Pactum Salutis est Modum Consilii Dei: An Analysis of John Owen’s Formulation of the Divine Counsel in Relation to the Covenant of Redemption
Submitted to Dr. Richard A. Muller for The Divine Decrees in 16th and 17th Century Reformed Thought (848BTA)
By Laurence R. O’Donnell, III (Mailbox 157) Calvin Theological Seminary 17 May 2010
CONTENTS I. Introduction and State of the Question................................................................................. 1 A. The Consilium Dei in Owen Scholarship........................................................................ 1 B. The Consilium Dei in Pactum Salutis Scholarship.......................................................... 4 C. Summary and Thesis Statement..................................................................................... 8 II. Owen’s Formulations of the Consilium Dei.......................................................................... 9 A. The Decrees in Owen’s Catechisms............................................................................... 9 B. The Consilium Dei in Owen’s Commentaries on Hebrews........................................11 1. Hebrews 6:17: A Defnition of the Consilium Dei..................................................12 2. Exercitation XXVI: The Incarnation Presupposes Sin..........................................14 3. Exercitation XXVII: Genesis 1:26 and Proverbs 8:22-31......................................18 4. Exercitation XXVIII: The Pactum Salutis is the Modus of the Consilium............21 C. The Consilium Dei in Christologia...................................................................................23 III. Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 28 IV. Bibliography.......................................................................................................................... 30 A. Primary Sources.............................................................................................................. 30 B. Secondary Sources...........................................................................................................30
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATE OF THE QUESTION The ensuing study is the result of a previous investigation of John Owen’s pactum salutis formulation1 wherein the present author discovered that Owen’s argument for the pactum is comprised of two interrelated parts: First, Owen formulates general trinitarian “transactions”2 in the consilium Dei regarding man’s creation and salvation;3 Second, Owen argues that the the specifc modus of these transactions regarding man’s salvation is “per modum foederis,” namely, the pactum salutis.4 This discovery thus raised two questions which the present essay seeks to answer: What is the nature of Owen’s formulation of the trinitarian consilium Dei, and how does this consilium relate to the pactum?
A. The Consilium Dei in Owen Scholarship Although Owen’s formulation of the pactum salutis is well known,5 the relationship 1
Laurence O’Donnell, “The Holy Spirit’s Role in John Owen’s ‘Covenant of the Mediator’: A Case Study in Reformed Orthodox Formulations of the Pactum Salutis,” unpublished essay. NB: Owen does not employ the technical terms pactum salutis or consilium Dei (cf. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2006), s.v. pactum salutis, consilium Dei). I use them herein for simplicity’s sake, given that Owen references the pactum by a wide variety of names (see O’Donnell, “The Holy Spirit’s Role,” n4). 2 Owen commonly uses the language of eternal “transactions” to refer to the consilium Dei regarding salvation. See, e.g., John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. W. H. Goold (Johnstone & Hunter, 1850), I:55; V:184, 191-92; X:570; XIX:43, 76, 77, 138, 153, 468, 490-91; XX:30, 304, 325, 544; XXII:489, 516; XXIV:240. NB: I am following the 24 vol. numbering of the original Goold edition. Modern reprints drop vol. 17 and renumber vols. 18-24 (i.e., Owen’s commentaries on Hebrews) as 17-23 accordingly. 3 See Exercitations XXVI–XXVII in Owen, Works, XIX:14-76. 4 See Exercitation XXVIII Owen, Works, XIX:77-97; Quote from p. 77, italics added. 5 See, e.g., Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 25-27; Richard A. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept,” MidAmerica Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 13; idem, The Triunity of God, vol. 4, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 266-67; Robert Letham, “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context and Its Signifcance for Today,” 2006, 266-67, http://www.johnowen.org/media/letham_owen.pdf; Brian K. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 127; Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owenʼs Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998), 145-48; idem, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, Great Theologians Series (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007), 67-100; David Wai-Sing Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen” (PhD Diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998), 67-100; Peter Toon, Godʼs Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971), 170; Richard W. Daniels, The Christology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 153-167;
O’Donnell 2 between the consilium and the pactum in Owen’s theology has been virtually ignored in Owen scholarship. Several studies briefy mention that the consilium is involved in Owen’s formulation of the pactum,6 but only two studies attempt to elaborate on this relationship: Richard W. Daniel’s dissertation on Owen’s Christology 7 and David Wong’s dissertation on Owen’s covenant theology.8 Although Daniel devotes an entire chapter to Owen’s doctrine of the consilium Dei, his analysis is limited by the following considerations: (1) Whereas Owen explicates the consilium in many writings, Daniel’s survey is limited primarily to Christologia;9 thus, his analysis is reductionistic; (2) similarly, his survey of the pactum in Owen’s thought is limited to Exercitation XXVIII, thus he overlooks the consilium-pactum connection arising out of Owen’s cumulative case argument throughout Exercitations XXVI–XXVIII;10 and (3) he presents little more than a catena of extended citations interspersed with scant analyses of secondary sources. Likewise, Wong’s study is limited in the following respects: (1) He analyzes the relationship between the decree and the pactum in terms of abstractness and concreteness, speculative theology and practical theology—an interpretive matrix not found in Owen’s writings;11 (2) he confates predestination and the pactum, as if the Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen, Texts and Studies in Reformation and post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002), 168-69. 6 E.g., Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 162-63, 267-286; Carol A. Williams, “The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption” (PhD Diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005), 232-34; Robert Keith McGregor Wright, “John Owenʼs Great High Priest: The Highpriesthood of Christ in the Theology of John Owen, (1616-1683)” (Ph.D. Diss., Iliff School of Theology and The University of Denver (Colorado Seminary), 1989), 183; Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of Christology (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 28-30; Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 25; Letham, “John Owenʼs Doctrine of the Trinity,” 10. 7 See Daniels, The Christology of John Owen, ch. 7, pp. 147-177. 8 See ch. 4, §A, in Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 276-86. 9 Daniels, The Christology of John Owen, 147-153. 10 Daniels, The Christology of John Owen, 153-167. 11 Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 279.
O’Donnell 3 latter were a mere rephrasing of the former; 12 and (3) he focuses exclusively upon predestination, thus overlooking the larger context of predestination within the consilium Dei. Therefore, Daniel’s and Wong’s treatments notwithstanding, the consilium-pactum relationship in Owen’s thought remains underdeveloped. Two negative assessments related to Owen’s consilium formulation are worth noting. James Torrance, following the older “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” line of scholarship,13 alleges the following tangential critiques against Owen’s formulation of the consilium: (1) Owen, in contradistinction to John Calvin, uses Aristotelian logic to formulate a doctrine of limited atonement; 14 (2) in the context of God’s decrees Owen maintains that justice is an essential attribute of God, whereas love is merely arbitrary; 15 (3) Owen, as a scholastic corrupter of pure Calvinism, makes election prior to grace; thus, logically, Christ died only for the elect; 16 (4) Owen partakes in the nature-grace dichotomy allegedly evident in scholastic federal theology, a dichotomy which makes nature (and law) prior to grace, reverses Calvin’s order, and transforms the covenant of works into a contract.17 Torrance’s critiques, however, have been signifcantly
12
Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 285; cf. "The decree and the pactum: unity and distinction," in Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61-64. 13 See the literature cited in Rehnman, Divine Discourse, 24n24; cf. Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, 7-8, nn10-12. 14 James B. Torrance, “The Incarnation and "Limited Atonement",” Scottish Buttetin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984): 33-35, 38. Throughout his entire collected writings Owen nowhere uses the term “limited atonement.” Thus, the form of Torrance’s change appears anachronistic at the outset. 15 Torrance, “The Incarnation and "Limited Atonement",” 33, 37-38; cf. idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses of the Westminster Theology,” in The Westminster Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, ed. Alasdair I. C. Heron (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1982), 48; idem, “Interpreting the Word by the Light of Christ or the Light of Nature? Calvin, Calvinism, and Barth,” in Calviniana: Ideas and Infuence of Jean Calvin, ed. Robert V. Schnucker, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies X (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc., 1988), 265-66. 16 Torrance, “The Incarnation and "Limited Atonement",” 34-35. 17 Torrance, “The Incarnation and "Limited Atonement",” 35-37; cf. idem, “Strengths and Weaknesses of the Westminster Theology,” 49. Cf. Wong’s similar “covenant as contract” critique of Owen’s pactum formulation (“The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 371-73).
O’Donnell 4 disputed.18 Kevin Kennedy follows a similar “Calvin vs. Owen” line of argument as Torrance. Regarding the doctrine of atonement in Owen’s thought, for example, Kennedy alleges that, in contradistinction to Calvin, Owen (1) inquires brashly into the mind of God and (2) argues largely via deduction.19 Insofar as Kennedy’s interpretation of Owen is similar as Torrance’s, however, the same critiques leveled against the latter apply to the former. Kennedy, moreover, fails to draw any connection between Calvin’s doctrine of Christ as mediator according to both natures and Owen’s formulation of Christ’s mediation in the pactum salutis.20
B. The Consilium Dei in Pactum Salutis Scholarship If the consilium-pactum relationship has been underdeveloped in Owen scholarship, the same cannot be said of general pactum-related scholarship. In terms of historical studies, Richard Muller, for example, has argued: Inasmuch as the eternal decree represents the divine willing of all things, including the salvation of the elect, and the pactum salutis represents the divine willing concerning the whole work of salvation, from a trinitarian perspective, there is and must be, given the terms of the older orthodoxy, an essential 18
The most extensive rebuttals are found in Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” cal 29, no. 1 (April 1994): 75-100; idem, “Calvin and the "Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy (Part 1),” Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 2 (1995): 345-375; idem, “Calvin and the "Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy (Part 2),” Calvin Theological Journal 31, no. 1 (1996): 125-160; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretinʼs Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, Reformed Historical Theology 1 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 48-53. For shorter rejoinders see Trueman, The Claims of Truth, 7n15, 8n17, 34n77, 42n103, 129n82, 185n109; idem, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, 72-73, 87n76, 91n91; Kelly M. Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 168ff. For a similar rejection of the Calvin-vs.-Owen thesis in the thought of Perry Miller, Thomas Torrance, and R. T. Kendall, see Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 363-70. 19 Kevin Dixon Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin, Studies in Biblical Literature 48 (New York: Peter Lang), 25, 136. 20 See ch. 3 in Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin, 75-104; cf. Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 48-56.
O’Donnell 5 identity of the decree and the pactum. It is also clear that the development of the pactum salutis stood in close relation to the development of the inner-trinitarian understanding of the eternal decree in the thought of writers like Perkins and Polanus.21 “The preeminent example,” writes Muller in a related study, “of understanding the ad intra divine work in a trinitarian sense—specifcally, the essential work that in its execution ad extra is the common work of the three persons—is the Reformed doctrine of the pactum salutis.”22 Several Reformed orthodox theologians, according to Muller, provide trinitarian “predestinarian antecedents of the pactum,”23 such as the following: David Dickson,24 Jean Diodati,25 William Perkins,26 Theodore Beza,27 Paul Bayne,28 Gulielmus Bucanus,29 John Downame,30 and Herman Witsius.31 He further asserts that the Reformed orthodox formulation of the decree-pactum relationship is analogous to the Reformed orthodox understanding of the divine attributes: The decree and the pactum are essentially identical, yet formally distinct.32 21
Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61; cf. idem, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1986), 129174, noting esp. Mullerʼs comment at p. 167 regarding Perkinsʼ clear adumbration of the pactum; Willem Jan Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (2002): 334, moreover, notes that the Reformed orthodox opposition to Socinianism clearly evinces the underlying trinitarianism of all Reformed orthodox doctrinal formulations, including the divine decree. See, e.g., the additional trinitarian clause added to the doctrine of the Trinity in the Savoy Declaration, II.3, beyond the original formulation found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, II.3 (Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (New York: Scribner, 1893), 370). 22 Muller, PRRD, 4:265; cf. idem, Dictionary, s.v. opera Dei ad extra, opera Dei ad intra. 23 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61. 24 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 19, 60, 62; Cf. Williams, “David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption,” who argues for an essential identity between the decree and the pactum in Dicksonʼs thought . 25 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 30-31, 36. 26 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 43, 53. 27 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 49; cf. Muller, Christ and the Decree, 94. 28 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 50. 29 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 51. 30 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 57-58. 31 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61. 32 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61-64.
O’Donnell 6 Other historical theologians adduce similar evidence. John von Rohr, for example, presents the pactum in Puritan thought as the means by which “[t]he historical […] is incorporated into the counsels and decree of the eternal.” 33 J. Mark Beach notes that a consilium-pactum relationship is clearly evident in the frst periods of both Francis Turretin’s and Herman Witsius’ formulations of the pactum in terms of tres periodi.34 Willem J. van Asselt, moreover, explicates Johannes Cocceius’ formulation of the pactum as a development of the decree of election, 35 and Anthony Hoekema avers that Herman Bavinck formulated the pactum salutis as a development of the eternal consilium, which takes on the form of an intra-trinitarian covenant.36 A similarly robust consilium-pactum correlation is evident in the thought of numerous Reformed dogmatic theologians. Wilhelmus à Brakel, for example, presents the pactum as a “decree” (i.e., an “intrinsic work of God,” or opus Dei ad intra) which is revealed to man only in its historical execution ad extra.37 Likewise, Charles Hodge clearly follows this ad intra—ad extra pattern in his locus on salvation. He frst asserts that God has an eternal plan for salvation. Subsequently, he argues that this plan “is 33
John Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan thought, American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion 45 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 85. 34 Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretinʼs Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, 169-70; idem, “The Doctrine of the Pactum Salutis in the Covenant Theology of Herman Witsius,” MidAmerica Journal of Theology 13 (2002): 127. 35 Willem Jan Van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius: (1603-1669), trans. Raymond Andrew Blacketer, Studies in the History of Christian Thought (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), 219; cf. idem, “Amicitia Dei as Ultimate Reality: An outline of the covenant theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669),” Ultimate Reality And Meaning 21 (1998): 35-47; idem, “The Doctrine of the Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669),” Calvin Theological Journal 29, no. 1 (1994): 108, 108n11; idem, “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius,” Calvin Theological Journal 35, no. 1 (2000): 93. 36 Anthony Andrew Hoekema, “Herman Bavinckʼs Doctrine of the Covenant” (Th.D. Diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1953), 103-10. 37 Wilhelmus À Brakel, The Christianʼs Reasonable Service in which Divine Truths concerning the Covenant of Grace are Expounded, Defended against Opposing Parties, and their Practice Advocated as well as The Administration of this Covenant in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), 1:252.
O’Donnell 7 presented under the form of a covenant,” namely., the threefold ad intra—ad extra schema of the pactum salutis, covenant of works, and covenant of grace.38 Herman Bavinck similarly formulates the pactum as providing both the covenant of nature and the covenant of grace an “eternal foundation in the counsel of God,” a counsel which is regarded “as a covenant between the three persons of the divine being itself.” 39 Louis Berkhof also evinces a strong consilium-pactum correlation by using the terms “counsel of peace” and “covenant of redemption” as synonyms, his rejection of Zechariah 6:13 as a prooftext notwithstanding.40 G. H. Kersten, moreover, includes the covenant of redemption within the opera Dei ad intra and interprets the pactum as the “eternal foundation of the Covenant of Grace in God’s counsel.”41 Herman Hoeksema, who intentionally inverts the standard logical order between the pactum and election in order to give the covenant “an all-dominating place” in the divine-human relationship, terms the pactum “the decree concerning the covenant”; thus, a consilium-pactum identity attains in his thought.42 G. C. Berkouwer also understands the pactum as a decree and
38 See Part III, chs. 1-2, in Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (USA: Hendrickson, 1999), II:313-377; quotation from p. 354. 39 Herman Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 3, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 212-13; Bavinck distinguishes election and covenant at pp. 228-32; cf. Cornelis P. Venema, “Covenant and Election in the Theology of Herman Bavinck,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 19 (2008): 69-115. Compare Bavinck’s other formulations of the consilium-pactum relationship: Herman Bavinck, Saved by Grace: the Holy Spirit's Work in Calling and Regeneration, ed. J. Mark Beach, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 16, 77, 170; idem, Our Reasonable Faith: A Survey of Christian Doctrine, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956), 264-73; cf. Hoekema, “Herman Bavinckʼs Doctrine of the Covenant,” 103-10. 40 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 266, 27071. 41 See ch. 9 in G. H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing Committee, 1980), I:144-50; Quotation from p. 147; cf. Muller, Dictionary, s.v. opera dei ad intra, opera dei ad extra. 42 See the extensive treatment of the counsel of peace in ch. 19 of Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed. (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2004), 1:401-80; Quotes from pp. 473 and 471, respectively.
O’Donnell 8 counsel of God.43 Furthermore, J. van Genderen and W. H. Velema assert a robust consilium-pactum relationship,44 even preferring a reversion to the older term “counsel of peace” over “pactum salutis” in order to emphasize the eternal counsel and to avoid the appearance of tritheism.45
C. Summary and Thesis Statement Our survey of scholarship on the pactum salutis has revealed a robust correlation between the consilium and the pactum in both historical and dogmatic scholarship. Muller even fnds an identity of the two per essentia—insofar as the pactum was developed within the context of Reformed orthodox refection upon the decree considered as a trinitarian opus Dei ad intra. Several other historians and theologians make similar assertions. The consilium-pactum interrelation, therefore, appears to be well attested. It would thus be reasonable to expect to fnd a similar, robust consilium-pactum correlation in Owen scholarship. Our survey has revealed, however, that this correlation has been virtually neglected. The present study, therefore, attempts to highlight this underdeveloped theme in Owen’s thought. Building upon existing scholarship, I will argue that John Owen’s formulation of the consilium Dei evinces the same sort of “innertrinitarian understanding of the eternal decree” which has been noted in other Reformed orthodox formulations.46 I will demonstrate, moreover, that in Owen’s thought there exists a unity per essentia between the pactum and the consilium Dei 43
G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 171. See §15 in J. Van Genderen and W. H. Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, ed. M. Van der Maas, trans. Gerrit Bilkes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 198-208. 45 Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, 202. 46 Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 61. 44
O’Donnell 9 regarding man’s salvation which comports with the doctrine of divine simplicity. If this thesis is valid, then scholarship which seeks to interpret the pactum in Owen’s thought apart from the consilium will thus need to be reconsidered.
II. OWEN’S FORMULATIONS OF THE CONSILIUM DEI In order to understand the nature and function of the consilium Dei in Owen’s thought in a manner that avoids reductionism (e.g., Daniel and Wong), we frst need to ask a basic question: Where in Owen’s writings does he deal with this topic? A survey of his writings reveals that Owen provides an almost embarrassing wealth of theological ore to be mined on this topic.47 Thus our analysis will necessarily be selective. Upon descending into his deep theological mine, nevertheless, we begin to see three main caverns within which Owen presents his most in depth formulations of the consilium: his Catechisms, his commentaries on Hebrews, and his dissertation on the doctrine of Christ (i.e., Christologia).
A. The Decrees in Owen’s Catechisms Owen’s 1645 Lesser Catechism and Greater Catechism present God’s decrees 48 in terms of standard Reformed orthodox categories and distinctions. For example, Owen’s 47
See, e.g., Owen, Works, I:17, 54-64, 79, 91, 100, 124, 264, 335, 341, 357; III:197, 248, 592; IV:59, 142, 206, 231; V:190, 193; VI:267, 509; VII:365; VIII:395, 415, 602; IX:96, 181, 505; X:117, 143, 208, 298, 387, 469, 598; XI:10, 139, 643; XIII:57, 361; XVIII:214, 257, 396, 426, 471; XIX:15-16, 42-76, 97, 236, 379, 385, 499, 543; XX:225, 506-07; XXI:237, 294; XXII:47, 255-56, 489; XXIII:11, 52, 104, 118, 140, 178, 222, 257, 310, 326, 374, 396; XXIV:52, 71, 100, 444. We should note the Savoy Declaration here as well (esp. chs. II, III, and VII); for, Owen likely played a key role in the formulation of this confessional modifcation of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Walker, The Creeds, 349-53; Thanks are due to my student-colleague Stefan Lindblad for the Walker reference; cf. Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 367-70, who argues that the Savoy Declaration contains Owenʼs clearest and most concise formulation of covenant theology). 48 It appears to me that Owen employs “decrees” and “counsels” as synonyms in this section and elsewhere. Some Reformed orthodox writers do distinguish these terms formally; see Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2006), s.v. consilium Dei and decretum.
O’Donnell 10 Lesser Catechism provides the following defnition of the divine decrees in language adumbrating the 1647 Westminster Larger Catechism: Q. What are the decrees of God concerning us? A. His eternal purposes, of saving some by Jesus Christ, for the praise of his glory, and of condemning others for their sins.49 Owen’s Greater Catechism expounds upon this brief defnition. After dealing frst with the topics of Scripture and God (chs. 1-3), the Greater Catechism presents the works of God distinguished into internal and external works (ch. 4). Owen categorizes the decrees as God’s internal works, and he defnes the decrees as the “[e]ternal, unchangeable purposes of his will, concerning the being and well-being of his creatures.”50 Owen then distinguishes God’s creatures as angels and men. Next, Owen divides God’s decrees concerning men into election and reprobation, both of which Owen defnes as follows: Q. 5. What is the decree of election? A. The eternal, free, immutable purpose of God, whereby in Jesus Christ he chooseth unto himself whom he pleaseth out of whole mankind, determining to bestow upon them, for his sake, grace here, and everlasting happiness hereafter, for the praise of his glory, by the way of mercy. Q. 6. Doth any thing in us move the Lord thus to choose us from amongst others? A. No, in no wise; we are in the same lump with others rejected, when separated by his undeserved grace.—Rom. 9:11, 12; Matt 11:25; 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Tim. 1:9. Q. 7. What is the decree of reprobation? A. The eternal purpose of God to suffer many to sin, leave them in their sin, and not giving them to Christ, to punish them for their sin.—Rom. 9:11, 12, 21, 22; Prov. 16:4; Matt. 11:25, 26; 2 Pet. 2:12; Jude 4. 51 The organization and structure throughout the Greater Catechism (i.e., starting with 49
Owen, Works, I:467. Cf. Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 12-13. Owen, Works, I:473, q. 2. 51 Owen, Works, I:473-74. 50
O’Donnell 11 Scripture and God, then moving to the opera Dei ad intra and the opera Dei ad extra) is clearly similar to confessional Reformed orthodoxy.52 In light of our thesis, Owen’s defnitions of God’s decrees evince several salient features. First, vis-à-vis Torrance’s criticisms against Owen’s alleged reliance upon Aristotelian logic over Scripture, Owen’s Scripture references in questions 6-7 are noteworthy; for, Owen prefaces his catechisms with an hortatory letter to his congregation which explains the reason why he includes the Scripture texts. He writes: […] The texts of Scripture quoted are diligently to be sought out and pondered, that you may know indeed whether these things are so. [...] In reading the Word, you may have light into the meaning of many places, by considering what they are produced to confrm. 53 Second, contra Torrance’s criticism that Owen separates election from Christ, Owen explicitly connects the two in these defnitions. Third, the decrees are explicitly set in the larger context of the opera Dei ad intra and ad extra. Thus in Owen’s defnition of the decrees there is an underlying trinitarian archetype-ectype relationship between God and creation, eternity and time, decree and execution of the decree. As we will see below, this distinction plays a large role in Owen’s formulation of the pactum salutis.
B. The Consilium Dei in Owen’s Commentaries on Hebrews Contrary to modern interpretations of Owen’s doctrine of the decree as yielding a deductive, decretal theology (e.g., Torrance and Kennedy), 54 Owen does not develop his formulation of the consilium Dei by bare deduction; rather, he grounds his defnition of 52
See, e.g., Belgic Confession, Articles 1-16; Westminster Confession of Faith, Chs. I-III; Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 1-14; Savoy Declaration, Chs. 1-3 (Walker, The Creeds, 367-72). 53 Owen, Works, I:466. 54 For the general historical background and an analysis of this line of interpretation, see Richard A. Muller, “The Myth of ‘Decretal Theology,’” Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 1 (1995): 159-167.
O’Donnell 12 God’s eternal counsel via inductive exegesis of biblical texts. 55 This obvious point arises out of a straightforward reading of many passages in his Hebrews commentary, thus we need not detain ourselves with a meticulous analysis of each one. It will be benefcial, nevertheless, to survey Owen’s exegetical fndings in order to get a sense for how Owen distills his exegesis into theological formulations. His most thorough exegetical treatments regarding the consilium are found in his commentary on Hebrews 6:17-20 and in Exercitations XXVI–XXVIII regarding the origin of Christ’s priesthood. 1. Hebrews 6:17: A Defnition of the Consilium Dei Commenting upon τὸ ἀμετάθετοι τῆς βουλῆς in Hebrews 6:17, Owen defnes the counsel of God as “the eternal purpose of his will, called his counsel because of the infnite wisdom wherewith it is always accompanied.”56 Furthermore, he fnds a parallel defnition in Ephesians 1:9, 11, wherein, “the ‘good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself’ […] is termed ‘the counsel of his own will.’” 57 Owen’s emphasis on the close relation between God’s will and wisdom is important for two reasons. First, throughout his Hebrews commentaries Owen frequently uses the term “counsel” in combination with or in close proximity to “wisdom” and “will.”58 Developing this correlation, for example, in relation to God’s attribute of simplicity, Owen asserts that God’s counsel is coterminous with his wisdom: Whereas, therefore, the end of counsel, or all rational deliberation, is to fnd out 55 For a thorough analysis of Owen's theological methodology which clearly undermines mere decretal interpretations of Owen, see Rehnman, Divine Discourse. 56 Owen, Works, XXII:255. 57 Owen, Works, XXII:255. 58 See, e.g., Owen, Works, XIX:15, 97, 447, 463; XX:34, 104, 194, 212, 292, 452, 508; XXI:191-92, 221, 435, 582; XXII:493; XXIII:48, 59, 104, 114, 178, 448; XXIV:71, 240, 402. In confessional documents of the era God’s counsel and decree are commonly qualifed with the adjective “wise”; see, e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, III.1; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 12; Savoy Declaration III.1 (Walker, The Creeds, 370-71).
O’Donnell 13 the true and stable directions of wisdom, the acts of the will of God being accompanied with infnite wisdom are called his counsel. For we are not to look upon the purposes and decrees of God as mere acts of will and pleasure, but as those which are effects of infnite wisdom, and therefore most reasonable, although the reasons of them be sometimes unknown unto us. Hence the apostle issueth his discourse of God’s eternal decrees of election and reprobation in an admiration of the infnite wisdom of God whence they proceeded, and wherewith they were accompanied, Rom. 11:33–36. 59 Second, on the basis of Proverbs 8 and related texts, Owen identifes Christ as the Wisdom of God in various places throughout his Hebrews commentaries. 60 In this light, therefore, Owen’s exegesis of Hebrews 6:17 takes on a trinitarian cast with God’s will and wisdom/Wisdom existing distinctly, yet unifed in God’s simplicity. Furthermore, Owen carefully distinguishes two respect in which τὸ ἀμετάθετοι τῆς βουλῆς is unlike man’s counsel when contrasted with God’s attributes. First, the infnity of God with respect to his sovereign wisdom precludes God from deliberating with any alleged co-equal being. Owen grounds this point in Isaiah 40:13 and Romans 11:34 without further elaboration.61 Second, the simplicity of God’s nature and knowledge precludes “formal counsel or deliberation” within God’s single, infnite act of comprehension. This second assertion raises an apparent problem, however; for, as Owen admits, Scripture frequently presents God as deliberating with himself. Nevertheless, such anthropomorphisms connote “not the manner of doing, but the effect, or the thing done,” according to Owen. 62 Thus, although Scripture communicates God’s counsels to us in a manner accommodated to our creaturely limitations, 63 Owen’s 59
Owen, Works, XXII:256. Owen, Works, XIX:59; XX:34, 194, 369; XXII:260-61; Compare XXIII:454. Outside his commentary on Hebrews, see, e.g., Works, I:54ff. Furthermore, it is important to note that, for Owen, Christ as the Wisdom of God is not subordinate to the Father essentially, but only economically; See Exercitation XXVI, §18.2, at Works, XIX:34. 61 Owen, Works, XXII:256. 62 Owen, Works, XXII:256. 63 E.g., Owen writes elsewhere: “We cannot bear the immediate approach of the Divine Being; but 60
O’Donnell 14 recognition of God’s infnity and his simplicity allows him to maintain a categorical distinction between God’s counsel and his creatures’ counsel. With his wisdom-will correlation and his caveats regarding God’s being and attributes in mind, Owen concludes his exegesis of τὸ ἀμετάθετοι τῆς βουλῆς with an expanded defnition of the consilium: In particular, the counsel of God in this place [i.e., Heb. 6:17], is the holy, wise purpose of his will, to give his Son Jesus Christ to be of the seed of Abraham, for the salvation of all the elect, or heirs of promise; and that in such a way, and accompanied with all such good things, as might secure their faith and consolation. This is the counsel of God, which contained all the grace and mercy of the promise, with the securing them unto believers. 64 Owen’s defnition of the counsel of God in Hebrews 6:17 is thus profoundly fecund: It overfows with ethical (i.e., holy and wise), teleological (i.e., purposive giving of the Son for the salvation and consolation of the elect), epistemological (i.e., faith and consolation), metaphysical (i.e., trinitarian distinction between the Son and the Father), eternal (i.e., the Father giving in eternity), and historical (i.e., the Son “securing” in history) aspects. Most notably, the implicit trinitarian motif noted above is made explicit in this extended defnition. 2. Exercitation XXVI: The Incarnation Presupposes Sin Owen’s Exercitations build on each other. To get a full picture of Owen’s argument, therefore, it is imperative to see Owen’s larger argument by noting what comes before and after each Exercitation. Having proved in Exercitation XXV that Jesus Christ is a priest,65 Owen turns in Exercitation XXVI to investigate the “original of this offce,” through him, as incarnate, are all things communicated unto us, in a way suited unto our reception and comprehension” (Works, I:16). 64 Owen, Works, XXII:255-56. 65 See "Exercitation XXV" in Owen, Works, XIX:3-14.
O’Donnell 15 which, he asserts, “all will acknowledge to lie in the eternal counsels of God.” 66 It is thus not the general fact, but the specifc nature of the origin of Christ’s priesthood in the consilium Dei which Owen seeks to explicate. Before he explains this “especial original of the priesthood of Christ in the counsel of God, with respect unto the especial manner of deliverance from sin and wrath designed therein,” however, Owen frst clears come “objections.”67 Thus, in terms of the structure of Owen’s argument, Exercitation XXVI deals with objections, and the “especial original of the priesthood of Christ” in the consilium Dei is not explained until Exercitation XXVII. Contra Kennedy, who asserts that Owen inquires brashly into God’s mind, Owen begins Exercitation XXVI with a methodological caveat based on Deuteronomy 29:29: God’s counsels are hidden from us; thus, “[w]hat we learn of them is by external revelation and effects.”68 Just as the Israelites were forbidden to come upon Mt. Sinai when God’s holy presence dwelt there, so Owen argues that no one is able to peer into God’s unrevealed glory. Owen thus employs not an a priori, but an a posteriori method for considering God’s counsels: “Our work is, to inquire wherein, how, and whereby, God hath revealed his eternal counsels, to the end that we may know his mind, and fear him for our good.”69 A brief survey of Exercitation XXVI reveals three main points pertinent to our thesis: (1) Owen asserts that God’s counsels regarding Christ’s priesthood do not refer to man’s prelapsarian estate. There were thus no priests in the Garden, according to Owen.70 (2) This assertion requires him to follow Aquinas in arguing rejoinders against 66
Owen, Works, XIX:15. Owen, Works, XIX:42. 68 Owen, Works, XIX:15. 69 Owen, Works, XIX:15; emphasis added; Note Owenʼs warning against curious speculation at p. 43. 70 See Exercitation XXVI, §§ 2-8, in Owen, Works, XIX:15-21. 67
O’Donnell 16 Medieval scholastics (i.e., Alexander, Magnus, Scotus, Rupertus), the Socinians, and the Roman Catholic polemicists (i.e., Bellarmine and Gregory de Valentia) all of whom argued that Christ’s incarnation (and hence his priesthood) would have been necessary whether or not Adam fell into sin.71 (3) Owen then strengthens this rejoinder by appropriating an argument based on the predestination of Christ set forth by Aquinas, 72 the modern Scotists, and “some divines of our own.”73 Owen summarizes the argument as follows: Based on Romans 1:4 and 1 Peter 1:20, “The Lord Christ was predestinated or preordained before the world was.” 74 This predestination of Christ, continues Owen, was executed logically prior to the predestination of the elect; for, God purposed to assume human nature before he purposed to save the elect by that nature (cf. Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:19; Rom. 8:29). The decree of the predestination of Christ, therefore, was before the decree related to the fall; ergo, it follows that the necessity of Christ’s incarnation was determined before the fall. 75 Owen expands this argument by delving into the order of the divine decrees. After an important caveat regarding the nature of this question being a subject upon which “the Scripture is utterly silent,” 76 Owen presents three common options for ordering the divine decrees. The frst order (i.e., decree to create the world and man upright, decree to permit the fall, decree to send the Incarnate Son for redemption, decree to give eternal life upon whomever will believe, decree to give saving grace to some) maintains 71
See Exercitation XXVI, §§9-25 Owen, Works, XIX:21-41. Owen does not provide a citation, but from the context he appears to be referring to Summa Theologica, III, q.1, a.3. 73 Owen, Works, XIX:29. 74 Owen, Works, XIX:29. 75 Owen, Works, XIX:29-30. NB: Owen makes this assertion in a long quotation which has no source reference. My best guess is that Owen is citing (perhaps his own English translation of) Aquinas, but I could not locate the exact source. 76 Owen, Works, XIX:30. 72
O’Donnell 17 that the incarnation presupposes the fall; therefore, this ordering argues against the supposition that the incarnation was contingent upon the fall. The second order (i.e., decree to elect some, decree to give grace, faith, and obedience to the elect, decree to create, to permit the fall, and to save some by means of the incarnate Mediator all as means to accomplish the earlier decrees) is self-contradictory insofar as it is inconsistent “with the predestination of Christ unto his incarnation antecedent unto a respect unto sin and grace.”77 Since both of these orderings, comments Owen, “are exposed unto insuperable objections and diffculties,”78 he prefers a third ordering based on a nuanced understanding of the logical rule that what is frst in intention is last in execution. 79 According to this third view, there are only two ultimate decrees: (1) the decree concerning the ultimate end of all things (i.e., God’s glory) and (2) the decree concerning all the means pertaining to that end (i.e., creation, fall, preordination of Christ and others in him, etc). This third view does not allow logical ordering at the sub-ultimate level, thus “according unto this order, there cannot be a priority in the preordination of Christ unto the decree of the permission of the fall and entrance of sin.” 80 Though this third ordering is not conclusive by itself for establishing that Christ’s predestination necessarily includes a view of the fall—a point which seems to be Owen’s main purpose for surveying these three logical orderings of the decrees— Owen’s further argumentation attempts to draw a conclusive inference from related Scriptural evidence. Based on Luke 24:26 and John 17:4-5, Owen thus concludes: 77
Owen, Works, XIX:31. Owen, Works, XIX:31. 79 See the entire page-long paragraph at Owen, Works, XIX: 31-32. 80 Owen, Works, XIX: 32. 78
O’Donnell 18 To fancy a pre-ordination of the Son of God unto incarnation not of the blessed Virgin after the entrance of sin, not as the Lamb of God, not as one to be exalted after suffering, is that which neither Scripture nor reason will admit of. 81 For Owen, therefore, there is no predestination of Christ unto his incarnation without an intention to save sinners.82 He concludes Exercitation XXVI, accordingly, by refuting Osiander’s83 and Bellarmine’s84 objections to this point.85 Exercitation XXVI thus serves to reinforce the defnitions of the consilium Dei which Owen presented in his Catechisms and in his commentary on Hebrews 6:17. 3. Exercitation XXVII: Genesis 1:26 and Proverbs 8:22-31 Having dealt with objections, Owen now turns to a positive statement of the origin of Christ’s priesthood in the consilium Dei. Notably, he begins Exercitation XXVII with the same methodological caveat with which he began the previous one—a warning against curiously speculating about God’s counsels beyond what God has revealed. 86 In addition to warning against speculation, the warning positively focuses the reader’s attention upon a seminal text for Owen’s formulation of the consilium—Genesis 1:26. The heart of Owen’s argument is as follows.87 God created all things to manifest his nature and attributes. Whereas the entire cosmos refects the perfection of God’s single essence, God’s highest perfection—his subsistence in three persons—is made manifest exclusively in the creation of man. This is the reason why the frst mention of a plurality
81
Owen, Works, XIX:33. Christ’s priesthood is necessitated, according to Owen, upon the presuppositions of law and the entrance of sin. See Exercitations XXIX-XXX at Works, 91-138. 83 See Exercitation XXVI, §§18-22, at Owen, Works, XIX:33-38. 84 See Exercitation XXVI, §§23-25, at Owen, Works, XIX:38-41. 85 Cf. Owen, Works, I:24-25. 86 Owen, Works, XIX:42-43. 87 See § 2 at Owen, Works, XIX:43. 82
O’Donnell 19 of divine persons (i.e., Gen. 1:26) immediately precedes the creation of man. 88 Thus the crown of creation (i.e., man) reveals the crown of God’s perfections (i.e., his triune person). Upon this basis Owen presents his main argument: This, therefore, is that which in the frst 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 frst manifested themselves in our creation.”89 Genesis 1:26 is a seminal text because it is the “frst revelation of the counsels of God concerning the glorifying of himself in the making and disposal of man.”90 Owen bolsters his proposition with several exegetical arguments. First, he demonstrates that אָדָםin Genesis 1:26 refers not only to a proper name of an individual, but also to the entire race being created in that individual. 91 Second, in a lengthy analysis of the exegetical diffculty ensuing from the verbal tense shift to the plural (i.e., נַעֲשֶׂה, “let us make”), Owen rejects the more regio explanation and asserts, contra Jewish and Socinian interpretations, that the trinitarian interpretation is the only orthodox solution. 92 Intentionally positioning himself in the ancient trinitarian stream of interpretation, Owen states his own argument: Genesis 1:26 is not more regio, but genere deliberativo— God’s creation of man “was the effect of special counsel.”93 Two features of this argument are noteworthy. First, Owen carefully distinguishes the consilium Dei regarding creation and the consilium Dei regarding salvation, arguing 88
For a similar Reformed orthodox interpretation of Genesis 1:26 as referring to the entire Trinity, see Thomas Goodwin, The works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D., Sometime President of Magdalene college, Oxford (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863), XI:310. 89 Owen, Works, XIX:43. 90 Owen, Works, XIX:43. 91 See § 3 at Owen, Works, XIX:43-44. 92 See §§4-7 at Owen, Works, 44-57. 93 Owen, Works, XIX:58.
O’Donnell 20 that Genesis 1:26 refers only to the former. The most that can be argued on the basis of Genesis 1:26 is, therefore, a “general assertion, that such distinct actings there were [i.e., among the persons of the Trinity in the consilium Dei] with respect unto mankind.”94 Second, Owen presupposes that the effect of the consilium (i.e., God’s speech in Gen. 1:26) reveals the cause (i.e., the consilium itself); or, stated in trinitarian terms, the opera Dei ad extra revealed in Genesis 1:26 is a mirror of the corresponding opera Dei ad intra in the consilium Dei. The next phase of Owen’s argument seeks to both confrm and to build upon the general principle evinced in Genesis 1:26 in order to show that not only in creation, but also in re-creation God relates to man on the basis of trinitarian transactions in the consilium Dei. It is in these re-creation transactions that Owen locates the original of Christ’s priesthood. Owen’s interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31 is the crux of his re-creation argument. He employs the bulk of Exercitation XXVII in explicating this passage in two parts, frst refuting unorthodox interpretations,95 then presenting his positive argument for 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. . . .96 What follows is a brief summary of the latter.97 We need to discover how exactly Owen moves from a general creation consilium to a specifc re-creation consilium. He makes this move via a detailed exegetical argument based on Proverbs 8. First, regarding v. 26, Owen asserts that the Son declares his presence with the Father when 94
Owen, Works, XIX:58. See §§9-12 Owen, Works, 58-67. 96 Owen, Works, XIX:67. 97 See §§13-18 Owen, Works, 67-76. 95
O’Donnell 21 the First Adam (i.e., )רֹאשׁ עַפְרוֹת תֵבֵלwas made. Second, in v. 30 the Son declares that he was “by” the Father (i.e., ֹ)אׂצְלו, which Owen equates with the prepositional phrase, πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, of John 1:1-2. Third, in v. 30 the Son is described by the participle אָמוֹן, which Owen interprets passively as “one that is in the care and love of another, and to be disposed by him”98 Fourth, the sense in which these two words (i.e., )אׂצְלוֹ אָמוֹןrelate to each other clenches Owen’s argument: 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 אׂצְלוֹ אָמוֹן, “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.99 Owen, moreover, adduces three confrmations of his fourth point: (1) The subsequent phrase in v. 30 (i.e., )וָאׂהְיׂה שַׁעֲשׁוֵעִים יוֹם יוֹםconfrms his interpretation; for, the “delights” in this phrase refer to the opera Dei ad extra as a fruit of the opera Dei ad intra, viz., the consilium Dei regarding man’s re-creation;100 (2) The context of the Father’s and Son’s mutual delight in the consilium is set clearly in the context of re-creation, not of the original creation; for, בְֵנֵי אָדָםin v. 32 clearly refers to the children of the frst Adam. 101 98
Owen, Works, XIX:68. Owen, Works, XIX:68. 100 Owen, Works, XIX:69. 101 Owen, Works, XIX:70. 99
O’Donnell 22 Psalm 2:7, moreover, makes the same point.102 For these reasons, therefore, based on Proverbs 8 Owen infers that there exist trinitarian transactions concerning man’s salvation in the consilium just as he inferred from Genesis 1:26 that there exist trinitarian transactions concerning man’s creation in the consilium.103 4. Exercitation XXVIII: The Pactum Salutis is the Modus of the Consilium Owen begins Exercitation XXVIII by asserting that in the previous Exercitation he proved the general fact that in the consilium Dei there are eternal trinitarian transactions104 regarding man’s salvation. In the present Exercitation he now adds the crown to his consilium formulation, namely, that these trinitarian transactions “were carried on ‘per modum fœderis,’ ‘by way of covenant,’ compact, and mutual agreement, between the Father and the Son.” 105 Therefore, Owen’s formulation of the consilium Dei regarding man’s salvation comes to its climax in Exercitation XXVIII—the “covenant of the Mediator” is the modus of the consilium.106 Since our thesis is limited to Owen’s consilium we do not need to analyze Owen’s detailed and lengthy argument regarding the nature of the pactum salutis; rather, we simply need to take note of the symbiotic and indissoluble connection between the two. Owen uses Zechariah 6:13 to make the consilium-pactum connection explicit: The trinitarian transactions in the consilium were executed “by the way of ‘counsel,’ for the accomplishment of the end designed in a covenant” (i.e., Zech. 6:13).107 The counsel 102
See Owenʼs lengthy treatment of this verse in §§16-18 at Works, XIX:71-76. Owen, Works, XIX:76. 104 Regarding Owen’s common usage of terms such as “eternal transactions” to refer to the consilium Dei regarding salvation, see note 2 above. 105 Owen, Works, XIX:77; cf. §9 at pp. 84-85. 106 See Exercitation XXVIII, §1, at Owen, Works, XIX:77-78. 107 Owen, Works, XIX:85; Muller, “Toward the Pactum Salutis,” 37, notes that Owen (along with other Reformed orthodox writers) did not cite this passage as a prooftext in his earlier writing on the pactum (i.e., Salus electorum). The use of Zech. 6:13 in reference to the pactum is a later Reformed orthodox 103
O’Donnell 23 herein, argues Owen, between the Father and the Son (i.e., צׂמַח, “The Branch”) pertains to the Son considered not as man absolutely, but as Son incarnandus—“as he was his eternal Wisdom, only with respect unto his future incarnation”—a point which Owen confrms with references to Isaiah 4:2; 9:6; Zechariah 13:7; Psalm 55:14; and Proverbs 8:30-31.108 For Owen, therefore, the consilium Dei with respect to man’s salvation comes to full expression in the mode of a covenant, namely, in the pactum salutis.
C. The Consilium Dei in Christologia Owen devotes a brief chapter in Christologia to explaining how Christ’s person is the foundation of all God’s counsels with respect to salvation.109 He contends that his main point is to unfold the meaning of Ephesians 1:9-10, especially the fact that the counsels of God concerning salvation are “all to be effected in Christ—which the apostle twice repeats [. . .]—that is, in him alone.”110 Owen interprets this emphasis on Christ in light of Proverbs 8, which, as we have already noted, is a key passage for Owen’s formulation of the consilium Dei. Based on the assumption that Proverbs 8:22-23 refers to Christ’s “future incarnation and work of mediation,” Owen argues that Christ—as the Wisdom of God—is the wisdom of God’s will in the consilium. This counsel, moreover, understood as an opus Dei essentialia is the eternal ground of the opera Dei ad extra “even as our counsels are the beginning of our
development, argues Muller, which is related to an underlying interpretive pattern and collation of related texts regarding the pactum (pp. 37-39). It thus appears that Owen himself is involved in this later Reformed orthodox exegetical development. 108 Owen, Works, XIX:85; cf. Muller, Dictionary, s.v. incarnandus. 109 Owen, Works, I:17-18, provides his own summary of the chapter. 110 Owen, Works, I:54. NB: Owen’s assertion regarding the repetition of “in Christ” relies upon interpreting the prepositional phrase in Eph. 1:10, ἐν αὐτῷ (i.e., “even in him” [KJV]), as an emphatic parallel of the previous phrase, ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ (i.e., “in Christ”), in the same verse.
O’Donnell 24 ways, with respect unto future works.” 111 Thus God plans before he acts, and God’s plan is founded in Christ, the Wisdom of God, in whom God eternally delighted with his counsels concerning the salvation of men (cf. Proverbs 8:30, 31). 112 As confrmatory evidence for his interpretation of Proverbs 8, Owen adduces Jesus’ prayer in John 17:5. According to Owen the glory for which Jesus prayed is not in reference to Jesus’ divine nature, but refers to Jesus’ glory in the consilium Dei: In those eternal transactions that were between the Father and the Son, with respect unto his incarnation and mediation—or his undertaking to execute and fulfl [sic] the eternal counsels of the wisdom and grace of the Father—there was an especial glory which the Son had with him—the “glory which he had with the Father before the world was.” For the manifestation hereof he now prays, and that the glory of his goodness, grace, and love—in his peculiar undertaking of the execution of the counsels of God—might be made to appear. And this is the principal design of the Gospel. It is the declaration, as of the grace of God the Father, so of the love, grace, goodness, and compassion of the Son, in undertaking from everlasting the accomplishment of God’s counsels, in the salvation of the church.113 Fundamental to Owen’s thinking regarding the Gospel, therefore, is the relation between the consilium Dei and the opera Dei ad extra, and fundamental to Owen’s thinking regarding the latter, is Christ’s role as foundation. It is in this light that we are to take Owen’s next point, namely, that the “ineffable delight between the Father and the Son” is rooted in the “counsel of peace” (Zech. 6:13). The delight mentioned in Proverbs 8:30, according to Owen, is not the eternal delight arising from the co-essential nature of the Father and Son; rather, “respect is plainly had unto the counsels of God concerning the salvation of mankind by him who is his power and wisdom unto that end.”114 From this perspective, then, Owen is able to make sense 111
Owen, Works, I:54; cf. Muller, Dictionary, s.v. opera Dei ad extra, opera Dei essentialia. Owen, Works, I:54-55. 113 Owen, Works, I:55-56; emphasis added. 114 Owen, Works, I:56. 112
O’Donnell 25 of texts such as 1 Peter 1:20, Titus 1:2, 1 John 1:2, and 2 Timothy 1:9, which speak of grace or eternal life being given to the church in eternity; for, notes Owen, the Father’s eternal life is frst treasured up in Christ (i.e., in the consilium Dei) before it is dispensed by Christ to the church.115 At this point we see again, therefore, how Owen’s conception of the consilium Dei is inextricably connected with the pactum salutis—the pactum is the consilium Dei with respect to salvation. The ad intra/ad extra trinitarian pattern evident in Owen’s formulation of this “ineffable delight,” moreover, leads to an important metaphysical distinction, namely, that even though God delights in all of his works ad extra, “the principal delight and complacency of God, is in his eternal counsels.”116 The priority of God’s delight in his counsels, argues Owen, necessarily follows from the aseity of his being: infnite independence demands infnite self-satisfaction; the Creator logically delights in himself and his plan for creation before he delights in his creation. 117 Owen accordingly deduces three implications. First, God’s delight with Christ in the consilium Dei concerning man’s salvation is the highest expression of God’s wisdom. Just as men delight in ordering their actions according to their own wisdom, so God, who orders all his actions according to his infnite wisdom, delights in his wise counsels concerning man’s salvation. 118 Second, the Father’s and Son’s acts in this consilium are acts of infnite goodness, thus “the divine nature cannot but be infnitely delighted in them.” 119 More specifcally: As wisdom is the directive principle of all divine operations, so goodness is the 115
Owen, Works, I:56-57. Owen, Works, I:58. 117 Owen, Works, I:58. 118 Owen, Works, I:58. 119 Owen, Works, I:59. 116
O’Donnell 26 communicative principle that is effectual in them. […] All divine operations—in the gracious communication of God himself—are from his goodness, by the intervention of a free act of his will. And the greatest exercise and emanation of divine goodness, was in these holy counsels of God for the salvation of the church by Jesus Christ. […] No heart can conceive, no tongue can express, the least portion of that ineffable delight of the holy, blessed God, in these counsels, wherein he acted and expressed unto the utmost his own essential goodness. Owen concludes this second point by noting that the only way God could communicate his wisdom and goodness to man is via Christ’s assumption of human nature—“in which actings are the eternal delight and complacency of the Divine Being.” 120 Third, just as with God’s wisdom and goodness,121 so with his love and grace—the fact that God’s being is love determines that his counsels are to be enacted in love. Owen distinguishes between God’s universal goodness to all creatures and his special love and grace to the elect; yet, contra Torrance’s assertion that according to Owen love is not an essential attribute of God, Owen explicitly affrms the contrary: “’God is love,’ saith the apostle. His nature is essentially so.” 122 Regarding the consilium Dei Owen thus avers that God’s love is, “as it were, the womb of all the eternal counsels of God, which renders his complacency in them ineffable.” 123 According to Owen, therefore, the glory of God’s essential attributes of wisdom, goodness, and love shine their brightest rays toward man in the consilium Dei regarding salvation. God’s delight in the consilium, accordingly, is not only prior to his delight in his ad extra works, but also it is the deepest fount in which man can draw drafts of God’s grace. Owen concludes his chapter on the consilium Dei by explaining how the consilium 120
Owen, Works, I:60. For a further connection between creation and Godʼs wisdom and goodness, see Owenʼs argument in Exercitation XXVII, §2 at Works, XIX:43. 122 Owen, Works, I:60; cf. 144, 152, 300, 334; II:19, 36, 82; IV:370; V:412; VI:177, 400; VII:449; IX:604; XI:338. 123 Owen, Works, I:60. 121
O’Donnell 27 regarding man’s salvation is grounded specifcally in Christ. 124 His argument is fourfold: (1) God, by his infnite power and wisdom, created all things good and tending to his own glory; (2) God permitted the entrance of sin both in heaven and earth; (3) The divine wisdom was not surprised by sin; rather, (4) the eternal consilium Dei already planned the recovery and perfection of all things in the salvation and sanctifcation of the church.125 Picking up again on his ad intra/ad extra sensibility, Owen divides this fourth point into two sub-heads, both of which connect the consilium to Christ: (4a) the original of the consilium and (4b) the design of the consilium’s accomplishment. Regarding the former, the origin of God’s counsels is the will and wisdom of God alone. Christ’s incarnation is the effect, not the cause of the counsels. Implicitly, then, Christ as God’s wisdom (along with the Father and Spirit) is the origin of the consilium. Regarding the latter, the accomplishment of God’s counsels is grounded in Christ alone. With reference to Ephesians 1:4 and 2 Thessalonians 3:13, Owen asserts: Thus as all things were originally made and created by him, as he was the essential wisdom of God—so all things are renewed and recovered by him, as he is the provisional wisdom of God, in and by his incarnation.126 Importantly, Owen further argues that this ad intra—ad extra pattern by which the consilium Dei is frst grounded in and then accomplished by Christ brings even more glory to God than would have been possible without man’s fall into sin: As God the Father did nothing in the frst creation but by him—as his eternal wisdom; (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2; Prov. 8;) so he designed nothing in the new creation, or restoration of all things unto his glory, but in him—as he was to be incarnate. Wherefore in his person were laid all the foundation of the counsels 124
For Owenʼs full argument see §§ 1-4 at Works, I:61-64 What follows is a summary of several salient
points. 125 126
Owen, Works, I:61-62. Owen, Works, I:63.
O’Donnell 28 of God for the sanctifcation and salvation of the church. Herein he is glorifed, and that in a way unspeakably exceeding all that glory which would have accrued unto him from the frst creation, had all things abode in their primitive constitution.127 Owen’s emphasis throughout this chapter upon Ephesians 1:9-10, therefore, fnds its ultimate expression in the fact that the whole of creation and redemption hinges upon Christ’s role ad intra in the consilium Dei and ad extra in the accomplishment of the consilium, a role impossible to fulfll by any but God incarnate.
III. CONCLUSIONS At the conclusion of his dissertation on Owen’s covenant theology David Wong writes, “We fnd that covenant theology and predestinationism are merged and interlocked perfectly in Owen.” 128 Our inquiry has revealed that the same cannot be said regarding scholarship on Owen’s formulation of the pactum salutis. Even though the consilium-pactum correlation is a common topic in general pactum scholarship, many Owen scholars have attempted to explicate the pactum in Owen’s thought with little or no reference to his corresponding formulation of the consilium. Furthermore, even though Owen explicitly connects his fullest presentation of the pactum (i.e., Exercitation XXVIII) with the immediately preceding presentations of the consilum Dei (i.e., Exercitations XXVI–XXVII), few have developed this clear consilium-pactum correlation. Such studies, therefore, which attempt to explicate Owen’s formulation of the pactum without reference to the consilium have in fact only presented half of the story. Owen’s thought, moreover, clearly evinces two common themes noted in 127
Owen, Works, I:64. Wong, “The Covenant Theology of John Owen,” 367. Following this praise, however, Wong oddly criticizes Owen’s doctrine of the pactum for devolving from a loving covenant into a cold contract (pp. 371-72). 128
O’Donnell 29 scholarship regarding the historical development of the pactum salutis. First, as is evident from (1) Owen’s strong correlation between counsel and Wisdom and (2) from Owen’s strong reliance upon a trinitarian interpretation of Proverbs 8, Owen’s consilium formulation is robustly trinitarian; for, the consilium fnds its trinitarian climax in the pactum, and Owen locates the eternal ground for Christ’s incarnation and priesthood therein. Second, Owen’s “per modum foederis” formulation of the pactum is a clear example of an essential identity, yet formal distinction, between the consilium and the pactum. In addition to these two themes, the language and structure of Owen’s defnitions of the consilium Dei in his Catechisms clearly refect the confessional orthodoxy of his day. For these reasons, therefore, Owen’s development of the pactum as the covenantal form of the eternal counsel regarding man’s salvation is clearly rooted in Reformed orthodoxy. Given both the prominence which Owen places upon the consilium Dei and the wide breadth of contexts within which Owen presents the consilium, this topic deserves more attention in Owen scholarship, especially in studies relating to his covenant theology. For, to borrow Owen’s own metaphor, the consilium is the eternal womb out of which man’s salvation—the incarnate Christ—is born. It is impossible, therefore, to correctly comprehend the pactum salutis in Owen’s thought unless one frst apprehends Owen’s formulation of the consilium Dei.
O’Donnell 30
IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Primary Sources À Brakel, Wilhelmus. The Christian's Reasonable Service in which Divine Truths concerning the Covenant of Grace are Expounded, Defended against Opposing Parties, and their Practice Advocated as well as The Administration of this Covenant in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Joel R. Beeke. Translated by Bartel Elshout. 4 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992. Bavinck, Herman. Our Reasonable Faith: A Survey of Christian Doctrine. Translated by Henry Zylstra. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956. ———. Saved by Grace: the Holy Spirit's Work in Calling and Regeneration. Edited by J. Mark Beach. Translated by Nelson D. Kloosterman. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. ———. Sin and Salvation in Christ. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 3. 4 vols. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958. Berkouwer, G. C. Divine Election. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960. Goodwin, Thomas. The works of Thomas Goodwin, D.D., Sometime President of Magdalene college, Oxford. 12 vols. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. USA: Hendrickson, 1999. Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2004. Kersten, G. H. Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing Committee, 1980. Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Edited by W. H. Goold. 24 vols. Johnstone & Hunter, 1850–1855. Van Genderen, J., and W. H. Velema. Concise Reformed Dogmatics. Edited by M. Van der Maas. Translated by Gerrit Bilkes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008.
B. Secondary Sources Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin's Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Reformed Historical Theology 1. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
O’Donnell 31 ———. “The Doctrine of the Pactum Salutis in the Covenant Theology of Herman Witsius.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 13 (2002): 101-142. Daniels, Richard W. The Christology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004. Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. Hoekema, Anthony Andrew. “Herman Bavinckʼs Doctrine of the Covenant.” Th.D. Diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1953. Kapic, Kelly M. Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Kay, Brian K. Trinitarian Spirituality: John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Kennedy, Kevin Dixon. Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin. Studies in Biblical Literature 48. New York: Peter Lang, n.d. Letham, Robert. “John Owen’s Doctrine of the Trinity in Its Catholic Context and Its Signifcance for Today,” 2006. http://www.johnowen.org/media/letham_owen.pdf. Muller, Richard A. “Calvin and the "Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy (Part 1).” Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 2 (1995): 345-375. ———. “Calvin and the "Calvinists": Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities Between the Reformation and Orthodoxy (Part 2).” Calvin Theological Journal 31, no. 1 (1996): 125-160. ———. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1986. ———. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally From Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2006. ———. “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in SeventeenthCentury Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel.” cal 29, no. 1 (April 1994): 75-100. ———. “The Myth of ‘Decretal Theology.’” Calvin Theological Journal 30, no. 1 (1995): 159-167. ———. The Triunity of God. Vol. 4. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. ———. “Toward the Pactum Salutis: Locating the Origins of a Concept.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 18 (2007): 11-65.
O’Donnell 32 Rehnman, Sebastian. Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen. Texts and Studies in Reformation and post-Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002. Spence, Alan. Incarnation and Inspiration: John Owen and the Coherence of Christology. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Toon, Peter. God's Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen, Pastor, Educator, Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1971. Torrance, James B. “Interpreting the Word by the Light of Christ or the Light of Nature? Calvin, Calvinism, and Barth.” In Calviniana: Ideas and Infuence of Jean Calvin, edited by Robert V. Schnucker, 255-67. Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies X. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc., 1988. ———. “Strengths and Weaknesses of the Westminster Theology.” In The Westminster Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, edited by Alasdair I. C. Heron, 40-54. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1982. ———. “The Incarnation and "Limited Atonement".” Scottish Buttetin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984): 32-40. Trueman, Carl R. John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Great Theologians Series. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007. ———. The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1998. Van Asselt, Willem Jan. “Amicitia Dei as Ultimate Reality: An outline of the covenant theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669).” Ultimate Reality And Meaning 21 (1998): 35-47. ———. “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius.” Calvin Theological Journal 35, no. 1 (2000): 76-104. ———. “The Doctrine of the Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669).” Calvin Theological Journal 29, no. 1 (1994): 101-116. ———. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius: (1603-1669). Translated by Raymond Andrew Blacketer. Studies in the History of Christian Thought. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001. ———. “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought.” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 2 (2002): 319-35. Venema, Cornelis P. “Covenant and Election in the Theology of Herman Bavinck.” MidAmerica Journal of Theology 19 (2008): 69-115. Von Rohr, John. The Covenant of Grace in Puritan thought. American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.
O’Donnell 33 Walker, Williston. The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism. New York: Scribner, 1893. Williams, Carol A. “The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption.” PhD Diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005. Wong, David Wai-Sing. “The Covenant Theology of John Owen.” PhD Diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998. Wright, Robert Keith McGregor. “John Owenʼs Great High Priest: The Highpriesthood of Christ in the Theology of John Owen, (1616-1683).” Ph.D. Diss., Iliff School of Theology and The University of Denver (Colorado Seminary), 1989.