The Doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption, Chapter 4
CHAP. 4. Of the Parties in the Covenant of Redemption.
IT follows now that we come a little nearer, & make a more diſtinct Survey of this Covenant, according to the Light afforded us concerning it in the Word of God. I ſhall therefore here explain it in ſuch things wherein the ſpecial nature of it, and its difference from other Covenants may be diſcerned; eſpecially the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace; and here may theſe things be Enquired into.
1. Who are the Parties in this Covenant?
2. Whence this Covenant had its riſe, or what was the ground of its being made?
3. When it was made?
4. Whether it be a Covenant of Works or of Grace?
5. Who are Covenanted for?
6. What are the Articles of it?
1. Who are the Parties in this Covenant?
A. It is a general Obſervation that in all Covenants there are two Parties, and there can be neither leſs or more; for the notion of a Covenant belongs to the Head of Relation, which hath but the Relate and the Correlate, and cannot exceed. If then there are divers parties, they ſuppoſe divers Covenants. In the Covenant of Works, God and Man immediately were the Parties: In the New Covenant they are God and Man, thro' the Interpoſition of a Mediator, unto whom both Parties have a reſpect. But in the Covenant of Redemption they are God & the Son. This is agreed on among all thoſe that acknowledge ſuch a Covenant, but under what conſideration, it is debated with reference to each party, and may be here particularly Explained.
1. God is one Party, Pſal. 89. 3. I have made: The Party that ſpeaks there is God himſelf. But it may be asked, whether he be to be conſidered Eſſentially or Perſonally; and ſo is to be applied to the Father? In the former Deſcription given of this Covenant, I have expreſſed it as belonging to God the Father. There are ſome Divines who would have it taken Eſſentially, and aſſigned to the Deity, conſidered in the Eſſence, and not in any particular Subſistence, leſt otherwiſe the Holy Spirit, the Third Perſon in the Sacred Trinity ſhould be excluded from being perſonally concerned in this Covenant. This Debate needs not be eagerly purſued, being eaſily reconcileable: here then obſerve.
1. That the Decree in which this Covenant is to be found, is properly an Eſſential Act, or belongs to all the Three Perſons in common, as they are one in the Eſſence. Acts properly perſonal are only ſuch as flow from their Relative Properties, or at leaſt have their Foundation in theſe Relations. The Decrees is an act of Divine Counſel, exerted by the Divine Will, which is undivided, and common to the three perſons: and thus the Deity is the one party Covenanting, becauſe the Eſſential acts of the Trinity are undivided, Joh. 5. 17, 19.
2. That in theſe Eſſential Works, the Scripture frequently obſerves a perſonal propriety, and an order of working according to the order of their Subſiſtence and manner of working: ſo that in whatever work, any one perſons order of Subſiſtence, and manner of working doth principally appear, it is, by way of ſpecialty, aſcribed to that perſon; not becauſe that perſon is alone in it, but becauſe God doth herein manifeſt himſelf to us moſt clearly in ſuch a manner of being or Subſistence. The Father is the firſt Perſon, hence beginning Works are Attributed to him, as Election and Crea…ion. The Son is the Second Perſon, and therefore ſecondary works are aſcribed to him, ſuch as Redemption. The Holy Ghoſt is the Third and Laſt Perſon, and therefore finiſhing works are given to him, ſuch as Application. The Father works of himſelf, by the Son and Spirit. The Son works from the Father by the Spirit. The Holy Ghoſt works from them both; Joh. 5. 19. 16. 13. and this Order is to ſhew the Oecononomy of the Divine Perſons. Now in this regard, Eſſential Works may have a peculiar Appropriation to a perſon not excluſive, but incluſive of the other.
3. That Jeſus Chriſt in making mention of this Covenant, acknowledgeth the Father to be the Party whom he had Indented withal. See Pſal. 2. 7, 8. the mentioning of the Son here ſpoken to, and owned, points us to the Father under the Perſonal Relation. So alſo in Pſal. 89. 26. which Pſalm hath a proper reference to this Covenant; and how often in the Goſpel have we Chriſt declaring his Miſſion to be from his Father? more particularly in John 17. he challengeth of him the performance of the Promiſes of this Covenant, and truly, as this Covenant is the beginning of all our Salvation, and the ſpring or Original from which all the good that we hope for, ſo it is fitly attributed to him, who is the firſt of the perſons.
2. The other Party is the Son of God, the Second Perſon in the Trinity, who is Coeternal with the Father. The Covenant being Eternal, there could not be any party in it, but one who was an Eternal Perſon. Whoſoever is engaged in a Covenant, which is a voluntary act, muſt be preſumed to Exiſt, either in himſelf, or in his Repreſentative. Nor is this diſputed whether the Son of God be the other party: but yet there is no little difference in the notions about the qualility or reſpect in which he ſtands as a party in this Covenant. The Son of God is conſidered under a treble notion.
1. Meerly as he is a Divine Perſon, and ſo is only God.
2. As he hath aſſumed our Nature into Union with his Perſon, and ſo is God-Man.
3. As he hath a Myſtical Union with all the Members of his Church, or with all Believers, in which ſenſe he is alſo called Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12. 12. and under which of theſe conſiderations, he is a party in this Covenant, is variouſly apprehended. Here then we may conclude.
1. That Chriſt Myſtical is not the party in this Covenant; my meaning i…, that the Members of Chriſt, or his Spiritual Seed, were not joyntly Covenanters with him here. The People of God are conſidered as a party in the Covenant of Grace, with whom God Indents through a Mediator: but they have no ſuch conſideration here. It is true, they are taken notice of in this Covenant, yea, it is for them that Happineſs was contrived and ſecured in it, but that is as they ſtand related to the Terms of it. The Elect are not Agents, but Patients here. There is nothing in it required of them to be done by them, but all is to be done for them. They are not Undertakers, but are Undertaken for, Iſa. 53. 10. and this is one difference between theſe two Covenants.
2. Hence it is the Perſon of Chriſt alone that is the Party. It muſt be either Chriſt perſonal, or Chriſt Mystical: not the latter as is already declared. He was alone in this Undertaking. He only was to perform the work of Redemption, and had no Coadjutor, Iſa. 63. 3. Redemption-work is appropriated to him. As he was to have the whole honour of our deliverance paid unto him, ſo that none might ſhare with him in the Glory of it, he took none into Partnerſhip with him in the work, but took it wholly upon himſelf: nay there was none in Heaven or Earth to be found to Undertake in this Buſineſs beſides him, and therefore he ſtood alone in it.
3. Chriſt meerly conſidered as the Eternal Son of God, and the Second Perſon in the Bleſſed Trinity; and not as God and Man, by the Aſſumption of our Nature, is the other party in this Covenant. I know there are weighty Divines of another Perſwaſion, who labour by many arguments to prove that the Son of God, was looked upon as in our nature, or with reſpect to the Futurition of his aſſuming it, in the Indenting of this Covenant: But I ſuppoſe that conception will overthrow the very notion of a Covenant in this matter. The preſent concluſion that hath now been laid down, will be apparent by theſe things.
1. This is (as hath already been obſerved) called a Covenant only by way of Analogy, as it is accommodated to our underſtanding; it being nothing elſe but that Article in the Decree, which concerns the Redemption of Man by Chriſt. There muſt therefore be ſuch an Analogy obſerved in our conceptions of it, and it muſt be Interpreted by notions proper to a Covenant. Now, though the Father and the Son be one in Eſſence, and ſo have not two Wills, but one undivided; yet they are Two Perſons, and as ſuch, are conceived by us as conſulting, deliberateing and concluding about things: hence the Divine Perſons are ſo repreſented, Gen. 1. 26. and the reaſon of it is, becauſe the things done are, to our manner of conception, the Fruits of Counſel. That there was not only a Divine Will in the Father ſending, but alſo in the Son conſenting to be ſent by him, we muſt needs entertain; elſe we can have no rational and regular notion of a perſon ſending, and of a Perſon ſent. Although theſe are but one Will, yet it comes under a diſtinct conſideration by us, though the manner of it be above our conception.
2. Chriſt, not only as he is Man, but alſo as he is Son, is in the Oeconomical Diſpenſation of things, Subordinate; to his Father. Though in the Divine Eſſence he is Equal as he is God, (for, where there is a compleat ſameneſs, there muſt needs be a perfect equality) yet in the Oeconomy of the Adminiſtration of the Affairs of his Kingdom, he is Subordinate; The meer Aſſumption of our Humanity did not make him ſo; for his Perſon was not degraded by his Incarnation: he was ſtill, in regard of that, In the Form of God, and counted it no Robbery to be Equal with him, Phil. 2. 6. but he voluntarily complied with his order. This is the common conſent of Orthodox Divines, and that according to Scripture, Gal. 14. 29. My Father is greater than I. Not as …he is God, for ſo he aſſerts, Joh. 20. 30. My Father and I am one; but as he is the Father; conſidering Chriſt, not as man, but as Son. For this reaſon he is ſaid to be Sent by the Father: which muſt needs have reference to the Eternal Covenant; and that this relates to his Perſon, therein appears, becauſe how elſe can we Terminate the Incarnation upon the Son, as the Perſon aſſuming.
3. Though it be true, that without the Humane Nature Aſſumed by the Son of God, the work of Redemption could not have been performed by him (which is the main ſtreſs of the reaſonings for the other aſſertion) yet the Son of God both could and did undertake for the doing of this work, without the Humane Nature Aſſumed. The Incarnation therefore of the Son of God is rather a Condition of Redemption, or a thing requiſite in him who was to be a Redeemer, in order to his fitneſs to go through with that great Undertaking; than a quality needed to render him a party. Though the Son of God could not actually Redeem us, but in our Nature; yet▪ without our Nature he could Covenant to Redeem us. Though he could not perform Obedience, active or paſſive, to the Law, but in our Nature; which was only concerned in this Obedience, as to the actual performance of it, yet he could Undertake without it, to obey the Law in it; and that is ſufficient with reſpect to his Covenanting about it.
4. The Son of God became man according to Covenant; and therefore is not tobe conſidered as man in the act of Covenanting. The Incarnation of the Son of God was one Article in this Covenant, as will be afterwards obſerved; it was one of the things undertaken by him, and for which he engaged. The futurition therefore of his being man depended upon this propoſal and undertaking; and for that reaſon muſt needs preſuppoſe it. Nor was it neceſſary that the perſon Covenanting muſt ſo be looked upon as man, for the Saving of the Elect before his actual coming in the Fleſh; it was ſufficient that the perſon was deſigned to this before time by promiſe or Covenant.
5. The Covenant of Redemption was an Eternal Covenant; and therefore the party as ſuch muſt come under an Eternal conſideration, and that could only be in regard of his being the Eternal Son of God, or with reſpect to his Divine Perſonality. Though in the Decree, Chriſt is no ſooner appointed to be a Redeemer than he is deſigned to be man, and therefore this alſo had an Eternal conſideration in that; becauſe the Decree was from Everlaſting: and though in Eternity there be no Priority or Posteriority of time; for that would be to confound Time and Eternity: yet in the things themſelves, there may be conſidered a priority and Poſteriority of Nature and Order. Thus the cauſe is in order of nature before the effect: thus the Perſons Covenanting are in order before the Covenant it ſelf: and hereupon the Undertaking of the Son of God to be man, is in order before the futurition of his Incarnation. It hath a Cauſal Antecedency to the futurity of this Aſſumption, becauſe that which made it future from Eternity, was the Compact which paſt between his Father and him about it in the Days of Eternity.