1. That God must
needs be the author of this work. Reconciliation in all the parts and
degrees of it, in all the model and frame of it, is his act. The first
invention of this way, the first proposition, the last execution and
acceptation, owns him for the author. To him we must needs
owe the contrivance, declaration, and accomplishment. If God be the first cause
in all things, he is the first cause in the highest of his works. Nothing comes
to pass in time but what was decreed in eternity, If anything were done which
he did not first know, he were not infinitely wise; if anything were done which
he did not first will, positively or permissively, he were not infinitely
supreme and powerful. All things are wrought by his counsel, which is the act
of his understanding; all things are wrought by his will, which is the act of
his sovereignty, Eph. i. 11.
By God in Scripture sometimes is meant the Father, by way of eminency, because
he is the fountain of the Deity: Eph. i. 3, 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
(1.) No creature could be the original author of this work.
[1.] All human nature could not first invent it. The whole wisdom of
Moses and the Jewish nation in the wilderness could not find a remedy against
the bitings of the fiery serpents, which indeed were
so venomous that they were absolutely mortal. And if they were the presteres, as the Greeks call them, which word
signifies the same that the Hebrew does, burning serpents, no remedy was
found against their venom for many ages after. In the time of the Romans'
flourishing, the poison suddenly inflamed the blood, puffed up the skin,
disfigured the countenance, deprived them of the shape of men, with the benefit
of life; an exact representation of the misery of man by the fall. No remedy
could be found in nature against this evil in the figure, no more can any against
the evil represented by it; neither the languishing law of nature, nor the
sickly philosophy of the heathens, could ever find a cure. The reconciliation
of God to man was too stupendous a work for the joint wit and wisdom of man to
arrive at. Man was so plunged in the sink of lapsed nature, that he knew not
how to desire it; so amiable were his dreams of happiness in his rebellion,
that he had no mind to cherish any thoughts of it. He was so furious in his
unjust war against God, that he had no will to accept of any such motion. The
world was filled with all unrighteousness, and men were 'haters of God,' Rom. i. 29, 30. By all their
wisdom they knew him not, 1 Cor. i.
21. No mind to know God, no
will to be at peace with him. Had the wisdom of the world been sensible of
their deplorable condition, could it have contrived a way for the glorifying
his mercy without invading the rights of his justice, they might have dreamt of
a pardon from his mercy as the supreme governor. But how would the contentment
of his justice, as eminent a perfection in God as that of his mercy, and the
stability of his truth in his threatening, have insuperably puzzled them? The
difficulty lay not upon the point of mercy; every day's sun, and every
seasonable shower were rich discoveries of this. But there was no direction in
the other case, to be read in the whole manuscript of nature. The heavens
declare the glory of God as creator, not as reconciler; they discovered his
glory, not any way of entrance into it. Had they had thoughts of accomplishing
it by a surety between God and them, where could they have pitched upon one
worthy of God's acceptance? If they could have found out and proposed one, what
tie was there upon God to accept any other offer for the offenders but to exact
it of their own persons? What man could have thought of such an extensive love
as the reconciliation, not of one or two particular men, but of the world, by
so strange a means as the death of God's own Son? We read, indeed, of some one
or two of the heathen philosophers that declared an impossibility of the
world's reformation without God's taking flesh, but none imagined anything of
the death of the Son of God; no, not the Jews, but here and there one of their
rabbis, long before his coming. Oh the immense grace of God, to discover that
to us in his gospel, which all the wisdom of fallen nature might have
fruitlessly studied to eternity! As no man can frame an universal law,
accommodated to the several states and tempers of all the men in the world, and
to those notions of fit and just in the minds of men, but God, who knows what
he has engraved upon men's minds; so none but God can know how to find a way of
redemption that may answer the glory of all his attributes, and the pressing
urgency of men's necessities.
[2.] But might not the unblemished wisdom of angels, out of pity to
mankind, have found out a way of reconcilement? They knew much more of God than
man; they knew the wonders of his goodness, yet had seen many of their own
order drop into hell under his wrath. They might know
that the devils, a stronger nature, could not satisfy God for their offence,
much less man, the weaker nature. They would never have stood gazing upon it
with astonishment when it was revealed, had it been so obvious to their clear
and comprehensive reasons. The greatest learning they have in it is by the
church: Eph. iii. 10, 'To the intent that now, unto the
principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be made known, by the
church, the manifold wisdom of God.' Objectively, not efficienter.
It was a mystery hid in God, and only in him; not an angel seems to have had
any thoughts of it till the revelation of it was made to the church. Now, not
before; all the angels in heaven were ignorant of it, and probably understood
not the meaning of the first promise in paradise till the coming of Christ in
the flesh. Yea, after the revelation, those intelligent spirits have not a
perfect knowledge of the whole scope of the gospel state, for, 1 Peter i. 12, they 'desire to look into' those things they could
never be inventors of, or consulters in, that which they did not understand.
Well, then, angels and men may admire it when revealed, but not before imagine
it; they may applaud it, but never contrive it. Which of them could presume to
nourish such a thought, that the Father should call out his eternal Son to be a
temporary sufferer, to veil his divinity with the rags of an afflicted
humanity? What, then, was impossible to the approved wisdom of men and angels, must only be ascribed to the wisdom and grace of God.
(2.) God the Father must needs be the
principal in this business.
[1.] The order of the Trinity requires it. There is an order in the operation
as well as the subsistence of the three persons. As the Son is from the
Father in order of subsistence, so the actions of the Son are from the Father
in order of motion and direction. The Son is sent by the Father, not only as
man, but as God; for the Spirit, that has only a divine nature, is said to be
sent by the Father and the Son. The persons are all equal: Philip. ii. 6, Christ 'thought it no robbery to be equal with God,'
yet one operation is appropriated to the Father, another to the Son, another to
the Holy Ghost, in regard of order; and the Father, as he is the fountain of
the Deity, is the fountain of all divine operation. As the sun is the fountain
of its beams, so it is the fountain of all the operation of its beams. All
things are of the Father, by the Son. He 'created all things by Jesus Christ,' Eph. iii. 9. He
reconciled us unto himself by Christ, 2 Cor. v. 18. All things of the Father as the fountain, by the Son as the medium.
There is a priority of order in the divine paternity upon the account of
generation, and this order is observed in the divine institutions. Baptism is
first in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Ghost, Mat.
xxviii. 19. Now, it is
most congruous, that as the Father was the original of our Saviour's
person, so he should be of his office; as he was God of his substance, so he
should be mediator of his will, the Father first sets the copy, after which the
Son writes. John v. 19, 'The Son
can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do, for what things soever he does, those also does the Son likewise.' All
operations begin first from the Father; this place the ancient fathers
understood of Christ as the second person, not as mediator. If the first motion
come from Christ, the order of working in the Trinity would be inverted; the
Father would then do what he sees the Son do; the Son would be the director,
the preceder, and the Father the follower; the Son
would go before in proposal, and the Father follow after in consent. God would
not then be the God of order in heaven. Besides, the love of the Father would
not then be the principal cause of our redemption, upon which the Scripture
everywhere places it, but the love of the Son. Nay, if the authority of
constituting the mediator were not in the Father by way of order, there could
be little or no testimony of his love since the fall of man. To imagine,
therefore, any other root of our redemption, is to contradict the order in the
trinity. But this is agreeable to our conceptions of things, as far as we can
apprehend such mysteries. The Father from himself, Christ from the Father, the
Spirit from both, so the Father contrives this, and is pleased with it, as
being the most exact model of his love, wisdom, and justice, and the highest
act of love he could show to his Son. The Son consents to it, and is pleased
with it, as being the highest act of love he could show to his Father, and to
men, in being their reconciler, and to angels in being their head. The Spirit
is pleased with gifting him, as being the greatest demonstration of his power
to gift Christ for so great a work, therefore the Spirit is said to 'rest upon
him,' Isa. xi. 2. Not only
noting the continuance of the Spirit on him, but the satisfaction the Spirit
should have in his employment, as much in gifting Christ for it, as Christ in
undertaking and managing the work.
[2.] If the Father were not
principal in it, the undertaking a reconciliation
could not of itself be valid.
First, There
had been an injury to the Father in undertaking it without his full consent at
least. The Father is the principal party injured, and was therefore to be
consulted with in that which concerned his own right. He is also the governor
of the world. It is not convenient that a public work should be undertaken in a
nation without the consent of the chief magistrate, who may else make it
frustrate. When princes of equal dignity are at war, none undertakes the
composing of the quarrel, till both parties accept of the mediation. But here
is the supreme Lord of the world and ungrateful rebels at variance; the chief
governor unjustly wronged. Now, every man would judge it a presumption for any
to offer terms of peace to his enemies, and undertake the satisfaction of
himself without his own consent in the case.
Secondly, The Father could only
by right appoint the terms upon which, and the way whereby, this reconciliation
should be made. The Father being the law-maker could only dispense with his
law, and judge that satisfaction was fit for the vindication of it. The law ran
in that strain, that the party sinning should die. Had the letter of the law
been exacted, every man had been a stranger to salvation; the right, therefore,
of waiving the letter of the law, while he maintained the reason and substance
of it, belonged to the Father. As the supreme Governor, too, he could only
transfer the punishment from the offending party to another that was willing to
stand under the penalty in his stead. Since creation is appropriated to the
Father, and sin entered upon the world immediately after the creation, it was
God as a creator was principally injured. The first sin struck more immediately
at the Father, as creator; unbelief at the second person, the Redeemer; and a despitefull contempt of Christ, after the manifestation of
him by the Spirit, and the motions pressing upon men, is called the sin against
the Holy Ghost. Christ intimates this when he says, 'They have both hated me
and my Father;' i. e. me now, as well as my Father
before. Non they show a particular hatred to me by unbelief, as well as they
have done to my Father formerly by idolatry. The Father, therefore, only had
the right to appoint the way of reconciliation according to his good pleasure;
since he was chiefly dishonoured, he is fittest to
prescribe the method which he judges most convenient for the restitution of his
honour. As all his attributes were wronged by sin, so it was fit all his
attributes should be glorified in reconciliation of his enemies. It was not fit
that glory he is so jealous of should be entrusted in any hands but by his own
will; and his prescribing all the ways of vindicating and illustrating it, and
the glorifying of himself, was his end in appointing Christ to this work: Isa. xlix. 3, 'Thou art
my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified;' and the glory of God seems to be a name whereby Christ is called: Isa. lx. 1, 'The glory
of the Lord is risen upon thee.' Since, therefore, a
greater glory was his end in redemption than barely in creation, he had as much
a right to be principal in the miracle of restoration as in that of creation.
Thirdly, The Father was not
obliged, nor could be obliged by any to entertain any thoughts of a reconciliation. He might, without any prejudice to his
goodness, have demolished this defiled world, and by his power reared another
wherein to show forth the glory of his immense perfections; he might have made
good the law upon the person of every sinner, much less was he bound to accept
of any surety; he might have exacted the satisfaction at the hands of the
criminal before he would have been reconciled. Being sovereign, it was at his
liberty whether he would be appeased or no towards rebels. If he was willing to
be appeased, he might have chosen whether he would have admitted of any surety
to stand in their place. When Reuben offered Jacob his two sons as a pledge for
Benjamin, Gen. xlii. 37, Jacob was not bound to receive this offer, but at
his liberty whether he would take them or no. Nor was Naboth
bound to part with his vineyard for a better than his own upon Ahab's offer, 1 Kings xxi. 2, 3. No man is bound to part with his propriety in his
goods, or his right over his prisoner; but if a price be agreed upon, he is
then bound by the rules of commutative justice to set the prisoner at liberty.
Fourthly, Therefore
if the Son of God himself had been incarnate, and died for the world without
the Father's call and mission, the Father was not obliged to accept it as the
price of our redemption. For all things without a call are of themselves
invalid, and depend only upon the will of the person to whom they are related
for their acceptation. God's institution confers validity upon any things.
Could the brazen serpent ever have cured the bitings
of the fiery ones had not God fixed it as a remedy?
Three things go to the
establishing the reconciliation: 1. The dignity of the
person reconciling; 2. The valuableness of the
satisfaction he offers; 3. The call of the person injured, or the acceptation
of it.
The two first makes the merit
sufficient, the third only makes it accepted. Had Christ endured all the torments
of the cross, the acceptation of him for us might not have been, had not the
Father's constitution of him for that purpose preceded his undertaking. Though
the death of Christ had an intrinsic value, and therefore was in itself
acceptable, yet the consent of the Father only made it accepted; he 'made us
accepted' in Christ, Eph. i.
6; therefore
our acceptation depends first upon the acceptation of Christ. The strength,
therefore, of it in Scripture is put upon God's well-pleasedness
with him, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And upon God's
call of him, Eph. i. 9, it was his will, the 'good pleasure of his will',
and 'purposed in himself;' it rose up in his own heart and mind. Though the
satisfaction of Christ derives not its virtue of meriting from the grace of
God, yet it derives its acceptation from the grace of God. The grace of God,
and the merit of Christ, relate to one another as the cause and the effect, the
antecedent and the consequent. The merit of Christ is the cause of our actual favour with God, but the merit of Christ is not the first
spring of it; for it is subordinate to the general grace of God, which orders
it as a means of that reconciliation which he purposed in himself. In short, it
is like this case: when a man desires the goods of another, and offers him as
much as they are worth, and more, though what he offers has an intrinsic value
to compensate the possessor for those goods, whether the person accept of that
offer or no, yet the acceptation of it depends purely upon his will, and the
sum has no validity to purchase what is desired without the will of the present
possessor.
First, If
the Father had been obliged to receive any satisfaction, it must be from the
person offending. No obligation can be conceived incumbent upon him to receive
it from a person wholly innocent, though it were of infinite value, because
none can transfer over the right of another but he whose right it is.
Secondly, Had
not the Father fully agreed to this, I do not see how Christ could have made a
compensation by his sufferings. Had he assumed a body, and laid down that body,
and courted death, had that been justifiable without a call? The humanity of
Christ was a creature, and therefore obliged by the law of nature, as creatures
are, to preserve itself. All men are bound to do so, unless God calls them to
lay down their lives, who is the supreme Lord of life
and death. Suppose our Saviour might have laid down his life intentionally as a
compensation for us, what could he have undergone in his humanity but a
temporal death? Was it not more we were to suffer? Was not the wrath of God due
to our souls? The soul was the chief offender, the soul then ought to be the
principal sufferer. If God therefore had not appointed Christ for those ends,
the wrath of God could not have been inflicted upon the soul of Christ, for who
should have inflicted it? Had it been just with God to have loaded a person
with his wrath, who was innocent from any actual or imputed crime both in his
own person and transferred from others? His mere bodily sufferings could not
have been a recompense for the sin of the soul. The order of things fairly lies
thus: man being unable to satisfy God for himself, nor any creature being
sufficient to satisfy God for them, the Father calls the Son to take upon him
the human nature, and by satisfying his justice for sin, restore us to
happiness. The Father's call, and his own voluntary consent,
make him capable of having our sins transferred upon him, and bearing
them in his own body on the tree. And Christ lays it upon the commandment
received from his Father, together with his own free consent: John x. 18, 'I have
power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
have I received from my Father.' He had an authority to lay down his life, he had also a promise of restoration of it by his
resurrection. And to this end he had received, not only an invitation, but a
command, which gave him full authority to die, and a ground also to plead the
validity of it, for the ends designed by it. Therefore had he not received such
a command, he had had no authority to lay down his life; no more than Abraham
had authority to sacrifice Isaac of his own head, neither could he have
challenged any acceptance of it for man at the hands of God.
Thirdly, The Scripture does ground
the merit of Christ upon the grace of God. It is called the 'gift of God,' and
'the gift by grace, which by Christ has abounded to
many,' Rom. v. 16, 16, &c. Some bring this place to prove the absolute
efficiency of Christ's merit, had he laid down his life without the appointment
of the Father, because, as the sin of Adam had demerit enough to condemn the
world, so the righteousness of Christ had merit enough to save the world. But
the question is, whence this merit did arise? It did
arise personally from Christ himself and the dignity of his person; but as to
the acceptation, from the Father, which the apostle resolves in this place in
telling us; it is the grace of God, and the gift of God, because if Christ's
death had a natural power of merit without any precursory agreement between the
Father and the Son, it could not be said then to be the grace of God, for God
could not but in a way of justice accept it. There is a double merit, absolute,
and ex pacto or covenanted merit,óabsolute when any good is done to a person, which in
the very deed itself obliges him for whose good it is done to the benefactor
which does it, as generation and education are the acts whereby parents merit
of their children. So that, whether children will or no, upon that very account
that they are begotten and brought up they owe everything to their parents so
creation being the work of God, the good of the creature, for that very cause
every creature, especially rational, is obliged to God, and God by this act
does merit all adoration, obedience, and respect from his creature. Covenanted
merit is a work done which does not in its own nature oblige, but by virtue of
some preceding compact and agreement between the person meriting and that
person of whom he does merit. As when a king proposes a reward to those that
run a race, let men run never so well, they have no right to demand a reward
but upon such a declaration of the prince; and supposing that edict and
declaration, he that runs has a right to the reward promised and appointed by
the king, but no right to a reward in general. The whole right does rise, not
from the race simply considered, but as it respects the declaration and order
of the prince. If we speak of a covenant merit, Christ did fully merit at the
hands of God eternal salvation, for he fully performed what was agreed upon;
but if we speak of absolute merit, neither Christ nor any creature could merit
anything at the hands of God, or render God obliged to them by a natural right,
no more than any man that runs a race can oblige a king by his swiftness. As
the merit of Christ regards us, it is absolute, for Christ by his very
undertaking (supposing he had not had any agreement with the Father) to deliver
us, and appease the wrath of God against us, he had absolutely merited of us
all love and observance, yea, though he had failed in it; but he had not
merited of God anything for us, by any undoubted right, but as it respects that
agreement between the Father and the Son. Ps. xvi. 2, 'My goodness
extends not unto thee, but to the saints which are in the earth.' Christ did
not add anything to God, whereby he might absolutely merit of him; but to the
saints he did, whereby they are for ever obliged to him. Christ did not merit
anything for us at the hands of God but as mediator, and to this office he was
predestinated by God, and therefore he merited nothing but by that decree. What
he did was from the office of mediator or priest; and because he was so,
therefore he merited. As when any officers are appointed by the king,
whatsoever they act by virtue of their office has its foundation in, and force
from, the royal authority. His faithfulness whereby he merited has its validity
from the appointment of him in his offices by God, who, Heb. iii. 2, was
'faithful to him that appointed him.' There had been no honour accruing to him,
and consequently nothing challenged by him, unless he had been called of God: Heb. v. 4, 'No man
takes this honour unto himself but he that is called of God.' Christ himself
owns the Father to be the foundation and stability of all the salvation he
wrought: Ps. lxxxix. 27, 'He shall
cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my salvation; also I
will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.' This is taken
from 2 Sam. vii.
14, and cited, Heb. i.
6, as belonging
to Christ, to prove his dignity above the angels. 'The rock of my salvation,'
the strength and foundation of the salvation I have wrought for men, or
alluding to the rock from whence the waters flowed to the Israelites in the
wilderness; either way our Saviour owns his Father as the stability of it. This salvation, i.e. not personal but mediatory salvation.
Thirdly, As it could not have been
valid had not the Father been principal in it, so it must needs be principally
from him, because it had not been for his honour that it should principally
have come from another hand. It was not expedient that we should be redeemed by
any but God, both as to the medium of our redemption and the grand author and
contriver of it. As God created us for happiness, so we by our own fault
revolted from him. To be restored to that happiness from which we fell is a
greater good than simply to be created, because it is more deplorable to lie
under the intolerable vengeance of an infinite God, than to lie in the depth of
nothing. Since therefore man's happiness does consist in a blessed immortality,
how much more would man be obliged to him who restores him to his lost
happiness, than to him who created him in a state wherein he might fall to
imperfection and misery! Being God has given us life, if another should bring
us to a better life, without his interesting himself in it, how much more of
tender melting bowels would he discover in conferring upon us that which is
more magnificent! And we should be indebted to him for the greater, to the
former for the less. If it were so honourable a thing
for his goodness to create us by himself, it is no less honourable
to interest himself in our restoration. It had been no honour to him to have
his work restored to beauty and perfection by any other skill and directions
rather than his own. It is as much for the honour of the Father to appoint a
head for the restoring the world, as he did a head for the increase of it. By
that one man which he appointed, the root of mankind, a blot came upon the
world; it were not honourable for him to have another
head stand up for reinvesting man in a nobler happiness without his
appointment.
Considering that in this work
there is a discovery of the dearest love and profoundest wisdom, therefore the
Father, the principal person in the Deity, must needs
be the principal author and director, otherwise the principal glory of these
perfections would not belong to the principal person.
Love. If the first motion came not from him, it would
represent him a hard master, negligent of the good of his creature, without
bowels, and only won by the importunities of his Son to have pity towards us.
It would represent him only with thunders and the Son with bowels; the greatest
honour would redound to the Son, and the Son would deserve more honour than the
Father, whereas the honour upon the account of mediation is equally due to
both: John v. 23, 'That all
men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.' The Father is to be
honoured for the greatness of his love, in committing
his right of judging to the Son. As the Son is to be honoured
for undertaking, so the Father is to be honoured for
sending him. 'He that honours not the Son, honours not the Father which
has sent him.' The sending Christ is the ground of the honour due to the Father
in the work of redemption. If the Father were not then the chief author, the
honour of this love of Christ would not redound to him; it would not be 'to the
praise of the glory of his grace,' as Eph. i. 6, but to the praise of the glory of the grace of the
Son. Herein is the love of the Father, that he was placable,
desirous to be at peace, orders his Son to procure it upon such honourable terms for himself, and secure in the issue for
the creature, that he might communicate his goodness through a mediation to the
polluted and rebellious world. The love of the Father in this dispensation is
as great in moving it, as the love of Christ was in consenting. Abraham's
willingness to sacrifice his son was a type of this. Christ's death was
prefigured in Isaac, the Father's willingness represented in Abraham.
Wisdom. As goodness was the motive of this reconciliation, so
wisdom was the director. The Father would not be principal in the greatest and
highest notes of wisdom that ever sounded in the ears of men; the highest act
of wisdom would originally flow from the Son, not from the Father. In this
business he is known to be the only wise God, which attribute Paul celebrates
with an emphasis: 1 Tim. i. 17, 'Now unto
the King eternal, &c., the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and
ever,' after he had spoken of salvation by Christ. No less than the wisdom of
God could invent it. A punishment was due to lapsed man, that justice might not
be defrauded; an infinite punishment the creature could not bear; the honour of
God could not be fully vindicated in that way. Man justly owed a satisfaction,
but could not pay it; nor without that satisfaction could
be acquitted by justice from the obligation to an eternal curse. What but
infinite wisdom could contrive a way for man's deliverance, whereby justice
might have the highest right, and mercy the greatest applause; that the enmity
between God and the creature might be totally demolished, never to break out
again; the security of the creature established never to be unravelled
any more! The wisdom of God must then be the arbitrator in this great affair,
to compose all seeming contradictions, and appoint means fully proportioned to
the ends intended. His love would not leave the world to perish, nor his justice leave sin without punishment. The one did
not consist with his merciful goodness, nor the other
with the honour of his law and the immutability of his sentence. There is a way
therefore found in the treasures of his wisdom to procure peace to the sinner
with honour to himself; to reconcile the sinner without impunity for the sin;
to satisfy both the cries of his justice and the yearnings of his bowels: the
one in the punishment of sin in a surety, the other in pardoning sin in our
persons. That God might be appeased, and that man might have wherewith to
appease him, there is given to the human nature a new man, greater than a man,
which might satisfy for man, and have that in himself which might exceed all
the debt man owed to God. This is such a manifold wisdom which must spring from
the Father, and to whom the honour of it is due, as being the eternal purpose
which he purposed in Jesus Christ our Lord, Eph. iii. 10, 11. This being therefore the highest act of wisdom, must
originally arise from the Father, the principal person in the Deity, the
fountain of all decrees, and therefore of those wherein the choicest wisdom of
the Deity sparkles. How could it be the praise of the glory of his grace, Eph. i. 6, if he had not concerned himself in the whole
undertaking? It is hereby that title of the Father of Glory belongs to him, as
he is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator, Eph. i. 17; herein shines the glory of his paternity.
2. God the Father is the
principal author of this reconciliation.
(1.) The particular style God
assumes in the New Testament manifests it. A title not known
in the Old Testament, often in the New, Eph. i. 3, Eph. iii.
14, 1 Pet. i.
3. In the Old
Testament he was called the God of Israel; and immediately before the discovery
of Christ in the flesh, Zacharias blesses him under that tide: Luke i. 68, 'Blessed be
the Lord God of
(2.) All the spiritual blessings we have by Christ spring from the
Father. Surely, then, reconciliation and redemption, which are none of the
meanest blessings, indeed the visible foundation of all the rest, arising
immediately from election, the secret foundation, and which are indeed the end
which electing love aimed at, these are the corner stone upon which all the
rest are built. What communications could we have from a God implacable? a God not reconciled? Therefore to God the Father the
apostle ascribes all: Eph. i. 8, 'blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual
blessings in heavenly places in Christ.' If all, then this; none are excepted,
pardon of sin, endowment with righteousness, adoption of sons, infusions of
grace, participation of the divine nature; whatsoever blessings deserve the
title of spiritual own the Father as the first fountain. He adds, 'in heavenly
places,' as our translation, or 'heavenly things,' as others; both amount to
the same, all the blessings which respect our heavenly state. The Father was
the authoritative actor in all that Christ did: John xiv. 10, 'The Father that dwells in me, he does the works.'
As the power of a prince resides in the ambassador for the performance of those
actions to which he is designed. Whatsoever Christ purchased of the Father, he
purchased by the will of the Father, that he might communicate himself to us
with honour to all his glorious perfections. The Old Testament also ascribes
this to the principal person in the Deity: Hosea i. 7, 'I will save them by the Lord their God,' or Jehovah
their God; or, as the Chaldee, 'I will redeem them by
the word of the Lord.' He is therefore frequently called 'the God of peace,'
because he is full of thoughts of peace, and is the fountain of our peace in
Christ; as he is called the God of holiness, because there is nothing he
thinks, nothing he does, nothing he speaks, but is holy, and is the fountain of
all holiness to his creatures. All that which we have by
Christ is said to be 'the mystery of his will, purposed in himself, according
to his good pleasure,' Eph i. 9. What
was the object of this purpose? All those spiritual blessings the apostle had
numbered up before, which he resolved himself to complete and communicate to us
by Christ. As all the motions in the world depend upon the
motion of the primum mobile, so all our
blessings upon the motion of God's love. In the communication of those
blessings the Father has a particular hand; it is not said only that Christ is
'made to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,' but made
all those to us of God, 2 Cor. i. 80. And the apostle distinguishes the
Father from the Son by this character, 'The Father, of whom are all things; and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,' 1 Cor. viii. 6.
The Father is the first cause, first mover, first
contriver of all spiritual mercies for us: 'of him are all things.' Christ, the
only means appointed by the Father to work those things for us, and communicate
them to us; therefore it is said, 'by him are all things.' Therefore the whole
work of redemption is often in the Old Testament called God's salvation, and in the New Testament called 'the will of the
Father;' and Christ all along owns it: 'As my Father has commanded me, so I
do.' Even those blessings which follow upon the death of Christ are the issues
of the grace of God; 'the riches of his grace' is the first cause of
forgiveness, Eph. i. 7; the
freeness of his grace, of our justification: Rom. iii. 24, 'Being justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ.' Yet those
are the meritorious fruits of Christ's death, much more are the counsels,
contrivances, and resolves about this, the acts of his free grace.
(3.) The order and foundation of
election discovers it. God chose men in Christ, Eph. i. 4,
which election is there ascribed to the Father. This was an act of love in the
Father, which in no wise falls under the merit of Christ. Some things Christ
merited, as our reconciliation, justification, &c.; some things were purely
the acts of God's love, without any merit of Christ, as election, and the
incarnation of Christ, Christ did not merit election, for he was the first
fruit of it; nor God's purpose of reconciliation, nor his own mission into the
world. Election, then, being the proper act of the Father, all those means
which were ordered for the accomplishing the ends of election are of the
Father's appointment, for under election does fall both the manner and order of
that which is to be done, therefore Christ also, who is the only means of' our
redemption; and Christ himself tells us that the love of the Father did precede
his mission, John iii. 16;
it did therefore precede his designation. And Peter expressly asserts it: 1 Peter i. 19, 20, 'Who verily was
foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in these
last times for you.' For you relates not only to the manifestation in the
latter times, but to the foreordination of him before the foundation of the
world. Christ was first elected as head and mediator, and as the cornerstone to
bear up the whole building; for the act of the Father's election in Christ
supposes him first chosen to this mediatory work, and to be the head of the
elect part of the world. After this election of Christ, others were
predestinated to be conformed to this image of his: Rom. viii. 29,
'Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren;' i. e. to Christ as mediator, and taking human nature; not
to Christ barely considered as God, for, as God, Christ is nowhere said to be
the first-born among many brethren. This conformity being specially intended in
election, Christ was in the intention of the Father the first exemplar and copy
of it. One foot of the compass of grace stood in Christ as the centre, while
the other walked about the circumference, pointing out one here and another
there, to draw a line, as it were, between every one of those points and
Christ. The Father, then, being the prime cause of the election of some out of
the mass of mankind, was the prime cause of the election of Christ to bring
them to the enjoyment of that to which they were elected. It is likely that
God, in founding an everlasting kingdom, should consult about the members
before he did about the head. Christ was registered at the top of the book of
election, and his members after him. It is called, therefore, 'the book of the
Lamb;' Christ was the title and chief subject-matter of the book. He was first
chosen as the well-head of grace and glory, then others chosen on whom, from,
and through him those should be conferred; for he has chosen us in him, that we
should be holy, therefore he chose Christ as the spring to convey this holiness
to his elect. The elect were given by the Father to Christ as mediator. Christ
therefore was set up as mediator by the Father's pleasure; his office was
settled by the Father before the gift was bestowed upon him.
(4.) The creation of the world,
which is ascribed to the Father, was principally intended by him for this end:
'All things were created by him and for him,' Col. iii. 16.
Christ was the means whereby God created all things, and the end for which they
were created, that he might be head of the elect kingdom which God intended to
establish by him, and discover the perfections of God in an illustrious manner,
and therefore God willed Christ then as the head of all his works. It was from
eternity decreed by God to create a world, to communicate himself to his
creature, and to have a number of elect to praise him; therefore he resolved to
create man, and endue him with such faculties, yet mutable. He knew that
everything would work if it were created in this or that state and condition.
He knew the devil would be envious of man's happiness; he knew what temptation
would assault man, and the full strength of that temptation, to what degree it
would arise, and that man would sink under his temptation, apostatise
from him, engulf himself and the whole human race in misery, and give him
thereby an occasion to lay open his wisdom, goodness, mercy, and justice; for
God sees all things distinctly in their true causes, and therefore cannot but
know the event of them. Upon this foreknowledge God appointed a remedy for man,
wherein to manifest his perfections in a transcendent manner. And indeed God
willed the creation, and upon that the permission of sin, that he might take
occasion from thence to communicate himself to man in the most excellent
manner; for he that works wisely does not only work from foreknowledge, but
from a previous intention; as when God would make Joseph a prince in Egypt, and
use to that end the envy and ill-will of his brothers, it is not to be thought
that God only, after the foresight of their sin, did will to make Joseph a
prince, but, on the contrary, he would advance Joseph to a prince-like state;
and therefore did permit his brothers' sin, to use their evil to a good end. We
find all the providences of God concurring since the foundation of the world,
to the bringing forth Christ the head of it; therefore, the first will of God
in the creation was the advancement of his Son, and founding an everlasting
kingdom under him, because in all wise disposals of things, even by men, the execution
of things answers the intention, and those things which are last in execution
are first in intention. And the Scripture does clearly evidence this, for it
speaks of 'a promise of eternal life given to those that believe before the
world began,' Titus i. 1.
He does not say the decree, but the promise. This promise was then made by the
Father to Christ, for the constituting this mediatory kingdom; he is therefore,
by this promise, settled by the Father as head of the creation, and the author
of reconciliation; for it is made to him as the head of the believing world,
and as the feoffee in that for them, for it concerns
eternal life. To us, says he, i. e. to
those that believe; and this promise was nothing else but that word which is
now manifested through preaching, ver. 3. The whole
gospel is built upon this promise, and is nothing else but the manifestation
and result of that negotiation between them before the beginning of the world.
The gospel is nothing else but this piece of gold beaten into lead. We cannot
rightly understand the gospel till we understand this transaction, because the
gospel is nothing else but the explication of this first promise of God to
Christ. Now these great acts of election and creation being the acts
principally of the Father, and done for the glory of Christ, and the completing
under him an eternal kingdom, it will follow, that the Father was also
principal in all the designs of Christ, and in what he did. All things are for
the elect, the elect for Christ, Christ for God. The glory of God stands at the
top, as the chief end of all: 1 Cor.
iii. 22, 23, 'All are yours,
you are Christ's, and Christ is God's'. They were all created for Christ as the
immediate end, for God as the ultimate end, and therefore now ruled and
governed by Christ; and at last the kingdom shall be delivered up to the
Father, that God may be all in all, 1 Cor. xv. 24.
(5.) All the thoughts of God in all ages of the world were about this concern. Christ owns this in his acknowledgement to God: Ps. xl. 6, 'Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts to us-ward; they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.' Some observe that this psalm has wholly a respect to Christ, by reason of the different placing the words of the title; the name of David in the Hebrew being put before the word psalm, "ledawid mizmor", and rather to be rendered, 'To the chief musician, concerning David, a psalm,' i. e. the antitype of David, Christ being called David, Hos. iii. 5, Jer. xxx. 9
. He that speaks of the innumerable thoughts or consultations of God about this, is the same person that speaks, ver. 6-8; which words are applied to Christ, Heb. x. 6-7, and those verses seem to tell us what those counsels of God which appear so admirable were, viz. about redemption by Christ. To this result did they all come, that 'Sacrifice thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me.' The infinite numberless thoughts of God centre in this one thing, of making Christ the foundation of the reconciliation intended, and exalting him thereupon. All the thoughts of God discovered to us in the Scripture refer to this; the spirit of prophecy seems to be given chiefly for the publication of this. This God spake by the mouth of all his holy prophets ever since the world began, concerning the sufferings of Christ: Acts iii. 18, 'Those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has fulfilled.' Concerning also his exaltation, and the completing of his kingdom, it was spoken 'by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began,' ver. 21. This thing run so in the mind of God, that he would have all the mouths of all his prophets filled with it; and when prophecy began first to breathe in the world, it was to declare this grace of God. Not a signal prophecy revealed since the foundation of the world, but there was something of Christ in it. 'The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,' Rev. xix. 10. The prophetic Spirit which was from the beginning of the world, was a witness of Christ, what God had appointed him to do; not one prophet is excepted, Luke i. 70, Acts x. 43. And therefore the Spirit is sometimes more large in those stories or passages which were types or declarations of Christ, than in other things; as in Abel's death by Cain, when nothing is spoken of the death of the other children of Adam. How lively and largely is the story of Joseph, a type of Christ in his sufferings and advancement, represented; David's flights, and his ascent to the crown; Solomon's temple, the particular description and punctual delineation of the Jewish ceremonies, all relating to this; the story of Jonah upon record, when many other prophecies were lost, chiefly as a type of his death in the belly of the whale, and of his resurrection in being cast out upon dry land, after three days' lying in the pit. The law and the prophets appear two distinct things at the first sight, as Moses and Elias at Christ's transfiguration appeared distinct from Christ, Mat. xvii. 8, 8; but when the cloud was removed, none but Christ was seen. So law and prophets centre in him, and his reconciling expiatory death; they, as it were, disappear, and Christ appears to be the full sum and scope of them, when we lay our eyes nearer to the divine mystery. His whole undertaking was enclosed in the types, and represented by the prophets. God has discovered that all his counsels and thoughts from the beginning of the world were about this, and whenever he sent any prophetic message, it was a witness of Christ, or had some relation to him. This may give us an item how we should read the prophets with an eye to Christ, that our thoughts in reading may agree with God's thoughts in declaring. So that I think, from these put together, it appears that the Father is the principal author of our redemption; that the original of God's favour to lapsed men must spring from his own natural grace and goodness, that the death of Christ did not first dispose God to have mercy on us. The Father's love preceded the gift, and therefore preceded his resolution concerning the gift. The Scripture makes Christ's death everywhere the effect of God's love; what is the effect is not the moving cause; his first workings of mercy to us were not raised up by the death of the Redeemer.