The Spirit and the Covenant J©HN GILL’S CRITIQUE ٠ ? THE PACTUM SALUTIS R i c h a r d a . M u l l e r O u t ٠ ? THE D 1S1NTEGRAT!UN of the orthodox reformed structure of English federalism there sprang two alternative doctrinal structures, the nomistic, given its definitive form in Richard Baxter’s Catholick Theologie and Methodus theologiae christianae and the antinomian, as synthesized and developed in John Gill’s CompleteBody ofDoctrinal andPractical Divinity.1Gill, who lived from 1697 to 1771, is without doubt the foremost theologian of the Particular Baptists. He is remembered as a zealous and erudite opponent of infant baptism and as an indefatigable defender of the Calvinist doctrine of election in its high orthodox form. In addition to his Body ofDivinity he produced a weighty four-volume refutation of the Arminian Whitby’s Discourse on the “ five points’’ of Calvinism, a massive treatise on the doctrine of foe Trinity, and a verse-by-verse exposition of foe Old and New Testaments which ran to nine volumes in its first edition. Gill also edited and published an edition of the works of Tobias Crisp, the cent^nth-century antinomian preacher.2 Gill’s importance as a thinker rests upon his reformulation of the federal system around the principles of the eternal decree, the absolutely free and unmerited gift of grace in salvation, and justification of foe elect from eternity-the last of these principles serving to rule out any taint of synergism in foe salvation of the individual. These doctrines, together with foe equation of the covenant of grace with foe eternal covenant of redemption or pactum salutis between foe persons of the Trinity, tended in Gill’s system to become the basis for interpreting all other doctrine.3 In one sense, therefore, Gill appears as the great codifier of a movement. More importantly, he also appears as an original thinker in several of foe particulars of his codification, a thinker who was able to examine the needs of system and to draw together into a synthesis the various loose ends of doctrine. Perhaps foe most important of Gill’s original formulations was his critique and development of the Reformed doctrine of the partum salutis. As that doctrine stood in foe systems of major seventeenth-century thinkers like Witsius, Turretin, Heidegger, and Owen, it did not quite fit foe doctrinal needs of foe antinomian side of federalism nor did R ic h a r d A. M u l l e r is assistant professor of Historical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Fasadena, California.
The Spirit and the Covenant it quite fulfill requirements set forth in that ground of all Christian doctrine, foe eoncept of God as Trinity and of the common work of foe three persons of foe Trinity. Gill saw, in short, that pre¥؛ous formulations of the pactum did not give proper place to the Spirit and that when that place was described foe antinomian structure could only be strengthened. The pactum salutis ٠٢ covenant of redemption is a distinctive doctrine of foe Refomied churches which received its first major formulation in foe writings of the Heidelberg theologian, Caspar Glevianu¿ (1536-1587) and which rapidly became the common property of the seventeenth-century formúlators of Reformed orthodoxy.4 All of these thinkers sought to describe, on the basis of Scripture, a covenanting activity within the Godhead which grounds in eternity foe covenanting activity of God with man in the temporal work of salvation. In foe words of Johann Heinrich Heidegger, with whose system Gill was familiar. The covenant of God foe Pather with foe Son is a mutual agreement, by which God foe father exacted from foe Son perfect obedience to the law unto foe death which he must face on behalf of chosen seed to be given him؛ and promised him if he gave foe obedience, foe seed in question as his own perquisite and inheritance; and in return foe Son, in promising this obedience to God the Father and producing it in the literal act, demanded of him in turn foe right to demand this seed for himself as an inheritance and perquisite.5 This covenant, moreover, belongs to foe eternal counsel of God, even as does foe decree of predestination, and is not to be viewed as a part of the temporal activity of God. It is nevertheless so predicated upon the issue of redemption that, unlike the doctrine of the decrees, it is not easily susceptible of a supralapsarian form in which foe human race is considered creabilis et labilis rather than creatus et lapsus. According to the sublapsarian pattern, then, foe covenant of redemption relates to foe covenant of grace as does the eternal decree to its execution in time.* Gill’s critique and reformulation of this doctrine was not entirely without precedent. Several of the theologians of the early orthodox period-William Ferkins, Amandus ?olanus, Johannes Scharpius, and to a lesser extent, Gulielmus Bucanus and William Ames— proposed a doctrinal structure in their discussion of the decrees much like the pactum salutis. They argued that foe Son, considered as God one in essence with the Father and the Spirit, is one with the Father and foe Spirit in decreeing foe salvation of the elect. The Son is only subordinate as Mediator, for then he is in a sense elected ٠٢designated to foe work of salvation by the Godhead.7 Perkins, Polanus, Ussher, and Scharpius state specifically that foe entire Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is foe origin of the decree or counsel of election.8 In other words, these early orthodox theologians paid remarkably close attention to foe dictum of Christian doctrine that all activity of God ad extra is foe common
Foundations 6 work of the entire Trinity and, in order to sustain this dietum, they paid striet attention to the necessarily trinitarian structures at the ground of all doctrine. This concern of early orthodoxy did not always carry over into the period of high orthodoxy: there the rapid polemical develpment of individual doctrinal loci sometimes obscured the interrelationships of doctrines so carefully traced in the earlier period. This was particularly true of the trinitarian motif, which ceased to function as ^ominently in the treatment of the eternal counsel. I know of only two thinkers prior to Gill who noted this problem and attempted a partial solution, Franz Burmann and Fetrus van Mastricht. Burmann recognized that the will of God expressed in the pactum salutis was not only the will of the Father and the Son, but also the will of the Spirit. In confirmation of this idea, Burmann cited Ephesians 1:13-14, “ In whom also, believers, ye are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance.” The three divine persons, Burmann reasoned, are related to the covenant of redemption according to their proper mode of operation: the Father as the legislator, the Son as the vindicator and restorer of the church, and the Spirit as the witness and guarantor of toe benefits of the covenant.9 Nvertheless, Burmann does not elaborate on the role of toe Spirit in the covenant or upon the trinitarian structure of the divine covenanting ad intra. Mastricht also presses the distinction of persons in the eternal covenant: just as it is inconceivable to speak of a mediator of one (cf. Galatians 3:2 ه ) so is it inconceivable to postulate a covenant of one. Thus the persons of toe Trinity are to be distinguished not only according to their mode of subsistence and characteristic properties but also “ confederatively.” The Father stands as creator, ruler, and legislator؛ toe Son as the effecter of toe temporal order (oikonomos dispensator), Mediator, and surety (expromissor); and toe Spirit as toe consummator of all things through whom the entire work of the Trinity is concluded, that is, as the emmissary who consents to and executes the covenant, who distributes his gifts to the elect and accomplishes toe work of regeneration.!® The underlying problem remains, however, since Mastricht’s primary definition of toe covenant retains its dipleuric character and since the Spirit’s role in toe covenant falls largely within toe realm of temporal execution.!! John Gill’s exposition of the eternal covenant of grace commonly called the pactum salutis or covenant of redemption belongs to the second book of his Body ofDivinity. That book of the system, taken as a whole, is devoted to the discussion of the internal acts, both essential and personal, of toe Godhead. Here Gill treats of the divine decrees in general, of election and reprobation, “ Of the eternal union of toe elect to God,” “ Of adoption as an immanent act,” “ Of justification as an immanent act,” then, in a series often chapters, of the eternal council and covenant
The Spirit and the Covenant of God, concluding the book with a discussion “ Gf the complacency and delight of the Deity in himself.” ٧ Further treatment of the covenant of grace appears at the beginning of the fourth book of the system in a chapter entitled “ Manifestation and administration of the covenant of grace.” وا In his exposition of the covenant, Gill employs two distinctions which had come into prominence in the early orthodox treatment of the doctrine of predestination. First, since the covenant and the economy of the covenant in his theology take a position analogous to that of the decrees and the ordo salutis, the covenant may now be defined in terms of the typical orthodox distinction between the eternal decree and its execution in timeئ. Use of this distinction allows Gill to abolish the separation between the pactum salutis and thtfo ed u s gratiae found in most of the orthodox systems and to follow the antinomian pattern set forth by Crisp, Saltmarsh, and Bunyan. The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are now one covenant, viewed in enactment and execution. The only parties in the covenant are divine, the covenant being made entirely by God for the sake of man. In relation to man the covenant is monopleuric.15 Formally, of course, the effect of collapsing the temporal covenanting into the eternal is a separation of the discussion of covenant from the exposition of its administration or economy. Such separation would be in direct contrast to the structure of the seventeenth-century orthodox system where two covenants were considered under a single sublapsarian locus.16 Second, Gill adapts to his exposition of covenant as an immanent and personal act of the Trinity the early orthodox distinction between the Son considered as God according to essence and the Son subordinated to the Father in his mediatorial work. In conformity with the trinitarian impulse of the earlier theology, however, Gill includes the Spirit in his argument: As in all covenants, however the persons covenanting may be equal in other respects, yet in covenanting there is an inegality and subordination; especially in covenants in which there is service and work to be done on one side, and a reward to be given in consideration of it on the other; of which nature is the covenant of grace and redemption; and though the contracting parties in it are equal in nature, perfections, and glory, yet in this covenant-relation they voluntarily entered into, there is by agreement and consent a subordination. - ■١? Accordingly, the Father may be said to be greater than the Son, Not merely on account of his human nature, about which there could be no difficulty in admitting it; but with respect to his covenant relation with him, and the office־ capacity he has taken and sustains in it: and the Spirit, the third person and contracting party, he is said to be sent both by the Father and the Son, to perform the part which he undertook in it. . . .18
Foundations This distinction ailows Gill to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit initially as equal parties in the C0¥enanting activity even though4he Father stands prior to the other two persons in the subsequent order of the economy of salvation. Gn the basis of these two crucial distinctions and grounded upon the doctrine of the Trinity, Gill’s critique of earlier formulations of covenant doctrine stressed on the one hand the eternal character of the covenant and on the other the neglected role of the Spirit in foe pactum salutis.19 The two foci of the critique, moreover, supplement one another: once the distinction had been made between the covenant and its execution, it became necessary in systematic sense to extrapolate from the traditional explanation of foe order of individual salvation as foe work of the Spirit to the role of the Spirit in foe eternal covenant: even as the Son’s work of redemption is grounded in an eternal contract, so must the Spirit’s application of Christ’s benehts reflect his eternal intention in covenant. Thus, Gill views covenanting as the basic form of the personal acts of the Godhead ad intra.2° No person of the Trinity and specifically not the Spirit can be conceived of as “ a mere by־stander, spectator, and witness of this solemn transactionال”. As for foe sublapsarian implication of the pactum salutis, this finds justification in Gill’s subtle harmonizing of the supra- and sublapsarian structures of the decree. Consideration of foe decree as “ the decree of foe end” leads naturally to foe supralapsarian position, since foe sole end of God’s decretive work is his own glory, not presupposing a created and folien humanity. On foe other hand, consideration of predestination as “ the decree of the means” does presuppose a created and fallen humanity, just as it presupposes Christ’s mediation and the work of foe Spirit. If Gill himself favored foe supralapsarian schema, he nevertheless recognized the presence of both sub- and supralapsarian patterns within foe doctrine of foe decreeص.The eternal council of Father, Son, and Spirit in which the covenant received its form stands contingent (from the point of view of human logic) upon the end of God’s glory and provides the means of saving those who had been determined as elect in the decree. The covenant thus coincides with the sublapsarian decree of the means.23 Consequently, Gill understood foe origin of the council of divine persons in eternity as God foe Father’s intention to save mankind in Christ.2* This plan foe Father proposed to foe Son, who freely entered into covenant؛ and to foe Holy Spirit, who manifested his approval of foe Son’s part in foe work of salvation “ by joining with foe Father in the mission of him . . . and by forming his human nature in time, and filling it with gifts and graces without m e a s u r e .T h e eternal covenant also determined the manner in which this redemption was to be effected: foe fulfillment of foe law and foe satisfaction of divine justice by atonement, in order to which foe divine nature of the Son was ordained to be joined in personal union to a human nature. “ In short, foe affair, debated and consulted between the three
9 The Spirit and the Covenant divine persons, was the peace and reconciliation of God’s elect by Christ, and the way and manner of doing it. . . . In this council every thing relative to it was advised, consulted, and contrived, and in the covenant the whole was adjusted and settled.” 2e If Gill’s insistence on the individuality of the internal personal acts of the Father, Son, and Spirit seems to divide the Trinity almost to the point of tritheism, this was surely not Gill’s intention. Elsewhere he argued the oneness of the divine will: “ as they are one God,’’ he wrote, “ they agree in one, in one mind and willال”. Gill’s intention seems to have been to carry through with consistency the doctrine that, in all works external to the Godhead, the three persons work conjointly each according to its proper mode of operation. Gill also held very strongly to the thought that a trinity of distinct persons witnessed to a perfection beyond that of simple unity in so far as a social relation of persons produces a perfect joy of communion inaccessible to a being in solitude.s The will of God is one, but its perfection is expressed in “ distinct acts of will . . . put forth by and peculiar to each distinct person,” even though each act is the product of the single divine mind and understandingص. Following his exposition of the eternal council, Gill turns his attention to the covenant itself, giving lengthy discussions of the etymology and meaning of the biblical words for covenant and then treating of the parts taken by the Father and the Son in covenant. Emphasis very clearly rests on the Christological themes of Christ’s role in the promises given by God the Father, the relation ·of incarnation and mediation to the covenant, and the character of Christ as the federal Head of fee elect. Gill in fact here describes fee whole of soteriology from the point of view of eternity.30 His presentation “ Of fee concern the Spirit of God has in fee covenant of grace” proceeds as a logical and natural outgrowth from fee Christological arguments. That the Spirit “ was a party concerned in” the covenant appears first from the “ approbation” and “ assent” given by the Spirit to “ every article in the covenant.” ^ By way of example, fee proper work of the Spirit in fee economy of salvation is sanctification. Farticipation in fee economy implies assent to the whole. The Spirit, moreover, joined wife the Father in sending the Son, as testified in Isaiah 48:16؛ and participated in the very act of incarnation, both of which acts of Spirit imply both approbation and consent.^ Even so, “ it was ‘through the eternal Spirit’ ” feat Christ “ offered himself up without spot to God, (cf. 1 Feter 1:11, Hebrews 9:14.” 33 The promises of the covenant not only receive fee assent of the Spirit but, in their application, become fee Spirit’s work: it is the Spirit who reminds fee elect of God’s “ word of promise,” who renews their hope, who instructs in fee promise, and who “ applies the promises to them at a proper season.” Briefly now, Gill shows that the Spirit procures pardon for fee sinner by sprinkling on his
Foundations 10 conscience the blood of the covenant. So also the Spirit is called the “ Spirit of adoption” (2 Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:15, 16) because of his role in the application of the covenant promises.^ At considerably greater length, in his analysis of the temporal order of salvation. Gill discusses the work of the Trinity according to the distinct concern of each person in granting pardon for sin, in conferring adoption, and in justifying the elect. Whereas the Father “ made early provision” for the pardon of sinners in his eternal will to save mankind, and while Christ as the Son of God has the power to forgive sin and to stand as the Advocate of his people, it is the Spirit who convicts men of sin and convinces them of the need for pardon. It is the Spirit, also, who pronounces sentence upon sin in the conscience and who witnesses “ to the spirits of God’s people, that they are pardoned ones.” 35 In justification, the Father sends his Son “ to bring in everlasting righteousness” to his people and “ imputes this righteousness to believers as their own.” Christ, however, is the Author of this righteousness, the federal head in whom the elect receive righteous־ ness by imputation, and the object of the faith which receives righteousness in justification. Here, too, fee work of the Spirit is necessary, for it is the Spirit who convinces men of their insufficiency, who “ brings near” the righteousness of Christ both eternally in fee ministry of fee word and internally by grace illuminating the heart. Faith itself, by which believers lay hold of Christ’s righteousness, is the work of the Spirit in us.36 Thus, in addition to his assent and approbation, the Spirit also enters personally into fee covenant, agreeing to perform certain works both in respect to Christ and in respect to believers, ‘fee formed fee human nature of Christ ٠ . . in fee womb of the virgin” in such a way that it was entirely free from the taint of sin. He also bestowed on fee Christ “ graces and gifts without measure ٠ . . for the discharge of his office as Mediator,” and inspired Christ “ as man” in preaching the gospel and in working miracles.37 Even so, fee Spirit inspired fee prophets to write and endowed the apostles wife many gifts to enable them to spread the news concerning Christ. The Spirit has similarly continued to bless ministers of the word by calling them to their office and giving them the gifts and graces needed in their work, ft is the Spirit who renders the preached word effectual in fee hearts of its hearers, who regenerates and renovates the elect creating in them a new heart and a new mind, who imparts the gift of faith and who comforts God’s people “ by shedding abroad the love of God and Christ” in their hearts. The Spirit also sanctifies believers by beginning and carrying forward in their hearts fee work of grace, enabling them to persevere to the end.38 Gill’s method in presenting both the doctrine of the eternal covenant and fee doctrine of the temporal order of salvation was the analysis of each point of doctrine as the common work of the ferae persons of the Trinity, describing what, at each
11 The Spirit and the Covenant level of the work of salvation, was proper to the individual persons. The rationale behind this inordinately painstaking method of exposition and behind also the partieular juxtaposition of doctrinal issues in his discussion of the immanent acts of God is summed up neatly in the section dealing with the Spirit’s part in the covenant: In short, all the grace given to the elect in Christ, before the world began, all the things that are freely given them of God in the covenant, the spirit in time makes known to them, 1 Cor. i. 12 and ii. 9-11; all which abundantly prove his approbation of and assent unto every thing contained in the covenant of graced Gill saw the unique relation of the work of the Spirit to the antinomian system. The original form of the pactum salutis, even the antinomian form which made it the only covenant of grace and which excluded man from the covenanting activity, did not utterly exclude the possibility of synergism. Albeit that man could not cooperate with the Father and the Son in their covenant or with the Son in his saving work, man might still cooperate in a limited way with the inward working of the Spirit. The orthodox had, in fact, distinguished between the passive or habitual conversion wrought by the Spirit alone and the actual or active conversion in which the believer’s will voluntarily follows the will of God. By describing union with God, adoption, and justification as immanent acts of the Godhead,** Gill and his antinomian predecesors could rule out all synergistic tendencies, but this left incomplete the logical development of the system around the eternal pactum salutis. In its original form, the covenant of redemption served to ground in eternity only the doctrines of the person and work of Christ: definition of the covenant as a fully trinitarian activity served to establish the entire order of salvation in the divine mind as an immanent act. Now not only union with God in Christ but also the adoption and justification to be accomplished in time by the Spirit appear as nothing more than the working out of an already enacted divine will. There is now no possible disjunction between the eternal plan of God and its execution in time. Writing specifically of eternal adoption and Crnal justification. Gill sets forth his method of argumentation in a formula which again draws on the distinctin between the eternal decree and its execution in time and which applies equally well to all the immanent acts of God personal as well essential: I shall not here treat of these as doctrines, in the fall extent of them; or as blessings of grace actually bestowed upon and enjoyed by believers . . . or as transient acts passing on them and terminating in their consciences at believing; but as internal and immanent acts, taken up in the mind of God from eternity, and which abide in his will; in which they have their complete esse, or being, as eternal election has, being of the same kind and nature, and are ranked with it as of the same date, and as branches of it.41
Foundations ٧ In such a schema, the “ antecedent union” with Christ defines the extent of Christ’s atoning work in its temporal enactment؛ the eternal adoptive act of God predetermines and limits the adoptive work of the Spirit among believers; the graces and spiritual gifts given to the not yet existent elect in eternity mirror with precision toe grace and the gifts imparted to them in this life.42 Nor is it as if some deeply hidden will in the Father ٠٢ in the Godhead as a whole determines the actions of toe divine persons in the temporal economy, since all has been ordained in and through toe communion of the three persons in their eternal will and council. Gill has simply taken toe entire economy of salvation up into eternity and has thereby rendered it impervious to toe will of toe creature. The metaphysical system that several nineteenth-century thinkers attempted to find in toe systems of toe Reformed in the high orthodox period does in fact appear in toe theology of John Gill.43 Whereas many, indeed most, of toe seventeenth-century orthodox thinkers allowed for the freedom of secondary causes, for some element of human willing following the initial divine act of regeneration, and for toe temporal working out of justification following regeneration, calling, conversion, and faith, Gill’s precise systematization of the antinomian position reduced all of Christian theology to a thoroughgoing determinism which, if lacking toe warm piety of earlier Reformed and Furitan thought, at least overcame any charge of inconsistency in maintaining a totally gracious salvation for toe elect. The crucial doctrine around which this soteriologically deterministic system crystallized was, moreover, not the doctrine of toe decrees in and of itself but rather the doctrine of the eternal covenant or pactum salutis brought into relation both to toe decretive will of God and to the doctrine of trinitarian operations ad intra and ad extra4م4 ٠١١ . ل the changes which took place in the structure of English covenant theology during the seventeenth century see my “ Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology: Three Variations on a Seventeenth Century Theme,” appearing in The Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 42, no. 2 (Spring, م(ه 98 ل This article also contains bibliography on foe subject of covenant theology, particularly as reflected in foe thought of John Downham, John Bunyan, and Richard Baxter. Gill’s system, hereinafter referred to as the Body of Divinity, first appeared in two volumes (1769 , آا0 ﺳﻤﺎ ). In foe following year Gill added a volume on practical theology. The whole system was reissued under foe title, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: or A System ٠/ Evangelical Truths Deducedfrom the Sacred Scriptures, with Gill’s A Dissertation Concerning the Baptism o f Jewish Proselytes appended, by. Tegg ه Company (London, 1839) in two volumes. This latter edition is now easily accessible, having been reprinted by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, 1978) and has been followed in the present essay. 2. See foe biographical articles on Gill in foe New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia and in foe Dictionary ofNational Biography. The latter includes a bibliography of Gill’s works. 3. On foe theology of English antinomianism, see further Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper- Calvinism in English Non-conformity (London, 1967) and Puritans and Calvinism (Swengel, Pa., 1973); also Ernest E. Kevan, The Grace of Law; A Study in Puritan Theology (London; Carey Kingsgate Press, 1964؛ repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976). Geoffrey Nuttall in his The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith س Experience (Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1946) notes how strongly the Puritan emphasis on Spirit affected Christology, even to the point of raising Pneumatology and foe doctrine
ول The Spirit and the Covenant of the victory over sin in the individual to a level of importance equal to and, in some instances, perhaps greater than Christology and Atonement (pages 144-146). b ill’s development of doctrine around an emphasis on the Spirit can be seen in part as an outgrowth of this tendency in ?uritan theology. 4. The standard work on the development of continental covenant theology from Bullinger and Musculus to Cocceius is Gottlob Schrenck, Gottesreich und Bund in alteren Protestantismus (Gütersloh ٠ ؛ € Bertelsmann 1923). و . ]ohann Heinrich Heidegger, Corpus theologiae (Zürich, 1700) as cited in Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics Set Dut and Illustrated from the Sources, foreword by Karl Barth, revised and edited by Ernst Bizer, translated by G. T. Thomson (1950; reissued. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 376. 6. Cf. the citations from Cocceius and Wyttenbach, in Reformed Dogmatics, 378-379. 7. Amandus ?olanus von ?olansdorff. Syntagma theologiae christianae (Geneva, 1617), Lib. ¥1, cap. xxii; William Perkins, An Exposition ofthe Creed, in The Workes ofthat Famous Minister ofChrist in the University ofCambridge, Mr. William Perkins (Cambridge, 1612-1619), vol. 1, p. 169, col. A-B؛ Johannes Scharpius, Cursus theologicus (Geneva, 1620), vol. 1, cols. 244-245; Gulielmus Bucanus, Institutions ofthe Christian Religion (London, 1606), cap. xxxvi; William Ames, Medulla ss. theologiae (Amsterdam, 1623), cf. I .V .19 with l.xix.1-6. 8. Perkins, A Treatise ofth e Manner ﻣﺤﺲ Order of Predestination, In Workes, 1, 608, cols. 1D-2A; Polanus, Lib. 1¥, cap. iii, V, and ix; Ussher, The Principles ofChristian Religion (London, 1645), part 111, 70؛ Scharpius, 1, col. 244؛ Ames, I.V . 19؛ Bucanus cap. ؛٧ and see farther. Reformed Dogmatics, 133-134, 191. 9. Burmann, Synopsis theologiae, & speciatim oeconomiam foederum dei (Geneva, 1678), 11. XV. 3: “ Est enim eadem hie voluntas Patris ه Filii, aeterna illa ac divina voluntas, sive voluntas Spiritus aeterni, Heb. 9:14. sed quae diversitate personarum utrique distincte appropriatur: Patre personam rectoris ac legislators. Filio personam Angeli assertoris gerente؛ sicut Spiritus Sancti est haereditatem hoc foedere partam fidelibus applicare ه obsignare: In quo etiam credentes obsignati estis Spiritu promissionis Sancto, qui est arrhabo haereditatis nostrae. Eph. 1:13, 14.’’ 10. Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretico-practica theologia, (Utrecht, 1724), ¥.i.9 ; and cf. the similar passage (which Gill probably knew) in Franciscus Turretinus, Institutio theologiae elencticae, (Geneva, 1679-1685 ؛a new edition, Edinburgh, 1847) where the Spirit also appears in the application of the covenant to believers: Xll.ii.7. 11. Mastricht, ¥ .i.6-7 and ^rretin, XII.ii.12-13 do not note the Spirit in their definitions of the pactum salutis. 12. Body ofDivinity, vol. I, 246-365. 13. Ibid., vol. I, 491-522. 14. Ibid., vol. I, 491. 15. On the doctrines of Saltmarsh, Crisp, and Bunyan, see Richard L. Greaves, أس Bunyan (Grand Rapids؛ Eerdmans 1969) 103-108 and compare Gill, Body ofDivinity, vol. I, 303, 309-311. I owe so much of my appreciation of the theology of Saltmarsh and Crisp to N. Brooks Graebner who is presently preparing a dissertation on English antinomianism in the graduate religion department at Duke University. 16. Cf. Burmann, Turretin, and Mastricht as cited above and Reformed Dogmatics, chapter X ¥ l, 371- 17. Body ofDivinity, vol. I, 313. 18■ Ibid. 19. Ibid., vol. I, 303. Gill here cites Heidegger, De Dieu, Cocceius, Witsius, and Gwen as omitting the role ofthe Spirit in the covenant. His notes show that he also carefully studies Ames, Maccovius, and Turretin. To my knowledge, he had not read Burmann or Mastricht. Cf. Bunyan’s The Doctrine ofLaw ﻣﺤﺲ Grace Unfolded, in The Whole Works اس/م Bunyan, edited by George Offor, 3 vols. (London, 1862), vol. I, 522-523 and Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted (London, 1643), part I, 80-83 for the antinomian definition of the covenant between the Father and the Son. 20. Body ofDivinity, vol. I, 300-303. 21. / م. ﻣﺢ-أظ vol. I, 350. 22. / م. ﻣﺢ/ﺀ vol. I, 261-265. 23. Ibid., vol. I, 302, cf. page 330: “ the elect of God are considered in the covenant of grace as fallen creatures’’ and similarly, page 355: “ the act of election, which is the basis of the covenant.’’ م.ﻣﺤﺴﻢ / .24 vol. I, 304-305. Gill speaks of a council or deliberation among the divine persons as distinct both from the eternal decree or counsel and form the eternal covenant. م.ﻣﺤﻲﺀ / .25 vol. I, 305. 26. / م. ﻣﺢ/ﺀ vol. I, 306.
Foundations 14 27. Ibid., vol. I, 102, and cf. 301, “ as they are one in nature, so they agree in one.” 28. Ibid., vol. 1, 201. 29. Ibid., vol. 1, 312, cf. p. 107 where Gill argues one will and a “ single eternal act of will’’ by which God wills all things. The distinct personal acts of covenanting reflect the interpersonal relations of the Trinity and, with the Father’s begetting, the Son’s begottenness, and the Spirit’s procession define for Gill the threefoldness of circumincession. 30. / م. ﻣﺢ־يﺀ vol. 1,314-350. 31. ﻣﻤﻤﺢ؛ﺀ / vol. 1, 350. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., vol. 1, 350-351. 34. م.ﻣﺤﻴﻆ / vol. 1, 351. 35. Ibid., vol. 11, 62. 36. Ibid., vol. 11, 73-75؛ cf. vol. 1, 353. 37. Ibid., vol. I, 354. Gill also notes the presence of the spirit at Jesus’ baptism and the “ concern’’ of the Spirit in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and glorification. 38. Ibid., vol. 1, 353-353؛ cf. vol. 11, 114-116, 125-129, 141-151, 164, 178. 39. م.ﻣﺲ vol. 1, 352. 40. Ibid., vol. I, 284-300. The difference between the antinomian formulation of union, adoption, and justification as eternal and immanent acts of God and foe usual placement of these soteriological events in foe temporal ٠٢^ salutis becomes ؟ uite clear from Gill’s own citationof Ames Medulla, I.xxviii.2-3 and I.xxvii.9 (in Body ofDivinity, vol. I, 291-292). In contrast to Gill, Ames does not view these components of the order of salvation as actually enacted in eternity but as then “ conceived in foe mind of God’’ and o n ly -a s in the case of justification— ” pronounced in actuality upon that first relationship which is created when faith is born’’ (I.xxvii.9, following Eusden’s translation, Boston: Filgrim Fress 1968). Gill, moreover, sets justification prior to adoption and adoption prior to calling, thereby effectually divorcing both justification and adoption from foe life of faith and viewing them as purely forensic acts of God. Ames follows foe usual order of calling, justification, adoption. 41. Body ofDivinity, vol. 1, 288 and cf. the parallel statements prefaced to foe doctrine of eternal union (page 284), to foe explanation of the etetnal council (page 305), and to foe discussion of covenant (pages 306-307). 42. Ibid., vol. 1, 288؛ vol. 11, 97-99؛ cf. vol. 1, 296, citing Maccovius: “ Justification is a moral act, which does not require the existence of the subject together with it؛ but it is enough that it shall e x i s t some time or other-’’ 43. This thesis was advanced initially by Alexander Schweizer in his Die Glaubenslehre der evangelisedreformirten Kirche, 2 vols. (Zurich, 1847) and his Die Protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten Kirche, 2 vols. (Zurich, 1853-1856). ۴ ة ٠٢ fuller bibliography on this point and for a criticism of Schweizer’s position, see my article, “ Perkins’ A Golden Chaîne: Fredestinarian System or Schematized Ordo Salutis?” in The Sixteenth Century Tournai, vol. IX, no. 1, (1978) 69-81 and in greater detail, my doctoral dissertation, “ Predestination and Christology in Sixteenth Century Reformed Theology,’’ (Fh.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1976). 44. Matthias Schneckenburger who, in foe mid-nineteenth century, opposed Schweizer’s theses was sensitive to foe implications of an intra-trinitarian covenant. Without having seen Gill’s system, he recognized the pactum salutis as a possible ground for soteriological determinism: see his ٢ ^ ٧ gleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformirten Lehrbegrijfs, edited by Edward Guder, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1855), vol. 11, pp. 150-151. A distinction may be drawn between trinitarian formulations of the eternal decree and foe doctrine of the pactum salutis interpreted as the necessary eternal ground for foe temporal work of salvation (as in foe early orthodox period-see above, notes 7 and 8) and the formulation of foe decree and covenant precisely for the sake of removing all but the most purely instrumental causality from the temporal enactment of God’s redemptive will.
آلﻣﺂورلم؛ Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent. No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ۴ ٥ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author o fthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥. The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.