N00556:182
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.
4. That the Son of God could not become actually engaged to be mans Surety, so as that our Redemption should be secured by it, but only by a Covenant: ⟨p. 87⟩and this will be manifest in the consideration of these things.
1. It was absolutely free for the Son of God to choose whether he would be a Redeemer, and Surety, or no. The Son of God is a Divine Person, and hath all personal properties belonging to him: Now one thing proper to a Person is, to be Intelligent, and by consequence to have a power of Election. Christ was no Surety by nature; it was none of his either Essential or Personal Properties: and he could not be so by Coaction, for he is the Eternal Jehovah, and therefore cannot be compelled. The Apostle plainly asserts his full liberty in this matter, in Phil. 2.6, 7.
1. It was absolutely free for the Son of God to chuse whether he would be a Redeemer, and Surety, or no. The Son of God is a Divine Person, and hath all personal propertios belonging to him: Now one thing proper to a Person is, to be Intelligent, and by consequence to have a power of Election. Christ was no Surety by nature; it was none of his either Essential or Personal Properties: and he could not be so by Coaction, for he is the Eternal Jehovah, and therefore cannot be compelled. The Apostle plainly asserts his full liberty in this matter, in Phil. 2.6, 7.
2 God the Father was not absolutely bound to accept any satisfaction at the hands of a surety. Had the Son offered it, yet his Suretyship could not have been authentic, but by the intervention of the Fathers voluntary consent. If God had said, and resolved, that fallen man should bear his own punishment, and there should be no substitute accepted in his room, who should have opposed him? he had Justice on his side; man was the sinner, yea and he did so say concerning the fallen Angels, and therefore