Observations Concerning the Scripture Oeconomy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption

We should be careful that we do not go upon uncertain grounds, and fix uncertain determinations in things of so high a nature. The following things seem to be what we have pretty plain reason to determine with respect to those things.

i. That there is a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity, in their actings with respect to the creature; that one acts from another, and under another, and with a dependance on another, in their actings, and particularly in what they act in the affairs of man’s redemption. So that the Father in that affair acts as Head of the Trinity, and the Son under Him, and the Holy Spirit under them both.

2. It is very manifest, that the Persons of the Trinity are not inferiour one to another in glory and excellency of nature. The Son, for instance, is not inferiour to the Father in glory; for He is the brightness of His glory, the very image of the Father, the express and perfect image of His person. And therefore the Father’s infinite happiness is in Him, and the way that the Father enjoys the glory of the deity is in enjoying Him. And though there be a priority of subsistence, and a kind of dependance of the Son, in His subsistence, on the Father; because with respect to His subsistence, He is wholly from the Father and is begotten by Him; yet this is mprte properly called priority than superiority, as we ordinarily use such terms. There is dependance without inferiority of deity; because in the Son the deity, the whole deity and glory of the Father, is as it were repeated or duplicated. Every thing in the

Father is repeated, or expressed again, and that fully: so that there is properly no inferiority.

3. From hence it seems manifest, that the other Persons’ acting under the Father does not arise from any natural subjection, as we should understand such an expression according to the common idiom of speech; for thus a natural subjection would be understood to imply either an obligation to compliance and conformity to another as a superiour and one more excellent, and so most worthy to be a rule for another to conform to; or an obligation to conformity to another’s will, arising from a dependence on another’s will for being or well-being. But neither of these can be the case with respect to the Persons of the Trinity, for one is not superiour to another in excellency: neither is one in any respect dependant on another’s will for being or well-being. For though one proceeds from another, and so may be said to be in some respects dependant on another, yet it is no dependance of one on the, will of another.

For it is no voluntary, but a necessary proceeding; and therefore infers no proper subjection of one to the will of another!*’

4. Though a subordination of the Persons of the Trinity in their actings, be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement, whereby the Persons of the Trinity, of their own will, have as it were formed themselves into .aociety, for carrying on the gre at design of glorifying the, deity and communicating its fulness, in which is established a certain oeconomy and order of acting; yet this agreement establishing this Oeconomy is not to be looked upon as meerly arbitrary, founded on nothing but the meer pleasure of the members of this society; nor meerly a determination and constitution of wisdom come into from a view to certain ends which it is very convenient for the obtaining. But there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and oeconomy that is established. It

1 See Appendix, Note B.

is fit that the order of the acting of the Persons of the Trinity should be agreeable to the order of their subsisting. That as the Father is first in the order of subsisting, so He should be first in the order of acting. That as the other two Persons are from the Father in their subsistence, and as to their subsistence naturally originated from Him and are dependant on Him; so that in all that they act they should originate from Him, act from Him and in a dependance on Him. That as the Father with respect to the subsistences is the Fountain of the deity, wholly and entirely so; so He should be the fountain in all the acts of the deity. This is fit and decent in itself. Though it is not proper to say, decency obliges the Persons of the Trinity to come into this order and oeconomy; yet it may be said that decency requires it, and that therefore the Persons of the Trinity all consent to this order, and establish it by agreement, as they all naturally delight in what is in itself fit, suitable and beautiful. Therefore,

5. This order or oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity with respect to their actions ad extr is to be conceived of as prior to the covenatrL-oi. redemption: as we must conceive of God’s determination to glorify and communicate Himself as prior to the method that His wisdom pitches upon as tending best to effect this. For God’s determining to glorify and communicate Himself must be conceived of as flowing from God’s nature; or we must look upon God from the infinite fullness and goodness of His nature, as naturally disposed to cause the beams of His glory to shine forth, and His goodness to flow forth, yet we must look on the particular method that shall be chosen by divine wisdom to do this as not so directly and immediately owing to the natural disposition of the divine nature, as the determination of wisdom intervening, choosing the means of glorifying that disposition of nature. We must conceive of God’s natural inclination as being exercised before wisdom is set to work to find out a particular excellent method to gratify that natural inclination. Therefore this particular invention of wisdom, of God’s glorifying and communicating Himself by the redemption of a certain number of fallen inhabitants of this globe of earth, is a thing diverse from God’s natural inclination to glorify and communicate Himself in general, and superadded to it or subservient to it. And therefore, that particular constitution or covenant among the Persons of the Trinity about thisparticular affair, must be looked upon as in the order of nature after that disposition ot the Godhead to glorify and communicate itself and soaf ter the will of the Persons of Jhe Trinity ta-actT in sq dnjnoin that order that is in itself fit and decent, and w)iat the order of their sjstbsis^^eqwFes. We must distinguish between the covenant of redemption, that is an establishment of wisdom wonderfully contriving a particular method for the most conveniently obtaining a great end, and that establishment that is founded in fitness and decency and the natural order of the eternal and necessary sub- §istance of the Persons of the Trinity. And t@T must be conceived of as prior to the other.

It is evident by the Scripture, that there is an eternal covenant between (somepof the Persons of the Trinity, about that particular affair of men’s redemption; and therefore that some things that appertain to the particular office of some of the Persons and their particular order and manner of acting in this affair, do result from a particular new agreement; and not meerly from the. order already fixed in a preceding establishment founded in the nature of things, together with the new determination of redeeming mankind. There is something else new besides a new particular determination of a work to be done for God’s glorying and communicating Himself. There is a particular covenant entered into about that very affair, settling something new concerning the part that some at least of the Persons are to act in that affair.

6. That the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, establishing that order of their acting that is agreeable to the order of their subsisting, is entirely diverse from the covenant of redemption and prior to it, not only appears from the nature of things; but appears evidently from the Scripture, being plainly deduced from the following things evidently collected thence.

(1.) It is the determination of God the Father, whether there shall be any such thing admitted as redemption of sinners. It is His law, majesty and authority, as supreme Ruler, Legislatour and Judge, that is contemned.

He is every where represented as the Person who, (in the place that He stands in among the Persons of the Trinity), is especially injured by sin, and who is therefore the Person whose wrath is enkindled, and whose justice and vengeance are to be executed, and must be satisfied. And therefore, it is at His will and determination whether He will on any terms forgive sinners; and so whether there shall be any redemption of them allowed any more than of fallen angels. But we must conceive of the determination that a redemption shall be allowed for fallen men, as preceding the covenant or agreement of the Persons of the Trinity relating to the particular manner and means of it; and consequently, that the Father, who determines whether a redemption shall be allowed or no, acts as the Head of the society of the Trinity, and in the capacity of supreme Lord and one that sustains the dignity and maintains the rights of the Godhead antecedently to the covenant of redemption; and consequently, that that Oeconomy by which He stands in this capacity is prior to that covenant.

(2.) Nothing is more plain from Scripture than that the Father chooses the Person that shall be the Redeemer, and appoints Him; and that the Son has His authority in His office wholly from Him: which makes it evident, that that Oeconomy by which the Father is Head of the Trinity, is prior to the covenant of redemption. For He acts as such in the very making of that covenant, in choosing the Person of the Redeemer to be covenanted with about that work. The Father is the Head of the Trinity, and is invested with a right to act as such, before the Son is invested with the office of a Mediator. Because the Father, m the, exercise of His Headship.

invests the ^onjdthJiaL£ifl&ce» By which it is evident, that that establishment, by which the Father is invested with His character as Head of the Trinity, precedes that which invests the SoGjadth.- His character of Mediator; and therefore precedes the covenant of redemption; which is the establishment that invests the Son with that character. If the Son were invested with the office of a mediator by the same establishment and agreement of the Persons of the Trinity by which the Father is invested with power to act as Head of the Trinity, then the Father could not be said to elect and appoint the Son to His office of Mediator, and invest Him with authority for it, any more than the Son elects and invests the Father with His character of Head of the Trinity; or any more than the Holy Ghost elects both the Son and the Father to their several oeconomical offices; and the Son would receive His powers to be a mediator no more from the Father, than from the Holy Ghost. Because in this scheme it is supposed, that, prior to the covenant of redemption, all the Persons act as upon a level, and each Person, by one common agreement in that covenant of redemption, is invested with His proper office; the Father with that of Head, the Son with that of Mediator, the Spirit with that of common emissary and consummatour of the designs of the other two. So that by this supposition no one has His office by the particular appointment of any one singly, or more than another; but all alike by common consent; there being no antecedent establishment giving one any power or Headship over another, to authorize or appoint another.

(3.) That the forementioned Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity is diverse from all that is established in the covenant of redemption and prior to it, is further confirmed by this, that this Oeconomy remains after the work of redemption is finished, and every thing appertaining to it brought to its ultimate consummation, and the Redeemer shall present all that were tobe„ redeemed Jcl the Father in perfect glory, having His work compleafly finished jJ£on them, and so shall resignup that dominion JhaJJd&yceked of the Father subservient to this work, agree. “aBIyTo what had. Seen stipulated in the covenant of redemption. Then the oeconomical order of the Persons of the Trinity shall yet remain, whereby the Father acts as Head of the society and supreme Lord of all, and the Son and the Spirit [shall bell subject unto Him. Yea, this oeconomical order shall not only remain, but shall then and on that occasion become more visible and conspicuous, and the establishment of things by the covenant of redemption shall then, as it were, give place to this Oeconomyas prior; for thus the apostle represents the matter, 1 Cor. xv. 24- 28.” Then cometh the end when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. -For He hath put all things under His feet. But when He saith ’ all things are put under Him, it is manifest

1 Words thus enclosed appear to be in the handwriting of Dr. Jonathan Edwards, son of the first President that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

Now if that establishment that settles the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, was no other than the covenant of redemption itself, or that agreement that the Persons of the Trinity entered into establishing their order of acting in that affair, and assigning each one His part and office in that work; it would at least be unreasonable to suppose, that this oeconomy or order of the Persons of the Trinity should be least conspicuous and manifest while this work lasts, and most so after the Redeemer has finished it and resigned His office; and that the resignation of His office should be to that end, that things might return to that oeconomical order, and be governed more conspicuously and manifestly agreeably to it.

(4.) Another argument that shews the covenant of redemption to be entirely a distinct establishment from that which is the foundation of the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, is this, that the place and station that the Son attains to by this establishment is entirely distinct from that which He stands in by the Oeconomy of the Trinity; insomuch that by the covenant of redemption the Son of God is for a season advanced into the ©economical seat of another Person, viz., of the Father; in being by this covenant established as the Lord and Judge of the world, in the Father’s stead and as His vicegerent, and as ruling in the Father’s throne, the throne that belongs to Him in His oeconomical station. For by the Oeconomy of the Trinity it is the Father’s province to act as the lawgiver and judge and disposer of the world.

(5.) Another argument of the same thing is this, that the Scriptures do represent that the promises made to the Son in that covenant are made by the Father only, and that the honour and reward, that He has by that covenant, are granted only by the Father. Whereas, if the ‘Oeconomy empowring the Father thus to act as the Son’s Head, in making promises to Him and making over rewards to Him, were not prior to the covenant in which these promises are made and these things made over, the Father could have no power to make such promises, and grant such things to the Son: nor would it be done by the Father any more than by the Holy Spirit; for it would be done equally by all the Persons of the Trinity acting conjunctly.

Concerning the Covenant of Redemption. In order rightly to understand it and duly to distinguish it from the establishment of the Oeconomy of the Persons of the Trinity, the following things may be noted:

1. It is the Father that begins that great transaction of the eternal covenant of redemption, is the first mover in it, and acts in every respect as Head in that affair. He determines to allow a redemption, and for whom it shall be. He pitches upon a Person for a Redeemer. He proposes the matter unto Him, offers Him authority for the office, proposes precisely what He should do, as the terms of man’s redemption, and all the work that He 1 See Appendix, Note C.

should perform in this affair, and the reward He should receive, and the success He should have. And herein the Father acts in the capacity in which He is already established; viz., that of Head of the Trinity and all their concerns, and the fountain of all things that appertain to the deity, and its glorification and communication.

2. Though the Father, meerly by virtue of His oeconomical prerogative as Head of the Trinity, is the first mover and beginner in the affair of our redemption, and determines that a redemption shall be admitted, and for whom, and proposes the matter first to His Son, and offers Him authority for the office; yet it is not meerly by virtue of His oeconomical prerogative, that He orders, determines and prescribes all that He does order and prescribe relating to it. But He does many things that He does in the work of redemption in the exercise of a new right, that He acquires by a new establishment, a free covenant entered into between Him and His Son, in entering into which covenant the Son, (though He acts on the proposal of the Father), yet acts as one wholly in His own right, as much as the Father, being not under subjection or prescription in His consenting to what is proposed to Him, but acting as of Himself. Otherwise there would have been no need of the Father and Son’s entering into covenant one with another, in order to the Son’s coming into subjection and obligation to the Father, with respect to any thing appertaining to this affair. The whole tenour of the Gospel holds this forth, that the Son acts altogether freely and as [of] His own right, in undertaking the great. and difficult and self-abasing work of our redemption, and that He becomes obliged to the Father with respect to it by voluntary covenant engagements, and not by any establishment prior thereto. So that He merits infinitely of the Father in entering into and fulfilling these engagements. The Father meerly by His oeconomical prerogative can direct and prescribe to the other Persons of the Trinity in all things not below their oeconomical characters. But all those things that imply something below the infinite majesty and glory of divine Persons, and which they cannot do, without, as it were, laying aside the divine glory, and stooping infinitely below the height of that glory; these things are below their oeconomical divine character; and therefore the Father cannot prescribe to the other Persons any thing of this nature, without a new establishment by free covenant impowring Him so to do. But what is agreed for with the Son concerning His coming into the world in such a state of humiliation, and what He should do and suffer in that state, is His descending to a state infinitely below His divine dignity, and therefore the Father has no right to prescribe to Him with regard to those things, unless as invested with a right by free covenant engagements of His Son.

3. From what has been said it appears, that besides that oeconomical subordination of the Persons of the Trinity that arises from the manner and order of their subsisting, there is a new kind of subordination and mutual obligation between two of the Persons, arising from this new establishment, the covenant of redemption, the Son undertaking and engaging to put Himself into a new kind of subjection to the Father, far below that of His oeconomical station, even the subjection of a proper servant to the Father, and one under His law, in the manner that creatures that are infinitely below God and absolutely dependant for their being on the meer will of God, are subject to His preceptive will and absolute legislative authority; engaging to become a creature, and so to put Himself in the proper circumstances of a servant: from which engagements of the Son the Father acquires a new right of Headship and authority over the Son, to command Him and prescribe to Him and rule over Him, as His proper Lawgiver and Judge; and the Father, also, comes under new obligation to the Son, to give Him such success, rewards, &c.

4. It must be observed, that this subordination that two of the Persons of the Trinity come into, by the covenant of redemption, is not contrary to their oeconomical order; but in several respects agreeable to it, though it be new in kind. Thus, if either the Father or the Son be brought into the subjection of a servant to the other, it is much more agreeable to the Oeconomy of the Trinity, that it should be the latter, who by that Oeconomy is already under the Father as His Head. That the Father should be servant to the Son would be contrary to the oeconomy and natural order of the Persons of the Trinity.

5. It appears from what has been said, that no other subjection or obedience of the Son, to the Father arises properly from the covenant of redemption, but only that which implies humiliation, or a state and relation to the Father wherein He descends below the infinite glory of a divine Person: all that origination in acting from the Father, and dependance on and compliance with His will, that implies no descent below His divine glory, being no more than what properly flows from the oeconomical order of the Persons of the Trinity. No other subjection or obedience is new in kind, but only that which implies humiliation; and if there were any such thing as a way of redemption without the humiliation of any divine Person, the Persons would act in man’s redemption in their proper subordination, without any covenant of redemption or any new establishment, as they do in the affair of rewarding the elect angels. It is true that if there were no humiliation of any divine Person required, in order to man’s redemption, the determination that there should be a redemption would be a determination not implied in the establishment of the Oeconomy of the Trinity, as indeed the determination of no particular work is implied in, that establishment. The establishment of the Oeconomy is a determination that in whatever work is done, the Persons shall act in such a subordination: but the determining what works shall be done is not implied in that establishment. God’s determining to make a certain number of the angels happy to all eternity was not implied; but yet that being determined of the Father, the Son and the Spirit act in subordination to the Father in that affair of course, without any particular covenant or new establishment to settle the order of their acting in that particular affair. Meerly the work to be performed being superadded to the agreed general Oeconomy, the order of their acting in that particular affair does [not] require any new agreement.

6. The obedience which the Son of God performs to the Father even in the affair of man’s redemption, or as Redeemer or Mediator, before His humiliation, and also that obedience He performs as God-man after His humiliation, when as God-man He is exalted to the Glory He had before,1 is no more than flows from His oeconomical office or character, although it be occasioned by the determination or decree of the work of redemption, which is something new, yea, is occasioned by the covenant of redemption. Yet that decree and covenant being supposed, such an obedience as He performs in 1 See Appendix, Note D.

His divine glory follows of course from His oeconomical character and station. Nor is it any other kind of obedience than what that character requires. There is no humiliation in it, and no part of it implies that new sort of subjection, that is engaged in the covenant of redemption.

7. Hence it comes to pass, that that obedience, that Christ performs to the Father even as Mediator, and in the work of our redemption, before His humiliation, ‘and now, in His exalted state in Heaven, is no part of that obedience that merits for sinners. For it is only that obedience which the Son voluntarily and freely subjected Himself to from love to sinners, and engaged to perform for them in the covenant of redemption, and that otherwise would not have belonged to Him, that merits for sinners. And that is only that obedience that implies an humiliation below His proper divine glory. Therefore it is only that obedience that He performs as made under the law, and in the form of a servant, that merits for us. The obedience

He performs in the affair of our redemption in His state of exaltation does not merit for sinners, and is no more imputed to them than the obedience of the Holy Spirit.

8. As there is a kind of subjection, that the Son came into by the covenant of redemption, that does not belong to Him in His oeconomical character; which subjection He promises to the Father in that covenant: so also there is a kind of rule and authority which He receives by the covenant of redemption, which the Father promises Him, that does not belong to Him in His oeconomical character; viz. that of Head of authority and rule to the universe, as Lord and Judge of all. This does not belong to the Son but the Father by the Oeconomy of the Trinity. It is the Father that is ©economically the King of Heaven and earth, Lawgiver and Judge of all. Therefore when the Son is made so, He is by the Father advanced into His throne, by having the Father’s authority committed unto Him, to rule in His name and as His vicegerent.’

This the Father promised Him in the covenant of redemption as a reward for the forementioned subjection and obedience that He engaged in that covenant. And to put Him under greater advantages to obtain the success of His labours and sufferings in the work of redemption, this vicarious dominion of the Son is to continue to the end of the world; when the work of redemption will be finished, and the ends of the covenant of redemption obtained; when things will return to be administered by the Trinity only, according to their oeconomical order.

9. Not only does the Son, by virtue of the covenant of redemption, receive a new dignity of station which does not belong to Him meerly by the Oeconomy of the Trinity, in the dominion he receives of the Father over the universe; but also in His having the dispensation and disposal of the Holy Spirit committed to Him. For when God exalted Jesus Christ, God-man, and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, and solemnly invested Him with the rule over the angels and over the whole universe; at the same time did He also give Him the great and main thing that He purchased, even the Holy Spirit, that He might have the disposal and dispensation of that, to thp same purposes for which He had the government of the universe committed to Him, viz., to promote the grand designs of His redemption. (This is very evident by the Scripture). And this was a much greater thing, than God’s giving Him the angels and the whole creation. For whereby the Father did, as it were, commit to Him His own divine infinite treasure, to dispense of it as He pleased to the -redeemed, He made Him Lord of His House, and Lord of His treasures. This new authority that the Son receives with regard to the Spirit of God, at His enthronization at the Father’s right hand, will be resigned at the end of the world, in like manner as He will then resign the new dominion that He then is invested with over the universe.

10. But it is to be observed, that there is a two-fold subjecting of the Holy Spirit to the

Son, as our Redeemer, in some respect new and diverse from what is meerly by the Oeconomy of the Trinity.

First. The Spirit is put under the Son, or given to Him and committed to His disposal and dispensation, as the Father’s vicegerent and as ruling on His Father’s throne; as the angels and the whole universe were given to Him to dispose of as the Father’s vicegerent So that the Holy Spirit, ‘till the work of redemption shall be finished, will continue to act under the Son, in some respects, with that subjection that is oeconomically due to the Father. For the Son will have the disposal of the Spirit in the name of the Father, or as ruling with His authority. This authority that the Son has over the Spirit, will be resigned at the end of the world, when He shall resign His vicarious dominion and authority, that God may be all in all, and that things thenceforward may be dispensed only according to the order of the Oeconomy of the Trinity.

Secondly. There is another subjecting of the Spirit to the Son, that is in some respect diverse from what is meerly by the Oeconomy of the Trinity, and that is, a giving Him to Him not as the Father’s vicegerent, but only as God-man and Husband, and vital Head of the Church. All that is new in this subjection is this, that, whereas by the Oeconomy of the Trinity the Spirit acts under the Son as God or a divine Person, He now acts in like manner under the same Person in two natures united, or as God-man, and in His two natures the Husband and vital Head of the Church, This subjection of the Spirit to Christ will continue to eternity, and never will be resigned up. For Christ, God-man, will continue to all eternity to be the vital Head and Husband of the Church, and the vital good, that this vital Head will eternally communicate to His church, will be the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was the inheritance that Christ, as God-man, purchased for Himself and His church, or for Christ mystical; and it was the inheritance that He, as God-man, received of the Father, at His ascension, for Himself and them. But the inheritance He purchased and received, is an eternal inheritance. It is, in this regard, with the authority with which Christ was invested at His ascension, with respect to the Spirit, as it is with the authority which He then received over the world. He then was invested with a two-fold dominion over the world, one, vicarious, or as the Father’s vicegerent, which shall be resigned at the end of the world: the other, as Christ, God-man and Head and Husband of the Church, and in this latter respect He will never resign His dominion, but will reign forever and ever, as is said of the saints in the new-Jerusalem, after the end of the world, Rev. xxii. 5.

11. Though the subjection of the Holy Spirit to the Son has, in these respects that have been mentioned, something in it that is new and diverse from that subjection that flows meerly from the oeconomical order of the Persons; yet it is only circumstancially new; it is not new in that sense, as to be properly a new kind of subjection, as the Son’s subjection to the Father as made under the law is. 1 See Appendix, Note E.

There is no humiliation or abasement in this new subjection of the Spirit to the Son. The Spirit’s subjection to the Son as God-man, (though the human nature in its union with the divine be a sharer with the divine in this honour and authority), implies no abasement of the Spirit; i. e., is no lower sort of subjection, than that which the Holy Spirit is in to the Son by the Oeconomy of the Trinity. When once the eternal Son of God was become man, and this Person was not only God, but God-man, this Person considered as God-man was a no less honourable Person than [He]1 was before: and especially was it visibly and conspicuously so, when this complex Person was exalted by the Father to His throne, for God the Father glorified Him as God-man, with the glory that He had before the world was. And therefore, divine respect was as properly due to Him as before; and the respect, that was before due to the second Person by the Oeconomy of the Trinity, is now given to Him by all, without any abasement of those that give it. It is given by

1 For “it,” as written by the copyist.

angels and men without any debasing or degrading of their worship. And the same subjection is yielded by the Holy Spirit that it before yielded according to the Oeconomy of the Persons, without stooping at all below the station the Spirit stood in with respect to the Son before. And when once it has pleased the Father to set the Son on His throne, as His vicegerent, the subjection of the Spirit to the Son, as to the Father, follows of course, without any stooping below the dignity of His oeconomical character. The Holy Spirit is not thus subject to the Son by any abasement He submits to, by any special covenant; but by the gift of the Father, exercising His prerogative as Head of the Trinity, as He is by His oeconomical character.

12. From what has been now observed, we may learn the reason why the obedience of the Holy Spirit to the Son, though it be in some respect new, and for our sakes, yet is not meritorious for us; viz., that it implies no humiliation, is properly no new kind of subjection or obedience besides what, under such circumstances, flows from the oeconomical order of the Persons of the Trinity. As I observed before, it is only that obedience of the Son of God that merits for sinners, that is properly new in kind, and implies humiliation. Hence the Scripture mentions no reward that the Holy Spirit receives of His obedience for us or Himself.

13. The things that have been observed, naturally lead us to suppose, that the covenant of redemption is only between two of the Persons of the Trinity; viz., the Father and the Son. For, as has been observed, there is need of a new establishment, or particular covenant, only on account of the new kind of subjection of the Son, and the humiliation He is the subject of in His office of Mediator, wherein He stoops below His proper oeconomical. character. Otherwise, there would be no more need of a new establishment, by a special covenant in this affair, than concerning God’s dealing with the elect angels, or any other work of God whatsoever. But it is the Son only that is made the subject of this humiliation: which humiliation was in His new subjection and obedience to the Father. Therefore the covenant of redemption is only between the Father and the Son. Neither is there any intimation in Scripture of any such thing as any covenant, either of the Father, or the Son, with the Holy Ghost. He is never represented as a party in this covenant, but the Father and the Son only. The covenant of redemption, which is the new covenant, the covenant with the second Adam, that which takes effect in the second place, (though entered into first in order of time), after the covenant with the first Adam was broken, was made only between God the Lawgiver, and man’s Surety and Representative; as the first covenant, that was made with the first Adam, was. The covenant of redemption was the covenant in which God the Father made over an eternal reward to Christ mystical, and therefore was made only with Christ the Head of that body. No proper reward was promised or made over in that covenant to the Holy Ghost, although the end of it was the honour and glory of all the Persons of the Trinity.

14. It is true, that the Holy Spirit is infinitely concerned in the affair of our redemption, as well as the Father and the Son, and equally with them; and therefore we may well suppose, that the affair was, as it were, concerted among all the Persons, and determined by the perfect consent of all. And that there was a consultation among the three Persons about it, as much doubtless as about the creating of man, (for the work of redemption is a work wherein the distinct concern of each Person is infinitely greater, than in the work of creation), and so, that there was a joint agreement of all; but not properly a covenant between them all. There is no necessity of supposing, that each one acts, in this consent and agreement, as a party covenanting; or that the agreement of each one is of the nature of a covenant, stipulation and engagement.

15. It is not only true, that the Holy Ghost is concerned in the work of redemption equally with the other Persons; but that He is also concerned in the covenant of redemp* tion, as well as they. And His concern in this covenant is as great as theirs, and equally honourable with theirs, and yet His concern in the covenant is not that of a party covenanting.

Corol. From the things that have been observed, it appears to be unreasonable to suppose, as some do, that the Sonship of the second Person in the Trinity consists only in the relation He bears to the Father in His mediatorial character; and that His generation or proceeding from the Father as a Son, consists only in His being appointed, constituted and authorized of the Father to the office of a mediator; and that there is no other priority of the Father to the Son but that which is voluntarily established in the covenant of redemption. For it appears by what has been said, that the priority of the Father to the. Son is, in the order of nature, before the covenant of redemption. And it appears evidently to be so, even by the scheme of those now mentioned, who sup- 1 See Appendix, Note F.

pose the contrary. For they suppose that it is the Father who by His power constitutes the Son in His office of Mediator, and so that the Mediator is His Son, L e.y is made a mediator by Him, deriving His being in that office wholly from Him. But if so, that supposes the Father, in the Oeconomy of the Trinity, to be before the Son or above Him (and so to vest with authority and thus to constitute and authorize the other Person in the Trinity) before that other Person is thus authorized, which is by the covenant of redemption, and consequently that this superiority of the Father is antecedent to that covenant. And the whole tenour of the gospel exhibits the same thing. For that represents the wondrous love and grace of God as appearing in appointing and constituting His own only begotten and beloved Son, to be our Mediator; which would be absurd, if He were not God’s Son, till after He was appointed to be our Mediator.

1 See Appendix, Note G.