I am a Calvinist, but I do not subscribe to the five points known under the acronym TULIP as the foundation, much less the extent, of this doctrine. TULIP, which stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints, was never intended as the foundation of any theological system. That it has become so is an accident of history.
In the Remonstrance of 1610, followers of Jacob Arminius drew up a list of five differences that they had with Reformed theology. It is important to note that this came from within the Reformed church in the Netherlands; these were not just a bunch of outsiders. They argued for election based on foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, and resistible grace. They still had not decided whether someone could lose his salvation. In 1618-19, the Synod of Dort met and refuted all five of these points in the Canons of Dort. These refutations form the basis of TULIP. For all the good that these Canons have done, they have had the negative consequence that Calvinism, in the eyes of many, has been reduced to these points. The system often exists in abstraction from the rest of one’s doctrinal beliefs. As originally conceived, these points were among the organic outworkings of Reformed theology. They were not supposed to stand on their own.
To understand Calvinism, it is necessary to back up further into history and ask, “Why the Reformation?” The Reformation primarily came about as a protest against the Roman Catholic system of works based salvation. The immediate catalyst was Luther’s objection to the sale of indulgences. An indulgence was a means to buy the souls of loved ones out of purgatory. The reason for purgatory was to purge away the venial sins of all those who had died without performing the proper penance. Penance, in turn, exists because of the Catholic doctrine of justification. Catholics get their doctrine from the Latin word justifacare, which means, “to make righteous.” However, the Latin misrepresents the Greek and Hebrew words, both of which are forensic terms meaning, “to declare righteous.” In Catholic theology, original righteousness is infused into someone through the sacrament of baptism. This person is justified at that point because he really is righteous. However, the justification only lasts as long as the actual righteousness. Once the person sins, he is no longer justified. Both the Eucharist and the works of penance are required to restore justification. Catholics believe that the death of Christ is necessary for salvation. It is the basis for God’s grace. Humanity was radically corrupted in the fall. On their own, they can do nothing to merit salvation. However, the grace of God makes their good works worthy. The grace is offered to all who partake of the sacraments. Salvation is only assured to those who actually perform the works.
Catholics believe in the necessity of Christ, grace, and faith to salvation. The Reformers disputed their lack of the word “alone.” Salvation was sola fide, sola gratia, and soli Christo. There was no room for congruous merit or works of any kind as the basis for salvation. Essential to the Catholic doctrine is a form of semi-Pelagianism. Man is only partially depraved and only in need of divine grace to assist him in his good works. This grace can be resisted. However, if the Reformers are right and works form absolutely no basis for salvation, then salvation is completely the work of God. Man is spiritually dead until God makes a unilateral decision to regenerate him. Right here are the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace. When the Remonstrants declared their belief in partial depravity and resistible grace, the Synod of Dort understood this to be a return to the roots of Catholicism and condemned these views as heresy. Both of these doctrines imply a works based salvation. The Reformation emphatically denies this. On the negative basis that salvation is not of works, all of the other doctrines in Reformed theology fall into place.
Yet, we cannot base an entire theology on a negative basis. If it is the case that salvation is not based in part on our own works, then it must also be the case that salvation is based wholly on the finished work of Christ. Justification is not the temporary infusion of righteousness, but the eternal imputation of righteousness. The righteousness of Christ, which is the result of his active and passive obedience, is credited to our account. Catholics call this a ‘legal fiction.” God declares us righteous when it isn’t actually the case. They would be right if the transaction were strictly forensic. However, this declaration is made on the basis of the Holy Spirit bringing me into living union with the incarnate Son of God. I have been crucified with Christ, I have risen with Christ, I am seated in the heavens with Christ, and when he returns, I shall be glorified with him.
I am among those who, through no merit of our own, have been elected in Christ Jesus and are now destined to live in eternal union with him. Consequently, the Father has set his love upon us because he so fully loves the Son. This, our union with Christ, and not some logical consideration of an abstracted system, is the basis of my Calvinism. When I consider the love of the Christ, I am dumbfounded. My only response is to fall before the holy and triune God in an inadequate display of worship.
“If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O LORD, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared.”
Psalm 130:3,4
Come to Jesus, you that labor
Heavy laden with your care.
Cast your worries all upon him.
Trust that you can leave them there.
He has called you to a labor;
Take his yoke and of him learn.
He is meek in heart, and lowly;
Heed his call and let it burn-
Burn in you a holy passion
To proclaim the Christ to men.
Jesus' truth will surely free them
From the bondage of their sin.
Free them then to take his burden
That they too might win the lost,
Knowing God works out salvation:
He alone has paid the cost.
How beautiful the feet of him
That saith unto Zion, "Thy God
Reigneth! His salvation now is thine."
For he bringeth them good tidings
Of great joy- there is a Savior
Who is one of them, and yet he is divine.
Who is one of them, and yet he is divine.
To the gate that is called Beautiful
A man was carried daily, who was
Lame from all the time he was a boy;
But his feet received their power
When he heard the name of Jesus
And he leaping up did stand and walk with joy.
And he leaping up did stand and walk with joy.
Is there any sick among you? let him
Ask the church to pray for him,
Anointing him with oil in Jesus' name.
And the prayer of faith shall save him;
And he'll stand before his Maker,
Having all his sins forgiven, freed from blame.
Having all his sins forgiven, freed from blame.
Behold, how good, how pleasant 'tis
When brothers dwell together in a
Unity explained by nought but love-
It is like the precious ointment
On the head of God's anointed;
As the dew, which is a blessing from above.
As the dew, which is a blessing from above.
There was once a lovely woman,
One who poured a precious ointment
On the feet of Christ, then wiped them with her hair.
And the Lord of lords was honored
For the sacrifice was costly
And her knolwedge of her Lord both pure and rare.
And her knolwedge of her Lord both pure and rare.
The name of Jesus spoken is as
Ointment when poured forth, which fills,
With sweet and pleasant fragrance, all the room.
For he is the rose of Sharon;
He is altogether lovely,
And is always, evermore in perfect bloom.
And is always, evermore in perfect bloom.
Thy words were discovered and these did I eat;
Their flavor, as honey, was rich, pure, and sweet.
The rejoicing and joy of my heart they became
For, by them, I , through faith, am now called by thy name.
They told of the holy, omnipotent one,
The great triune God: Spirit, Father, and Son;
Whose eyes have a pureness that scarce can be told
So he who sees all cannot evil behold.
But then I read on and found hidden within
A man who was filthy and covered in sin.
Offended, I put them away on a shelf-
For he whom they told of was clearly myself.
Despite this, God to me his Spirit did give-
The Father, ere time, had decreed I should live.
And having this life, only then could I cry,
"My Jesus, please cleanse me or surely I die!"
And when I consider my sins are no more,
I find that my being is drawn to adore
The Lord for the matchless forgiveness he's wrought.
Unspeakable mystery- omniscience forgot.
The passage in question is Romans 10, in which Paul quotes from Psalm 19. Paul writes, “But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world’” (Romans 10:18). Why does Paul quote this particular passage in support of his argument? The question is rarely asked. Instead, people are content with Charles Hodge’s explanation. He writes, “Paul, of course, is not to be understood as quoting the Psalmist as though the ancient prophet was speaking of the gospel. He simply uses scriptural language to express his own ideas, as is done involuntarily almost by every preacher in every sermon” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 349).
A view such as Hodge’s does not do justice to the nature of Scripture. Everything God does or says occurs within the context of the covenant. Consequently, the activities and words of God have their own meaning. The Holy Spirit, by making creation and Scripture a part of the covenantal context, has revealed himself as a Divine Theologian. The human authors of Scripture, because they are recording the Word of Christ, are also engaged in theology. It is not acceptable to use scriptural language to express one’s own ideas. The language must be used to express the intended idea of the authors. We must, therefore, conclude that any subsequent use within scripture of a prior scriptural passage either assumes or constitutes the proper exegesis of that passage.
How, then, does Paul read David? The most common take on Psalm 19:1-6 is that it is about General Revelation as it is found in nature. When this is combined with the view that Paul is speaking about the Israelites, the following interpretation results: Just as the heavens reveal God to the entire world, even so, the prophets preached to all of Israel. Or, supposing that Paul is speaking about the Gentiles, a similar interpretation results: Just as the heavens reveal God to the entire world, even so, the gospel from the time of Christ to Paul’s time had gone out to the whole world. F. F. Bruce writes, “It is unnecessary to suppose that Paul regarded Psalm 19:4 as a regular prediction of the world-wide dissemination of the gospel; the dissemination of the gospel, it is implied, is becoming as world-wide as the light of the heavenly bodies” (The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 197). Both of these views amount to nothing more than an argument from analogy.
Nonetheless, analogies are not inherently evil. In fact, they are essential to the typological nature of scripture. Paul actually is making explicit an analogy between Natural revelation and the gospel. The point we must remember, however, is that this analogy was already embedded in the words of David. Paul does not reference David to support his own answer to the question, “Have they not heard?” Rather, Paul quotes the Psalm because David has already answered the question. This is rarely acknowledged because the object of Paul’s question is readily apparent from Romans 10:16. Paul is asking, “Have they not heard the gospel?”
Paul’s theology is informed by that of David; therefore, we will now consider this for ourselves. When David writes of the declaration of God’s glory in creation, he is interpreting the creation according to the covenant. While presenting his case that creation is fashioned upon the model of the Glory-cloud and is, therefore, covenantal, Meredith G. Kline observes, “The heavens declare the glory of God in the special sense that they are a copy of the archetypal Glory of God” (Images of the Spirit, 20).
Covenant theology is uniquely about Christ. He receives the blessings of the covenant in exchange for fulfilling its obligations. The basic flow of the covenant can be seen in the WCF (VII.ii), which concerns the Covenant of Works made with Adam. In this covenant, life is promised to Adam and “in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” Adam’s role in the Covenant of Works is modeled after that of the Son of God in the Intratrinitarian Covenant. We also know that, upon Adam’s failure to fulfill the obligations of the Covenant of Works, Christ is made the Federal Head in his place. Adam only exists to serve the purposes of Christ, who alone is the Alpha and Omega of the covenant.
Having presupposed the covenant as the context for the creation, David uses the sun to depict the movement of Christ within the covenant. Consider the threefold imagery in Psalm 19:5, 6. The sun is like a bridegroom leaving his chamber; like a strong man, the sun runs its course with joy; nothing is hidden from the heat of the sun. Christ is the bridegroom of his church (Revelation 21:2,9); Christ ran the race before us, enduring the cross for the joy that was set before him (Hebrews 12:2,3); Christ is the one to whom we must give account, from whose eyes no creature is hidden (Hebrews 4:13). Note that, in all three cases, Christ is depicted in a covenantal relationship.
In the concluding section of Psalm 19, David presupposes the covenant, in terms of the treaty structure of Special revelation, as the context for Redemptive History. This time, he uses himself to depict the movement of Christ within the covenant. The declaration of the covenant is recorded in terms of law, testimony, precepts, commandment, fear, and rules. This covenantal declaration is of those obligations, the keeping of which are necessary for the servant to be rewarded. See Psalm 19:11, “Moreover, by them is your servant warned; and in keeping them there is great reward.” David’s juxtaposition of “your servant” with the first person singular pronoun identifies this servant as himself. However, when we consider the servant in terms of the theology of this Psalm, he is identified as the one who must keep the Covenant of Works. The servant is Christ. Yet, by noting the pleas of the servant to be declared innocent from hidden faults, and kept back from presumptuous sins, the idea that Christ is the servant is rarely considered. Why, after all, would Christ address the LORD as, “My redeemer”?
If Christ is not evident in this passage, it is because due consideration is not being given to the theology of the history of salvation. This history is depicted throughout the Old Testament; however, it objectively takes place within the life of Christ. We are justified because Christ was declared innocent from hidden faults. Presumptuous sins have no dominion over us because Christ was kept back from them. We are blameless and innocent of great transgression because of our union with Christ. David’s identity with Christ is our identity with Christ. Consequently, the words of our mouths and the meditation of our hearts are acceptable to God because he is Christ’s rock and redeemer.
When David wrote, the covenant, of which Christ is the focus, had already been declared. David does not claim that the journey of the sun through the heavens constitutes the declaration of the covenant. That declaration occurred when the Spirit-infused throne room of God served both as the covenantal model for creation and as the paradigm for Adam’s creation in the imago Dei. The journey of the sun is God’s republication of this declaration. Psalm 19 is David’s interpretation thereof.
In this light, witness the theology of Paul, called by God as an apostle to the Gentiles. We have already noted that the content of what has been heard is the same for both David and Paul. David has already made the analogy between the sun in the heavens and the revelation of Christ in the covenant. Paul identifies this revelation as the gospel. Yet, if the original declaration of the covenant is coterminous with the creation, how can it be a declaration of the gospel? Adam had not yet fallen. It is that declaration without which the gospel would be meaningless. This declaration had to be made to Adam before he fell; that is, while all those who are in Adam were still within the favor of God. It could not be a post-fall event; otherwise, not being able to promise the reward of the covenant, it could not form the basis for the future declaration of the gospel to the world.
Paul’s dependence on the theology of David is for the purpose of defending his own ministry to the Gentiles. Despite the insertion of “Israelites” by some translations in Romans 10:16, it does not occur in the original language. Consequently, the “they” of vs. 18 is not limited to Jews. Its meaning needs to be determined by vs. 12, which says, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek.” The ones to whom Paul is compelled to preach the gospel are all of those in Adam to whom the first declaration of the covenant was made.
This declaration of the covenant was made by Christ. It was Christ saying to his people, “I will live in union with you forever.” Even so, the declaration of the gospel must also be made by Christ. Paul defends his ministry to the Gentiles, not to exalt himself, but because the preached Word is the means whereby Christ reveals himself. Just as David has taken on the identity of Christ in the form of a servant, Paul takes on the identity of Christ in the form of a preacher. He asks in Romans 10:14, “How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” The translation of the first question is misleading. It does not only concern belief in him of whom they have heard; rather, the issue is belief in him whom they have heard. There is no “of.” Ultimately, Paul is defending the right of Christ to preach his own gospel. Romans 10:17 concludes, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
That we are called the sons of God,
Behold, what love to tell!
He saves his people from their sins-
God's gift, Emmanuel.
God with us since that holy birth
The virgin womb conceived.
Forever he indwells those who
Have on that Child believed.
For unto us a Child is born,
Hosanna that he came!
The Prince of Peace, the everlasting
Father is his name;
The mighty God, our Counsellor
Who guides us by his light;
Both Wonderful he shall be called
And be within our sight.
Our God is our inheritance,
Possession, and our part.
No greater gift is there than he
Who comes to own our heart.
For God so loved the world he gave
To us his only Son,
Who gave his life that we into
His arms would freely run.
So also ought we now to love
Our brother that we give
Ourselves- so he might come to Christ
And through his life then live.
The defense of a theological system must be consistent with that system. It is the goal of Presuppositional Apologetics to provide a defense consistent with the Reformed Faith. Recognizing that, just as the Reformed Faith starts with God, so must a consistent apologetic, Presuppositionalism takes as its starting point the Ontological Trinity. Yet, it does so with no attempt to understand and declare this Trinity within a covenantal context. Reformed Theology is, at its heart, covenant theology. Consequently, all of its doctrinal claims should be understood in a covenantal context. But Presuppositionalism assumes that the Ontological Trinity stands above the covenant. As a result, this apologetic fails as a consistent defense of the Reformed Faith;- it does not define its own starting point within the thoroughly covenantal context of Reformed Theology.
It is not my intent to argue against Presuppositionalism. Instead, I would like to see if it can be given a more consistent starting point. This will require establishing the extent of the covenantal context. Reformed doctrine is currently a minority consensus within Christian thought. Within the arena of broad evangelicalism, many do not even believe in the validity of the covenant for the church. I cannot address this segment of Christendom but must confine my thoughts only to those of a Reformed persuasion. At a minimum, Reformed theology begins with the conviction that the covenant defines the church. This is most readily seen in the initiatory sacrament of baptism.
Nevertheless, if the covenantal context is limited to the church; if those who are outside of the church do not also exist within the context of the covenant, then this context would provide no meaningful point of contact. Without this point of contact, apologetics would be impossible. The question now concerns the nature of covenant theology. Just how covenantal is it? To find out, we need to press backward out of the Covenant of Grace. We need to see the covenant as it existed before the creation of Adam and his inauguration as the Federal Head of the Covenant of Works. It is necessary to consider the pre-temporal Intratrinitarian Covenant, which is often termed, “The Covenant of Redemption.”
The common conception of this covenant goes along with its popular name. It is limited to the redemption of God’s elect and the role that each person in the Trinity would play to secure this redemption. There is support for this in John 17. Jesus says that he is only praying for those whom God has given him. He is not praying for the world. However, in this particular prayer, Christ is fulfilling the office of a priest. But what of the equally covenantal office of a king? The second Psalm identifies the Son, that is, Christ, as a king. He is told to ask God, and the nations will be given to him as an inheritance. Note carefully what he does with them- he dashes them to pieces with a rod of iron. This is a promise made by the Father to the Son; a promise that, I believe, is a part of the Intratrinitarian Covenant. It is not the purpose of this covenant to give only the elect to Christ, but to give everyone to Christ. The covenant extends beyond the church. It is as comprehensive as whoever and whatever, by right, belongs to Christ.
The Intratrinitarian Covenant was forged in eternity. Creation, far from being a neutral template upon which the covenant was superimposed, was the first step in carrying out the terms of the Intratrinitarian Covenant. It is, therefore, reflective of that Covenant. In his Images of the Spirit, Meredith G. Kline identifies a model for the creation. He finds it in Genesis 1:2 where the Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the waters. This presence of the Spirit is actually, according to Kline, a manifestation of the Glory-cloud: the same cloud that led Israel through the wilderness. This cloud, in turn, is the visible representation of a greater reality. Hidden within it is the throne room of God with the angelic host in attendance. This throne room is itself a created reality; however, because it is permeated by the Holy Spirit, it is permanent and unshakeable.
The Spirit infused throne room, serving as a model for this level of creation, has a covenantal structure. To see this, consider that a covenant is, in its most basic form, promises and obligations carried out within an authority structure. From a throne room, God is declaring his intentions and then fulfilling everything that he has said. If the model for creation is covenantal in nature, then the covenant provides the context for the creation. Nothing exists as a meaningless fact prior to the imposition of a subjective interpretive grid. Instead, all things are created into a previously existing interpretation. The Intratrinitarian Covenant, in order that it might be fulfilled, has been extended beyond the confines of the Trinity. Consequently, if there is to be any true knowledge, it must be considered within the context of this covenant.
In keeping with the necessity of a covenantal context for any true knowledge, special revelation is also given in the form of a covenant. We again turn to Kline. In The Structure of Biblical Authority, he argues that the Bible consists of two canons, each of which is an expanded form of the ancient Suzerain-vassal treaty. He makes the case that the various literary genres of scripture correspond to the different sections of this treaty type. The most prominent sections are the historical prologue, the obligations, and the promise of blessing or curse connected to those obligations. Contained within these treaties were all the conditions of a covenant. It is important to note that the biblical concept of the covenant is not modeled after the treaties of ancient cultures. Rather, God superintended history in such a way that these treaties would reflect his own covenant. The covenant is the means whereby the activity and Word of God are made intelligible to us.
I need to return to my original contention that the Ontological Trinity is not an adequate starting point for a defense of the faith. Consider Van Til’s reasons for stating otherwise. He claims that we must presuppose the Ontological Trinity in order to make any fact intelligible. Or, as he would phrase it, the Ontological Trinity “is the presupposition of all possible predication.” He starts from what he calls “the whole problem of philosophy,” which is, “the relation of unity to diversity.” This is otherwise known as the problem of the one and the many. The basis for predication must correspond to both of these poles. This means that, within this basis, unity and diversity must be equally ultimate. Van Til finds this equal ultimacy in the Ontological Trinity.
Note that there is nothing covenantal in this paradigm. Rather, the basis for predication is philosophical. But, what is the connection between explaining the whole problem of philosophy and defending covenant theology? If we have not really given an answer for the hope that lies within us, does it really matter that we have solved the world’s philosophical problems?
Apologetics must be consistent with Reformed Theology; consequently, it must faithfully declare the covenant as the only way to begin with God. Van Til is correct to think of apologetics in terms of the presupposition for any true knowledge. There first must be a sufficient basis for any predication before we can hope to understand the Gospel. Van Til goes straight to the Ontological Trinity to provide the basis for such predication. I agree, but only if the Ontological Trinity is understood in terms of the covenant. And here is where a major objection to my position comes in. The covenant can only describe the activity of God, not the being of God. We can think of the Economic Trinity in covenantal terms because this term describes the function of each person of the Trinity as God performs the work of redemption. But, the Ontological Trinity, which speaks of God’s essence, is, by definition, outside of the covenant.
This non-covenantal definition of the Ontological Trinity requires a view in which the members of that trinity are equal as to their person. The personal hierarchy within the Economic Trinity is then seen as arising from the will of God. It is, in a sense, arbitrary. There is, in this view, an admirable attempt to stay away from heresies; the chief of which, in regards to the Trinity, has been some form of subordinationism. However, subordinationism involves the claim that the substance and, consequently, the deity of the various persons are different from one another. Yet, no such claim need be connected with the belief in a hierarchy of persons within the Ontological Trinity. And this belief is orthodox. Consider the mode of existence of each person within the Trinity as described in the Athanasian Creed:
"The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
He was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
He proceeds from the Father and the Son."
The covenant is intimately tied, not only to the activity of the Trinity, but also to its existence. The authority structure necessary to the Intratrinitarian Covenant is found in the Ontological Trinity. The activity of promise and obligation within that structure is found in the Economic Trinity. The Ontological Trinity, the Economic Trinity, and the Intratrinitarian Covenant are co-extensive. The Intratrinitarian Covenant does not come into existence as a result of the Trinity, having decided to redeem the elect, now determining which person gets to perform what task. We need to push the concept of the covenant further back, not merely into the will of God, but into the nature of God. When we strip this covenant of anything contingent, that is, anything relating to the created order; when we consider it as it exists purely within the Trinity, then we see it for what it is. The covenant, that is, covenantal being and activity, is an attribute of the triune God. The communication of this attribute in fashioning Adam as a self-consciously covenantal being constitutes his creation in the Image of God.
If apologetics is to be consistent with Reformed Theology, it must be self-consciously covenantal. But, what does this mean for the actual performance of the apologetical task? In order for the content of our theology to be understood and defended, it must be presented in a covenantal context. To see how this is done, consider the manner in which God has revealed the covenant. In both creation and Scripture, the covenantal context is given simultaneously with the specific content. The explanation and defense of the faith should be no different. Content and context are inseparable.
Although a consistently Reformed defense of the faith requires a covenantal context, this context can only be communicated by means of the Reformed Faith itself. A faithfully Reformed presentation of the Gospel is, at one and the same time, a presentation of its covenantal context. The order of presentation is not a point of indifference. The defense of the faith cannot occur any earlier than the declaration of that faith. The Gospel is its own apologetic.
The power of a thoroughly Reformed apologetic is not found in the brilliance of its argument, but in its connection with the ministry of the Holy Spirit as he works through the proclamation of the Word. Apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the covenant is lifeless and without power to provide the context for anything. Consider again the Glory Cloud as the covenantal model for creation. It is infused with the Holy Spirit. This same Spirit communicates the covenant into the creation. Special Revelation, covenantal in structure, is authored by the Spirit. The preaching of this revelation is turned into a means of grace by the Spirit. The Spirit applies it to those who hear it. The presentation of the Reformed Gospel is made acceptable to the minds of those who hear it only by the active work of the Spirit in applying it to them. The Spirit fulfills his covenantal role in Redemptive History by acting within the context of the covenant as it is faithfully declared.
"I am thy salvation!" Jesus,
Always say this to my soul.
Nought but that which thou hast done could
Ever do to make me whole.
I would try to merit goodness
But beneath thy holy gaze
All I am is turned to ashes:
Christ alone receiveth praise.
Yesterday, today, forever-
Jesus Christ, thou art the same;
Thou, in me, createst praises:
Giving thanks unto thy name.
Now the God of peace that brought thee,
Our Lord Jesus, from the dead
Cause that I by that Great Shepherd
Of the sheep be ever led.
So that, though I be as nothing,
Christ my God, compared to thee,
I can will and do thy service
By thy pleasure wrought through me.