Therefore, the will of God the Father was always to have His Son die
and in another post
The will of the Father and the Son was one of the same.
For one thing, Christ does distinguish between His will and the Father's: "not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39).
The issue is whether the Father wanted Christ to die or whether the Father wanted our salvation and Christ the Man willed to die to make it happen. The central part of the discourse is where St. Anselm gives us the analogy of the crossing of the river, and of eating following church attendance. In the crossing of the river, he says, the will is to cross it and the boat is the fitting way to do it. There might be other ways, for example, on horseback, that for whatever reason are not fitting (perhaps, there is too much baggage, the person doing the crossing is not strong enough to ride, etc.) By choosing to wait for the boat the traveler does not wish the boat, he wishes to cross and the boat is a fitting means. In another example, when we delay the meal till after mass we cannot call the mass a means to have a dinner.
With these distinctions in mind, St. Anselm is able to conclude
Christ, therefore, came not to do his own will, but that of the Father; for his holy will was not derived from his humanity, but from his divinity. For that sentence: "God spared not his own Son, but gave him up for us all," means nothing more than that he did not rescue him. For there are found in the Bible many things like this. Again, when he says: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will ;" and "If this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, your will be done;" he signifies by his own will the natural desire of safety, in accordance with which human nature shrank from the anguish of death. But he speaks of the will of the Father, not because the Father preferred the death of the Son to his life; but because the Father was not willing to rescue the human race, unless man were to do even as great a thing as was signified in the death of Christ. Since reason did not demand of another what he could not do, therefore, the Son says that he desires his own death. For he preferred to suffer, rather than that the human race should be lost; as if he were to say to the Father: "Since you do not desire the reconciliation of the world to take place in any other way, in this respect, I see that you desirest my death; let your will, therefore, be done, that is, let my death take place, so that the world may be reconciled to you." For we often say that one desires a thing, because he does not choose something else, the choice of which would preclude the existence of that which he is said to desire; for instance, when we say that he who does not choose to close the window through which the draft is admitted which puts out the light, wishes the light to be extinguished. So the Father desired the death of the Son, because he was not willing that the world should be saved in any other way, except by man's doing so great a thing as that which I have mentioned. And this, since none other could accomplish it, availed as much with the Son, who so earnestly desired the salvation of man, as if the Father had commanded him to die; and, therefore, "as the Father gave him commandment, so he did, and the cup which the Father gave to him he drank, being obedient even unto death."
In kvetch mode here: I'm pretty sure "you desirest" is not English. Maybe it's Elizabethan Ebonics or something? Generally we have to choose between "THOU desirest" or "you DESIRE", since "you" is plural and "desirest" is singular.
Yeah, clearly the Agony in the garden brings the hypostatic union into the consideration. I don't see how one can talk about The economy of the Trinity w/o bringing the two natures/one person stuff into it sooner or later.
I think the reason I brought Elisabeth Seton into it was to help me see that the "personal" language of "doing what you [the Father] want because it's you that want it," rather than because of the equally true statement that it's a good thing to do "which I know because you could never want anything NOT GOOD)
This is SUCH a good thread!
Yes, I would agree with part of your post. I believe that Anselm, correctly, believed the Father's and the Son's will were unique but consistent. In order for the wills to have been consistent, both wills would have to want the Son to die to the exact same degree, although how that would be expressed by the Father and the Son would be different. Moreover, and most importantly, Anselm makes the case that the Father gave the Son His human will with this purpose in mind so that it would remain steadfast to accomplishing the divine will. As Anselm states: