N00556:183
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.
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 ⟨p. 88⟩they are all of them reserved in everlasting Chains. The case was criminal, and an exchange of an offender for an innocent person to suffer in his room, is scarcely allowable among men, to be sure, the Judge may righteously refuse it. Nor did it flow from Gods natural love to mankind; for he had as much for the Angelical nature, and for the residue of men who were not included in this Covenant: it must then be of his free choice.