N00556:148
The doctrine of the covenant of redemption. Wherein is laid the foundation of all…
The doctrine of the covenant of redemption. Wherein is laid the foundation of all our hopes and happiness. Briefly opened and improved. / By Samuel Willard, teacher of a church in Boston. ; [Three lines from Psalms]
Boston: printed by Benj. Harris over against the Old-Meeting-House, 1693
Chapter 10: The necessity of this Covenant, in order to Mans Salvation.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
3. That natural Necessity destroys the very nature of a Covenant. For, a Covenant is a voluntary obligation between persons about things wherein they enjoy a freedom of Will, and have a power to choose or refuse. It is a deliberate thing wherein there is a Counsel and a Consent between Rational and free Agents. It is true, a person may be a Subject, and so under the Duty of Consenting in ⟨p. 69⟩a Covenant; so was Adam at the First but still the act of consent it self, is the act of a Cause by Counsel ▪ and therefore it is not absolutely necessary, so as that he could not but do it.
4. Whether there be a natural or absolute necessity, in regard of the Nature of Gods Justice and Holiness, that there should be a counterprice paid to make satisfaction for sin, in order to the sinners salvation, may be disputed, I know this assertion is by some defended against the Socinians, & as stiffly denied by other who are no Socinians, & suppose that there are other things in Scripture sufficient to confute them. That because God is naturally Holy & Just, therefore he must needs punish sin either in the Sinner, or in his Surety, seems not to be evident. To say that God could not by his absolute Lordship have Saved a Sinner without a Mediator, looks as if it laid him under a necessity beyond what the Scripture will warrant. It is true;
4. Whether there be a natural or absolute necessity, in regard of the Nature of Gods Justice and Holiness, that there should be a counterprice paid to make satisfaction for sin, in order to the sinners salvation, may be disputed, I know this assertion is by some defended against the Socianians, & as stifly denied by other who are no Socinians, & suppose that there are other things in Scripture sufficient to confute them. That because God is naturally Holy & Just, therefore he must needs punish sin either in the Sinner, or in his Surety, seems not to be evident. To say that God could not by his absolute Lordship have Saved a Sinner without a Mediator, looks as if it laid him under a necessity beyond what the Scripture will warrant. It is true;