Moreover, as he was called to this work, or, as it was, as we before explained it, the result of the Father’s will, that he should perform it; so we have elsewhere an account of his own consent, as implying, that it was the result of his own will, as well as his Father’s: thus it is said, in Psal. xl. 6-8. _Mine ears hast thou opened_, or bored: alluding to a custom used under the ceremonial law, by which the willing servant was signified to be obliged, by his own consent, to _serve his master for ever_, Exod. xxi. 5, 6. Thus God the Father, engaged Christ, if I may so express it, to perform the work of a Mediator; and then we have an account of his consent hereunto, when he says, _Lo, I come, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart_; and this mutual consent is farther expressed in Isa. l. 5. _The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious; neither turned away back_. And he is farther represented, as making a demand, or insisting on the accomplishment of what was stipulated in this covenant; and this he had a warrant to do from the Father, in Psal. ii. 8. _Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession_. These, and many other scriptures of the like nature, sufficiently prove this doctrine, that there was an eternal covenant between the Father and the Son, relating to the redemption and salvation of the elect; and this implies more than his being barely _fore-ordained_ to perform the work he was engaged in, as he is said to have been, 1 Pet. i. 2. for that, alone, would not have proved that there was a federal transaction between the Father and him; since it may be said of any one, who is engaged in works of an inferior nature, that God, who called him to perform them, fore-ordained that he should do so; but when it is said, concerning our Saviour not only that he engaged in the work of our redemption, as the result of his Father’s will, but of his own, and so consented to do whatever was incumbent on him, as Mediator, this certainly argues that there was an eternal covenant between the Father and him, with relation to this matter, so far as we may be allowed to retain any of those ideas taken from human covenants, when we speak of any transaction between two divine Persons.