Thomas Boston Tribute

The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant. I know some great and good men have taught otherwise, alleging the covenant of redemption to have been made with Christ, and the covenant of grace to be made with believers; though they were far from designing or approving the ill use some have made of that principle. However, the doctrine of this church, in the Larger Catechism, is in express words, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.” From whence it necessarily follows, that the covenant made with Christ and with believers, or the covenant of grace and redemption, are one and the same covenant. Only, in respect of Christ, it is called the covenant of redemption, forasmuch as in it he engaged to pay the price of our redemption; but in respect of us, the covenant of grace, forasmuch as the whole of it is of free grace to us, God himself having provided the ransom, and thereupon made over life and salvation to poor sinners, his chosen by free promise, without respect to any work of theirs to entitle them thereto.

Of The Covenant Of Grace, The Whole Works Of The Late Thomas Boston Of Ettrick, Volume 1, pp. 333 & 334

There is no universal redemption, nor universal atonement. Jesus Christ died not for all and every individual person of mankind; but for the elect only. The contrary doctrine may consist with the opinion which holds the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace to be two distinct covenants; the former made with Christ, and the latter with believers; the condition of the one undertaken and performed by him; the condition of the other undertaken and performed by us. Accordingly that opinion concerning the covenant, is readily embraced by Universalists of different denominations. But that doctrine is utterly inconsistent with this account of the covenant, which doth at once overthrow universal redemption or atonement, together with the federal conditionality of our holiness and good works, in the covenant of grace. For if the covenant of grace was made with Christ as a representative, and the elect only were the party represented by him in it; then surely the conditions of the covenant, his doing and dying, were accomplished for them only; and he died for no other: as when one hath entered into a bond of suretyship, his payment of that bond can never be reckoned a payment of their debt, whose names were not in the bond, and whom he was not surety for.

A View Of The Covenant Of Grace From The Sacred Records,  The Whole Works Of The Late Thomas Boston Of Ettrick, Volume 8, pp. 404 & 405

“This redemption of elect souls was agreed upon by the Father and the Son in the covenant of grace from eternity. It was first proclaimed to fallen man in the first promise; it was shadowed forth under the Old Testament; the price was actually paid on the cross; and the powerful delivery is made in the conversion of the elect.”

“Christ the Only Redeemer of God’s Elect” is from Boston’s Divinity – An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, upon the plan of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, printed by and for W Gracie, and J Rennison, Bookseller, (Berwick: 1804), pp 414-430.

Quote found here.

Reference found here.

As the quotes above demonstrate, Thomas Boston believed  that  the  covenant  of  redemption  and  the  covenant  of  grace  are  not  two  distinct  covenants  but  one  and  the  same  covenant. He also believed that those who held that the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace were distinct covenants could use this distinction as a basis for universal redemption.

I realize that these two points do not exhaust Boston’s view of the Covenant of Redemption. In a lecture given by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, he speaks of material relevant to this topic found in Boston’s memoirs. Unfortunately, I have yet to locate this material. Dr. Ferguson comments on this material below.

Boston rejected the idea of the Covenant of Redemption, not primarily on exegetical grounds, but because he believed there was a danger in thinking of a seperate Covenant of Redemption that made the Grace of God conditional upon something that Christ would promise to do, but brought conditionality into the very fellowship of the Trinity and thus distorted what Boston saw to be the free unfettered grace of God. Irrespective of the nice theology that is invloved in all of these areas, you will see what the burden of the Marrow Theology was. It was concerned to hold aloft this truth, that the reason that the Son of God died upon the cross was not in order to persuade God, but because God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. The death of Christ is the means by which God’s love touches needy sinners. It is not the reason why God loves needy sinners. He loved us from the first of time, He loves us to the last. And this these Marrow men saw was the foundation of the grace of God in the Gospel.     

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, Pastoral Lessons From The Marrow Controversy, Historical Details

Update: Addition of Boston quote #3. See above.