I mentioned ealier Witsius’ “purple prose” in writing to King William. Here’s what I mean. Referring to an event in which it was thought that the King had been killed in battle but had, in fact, only suffered a wound, Witsius writes:

O! the wisdom and goodness of propitious heaven! O! a day for ever memorable in our calendar! How near were your enemies to exult with solid joy, who now, deceived by the false reports of your death, made themselves ridiculous to the world by a theatrical and unmanly show of indiscreet rejoicing? Great Prince, whith these eyes I saw, in these hands I held, to these lips I applied that military tunick, whose wide rent testified the greatness of your wound. Those precious spoils I saw purpled with your blood, and I mixed my affectionate tears with the royal gore.

Though I think that last sentence is the worst of it, there are pages of this sort of thing in his dedicatory letter.

In his “pacific address” to “celebrated professors of divinity,” Witsius says a great many remarkable things that would be excellent aphorisms for Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together. For example,

Let us preach the good tidings of the gospel, let us congratulate the church on account of them; and make the best use of them ourselves we can. Let no one who has in general expressed the truth in eloquent language, e heinously censured on account of an improper word, or harsh expression which has slipped from his pen… Yet, let us all endeavour to express ourselves as accurately as possible; and not take upon us to defend what has been imprudently said by our friends, or ourselves, lest others blame us for it; but as far as ingenuousness, truth, charity, and all good men will allow of it, let us pass by, cancel or correct any mistakes; which has been the practice of some great men, both among the ancients and moderns, to their very great credit. Let none of our brethren be stigmatized with the brand of heresy, on account of what is supposed to follow from any of their expressions, when they themselves deny and detest the consequence.

I wonder what Witsius would say about calling a brother a heretic on account of what doesn’t follow from any of his expressions.

Getting to the work itself, chapter one of the first book is “Of the Divine Covenants in general.” Witsius, correctly I think, argues for an “improper” use of the word when it stands for “promise” or “precept” (though I think the word “improper” can probably be improved upon–perhaps “informal”?). But the “proper” use is ” a mutual ageement between parties, with respect to something.”

Witsius has evidence for his view, but he also seems to not be concerned about questions that might spring from a more individualistic age. For example, there was some voluntary oath-taking on the part of Israel to covenant with God, but wasn’t every Israelite born involved in that covenant? It seems to me that there is a structured relationship between God and the average Israelite that the average Israelite did not enter into through an agreement. He may have been required to voluntarily re-affirm this relationship, but that requirement would itself be from God’s covnant. Agreement between two parites may define some covenants, but it is not at all clear to me that it defines all of them, is the proper definition, or is the best single-sentence definition for the covenant between God and his people.

(By the way, where is the definition of a covenant in the Westminster Standards? Nowhere. The Westminster Assembly sidestepped the entire issue in chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession and everywhere else.)

Witsius seems to want to go in a couple of (what look to me like different) directions. On the one hand he wants to emphasize the voluntary nature of the covenant so that, for example, when Israel agreed to the covenant “submitted to punishment, if impiously revolting from God, they slighted his covenant.” On the other hand, in dealing with God’s covenant with Adam, Witsius clearly believes that God’s covenant making activity was a reflex of his character, not simply his justice but his kindness and generosity, and that man’s acceptace of the covenant was his natural obligation as a creature. Then how can one really define the covenant as something apart from and above the generosity of God in making Man in His image in the first place? Backing up this observation is that people I know who really admire Witsius (Meredith Kline, Bill Baldwin) have actually disagreed with the statement in WCF 7.1 that “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.” It seems to me that Witsius could be seen as taking either side in that debate.

I wonder if part of the issue is that Witsius already has such a strong connection in his mind between the Mosaic Covenant and the Adamic Covenant. This would mean is some way he wants to take the situation in Sinai, in which God graciously elected a people from all on the earth with the situation in Eden when God was creating man and there was no sin or redemption to consider.  But more on that later.