant between the Father and the Son is so expressly delivered in Scripture, it is un. justly traduced as a new and a late invention. Though I find few among the more ancient who have professedly handled this subject, yet some of the greatest divines have sometimes made mention of this covenant. I say nothing now of Armi. nits, who does not carelessly discourse on this covenant, in his oration for the degree of doctor ; from which the very accurate Amesius produces and commends some things in Rescriptione ad Grevinchovium, c. i. Amesius himself, in Anti-Synodalibus, de morte Christi, c. 1. $ $. charges a certain distinction of the Remonstrants with this absurdity, that “ it denies that the covenant entered into with Christ (he shall see his seed, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, had been ratified.” Gomarus, treating of the Baptism of Christ, on Matt. iii. 13. says that it was the “ sign and seal of the covenant between God and Christ; namely, that God would be his God, and the bestower of salvation ; but he himself was bound to perform obedience from, a principle of perpetual gratitude.” In like manner, on Luke ii. 21. of the circumcision of Christ, he says, that it was “ a sign and seal of the covenant with God: which covenant consisted in this ; partly that God was the God of Christ, according to the general promise, made also to him, Gen. xvii. 7. as to the seed of Abraham, Gal. iii. 16. and according to the singular character given of him, Psal. xlv. 7. Heb. i. 9. partly, that Christ was bound to obey the will of God,” John vi. 38. Matt. v. 17. See his disput. de merito Christi, 1. The very learned Cloppenburgius, disput. 3. de fædere Dei, not onlý slightly mentions this subject, but fully and accurately handles it. The very famous Vætius, disput. T. 2. p. 266. says, “ He (Christ) was subject for us to a special law of paying our debt by a condign punishment, as
our Mediator and surety, according to the tenor of the cove. nant entered into with the Father. Essenius, formerly his scholar, and afterwards his Colleague, de subjectione Christi ad legem, c. 10. § 2. says, “ the federal sealing of the divine promise did also really take place in Christ,” according to Isa. lii. 10. II. Dr Owen handles this very subject at large, on Heb. T. 1. Exercit. 4. p. 49. Nor was this doctrine unknown to the popish doctors. Tirinus on Isa. liii. 11. thus comments, that the Prophet there explains “the compact a. greed on between God the Father, and Christ," by which, on account of the sufferings and death of Christ, redemption; justification, and glorification, were appointed to be the rewards of all those who faithfully adhere to Christ. Thus it appears, that these sentiments concerning the covenant between the Father and Son, are not to be treated with contempt.
The nature of the Covenant between the Father and the Son
more fully explained.
. 1. AS the covenant between the Father and the Son is the
foundation of the whole of our salvation, it will not be improper to stop here a little, and, in our further medita. tion, enquire, Ist, From whence the beginning of this covenant ought to be taken, and in what periods of time it was compleated. 2dly, What the law of the covenant contains, how far, and to what it binds the Son. 3dly, Whether the Son might not have engaged in this covenant, or have withdrawn bimself from it, and had no more to do with it. * 4thly, What and how great a reward was promised to the
Son, and which he was to obtain in virtue of the covenant. . . II. I consider three periods, as it were, of this covenant. Its commencement was in the eternal counsel of the adorable Trinity: in which the Son of God was constituted by the Father, with the approbation of the Holy Spirit, the Saviour of mankind ; on this condition, that in the fulness of time he
should be made of a woman, and made under the law; which - the Son undertook to perform. Peter has a view to this when he says, 1 Pet. i. 20. that Christ " was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” To this purpose is also what the supreme wisdom testifies concerning itself, Prov. viii. 23. I was set up(anointed) from everlasting, that is, by my own VOL. I.
ich the Son of the Holy Fulness of timhich