1. The design. 2. The end of God in his works in general; in the creation of man—Personal transactions in the holy Trinity concerning him. 3. Gen. 1:26. 4. Plurality of persons in the holy Deity here first revealed. 5. God speaks not "more regio." 6. Sentiments of the Jews on the words of this text inquired into and rejected. 7. Objections of Enjedinus unto this testimony examined at large. 8. Personal internal transactions in the holy Trinity with respect to mankind proved. 9. Prov. 8:22–31—Corrupt translation of the LXX.—Arian pretences rejected. 10. The Jewish interpretation of this place discussed and rejected—Objections of the Socinians. 11. A divine person intended; proved from the text and context in sundry instances. 12. The application of this scripture to the Son of God vindicated at large from the objections of Enjedinus. 13. Christ, with respect to God the Father, said to be אָמוֹן אֶצְלוֹ in what sense. 14. The mutual delight and satisfaction of God and Wisdom in each other; what they were, and with respect whereunto, Ps. 40:7, 8. 15. The joy and delight of Wisdom with the sons of men had respect to their redemption and salvation. 16. Objections of the Jews and Mohammedans to the testimony given to Christ as the Son of God, Ps. 2:7. 17. The opposition of Enjedinus to the same purpose removed. 18. Eternal transactions between the Father and Son about the redemption of mankind hence confirmed.
1. FROM what hath been discoursed, it is manifest that the counsel of God concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of his Son, to be incarnate for that purpose, had respect unto sin, and the deliverance of the elect from it, with all the consequents thereof; and the same truth hath also been particularly discussed and confirmed in our exposition of the second chapter of this Epistle. That which now lies before us is to inquire more expressly into the nature of the counsels of God in this matter, and their progress in execution. And as in this endeavour we shall carefully avoid all curiosity, or vain attempts to be wise above what is written, so, on the other hand, we shall study with sober diligence to declare and give light unto what is revealed herein, to the end that we should so increase in knowledge as to be established in faith and obedience. To this end are our ensuing discourses designed.
2. God, in the creation of all things, intended to manifest his nature, in its being, existence, and essential properties; and therein to satisfy his wisdom and goodness. Accordingly, we find his expressions of and concerning himself in the work of creation suited to declare these things. See Isa. 40:12–17. Also, that the things themselves that were made had in their nature and order such an impress of divine wisdom, goodness, and power upon them, as made manifest the original cause from whence they did proceed. To this purpose discourseth our apostle, Rom. 1:19–21, Τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· and the psalmist, Ps. 19:1, 2; as do sundry other divine writers also. Wherefore the visible works of God, man only excepted, were designed for no other end but to declare in general the nature, being, and existence of God. But in this nature there are three persons distinctly subsisting; and herein consists the most incomprehensible and sublime perfection of the divine being. This, therefore, was designed unto manifestation and glory in the creation of man; for therein God would glorify himself as subsisting in three distinct persons, and himself in each of those persons distinctly. This was not designed immediately in other parts of the visible creation, but in this, which was the complement and perfection of them. And therefore the first express mention of a plurality of persons in the divine nature is in the creation of man; and therein also are personal transactions intimated concerning his present and future condition. This, therefore, is that which in the first place we shall evince, namely, "That there were from all eternity personal transactions in the holy Trinity concerning mankind in their temporal and eternal condition, which first manifested themselves in our creation."
3. The first revelation of the counsels of God concerning the glorifying of himself in the making and disposal of man is declared Gen. 1:26: בִדְגַת וְ רְדּוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ בְּצַלְמֵנוּ אָדָם נַעֲשֶׂה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר הַיָּם;—"And God said, Let us make man in our image, according unto our likeness, and let them have dominion." This was the counsel of God concerning the making of אָדָם; that is, not of that particular individual person who was first created and so called, but of the species or kind of creature which in him he now proceeded to create. For the word Adam is used in this and the next chapter in a threefold sense:—First, For the name of the individual man who was first created. He was called Adam from adamah, "the ground," from whence he was taken, chap. 2:19–21; ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς, χοϊκός, 1 Cor. 15:47, "of the earth, earthy." Secondly, It is taken indefinitely for the 2:7, אֶת־הָאָדָם אֱלֹהִים יְהֹוָה וַיִּיצֶר man spoken of, chap. מִן־הָאֲדָמָה עָפָר;—"And the LORD God created man;" not him whose name was Adam, for "He hajediah" [He emphatic] is never prefixed unto any proper name, but the man indefinitely of whom he speaks. Thirdly, It denotes the species of mankind. So is it used in this place, for the reddition is in the plural number, "And let them have dominion," the multitude of individuals being included in the expression of the species. Hence it is added, chap. 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them;" which is not spoken with respect unto Eve, who was not then made, but unto the kind or race, wherein both sexes were included.
4. Concerning them God saith, נַעֲשֶׂה, "Let US make," in the plural number; and so are the following expressions of God in the same work: בְּצַלְמֵנוּ, "In OUR image;" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, "According to OUR likeness." This is the first time that God so expresseth himself, and the only occasion whereon he doth so in the story of the creation. As unto all other things, we hear no more but אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר, "And God said;" in which word also I will not deny but respect may be had unto the plurality of persons in the divine essence, as the Spirit is expressly mentioned, chap. 1:2. But here the mystery of it is clearly revealed. The Jews constantly affirm that the elders, who translated the Law on the request of Ptolemy king of Egypt, changed or corrupted the text in thirteen places, whereof this was the first; for נַעֲשֶׂה, "Let us make," they rendered by Ποιήσω, "I will make," and not Ποιήσωμεν, in the plural number. And this, they say, they did lest they should give occasion unto the king or others to imagine that their law allowed of any more Gods than one, or on any account departed from the singularity of the divine nature. Whether this were so or no I know not, and have sufficient reason not to be too forward in giving credit unto their testimony, if nothing else be given in evidence of what they affirm; for no footsteps or impressions of any such corruptions remain in any copies or memorials of the translation intended by them which are come down unto us. But this is sufficiently evident, that the reporter of this story apprehended an unanswerable appearance of a plurality of subsistences in the Deity, which they by whom the Trinity is denied, as we shall see immediately, know not what to make of or how to solve.
5. It is an easy way which some have taken, in the exposition of this place, to solve the difficulty which appears in it. God, they say, in it speaks "more regio," "in a kingly manner," by the plural number. "Mos est," saith Grotius, "Hebræorum de Deo, ut de rege loqui; reges res magnas agunt de consilio primorum, 1 Reg. 12:6, 2 Paral. 10:9; sic et Deus, 1 Reg. 22:20;"—"It is the manner of the Hebrews to speak of God as of a king; and kings do great things on the counsel of the chief about them." But the question is not about the manner of speaking among the Hebrews (whereof yet no instance can be given unto this purpose of their speaking in the first person, as here), but of the words of God himself concerning himself, and of the reason of the change of the expression constantly used before. God is king of all the world, of the whole creation; and if he had spoken "more regio" therein, he would have done it with respect unto the whole equally, and not signally with respect unto man. Besides, this "mos regius" is a custom of a much later date, and that which then was not, was not alluded unto. And the reason added why this form of speech is used, namely, "because kings do great things on the counsel of their principal attendants," requires, in the application, that God should consult with some created princes about the creation of man; which is an antiscriptural figment, and shall be immediately disproved. Least of all is any countenance given unto this interpretation from the place alleged, 1 Kings 22:20,—the application whereof unto this purpose is borrowed from Aben Ezra on this place, in his attempt to avoid this testimony given unto the Trinity,—"Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" for as there is nothing spoken in the plural number to parallel this expression, so if that allegorical declaration of God's providential rule be literally pressed, Satan or a lying spirit must be esteemed to be one of the chiefs with whom he consulted. But "who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being the man of his counsel hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who made him understand?" Isa. 40:13, 14.
The ancients unanimously agree that a plurality of persons in the Deity is here revealed and asserted; yea, the council of Sirmium, though dubious, yea, Arianising in their confession of faith, yet denounceth anathema unto any that shall deny these words, "Let us make man," to be the words of the Father to the Son, Socrat. lib. ii. cap. xxv. Chrysostom lays the weight of his argument for it upon the change in the manner of expression before used; as he may do justly and solidly. "Apparet," saith Ambrose, "concilio Trinitatis creatum esse hominem." Neither have any of those who of late have espoused this evasion answered any of the arguments of the ancients for the sense we plead for, nor replied with any likelihood of reason unto their exceptions against that interpretation, which they took notice of as invented long ago. Theodoret, in his Quæst. in Gen., quæst. 20, urgeth, "That if God used this manner of speech concerning himself merely to declare his mind 'more regio,' he would have done it always, at least he would have done it often." However, it would unavoidably have been the form of speech used in that kingly act of giving the law at Sinai, for that, if any thing, required the kingly style pretended; but the absolute contrary is observed. God, in that whole transaction with his peculiar people and subjects, speaks of himself constantly in the singular number.
6. But there are two sorts of persons who, with all their strength and artifices, oppose our exposition of this place,—namely, the Jews and the Socinians, with whom we have to do perpetually in whatever concerns the person and offices of Christ the Messiah, and in what any way relates thereunto. We shall, therefore, first consider what they offer to secure themselves from this testimony against their infidelity, and then further improve the words unto the end peculiarly designed. And although there is a great coincidence in their pretensions, yet I shall handle them distinctly, that it may the better appear wherein the one receiveth aid and assistance from the other.
The Jews are at no small loss as to the intention of the Holy Ghost in this expression, and, if we may believe some of them, have been so from of old; for, as we observed before, they all affirm that these words were changed in the translation of the LXX., because they could not understand how they might be properly expressed without giving countenance unto polytheism. Philo, de Opificio Mundi, knows not on what to fix, but after a pretence of some reason for satisfaction, adds, Τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀληθεστάτην αἰτίαν Θεὸν ἀνάγκη μόνον εἰδέναι·—"The true reason hereof is known unto God alone." The reason which he esteems most probable is taken out of Plato in his Timæus. "For whereas," he saith, "there was to be in the nature of man a principle of vice and evil, it was necessary that it should be from another author, and not from the most high God." But as the misadventure of such woful mistakes may be passed over in Plato, who had no infallible rule to guide him in his disquisition after truth, so in him, who had the advantage of the scriptures of the Old Testament, it cannot be excused, seeing this figment riseth up in opposition to the whole design of them. Some seek an evasion in the word נַעֲשֶׂה, which they would have to be the first person singular in Niphal, and not the first person plural in Kal. Having, therefore, a passive signification, the meaning is, that "homo factus est;" man, or Adam, was made in our image and likeness,—that is, of Moses and other men. Of this exposition of the words Aben Ezra says plainly, חסר פירוש זה לב—"It is an interpretation for a fool;" and well refutes it from these words of God himself, Gen. 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man," with other considerations of the text. R. Saadias would have it that God spake these words מלכים מנהג על, "secundum consuetudinem regum;" or המלכים מנהג שכן רבי לשון, as Aben Ezra, "the plural number, which is the custom of kings." This we have already rejected, and must yet further call it into examination as it is managed by the Socinians.
But plainly the introduction of this style is comparatively modern, and which nothing but usage or custom hath given reverence or majesty unto. Joseph Kimchi would have it that God speaks unto himself, or the earth, or the four elements; for as the soul of man was to be immediately created by God, so his body was to be from the earth, by a contemperation of the principles and qualities of it. And this man falls on the rock which he principally aims to avoid,—namely, an appearance of polytheism; for he makes the earth itself to be a god, that hath a principle of operation in itself, with a will and understanding whereby to exert it. Some of them affirm that in these words God consulted מעלה של בפמליא, "with his family above,"—that is, the angels; which Aben Ezra on the place principally inclines unto. This must afterwards be distinctly examined. Others say it is God and דינו בית, "his house of judgment." ואם עצמו עם אלא דינו בית עם מדבר שהיא למדנו לא אדם אעשה כתכ says Kishi on the place;—"If it had been written, 'Let me,' or 'I will make man,' he had not taught us that he spake unto his house of judgment, but unto himself;" whereof he shows the danger, from the expressions in the plural number. Hence some learned men have supposed that of old by "God and his house of judgment," they intended the persons of the holy Trinity, the Father, Word, and Spirit; but the explication which they frequently give of their minds herein will not allow us so to judge, at least as unto any of their post-Talmudical masters.
Other vain and foolish conjectures of theirs in this matter I shall not repeat. These instances are sufficient as to my present intention; for hence it is evident into what uncertainties they cast themselves who are resolved upon an opposition unto the truth. They know not what to fix upon, nor wherewith to relieve themselves. Although they all aim at the same end, yet what one embraceth another condemns, and those that are wisest reckon up all the conjectures they can think of together, but fix on no one as true or as deserving to be preferred before others; for error is nowhere stable or certain, but fluctuates like the isle of Delos, beyond the skill of men or devils to give it a fixation. And thus much also of their sense was necessary to be expressed, that it might appear whence and from whom the Socinians and those who syncretize with them in an opposition unto these testimonies given unto the Trinity do borrow their exceptions. Little or nothing have they to offer for the supportment of their cause but what they have borrowed from those avowed enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7. I shall not in this instance collect the sentiments of the Socinians out of several of their writers, but take up with him who was one of the first that made it his professed design to elude all the testimonies of the Scriptures which are usually pleaded in the defence of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is Georgius Enjedinus, whose writings, indeed, gave the first countenance unto the Antitrinitarian cause. And I shall the rather deal with him, because his perverse discourses, which were almost worn out of the world, are lately revived by a new edition, and are become common in the hands of many. Besides, indeed, there is little or nothing material added in this cause by his followers unto his sophistical evasions and exceptions, though what he came short of in the New Testament, being prevented by death, is pursued in his method by Felbinger. The title of his book is, "Explicationes locorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, ex quibus Trinitatis dogma stabiliri solet;" whereof this under consideration is the second. To the argument from hence for a plurality of persons in the same divine essence, he gives sundry exceptions, mostly borrowed from the Jews, invented by them out of their hatred to the Christian faith. And both sorts of these men do always think it sufficient unto their cause to give in cavilling exceptions unto the clearest evidence of any divine testimony, not regarding to give any sense of their own which they will abide by as the true exposition of them.
He therefore first pleads: "Si ex hoc loquendi formula numerus et natura Dei venanda et colligenda est, dicimus primo, Non plus esse Trinitariis in hoc dicto ad tres Deitatis personas stabiliendas præsidii, quam gentibus et omnibus idololatris, ad sua multiplicia et numero carentia numina confirmandum. Illud enim 'Faciamus ad nostram,' etc., tam potest ad decem, centum, mille, quam ad tria referri, neque quidquam est futilius et ineptius quam sic argumentari. Hic dicuntur esse multi; ergo sunt tres, nam possunt esse viginti, triginta, quinquaginta, etc. Ergo siquid roboris in hoc argumento est, hoc tantum concludit Deos esse multos. Absit autem a nobis, certe abest a Mose ista prophanitas, ut multitudinem deorum, sacrarum literarum testimonio introducamus aut stabiliamus."
But these things are sophistical and vain. The unity of the divine nature is always supposed in our disquisitions concerning the persons subsisting therein. And this is so clearly and positively asserted in the Scripture, particularly by Moses, Deut. 6:4, besides that any apprehensions to the contrary are directly repugnant unto the light of nature, that no expressions can be observed to give the least countenance unto any other notion without ascribing direct contradictions unto it; which, if certain and evident, were a sufficient ground to reject the whole. No pretence, therefore, unto any imagination of a plurality of Gods can be made use of from these words. And the whole remaining sophistry of this exception lies in a supposition that we plead for three distinct persons in the Trinity from this place; which is false. That there is a plurality of subsistences in the divine nature we plead from hence; that these are three, neither more nor less, we prove from other places of Scripture without number. Many of these I have elsewhere vindicated from the exceptions of these men. Without a supposition of this plurality of persons, we say no tolerable account can be given of the reason of this assertion by them who acknowledge the unity of the divine nature; and we design no more but that therein there is mutual counsel,—which without a distinction of persons cannot be fancied. This whole pretence, therefore, founded on a vain and false supposition, that this testimony is used to prove a certain number of persons in the Deity, is altogether vain and frivolous.
He adds, "Secundo illud quodque hic perpendendum est, quod ex his Mosis verbis, non sequitur hoc, Deum, qui dixit 'Faciamus,' fuisse multiplicem, sive non unum fuisse locutum, sed hoc tantum, hæc verba prolata coram pluribus. Unus ergo erat qui loquebatur, sed loquebatur præsentibus aliis. Hinc autem non immediate sequitur creatores hominis fuisse multos. Nam ad hanc conclusionem pluribus adhuc consequentiis opus est. Nimirum quærendum statim est, quinam illi fuerint, quos Deus allocutus est. Deinde creaturæ, an increati? Tum an illi quoque æqualiter cum Deo operati sint in formatione hominis."
Although he only here proposeth in general what he intendeth afterwards to pursue in particular, yet something must be observed thereon, to keep upright the state of our inquiry, which he endeavours perpetually to wrest unto his advantage. And,—(1.) The invidious expressions which he makes use of, as "Deum multiplicem," and the like, are devoid of ingenuity and charity, nothing that answers them being owned by those whom he opposeth. (2.) It follows not from our exposition of these words, nor is it by us asserted, that man had many creators; which he need not pretend that there is need of many consequences to prove, seeing none was ever so fond as to attempt the proof of it. I confess that expression in Job, עֹשָׂי אֱלוֹהַּ אַיֵּה, chap. 35:10, "Where is God my creators?" doth prove that he is in some sense many who made us. But whereas creation is a work proceeding from and an effect of the infinite properties of the one divine nature, our Creator is but one, although that one be equally Father, Son, and Spirit. (3.) It is granted that one speaks these words, not more together; but he so speaks them that he takes those unto whom he speaks into the society of the same work with himself; neither is the speaker more or otherwise concerned in "Let US make," and "in OUR image," than are those unto whom he speaks. Neither, indeed, is it the speaking of these words before many concerned that Moses expresseth, but it is the concurrence of many unto the same work, with the same interest and concernment in it. And whosoever is concerned, speaking or spoken unto, in the first words, "Let us make," is no less respected in the following words, "in our image and likeness." They must, therefore, be of one and the same nature; which was to be represented in the creature to be made in their image. These things being premised, we may take a view of the pursuit and management of his particular exceptions:—
"Atque quod ad primum attinet; quinam scilicet illi fuerint, quos sit Deus allocutus; primo dicere possumus non necessarium esse, propter hujusmodi locutionum formas, multa individua constituere. Sæpe enim scriptores aliquem secum deliberantem et disceptantem introducunt. Ex quo non statim sequitur ei plures in consultatione adesse, sed tantum hoc, illum diligenter et solicite omnia considerare et expendere. Ita ergo Deus animal omnium præstantissimum creaturus, introducitur a Mose consultabundus ἁνθρωποπαθῶς more Scripturæ. Unde tamen non sequitur, Deum in istud consilium alios adhibuisse."
Herein this author exceeds the confidence of the Jews, for they constantly grant that somewhat more than one individual person must be intended in these words, or no proper sense can be elicited from them. But the whole of this discourse, and what he would insinuate by it, is merely petitio principii, accompanied with a neglect of the argument which he pretends to answer: for he only says that "one may be introduced, as it were, deliberating and consulting with himself," whereof yet he gives no instance, either from the Scripture or other sober writer, nor can give any parallel unto this discourse here used; but he takes no notice that the words directly introduce more than one consulting and deliberating among themselves about the creating of man in their image. And of a form of speech answering hereunto, where one only and absolutely is concerned, no instance can be given in any approved author.
Again, what he concludes from his arbitrary supposition,—namely, that hence "it doth not follow that God took counsel with others besides himself,"—is nothing to the argument in hand; for we prove not hence that God consulted with others besides himself, nor would it be unto our purpose so to do. But this the words evince, that he who thus consulted with himself is in some respect more than one. But will this author abide by it, that this is the sense of the place, and that thus the words are to be interpreted? This he hath not the least thought of, nor will maintain that it is according unto truth: for so they can invent exceptions against our interpretation of any testimony of Scripture, they never care to give one of their own which they will adhere unto and defend; which way of dealing in sacred things of so great importance is very perverse and froward. Thus our author, here relinquishing this conjecture, proceeds:—
"Sed demus esto, Deum hic aliquos compellasse, quæramus quinam isti fuerint. Aiunt adversarii hos omnino debuisse esse sermonis et rationis capaces. Quomodo enim Deus alloqueretur eos, qui nec loqui nec intelligere possint; sed hoc non satis firmum est. Nam scimus Deum sæpe etiam cum sensu et ratione carentibus colloquium instituere; ut in Esa. 1, 'Audite, cœli.' "
Rather than this man would omit any cavil, he will make use of such as are sapless and ridiculous. God doth not here speak unto others that are not himself, but by speaking as he doth, he declares himself to exist in a plurality of persons, capable of mutual consultation and joint operation. But here he must be supposed, as some of the Jews fancied before him, to speak unto the inanimate parts of the creation, as he speaks in the first of Isaiah, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth." But in such rhetorical apostrophes they are in truth men that are spoken unto, and that scheme of speech is used merely to make an impression on them of the things that are spoken. Apply this unto the words of God in the circumstance of the creation of man, and it will appear shamefully ridiculous. Wherefore he trusteth not unto this subterfuge, but proceeds to another:—
"Sed demus etiam hoc, istos Deo præsentes fuisse rationales, quid postea? Addunt hos non fuisse creaturas, quia Deus non soleat in suum consilium adhibere creaturas; oportet ergo ut fuerint creatores, Filius cum Spiritu. Verum isti meminisse debebant, Scripturam sacram nusquam Deum solitarium statuere, sed semper illi apparitores et agmina angelorum attribuere, ut ex visionibus prophetarum patet. Quod autem in consultationem non adhibeat creaturas Deus, hoc quoque ex eisdem visionibus refellitur. Nam etsi verum est Deum proprie cum nullo consulere, neque ullius egere consilio, tamen prophetæ illum consultantem cum spiritibus representant, 3 Reg. 22; Esa. 6; Job. 1. Jam vero cum Adamus formabatur, extitisse angelos sequens historia Mosis docet. Ergo potuerunt illi Deo de condendo homine consultanti assistere, et coram illis potuit Deus hæc protulisse."
This man seems willing to grant any thing but the truth. That which this whole discourse amounts unto is, that "God spake these words unto the angels," as the Jews pretend. So Jarchi says that God spake unto them משל בדרך, "by way of condescension," that they should not be troubled to see a creature made little less excellent than themselves. Others of them say that God spake unto them as he is attended with them, or as they wait upon his throne, which they call his "house of judgment;" and this sense Enjedinus and those that follow him fence withal. But this we have disproved already, so that it need not here be much insisted on. The Scripture expressly denies that God took counsel with any besides himself in the whole work of the creation, Isa. 40:12–14. Creation is a pure act of infinite monarchical sovereignty, wherein there was no use of any intermediate, instrumental causes, as there is in the government of the world. Wherefore, in the course of providence, God may be introduced as speaking with or unto the creatures whom he will employ in the execution thereof, and who attend his throne to receive his commands; but in the work of creation, wherein none were to be employed, this can have no place, nor can God be represented as consulting with any creatures in the creation without a disturbance of the true notion and apprehension of it. Besides, nothing of this nature can be proved, no not even with respect unto providential dispensations, from the places alleged. For Isa. 6, it is the prophet only whom God in vision speaks unto, calling out his faith and obedience. "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" verse 8; but whereas he speaks both in the singular and plural number, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" there is also a plurality of persons in the same individual essence expressed; and unto the other persons besides the Father is this place applied by the Holy Ghost, John 12:41; Acts 28:26. In the other two places, 1 Kings 22, Job 1, God is introduced speaking to the devil; which it is some marvel to find cited unto this purpose by persons of more sobriety and modesty than Enjedinus.
Again, man was made in the image and likeness of him that speaks and all that are as it were conferred with: "Let us make man in our image." But man was not made in the image and likeness of angels, but in the image and likeness of God,—that is, of God alone, as it is expressed in the next verse. And the image here mentioned doth not denote that which is made to answer another thing, but that which another is to answer unto: "Let us make man in our image,"—that is, conformable unto our nature. Now, God and angels have not one common nature, that should be the exemplar and prototype in the creation of man. Their natures and properties are infinitely distant. And that likeness which is between angels and men doth no way prove that man was made in the image of angels, although angels should be supposed to be made before them; for more is required hereunto than a mere similitude and likeness, as one egg is like another, but not the image of another. A design of conforming one to another, with its dependence on that other, is required hereunto; so was man made in the image of God alone. But he further excepts:—
"Sed quid tum, si omnia demus, Deum non creaturis præsentibus, neque illis esse allocutum his verbis? Sequitur ne eum qui locutus est cum illis quos allocutus est ejusdem esse naturæ et essentiæ? Hoc enim isti moliuntur. Certe fatuum est ita colligere. Ille qui loquitur et illi quos alloquitur sunt ejusdem essentiæ. Sic enim serpens erit Eva, et homo diabolus et quid non?"
At whose door the censure of folly will rest, a little examination of this sophism will discover. For, whatever this man may imagine, it will certainly follow, that if God spake unto any, and they were not creatures, those to whom he spake were of the same nature and essence with him that spake; for God and creatures divide the whole nature of beings, and therefore if any be spoken unto that is not a creature, he is God,—unless he can discover a middle sort of being, that is not God nor a creature, neither the Maker nor made. Again, it is a wondrous vain supposition, that our argument from hence is taken from such a general proposition, "He that speaks and he that is spoken unto are of the same nature;" the absurdity whereof is obvious unto children. But here is such a speaking of one as declares him in some respect to be more than one; and they are all assumed into the same society in the forming of man in the likeness of that one nature whereof they are equally partakers. All these pretences, therefore, are at last deserted by our author, who betakes himself unto that which is inconsistent with them:—
"Sed excipient fortasse, Mosem non tantum hoc significare, Deum esse allocutum præsentes illos, sed eos in societatem operis vocasse, et creationis participes fecisse? 'Faciamus,' inquit. At qui Creator est hominis, est etiam universi; qui universi, est solus et verus Deus. Hoc igitur jam diligentius excutiendum est; an Deus in hoc verbo 'Faciamus,' secum alios incluserit, atque creationem hominis aliis quoque communicavit? Nos enim dicimus, illud 'Faciamus,' etiamsi forma et voce sit plurale, tamen significatione et vi esse singulare; neque de ullo alio nisi de solo loquente, hoc est de Deo esse intelligendum."
As he here at once overthrows all his former pretences, with some others also that he adds from the Jews in the close of his discourse, sufficiently manifesting that it is not truth, or the true sense of the words, which he inquires after, but merely how he may multiply captious exceptions unto the sense by us pleaded for, so now, when he comes to own a direct opposition unto it, his discourse, wherein he states the matter in difference, is composed of sophistical expressions; for whereas he pretends that our judgment is, that "God by these words calls in others besides himself unto himself into the society of this work," whereby it is proved that both he that speaks and they that are spoken unto are of the same nature, he doth but attempt to deceive the unwary reader. For we say not that God speaks unto others besides himself, nor calls in others to the work of creation; but God alone speaks in himself and to himself, because as he is one in essence, so as to personal subsistence there are three in one, as many other places of the Scripture do testify. And these three are each of them intelligent operators, though all working by that nature, which is one, and common to or in them all. Therefore are they expressed as speaking thus in the plural number, which could not be, in any congruity of speech, were he that speaks but one person as well as one in nature. And were not the doctrine of the Trinity clearly revealed in other places of Scripture, there could be no proper interpretation given of these words, so as to give no countenance unto polytheism; but that being so revealed and taught elsewhere, the interpretation of this place is facile and plain, according to the analogy thereof. But that one person alone is intended in these words, he proceeds to prove:—
"Primo enim hoc omnibus linguis usitatum est, ut numero plurali, cum de se cum de aliis etiam singularibus passim sine discrimine utantur, sic Christus cum de se solo loqueretur. Joh. 3:11, ait, 'Quod scimus loquimur, et quod videmus testamur;' in quibus verbis Christum de se pluraliter loqui sequentia ostendunt; 'si,' inquit, 'terrena dixi vobis.' Sic Deus de seipso solo, Esa. 41:22, 'Accedant, et nuntient nobis quæcunque ventura sunt: et ponemus cor nostrum et sciemus novissima eorum, et quæ ventura sunt indicate nobis.' Quin etiam illud observari potest, de eodem et unico singulari permixtim, nunc singularem nunc pluralem usurpari numerum. Et Esa. 6:8, dicit Deus, 'Quem mittam, aut quis ibit pro nobis?' Ex quibus et similibus locis et loquendi usu vulgari apparet, posse verbum plurale de uno solo, recte intelligi et dici. Ergo etiamsi Deus hic dicat 'Faciamus,' tamen tantundem est, ac si dicerat 'Faciam.' "
What he saith is so usual in all languages, that one speaking of himself should speak in the plural number, having respect unto no more than himself, nor letting any others into a concernment with himself in the things spoken, he can give no instance of in any language, out of any ancient approved author.
(1.) That phrase of speech is a novice in the use of speaking. Particularly it is a stranger unto the Scripture. As this author could not, no more can any of his successors, produce any one instance out of the Old Testament of any one, unless it were God alone, were he never so great or powerful, that spake of himself in the first person in the plural number. Aben Ezra himself on this place grants that no such instance can be given. He is therefore at once deprived of the Hebrew language, wherein yet alone his instances ought to be given, if he will argue from the use of speaking.
(2.) The places he cites relieve him not. John 3:11, our Saviour's words respect not himself only, but his disciples also, who taught and baptized in his name, whose doctrine he would vindicate as his own. And as for what he adds afterwards, "If I have told you earthly things," it relates directly unto that discourse which in his own person he had with Nicodemus, with respect whereunto he changeth his phrase of speech unto the singular number; which overthrows his pretensions. The words of the prophet, Isa. 41:22, are either spoken of God alone, or of God and the church, whom he called and joined with himself in bearing witness against idols and idolaters; and he may take his choice in whether sense he will admit of them. If they are spoken of God alone, we have another testimony to confirm our doctrine, that there must be, and is, a plurality of persons in the one singular, undivided nature of God; if of the church also, there is no exception in them unto our rule, that one person speaks of himself in the Scripture only in the singular number.
(3.) His other instance out of the same prophet, Isa. 6:8, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" is home to his purpose of proving that the singular and plural numbers are used mixedly or promiscuously of one and the same. But who is that one? It is God alone. No such instance can be given in any other. And why are things so expressed by him and concerning him? Who can give any tolerable reason but this alone, namely, because his nature is one and singular, but subsisting in more persons than one? And indeed this place, considered with its circumstances, and the allegations of it in the New Testament, doth infallibly confirm the truth we contend for. He hath not yet, therefore, attained to a proof that the word may be so used as he pretends; which, with these men, is enough to secure them from the force of any Scripture testimony. He adds, therefore:—
"Secundo, Non solum posse, sed omnino necessarium esse, ut hic 'Faciamus,' singulare denotet individuum, inde probatur, quia si illa vox multitudinem in se includeret, nunquam ausi fuissent sacri scriptores eam immutare et in singularem numerum vertere. At prophetæ, ipse Christus, et apostoli, ubicunque de hac creatione loquuntur eam uni et quidem in singulari usurpata voce attribuunt. Nam statim ipse Moses subjicit, 'Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam.' Quod proxime dixerat 'Faciamus,' hic exprimit per 'Deus creavit;' quod ibi 'in imaginem nostram,' hic in singulari, 'ad imaginem suam.' Sic cap. 6:7, 'Delebo hominem quem creavi.' Et Christus, Matt. 19:4, 'Qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et fœminam fecit eos.' Marc. 10:6, 'Masculum et fœminam fecit eos Deus.' Paulus, Act. 17:26, 'Deus fecit ex uno omne genus humanum.' Act Col. 3:10, 'Induentes novum hominem, eum qui renovatur ad agnitionem secundum imaginem illius qui creavit illum.' Cum ergo omnes testantur unicum esse illum, qui hominem creavit, sequitur etiam hoc loco per verbum 'Faciamus,' non nisi unum significari. Posse enim unum per plurale significari jam monstravimus."
Nothing can be more effectually pleaded in the behalf of the cause opposed by this man than what is here alleged by him in opposition thereunto; for it is certain that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation of all unto one, and expressed it in the singular number, as they do most frequently, had it not been one God, one Creator, by whom all things were made. This is the position which he lays down as the foundation of his exception; and he was not so brutish as once to imagine that we believed there were more Creators, and so consequently more Gods, than one. But take this assertion also on the other side, namely, that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation unto more than one, unless that one in some sense or other had been more than so. Wherefore, they do not change, as is pretended, the plural expression into a singular; but the Holy Ghost, expressing the same thing, of making man in the image of God, sometimes expresseth it in the singular number, by reason of the singularity of the nature of God, which is the original of all divine operations, for God works by his nature; and sometimes in the plural, because of the plurality of persons in that nature: on which supposition these different expressions are reconciled, without which they cannot so be.
And all these exceptions or cavils are managed merely against the necessary use and signification of the word "Faciamus," "Let us make," in the plural number. What is alleged by the ancients and others, to clear the intention of the expression in this place particularly, he takes no notice of; for he makes no inquiry why, seeing, in the whole antecedent account of the work of creation, God is introduced speaking constantly in the singular number, here the phrase of speech is changed, and God speaks as consulting or deliberating, in the plural number. And he says not only, "Let US make," but adds, "In OUR image, and after OUR likeness." To imagine this to be done without some peculiar reason, is to dream rather than to inquire into the sense of Scripture. And other reason besides what we have assigned, with any tolerable congruity unto the common use of speaking, cannot be given. But supposing that he hath sufficiently evinced his intention, he proceeds to give a reason of the use of this kind of speech, where one is spoken of in the plural number:—
"Quæ sit autem causa cur liceat per pluralem numerum significare unum, et quando hoc soleat fieri, variæ afferri solent causæ. Quidam censent fieri honoris gratia, ut de eminentibus et excellentibus person is pluraliter loquamur. Id usitatum esse linguæ Hebrææ annotant docti; inter quos Cevallerius in sua syntaxi hunc tradit canonem. Quæ dignitatem significant pluraliter usurpantur ad ampliorem honorem. Ut Jos. 24:19, 'Dii sancti ipse;' Exod. 21:29, 'Domini ejus,' pro dominus; Esa. 19:4, 'In manu dominorum duri,' pro domini; Gen. 42:30, 'Domini terræ,' pro dominus. Imo hoc non tantum in Hebrea, sed in aliis quoque linguis esse usitatum, patet ex σχολ. Sophoclis, qui in Œdipo Coloneo [v. 1490] annotavit poetam dixisse, δοῦναί σφιν, pro δοῦναι αὔτῳ, et addit scriptum esse κατὰ τιμὴν πληθυντικῶς, propter honorem seu dignitatem pluraliter."
We also grant that it is one who is here intended, only we say, he is not spoken of under that consideration, of being one. Nor is it enough to prove that the word may in the plural number be used in a singular sense, but that it is so in this place, seeing the proper importance of it is otherwise. Neither can that expression concerning God, Josh. 24:19, הוּא קְדשִׁים אֱלֹהִים, "Dii sancti ipse," be used honoris gratia, seeing it is no honour to God to be spoken of as many Gods, for his glory is that he is one only. It hath, therefore, another respect, namely, unto the persons in the unity of the same nature. I could easily give the reasons of all his other instances in particular, wherein men are spoken of, and manifest that they will yield him no relief; but this may suffice in general, that they are all speeches concerning others in the third person, and all our inquiry is concerning any one thus speaking of himself in the first person, whereof no one can be given. Wherefore our author, not confiding unto this his last refuge, betakes himself unto foolish imaginations of "God's speaking to the superior parts of the world, whence the soul of man was to be taken, and the inferior, whence his body was to be made;" to "a design for the instruction of men, how to use counsel and deliberation in great undertakings;" to "a double knowledge in God, universal and particular;"—which are all of them rabbinical fopperies, evidently manifesting that he knew not what to confide in or rest upon as to the true cause of this expression, after he had resolved to reject that alone which is so.
8. The foundation of our intention from this place being thus cleared, we may safely build upon it. And that which hence we intend to prove is, that in the framing and producing the things which concern mankind, there were peculiar, internal, personal transactions between the Father, Son, and Spirit. The scheme of speech here used is in genere deliberativo,—by way of consultation. But whereas this cannot directly and properly be ascribed unto God, an anthropopathy must be allowed in the words. The mutual distinct actings and concurrence of the several persons in the Trinity are expressed by way of deliberation, and that because we can no otherwise determine or act. And this was peculiar in the work of the creation of man, because of an especial designation of him to the glory of God as three in one. Neither could he have been created in the accidental image of God but with immediate respect unto the Son, as he was the essential image of the Father. The distinct personal actings of the Trinity, wherein the priesthood of Christ is founded, are not, I confess, contained herein; for these things preceded the consideration of the fall, whereby the image now proposed and resolved to be communicated unto man in his creation was lost, which Christ was designed to recover. But there is enough to confirm our general assertion, that such distinct actings there were with respect unto mankind; and the application hereof unto our present purpose will be directed in the ensuing testimonies. This, therefore, I have only laid down and proved, as the general principle which we proceed upon. Man was peculiarly created unto the glory of the Trinity, or of God as three in one. Hence in all things concerning him there is not only an intimation of those distinct subsistences, but also of their distinct actings with respect unto him. So it was eminently in his creation; his making was the effect of special counsel. Much more shall we find this fully expressed with respect unto his restoration by the Son of God.
9. The same truth is further revealed and confirmed, Prov. 8:22–31, "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: when he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: when he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then was I by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men."
We must first secure this testimony against those who have attempted to deprive the church of God of its use and advantage, and then improve it unto our present purpose. In the ancient church none questioned but that the Wisdom which here discourseth is the Son of God; only the Arians greatly endeavoured to corrupt the sense of one passage in it, and thereby to wrest the whole to give countenance unto their heresy. Those of late who agree with them in an opposition unto the same truth, upon other principles, observing how they failed in their attempt, do leave the sense of particular passages unquestioned, and call into question the whole subject of the discourse; wherein, if they prevail, the sense of particular places must be accommodated unto what they substitute in the room thereof.
It is Wisdom that speaks and is spoken of. This we believe to be him who is the Wisdom of God, even his eternal Son. This they will not grant, although they are not agreed what it is that is intended. A property, say some, of the divine nature; the exercise of divine wisdom in making the world, say others; the wisdom that is in the law, say the Jews; or, as some of them, the wisdom that was given unto Solomon,—and of their mind have been some of late. With the Arians I shall not much contend, because their heresy seems to be much buried in the world, although some of late have endeavoured to give countenance unto their opinions, or unto them who maintained them, Sand. Hist. Eccles. Enucl. lib. iii. It was the 22d verse which they principally insisted on; for whereas it was granted between them and the Homoousians that it is the Son of God which is here spoken of, they hence pleaded for his creation before the world, or his production ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. and that there was [a time] when he was not. This they did from these words, רֵאשִׁית קָנָנִי יְחוָֹח דַּרְכּוֹ; which words were rendered by the LXX., or the Greek translation then in common use, Ὁ Κύριος ἔκτισέ με, ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ· —"Dominus condidit me initium viarum suarum." And this is followed by all the old translations. בראני, says the Targum; and the Syriac, "Creavit me;" and the Arabic follows them; only the Vulgar Latin reads, "Possedit," "Possessed me." On this corrupt translation the Arians bare themselves so high as to provoke their adversaries unto a decision of the whole controversy between them by the sentence of this one testimony. But the corruption of the common translation is long since confessed. Aquila and Theodotion both render the word by ἐκτήσατο, "he possessed." Nor doth קָנָה in any place, or on any occasion, signify to make or create, or any thing of the like importance. Its constant use is either to acquire and obtain, or to possess and enjoy. That which any one hath, which is with him, which belongs unto him and is his own, he is קֹנֵה, the possessor of. So is the Father said to possess Wisdom, because it was his, with him, even his eternal Word or Son. No more is intended hereby but what the apostle more clearly declares, John 1:1, 2, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν·—"In the beginning the Word was with God." But with these I shall not contend.
10. The Jews, and those who in the things concerning the person of Christ derive from them, and who borrow their weapons to combat his deity, we must not pass by; for an examination of their pretences and sophisms in this cause, at least occasionally as they occur unto us, I do not guess, but know to be necessary.
Grotius on this place tells us, "Hæc de ea sapientia quæ in lege apparet, exponunt Hebræi;"—"The Hebrews expound these things of that wisdom which is seen in the law." And as to many of them this information is true. Whereunto he adds of his own, "Et sane ei si non soli, at præcipue, hæc attributa conveniunt;"—"And thereunto, indeed, the things here attributed unto wisdom do agree, if not only, yet principally;" which whether it be so or no, the ensuing examination will evince.
The Jews, then, affirm that the wisdom here intended is the wisdom of the law, as in the law, or the wisdom that God used in giving the law; but how the things here ascribed unto Wisdom can belong unto the law given on Sinai is hard to conceive. To take off this difficulty, they tell us that the law was one of the seven things which God made before the creation of the world; which they prove from this place, verse 22, "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way," yea, and that, as they say, two thousand years before creation, signified by the two alephs in that sentence; Midrash Bamidmar, in cap. viii. But Aben Ezra, in his preface unto his Annotations on the Bible, tells us that they are mystical allegories, and not true in their literal sense; as doth also the author of Nizachon, Sec. Beresh. sect. 3, who likewise informs us that these things are said to be made before the world, וטובות גדולות לפי, "because of their excellency and worth," whence they were first thought upon. But these figments we need not trouble ourselves about. Their apprehension that the wisdom intended is that of the law, which Grotius gives countenance unto, shall be examined. The Socinians are not solicitous what the things mentioned are ascribed unto, so they can satisfy themselves in their exceptions unto our ascription of them unto the Son of God. I shall, therefore, first confirm our exposition of the place, and then remove their exceptions out of our way.
11. First, It is an intelligent person that is here intended; for all sorts of personal properties are ascribed unto it. It cannot, therefore, be a mere essential property of the divine nature, nor can the things spoken concerning it with respect unto God be any way verified in his essential attributes. Much less is it wisdom in general, or wisdom in man, as by some it is expounded, no one thing here mentioned being in any tolerable sense applicable thereunto. For,—(1.) In the whole discourse Wisdom speaks as an intelligent person, whereof almost every verse in the whole chapter is an instance. (2.) Personal authority and power are assumed by it: Verses 15, 16, "By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth." (3.) Personal promises upon duties to be performed towards it, due unto God himself: Verse 17, "I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me;" which is our respect unto God, Ps. 63:1, "O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee," and which is elsewhere often expressed. (4.) Personal divine actions: Verses 20, 21, "I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: that I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures." Verses 30, 31, "I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; … and my delights were with the sons of men." (5.) Personal properties; as eternity, verses 23–25, "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was;" wisdom, verse 14, "Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding; I have strength."
Secondly, The name of Wisdom is the name of the Son, who is the wisdom of God. For the Wisdom mentioned, chap. 9:1, the Jews themselves confess that it is one of the מדות, or distinct properties that are in the divine ישות, that is, substance or essence; whereby the Son of God alone can be intended.
Thirdly, The things here spoken of Wisdom are all of them, or at least the principal, expressly elsewhere attributed unto the Son, verse 11, Phil. 3:8; verse 15, Rev. 19:16; verse 22, John 1:1–3; verses 23, 24, Col. 1:15–17; verse 30, John 1:14; verse 32, Rev. 22:14.
Fourthly, The relation of the Wisdom that speaks unto God declares it to be his eternal Word or Son: "I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;" as he did in whom his soul is always well pleased.
And, lastly, as we shall further see, they are the eternal transactions of the Father and Son that are here described, which are capable of no other interpretation.
12. It is not my design to plead here the eternal existence of the Son of God antecedent unto his incarnation. I have done it also at large elsewhere. But because the faith thereof is the foundation of what I shall further offer concerning the original of his priesthood, the testimonies produced unto that purpose must be vindicated from the exceptions of the professed adversaries of that fundamental truth; and these, as to this place, are summed up and put together by Enjedinus. And his manner is, as was before observed (wherein also he is followed by all those of his way and persuasion), to multiply sophistical exceptions, that so by any means they may distract the mind of the reader and render him uncertain; and therefore they consider not whether what they offer be true or no, but commonly their evasions contradict and overthrow one another. But so the truth may be rejected, they regard not what is received. First, therefore, he lays his exception to the whole matter, and affirms that it is not wisdom, but prudence, that speaks these words, and is the subject of the whole discourse:—
"Quod ad primum attinet, ne illud quidem indubitatum est, verba præscripta a sapientia dici. Si enim versio Pagnini, Merceri, et textus Hebraicus consulatur, apparebit verba illa proferri ab intelligentia vel prudentia, quæ in hoc capite tum conjuncte, tum separatim, cum sapientia ponitur, ut apparet ex ver. 1 et 14, in cujus posteriori parte incipit intelligentia de se loqui. Nam, ver. 14, secundum Pagninum hæc est interpretatio, 'Penes me est consilium et sapientia;' et hucusque loquitur de se sapientia. Postea sequitur, 'Ego sum intelligentia, mea est fortitudo,' etc. Ita ut sequentia omnia ad finem capitis ab intelligentia proferantur. Cum ergo Paulus Christum non intelligentiam sed sapientiam vocet, et verba præscripta ab intelligentia proferantur, sequitur locum hunc ad Christum non pertinere."
What those names of Pagnin, Mercer, and the Hebrew text, are produced for, I cannot well conjecture. Both in the original and in the versions of those learned men the context is as clear unto our purpose as in any other translation whatever. And the view of the text will ease us of this forlorn exception. The comparing of the first verse with the fourteenth gives no countenance unto it; for,—(1.) In verse 1, the mention of תְּבוּנָה is not the introduction of a new person or thing, but another name of the same person or thing, as all expositors agree, whatever they apply the words unto. (2.) The words תְּבוּנָה, verse 1, and בִינָה, verse 14, both rendered "understanding," and both from the same root, are yet not absolutely the same, so that several things may be intended by them. (3.) The whole context makes it plain that it is Wisdom which speaks those words, verse 14, גְבוּרָה לִי בִינָה אֲנִי וְתוּשִׁיָּה לִי־עֵצָה. The preceding words are, "I wisdom dwell with prudence, … and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate," verses 12, 13; whereon it follows, "Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom" (or "substance"): "I am understanding; I have strength." As in the beginning Wisdom says, לִי־עֵצָה, so in the close, by a continuation of the same form of speech, ׃לִי בִינִה אֲנִי גְבוּרָה is a defective expression, and there is no verb following to be regulated by בִינָה. Wherefore, according to the perpetual use of that language, the verb substantive is to be supplied, as it is in our translation, "I am understanding." Understanding, therefore, cannot be the person speaking, but a descriptive adjunct of him that speaks. There is the same expression concerning Wisdom, verse 12, חָכְמָה אֲנִי, "I wisdom;" but it is not defective because of the verb following, שָכַנְתִּי, "have dwelt," or "do dwell." Supply the verb substantive here, where there is no defect, and the whole sense will be corrupted; but in this place, if it be omitted, there will be no sense remaining. Neither is בִינָה אֲנִי of any other signification than גְבוּרָה לִי, "I have" (or "am") "understanding," and "I have strength." This ple therefore, evinceth nothing but the boldness of them that use it. He proceeds to another:—
"Deinde hic sapientiam pro substantiva et persona esse accipiendam, non aliunde probari potest aut solet, quam quod hic loqui et clamare dicitur, atque actiones quædam ei attribuuntur. At id usitatissimum in sacris est, ut etiam accidentibus actiones adscribantur per prosopopœiam. Sic misericordia et pax de cœlo prospicere, se mutuo osculari dicuntur. Et ne longe abeamus; hic prudentia seu intelligentia vociferare, stare in semitis, clamare ad portas urbium dicitur. Neque tamen quisquam ita stolidus est ut non intelligat, misericordiam, pacem, et prudentiam esse accidentia et in his loquendi formulis prosopopœiam non agnoscat."
How we prove a person to be here intended, that is, the eternal Word of God, hath been declared. There are other considerations which evince it besides that here mentioned. But this prosopopœia, or fiction of a person, is of great use to the Antitrinitarians. By this one engine they presume they can despoil the Holy Ghost of his deity and personality. Whatever is spoken of him in the Scripture, they say it is by a prosopopœia, or the fiction of a person, those things being assigned unto a quality or an accident which really belong unto a person only. But as to what concerns the Holy Spirit, I have elsewhere taken this engine out of their hands, and cast it to the ground, so that none of them alive will erect it again. Here they make use of it against the deity of Christ, as they do also on other occasions. I do acknowledge there is such a scheme of speech used by rhetoricians and orators, whereof some examples occur in the Scripture. Unto a thing which is not a person, that is sometimes ascribed which is indeed proper only to a person; or a person who is dead or absent may be introduced as present and speaking. But yet Quintilian, the great master of the art of oratory, denies that by this figure speech can be ascribed unto that which never had it. "Nam certe," saith he, "sermo fingi non potest, ut non personæ sermo fingatur." If you feign speech, you must feign it to be the speech of a person, or one endowed with a power of speaking. And it is hard to find an instance of such an attribution of speech unto things inanimate in good authors, unless it be where, by another figure, they introduce countries or cities speaking or pleading for themselves; wherein, by a metonymy, the inhabitants of them are intended. But such an ascription is not to be found in the Scripture at all; for a prosopopœia, or fiction of a person, is a figure quite distinct from all sorts of allegories, pure or mixed, apologues, fables, parables, wherein, when the scheme is evident, any thing may be introduced speaking,—like the trees in the discourse of Jotham, Judges 9. The instance of mercy and peace looking down from heaven and kissing each other, is mixedly figurative. The foundation is a metonymy of the cause for the effect, or rather of the adjunct for the cause, and the prosopopœia is evident. But that a person should be introduced speaking in a continued discourse, ascribing to himself all personal properties, absolute and relative, all sorts of personal actions, and those the very same which in sundry other places are ascribed unto one certain person, as all the things here mentioned are unto the Son of God, who yet is no person, never was a person, nor representeth any person, without the least intimation of any figure therein, or any thing inconsistent with the nature of things and persons treated of, and that in a discourse didactical and prophetical, is such an enormous, monstrous fiction, as nothing in any author, much less in the Old or New Testament, will give the least countenance unto.
There are in the Scripture, allegories, apologues, parables, but all of them so plainly, evidently, and professedly such, and so unavoidably requiring a figurative exposition from the nature of the things themselves (as where stones are said to hear, and trees to speak), that there is no danger of any mistake about them, nor difference concerning their figurative acceptation. And the only safe rule of ascribing a figurative sense unto any thing or expression in the Scripture, is when the nature of things will not bear that which is proper; as where the Lord Christ calls himself a door and a vine, and says that bread is his body. But to make allegories of such discourses as this, founded in the fiction of persons, is a ready way to turn the whole Bible into an allegory,—which may be done with as much ease and probability of truth. He further excepts:—
"Quod secundo loco contendunt, hic nihil figurate, sed omnia proprie dici, nimis absurdum est. Nam etiamsi daremus hic sapientiam esse personam quandam, quam ipsi λόγον appellant; tamen certum esset illum tempore Solomonis in plateis non clamasse, nec cum hominibus hilariter conversatum esse, nec domum ædificasse, excidisse septem columnas, victimas obtulisse, miscuisse vinum, et cætera quæ hic recitantur proprie fecisse. Alias debuerunt fateri, Christum ab æterno fuisse incarnatum, quando quidem hæ actiones proprie non possunt nisi homini jam nato competere. Itaque et impudentis et indocti est negare hanc orationem Solomonis esse figuratam."
He names not who they are who say no expressions in this discourse are figurative. Neither doth this follow upon a denial that the whole is founded in the fiction of a person; for a true and real person may speak things figuratively, and sometimes it is necessary that so he should do. These men will not deny God to be a person, nor yet that he often speaketh of himself and his works figuratively. The same doth Wisdom also here, in the declaration of some of his works. But that which animates this exception is a false supposition, that the eternal Word cannot be said to do or act any thing but what he doth immediately in his own person, and that as incarnate. What God doth by the ministry of others, that he also doth himself. When he gave the law by the ministry of angels, he gave the law himself; and when he speaks by the prophets, he is everywhere said to speak himself. That, therefore, which was done in the days of Solomon by the command, appointment, authority, and assistance of Wisdom, was done then by Wisdom itself. And so all things here ascribed unto it, some properly, some figuratively, were done by the Word in the means by him appointed. In the ministry of the priests, Levites, prophets, teachers of the law, inviting all sorts of persons unto the fear of the Lord, he performed the most of them; and the remainder of the things intended he effected in his ordinances and institutions of divine worship. Besides, there is a prophetical scheme in these words. It is here declared not only what Wisdom then did, but especially what it should do, namely, in the days of the gospel; for the manner of the prophets is to express things future as present or past, because of the certainty of their accomplishment. And those things they spake of the coming of Christ in the flesh. See 1 Pet. 1:11, 12, 3:19.
But utterly to remove this pretence of prosopopœias and figures, it need only to be observed, which none will deny, that the Wisdom that speaks here, chap. 8, is the same that speaks, chap. 1, from verse 20 unto the end. And if Wisdom there be not a person, and that a divine person, there is none in heaven; for to whom or what else can those words be ascribed which Wisdom speaks, verses 23–26, 28: "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my Spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." If these things express not a person, and that a divine person, the Scripture gives us no due apprehension of any thing whatever. Who is it that pours out the Holy Spirit? Whom is it that men sin against in refusing to be obedient? Whom is it that in their distress they call upon, and seek early in their trouble? The whole Scripture declares unto whom, and unto whom alone, these things belong and may be ascribed.
After an interposition of some things nothing unto the purpose, he yet puts in three more exceptions unto this testimony to the eternal personal existence of this Wisdom; as,—
"Præterea hæc sapientia de qua agit Solomon, loquitur, docet, instituit homines. At Jesus Christus postremis tantum diebus, teste apostolo ad Heb. 1, locutus est hominibus; ergo non ætate Solomonis."
The apostle says not that Jesus Christ spake only in the latter days, Heb. 1, but that God in the last days spake unto us in his Son. And the immediate speaking unto us by the Son in the last days, as he was incarnate, hinders not but that he spake before by his Spirit in the prophets, as the apostle Peter affirms him to have done, 1 Epist. 1:11. And by this Spirit did he speak,—that is, teach and instruct men,—in the days of Solomon, and from the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. 3:18–20.
"Denique prophetia illa, Esa. 42:1, 2, 'Ecce servus meus quem elegi, non clamabit, neque audiet aliquis in plateis vocem ejus,' applicatur Christo, Matt. 12:18, 19. At hæc sapientia dicitur clamasse in plateis. Itaque falsum est hanc sapientiam Solomonis fuisse Jesum Christum."
A man of gravity and learning ought to have been ashamed of such a puerile cavil. The prophet Isaiah, setting out the meekness and peaceableness of the Lord Christ in the discharge of his office, with his tenderness and condescension towards the poorest and meanest that come unto him, expresseth it, among others, by these words, "He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street;" intending no more but that he should do nothing by way of strife, contention, or violence, in private or public places. And this prophecy is applied unto him by Matthew at that very season when "great multitudes followed him" in the streets and fields, whom he taught and healed, Matt. 12:15–17. Hence this man would conclude, that because Wisdom is said to cry in the streets,—that is, to instruct men in public places, which he did formerly by his Spirit, and in the days of his flesh in his own person,— the Son of God cannot be intended. Yet he further adds:—
"Postremo de sapientia ista, non dicitur quod sit ab æterno genita; sed tantum ut in Hebræo habetur a seculo formata; quod longe aliud significat, quam ab æterno gigni. Et potest aliquid a seculo, hoc est a mundi creatione vel etiam ante illam extitisse; inde tamen non sequitur esse æternum."
He tells us not where in the Hebrew text wisdom is said to be "formata a seculo;" nor is there any such passage in the context. It says, indeed, verse 23, נִסַּכְתִּי מֵעוֹלָם; which words of themselves do not absolutely and necessarily declare eternity, though no other expression or antecedent eternity be commonly made use of; but as this מֵעוֹלָם is here particularly explained to denote the existence of Wisdom before the whole creation or any part of it, as it is at large in the whole ensuing discourse, especially verses 25, 26, it doth necessarily denote eternity, nor can it be otherwise expressed. And although we do not particularly prove the relation of the Son to the Father by eternal generation from this place, yet as Wisdom is not said here to be formed or created, so the word used verse 25, חוֹלָלְתִּי, which we have rendered, "I was brought forth," doth more than intimate that generation.
This being the whole of what the enemies of the sacred Trinity have to object unto our application of this discourse to the eternal Word or Son of God, we may upon its removal proceed unto the improvement of this testimony unto our present design.
13. A personal transaction, before the creation of the world, between the Father and the Son, acting mutually by their one Spirit, concerning the state and condition of mankind, with respect unto divine love and favour, is that which we inquire after, and which is here fully expressed; for the Wisdom or Word of God having declared his eternal existence with the Father and distinction from him, manifests withal his joint creation of all things, especially his presence with God when he made עַפְרוֹת רֹאשׁ תֵּבֵל, verse 26, "the highest part of the dusts of the habitable world;" that is, הריאשון אדם, "The first Adam," as Jarchi interprets it, and that not improbably. Then he declares that he was אֶצְלוֹ, "by him," with him, before him, verse 30; that is, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, John 1:1, 2. And he was with him, אָמוֹן, "Nutricius," "One brought up with him." The word seems to be of a passive signification, or the participle Pahul, and is of the masculine gender, though referring unto חָכְמָה, Wisdom, which speaks of itself and is of the feminine, and that because it is a person which is intended; such constructions being not infrequent in the Hebrew, where the adjunct agrees with and respects the nature of the subject, rather than the name or some other name of the same thing. See Gen. 4:7. The word may have various significations, and is accordingly variously rendered by interpreters. The Chaldee render it מהימן, that is, "faithful," "I was faithful with him;" and the LXX., ἀρμόζουσα, "framing, forming," that is, all things with him. So also Ralbag on the place expounds it actively, "One nourishing all things," as Jarchi doth passively,עמו גדלה, "brought up with him;" which sense of the words our translation follows. And it is used unto that purpose, Lam. 4:5, תוֹלָע עֲלֵי הָאֱמֻנִים, "brought up in scarlet." And although it may be not undecently taken in an active sense, yet I rather judge it to be used passively, "nutricius, alumnus," one that is in the care and love of another, and to be disposed by him.
And we may inquire in what sense this is spoken of the Son with respect unto the Father. The foundation of the allusion lies in the eternal mutual love that is between the Father and the Son. Thereunto is added the consideration of the natural dependence of the Son on the Father,— compared unto the love of a father unto a son, and the dependence of a son on his father. Therefore most translations, with respect unto this allusion, supply "as" to the words, "As one brought up." Again, אָמוֹן, "alumnus," "one brought up," is always so with and unto some especial end or purpose, or to some work and service. And this is principally here intended. It is with respect unto the work that he had to accomplish that he is called "Alumnus Patris," "One brought up of the Father." And this was no other but the work of the redemption and salvation of mankind, the counsel whereof was then between the Father and the Son. In the carrying on of that work the Lord Christ everywhere commits himself and his undertaking unto the care, love, assistance, and faithfulness of the Father, whose especial grace was the original thereof, Ps. 22:9–11, 19, 20; Isa. 50:7–9. And in answer hereunto, the Father promiseth him, as we shall see afterwards, to stand by him, and to carry him through the whole of it; and that because it was to be accomplished in such a nature as stood in need of help and assistance. Wherefore, with respect unto this work, he is said to be אָמוֹן אֶצְלוֹ, "before him," as one whom he would take care of, and stand by with love and faithfulness, in the prosecution of the work which was in their mutual counsel, when he should be clothed with that nature which stood in need of it.
14. With respect hereunto he adds, יוֹם שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים וָאֶהְיֶה יוֹם;—"And was delights every day." There are ineffable mutual delights and joys in and between the persons of the sacred Trinity, arising from that infinite satisfaction and complacency which they have in each other from their respective in-being, by the participation of the same nature; wherein no small part of the blessedness of God doth consist. And by this word that peculiar delight which a father hath in a son is expressed: Jer. 31:20, שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יֶלֶד;—"A pleasant child, a child of delights." But the delights here intended have respect unto the works of God ad extra, as a fruit of that eternal satisfaction which ariseth from the counsels of God concerning the sons of men. This the next verse makes manifest, "Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights with the sons of men;" for after he had declared the presence of Wisdom with God before the first creation (which is a notation of eternity), and its co-operation with him therein, he descends to manifest the especial design of God and Wisdom with respect unto the children of men. And here such an undertaking on the part of the Son is intimated, as that the Father undertakes the care of him and his protection when he was to be humbled into the form of a servant; in the prospect whereof he delighted in him continually.
So he expresseth it, Isa. 42:1–7, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth." (נַפְשִׁי רָצְתָה, the same with יוֹם יוֹם לוֹ שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים. See Matt. 12:18, 17:5; Eph. 1:6.) "I have put my Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house." This is the delight of the Father, and [such is] his presence with the Son in his work, whereof an eternal prospect is here presented. In answer whereunto the Son delights in him, whose delight he was, עֵת בְּכָל לְפָנָיו מְשָׂחֶקֶת "rejoicing with exultation," with all manner of expressions of joy; for the word properly signifies an outward expression of an inward delight,—the natural overflowings of an abounding joy. And what is this delight of the Son in answering the delight of the Father in him, with respect unto the work he had to do, the psalmist declares, Ps. 40:7, 8, "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." This מְגִלַּת־סֵפֶר, this "volume of the book," which our apostle calls κεφαλὶδα βιβλὶου, "the beginning" (or "head") "of the book," Heb. 10:7, is no other but the counsel of God concerning the salvation of the elect by Jesus Christ, enrolled as it were in the book of life, and thence transcribed into the beginning of the book of truth, in the first promise given unto Adam after the fall. This counsel being established between Father and Son, the Son with respect thereunto rejoiceth continually before God, on the account of that delight which he had to do and accomplish his will, and in our nature assumed to answer the law of mediation which was prescribed unto him.
15. For, this being declared to be the mutual frame of God and his Wisdom towards one another, Wisdom proceeds to manifest with what respect towards outward things it was that they were so mutually affected: Verse 31, "Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men." That the things here spoken of were transacted in eternity, or before the creation, is evident in the context. The eternal counsels, therefore, and purposes of God and Wisdom, with respect unto the sons of men, are here expressed. The Word was now "fore-ordained," even "before the foundation of the world," unto the work of mediation and redemption, 1 Pet. 1:20; and many of the sons of men were "chosen in him" unto grace and glory, Eph. 1:4; and the bringing of them unto that glory whereunto they were chosen was committed unto him, as the captain of their salvation. This work, and the contemplation of it, he now delights in, because of that eternity of divine glory which was to ensue thereon. And because he was designed of the Father hereunto, and the work which he had to accomplish was principally the work of the Father, or the fulfilling of his will and the making effectual of his grace, wherein he sought his glory and not his own primarily, John 7:18, he speaketh of him as a distinct person, and the sovereign Lord of the whole. He did it אַרְצוֹ בְּתֵבֵל, "in the world of his earth." And the same word which he used to express his frame towards God, מְשָׂחֶקֶת, verse 30, "rejoicing, exulting," he useth here in reference unto his work, to intimate that it was on the same account that he is said to rejoice before the Father and in the habitable part of his earth; that is, on account of the work he had undertaken. So also he expresseth his delight in the children of men, because of the concernment of the glory of God therein, by שַׁעֲשׁוּעַיֹם, the same word whereby he declares the Father's delight in himself with respect unto his work.
And these things cannot refer unto the first creation, seeing they regard אָדָם בְּנֵי, "the children of men," the sons or posterity of him who was at first singly created. And these things are revealed for our consolation and the strengthening of our faith, whereunto they may be improved; for if there were such mutual delights between the Father and the Son in the counsel and contrivance of the work of our redemption and salvation, and if the Son so rejoiced in the prospect of his own undertaking unto that end, we need not doubt but that he will powerfully and effectually accomplish it. For all the difficulties of it lay open and naked under his eye, yet he rejoiced in the thoughts of his engagement for their removal and conquest. He now saw the law of God established and fulfilled, the justice of God satisfied, his glory repaired, Satan under his feet, his works destroyed, sin put an end unto, with all the confusion and misery which it brought into the world,—all matters of everlasting joy. Here we place the first spring of the priesthood of Christ, the first actings of God towards man for his reparation. And it is expressed by the mutual delight of the Father and Son in the work and effect of it, whereunto the Son was designed; and this was intimate love, grace, complacency, and infinite wisdom. God foreseeing how the designed effect of love and grace in the recovery of mankind by the interposition of his Son would issue in his own eternal glory, was pleased therewith and rejoiced therein; and the Son, considering the object of his love and the peculiar glory set before him, delighted in the counsel of the Father. Wherefore the foundation of Christ's priesthood, herein designed, was in love, grace, and wisdom, though in its exercise it respect holiness and justice also.
16. And this also seems to be expressed by the psalmist, Ps. 2:7, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The direct sense and importance of these words hath been declared in our Exposition on Heb. 1:5, 6; and the testimony that is given in them unto the divine nature of Jesus Christ I have also formerly vindicated, Vindiciæ Evangelicæ; and I have in like manner elsewhere declared the perverse iniquity of some of the later Jewish masters, who would apply this psalm singly to David, without any respect unto the Messiah. This Rashi confesseth that they do on purpose to oppose the "heretics" or Christians. But this is contrary to the conceptions and expositions of all their ancient doctors, and the express faith of their church whilst it continued; for from this place they constantly acknowledged that the Messiah was to be the Son of God,—or rather, that the Son of God was to be the Messiah. Hence was that inquiry of the high priest, Matt. 26:63, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." According to the faith of their church, he takes it for granted that "the Christ" and "the Son of God" were the same. The same confession on the same principle made Nathanael, John 1:49, "Thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." And Peter's confession, Matt. 16:16, John 6:69, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," was nothing but a due application of the faith of the Judaical church unto the person of our Saviour; which was all that he then called for. "Unless," saith he, "ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." And this faith of the church was principally built on this testimony, where God expressly calls the Messiah his Son, and that on the account of his eternal generation.
So Maimonides, Jarchi himself, and Kimchi, do all confess that their ancients interpreted this psalm of the Messiah. The words of Jarchi are plain: נכון המינים ולתשובת משמעו ולפי המשיח מלך על הענין את דרשו רבותינו עצמו דוד על לפותרו;—"Our masters expounded this psalm" (or, "the construction of it") "concerning the King Messiah; but as the words sound, and that an answer may be returned unto the heretics, it is expedient to interpret it of David himself." His confession is plain, that their ancient doctors looked on this psalm as a prophecy of the Messiah, as is also expressly acknowledged by Maimonides and Kimchi in their expositions. But as to these words, המינים ולתשובת, "and for an answer unto the heretics," the reader will not find them either in the edition of Basil or of Venice,—that is, of the Bible with their Masoretical criticisms and rabbinical annotations,—being expunged by such as had the oversight of those editions, or before razed out of the copies they made use of.
A great number of instances of this sort, unto excellent advantage, are collected by the learned Dr Pococke, Notæ Miscellan., cap. viii. And in the same place, that we go no farther for it, the same learned author gives us an account of the evasions invented by some of the Mohammedans against the force of this testimony, which yet they allow to respect Jesus Christ, whom they will by no means grant to be the Son of God. A prophet, if we please, he shall be; but that none may believe him to be the Son of God, the impostor himself laid in provision in the close of his Koran, in that summary of his Mussulman confession, "He is one God, God eternal, who neither begetteth nor is begotten, and to whom none is equal." The reasons of their infidelity are putid and ridiculous, as is commonly known, and their evasion of this testimony a violent escape: for they tell us the text is corrupted, and instead of "My Son," it should be "My prophet;" and instead of "I have begotten thee," it should be "I have cherished thee;" the former words in the Arabic language consisting of the same letters transposed, and the latter differing in one letter only; and the fancied allusion between or change of the words is not much more distant in the Hebrew. But it is ridiculous to suppose that the Jews have corrupted their own text, to the ruinous disadvantage of their own infidelity.
17. There is, therefore, an illustrious testimony in these words given unto the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Christ in his divine nature before his incarnation; and this causeth the adversaries of that sacred truth to turn themselves into all shapes to avoid the force of it. He with whom we have before concerned ourselves raiseth himself unto that confidence as to deny that the things mentioned in this psalm had any direct accomplishment in Jesus Christ; and his next attempt is to prove that these words, Ps. 22:16, "They pierced my hands and my feet," had no respect unto him. To this purpose doth he here discourse:—
"Ea quæ hic dicuntur si litera urgeatur, nunquam in Jesu Christo completa sunt. Nam ejus divinitati hæc non competere, clarum est. Jam vero, ne cum natus quidem ex Maria est, historice hæc illi evenerunt. Qui enim sunt isti, quæso, populi, quæ gentes, qui reges, qui contra Jesum jam regem constitutum consurrexerunt? Certe nec Pilatus, qui tamen rex non erat, nec Herodes ei hoc nomine ut illum solio et dignitate regia deturbarent illi, molesti fuerunt; neque consilia adversus ejus regnum contulerunt, nec copias collegerunt. Imo Pilatus quamvis illum regem dici audiret, tamen liberare et dimittere paratus erat. Et Herodes adversus eum non fremuit, sed hominem contempsit, et illæsum cum in potestate sua haberet dimisit. Pilatus Johan. 18:35, fatetur, 'Gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt te mihi;' soli ergo Judæi fuerunt hostes Jesu, et eorum consilia adversus cum non fuerunt inita; sed optatum finem consecuta; cujus contrarium hic narratur. In summa, tantus concursus, tanta consectatio, tantus armorum strepitus, et apparatus bellicus, quantum hæc verba psalmi significant, nunquam contra Jesum extitit; præterea isti reges et populi dicunt, 'Dirumpamus vincula eorum,' etc. At Jesus nec Judæis nec gentibus imperitavit, nec vincula injecit, nulla tributa imposuit, non leges præscripsit, quibus illos constrictos tenuisset, et a quibus illi liberari concupivissent. Nam siquis hæc ad doctrinam Jesu accommodet, spiritualem et mysticum introducet sensum," etc.
Having elsewhere handled, expounded, and vindicated this testimony, I should not here have diverted to the consideration of this discourse, had it not been to give an instance of that extreme confidence which this sort of men betake themselves unto when they are pressed with plain Scripture testimonies; for not any of the Jews themselves, who despise the application of this prophecy to Christ in the New Testament, do more perversely argue against his concernment therein than this man doth. He tells us, in the entrance of his discourse on this psalm, that all the Hebrews, whose authority in the interpretation of the Scripture no sober man will despise, are against the application of this psalm unto Christ. But as he is deceived if he thought that they all agree in denying this psalm to be a prophecy of the Messiah (for, as we have showed, the elder masters were of that mind), so he that shall be moved with the authority of the later doctors in the interpretation of those places of Scripture which concern the promised Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ, and yet pretend himself to be a Christian, will scarce retain the reputation of a sober person among such as are not stark mad. However, no Jew of them all can more perversely oppose the gospel than this man here doth, as will appear in the examination of what he says.
First, That the things spoken in this psalm regard the Lord Christ with respect unto his divine nature alone, or as absolutely considered, none ever affirmed or taught; for they all regard him as incarnate, or as he was to be incarnate, and as exalted, or as he was to be exalted unto his kingly rule and throne. But yet some things here spoken are distinctly verified in his divine nature, some in his human, as I have elsewhere declared. In general, they all regard his person with respect unto his kingly office. But what ensues in this author, namely, that these things belong none of them properly unto Jesus Christ, is above the rate of ordinary confidence. All the apostles do not only jointly and with one accord apply the things here spoken unto the Lord Jesus, but also give a clear exposition of the words, as a ground of that application,—a thing seldom done by the sacred writers: Acts 4:24–28, "They lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." In their judgment, Herod and Pontius Pilate, with their adherents,—as exercising supreme rule and power in and over that people, with respect unto them on whom they depended, and whose authority they exerted, namely, the Romans, the great rulers over the world,—were the "kings" and "rulers" intended in this psalm. And so also the נוֹ ם, or "heathen," they took to be the "Gentiles," who adhered unto Pilate in the execution of his Gentile power, and the לְאֻמִּים mentioned to be "the people of Israel." Let us, therefore, consider what this man excepts against the exposition and application of these words made by the apostles, and which they expressed as the solemn profession of their faith, and we shall quickly find that all his exceptions are miserably weak and sophistical. "Pilate," he says, "was not a king." But he acted regal power, the power of a supreme magistrate among them, and such are everywhere called kings in the Scripture. Besides, he acted the power of the great rulers of the world, who made use of kings as instruments of their rule; so that in and by him the power of the Gentile world was acted against Christ. Herod he grants to have been a king, who yet was inferior in power and jurisdiction unto Pilate, and received what authority he had by delegation from the same monarch with Pilate himself.
Secondly, He denies that these or either of them opposed Christ as to his kingdom; for "Pilate moved once for his delivery, and Herod rather scorned him than raged against his kingdom." But this unbridled confidence would much better become a Jew than one professing himself to be a Christian. Did they not oppose the Lord Christ? did they not rage against him? Who persecuted him? Who reviled him? Who apprehended him as a thief or murderer? who mocked him, spit upon him, scourged him, crucified him, if not with their hands, yet with their power? Did they not oppose him as to his kingdom, who by all ways possible endeavoured to hinder all the ways and means whatsoever whereby it was erected and established? Certainly never had prophecy a more sensible accomplishment.
Thirdly, And for what he adds in reference unto the Jews, that "their counsels were not in vain against Christ, as those were that are here mentioned, but obtained their wished end," I cannot see how it can be excused from a great outrage and excess of blasphemy. They did, indeed, whatever the hand and counsel of God determined before to be done; but that their own counsels were not vain, that they accomplished what they designed and aimed at, is the highest blasphemy to imagine. They took counsel against him as a seducer and a blasphemer; they designed to put an end to his work, that none ever should esteem him or believe in him as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, the Son of God;—was this counsel of theirs not in vain? did they accomplish what they aimed at? Then say there is not a word of truth in the gospel or Christian religion.
Fourthly, For that "concourse of people, consultations, and noise and preparation for war," which though, as he says, "mentioned in the text, he cannot find in the actings of men against the Lord Christ," it is all an imagination of the same folly; for there is no mention of any such preparation for war in the text as he dreameth of. Rage and consultation, with a resolution to oppose the spiritual rule of the Son of God, are indeed described, and were all actually made use of, originally against the person of Christ immediately, and afterwards against him in his gospel, with the professors and publishers of it.
Fifthly, He adds hereunto that "Christ ruled neither Jews nor Gentiles; that he made no laws, nor put any bonds upon them, that they might be said to break." So answers Kimchi the testimony from Mic. 5:2, where Christ is called the ruler of Israel. "Answer them," saith he, בישראל משל לא בו משלו הם אבל,—"that Jesus ruled not over Israel, but they ruled over him, and crucified him." But notwithstanding all this petulancy, his enemies shall all of them one day know that God hath made him both Lord and Christ; that he is a king and a lawgiver for ever; that he came to put the holy bands and chains of his laws on the world, which they in vain strive to reject and cast out of the earth, for he must reign until all his enemies are made his footstool. It is granted that in some of these words spiritual things are figuratively expressed, but their literal sense is that which the figure intends; so that no mystic or allegorical sense is here to be inquired after, it being the Lord Christ the Son of God, with respect unto his kingly office, who is here treated of primarily and directly, however any of the concernments of his kingdom might be typed out in David; and he it is who says, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
18. The foundation of this expression is laid in the divine and eternal filiation of the Son of God, as I have elsewhere evinced; but the thing directly expressed is spoken in reference unto the manifestation thereof in and after his incarnation. He that speaks the words is the Son himself; and he is the person spoken unto, as Ps. 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord," wherein the same eternal transaction between the Father and Son is declared. So here, "The LORD," that is the Father, "hath said unto me." How? By the way of an eternal statute, law, or decree. As he was the Son of God, so God declares unto him that in the work he had to do he should be his Son, and he would be his Father, and make him his first-born, higher than the kings of the earth. And therefore are these words applied several ways unto the manifestation of his divine filiation. For instance, he was "declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead," Rom. 1:4. And this very decree, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," is used by our apostle to prove the priesthood of Christ, which was confirmed unto him therein, Heb. 5:5; and this could no otherwise be but that God declared therein unto him, that in the discharge of that office, as also of his kingdom and rule, he would manifest and declare him so to be. It appears, therefore, that there were eternal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the redemption of mankind by his interposition or mediation.
