The Formula Consensus Helvetica — “composed in Zurich (A.D. 1675) by Heidegger, assisted by Francis Turretin of Geneva, and Gereler of Basle,” and designed to rebuke the errors introduced by the Professors of the French Theological Seminary at Saumur, who taught.a mixed system, in general character the same with that system among us styled “ New England Theology ”— says: ‘“ But by the obedience of his death, Christ, instead of his elect, so satisfied God the Father, that in the esti- mate, nevertheless, of his vicarious righteousness and of that obedience, all of that which he rendered to the law, as its just servant, during the whole course of his life, whether by doing or by suffering, ought to be called obedience. For Christ’s life, according to the apostle’s testimony (Phil. ii. 7, 8) was nothing but a continuous _ emptying of self, submission and humiliation, descending step by step to the very lowest extreme, even the death of the cross; and the Spirit of God plainly declares that Christ in our stead satisfied the law and divine justice by his most holy life; and makes that ransom, with
* Westminster Confession, chap. vili., 2 5. ft Ibid., chap. xi., 2 1.
CHAPTER XIX.
The For- mula Consen- sus Hel- vetica.
CHAPTER XIX.
President Edwards.
Result of foregoing historical review:
274 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
which God has redeemed us, to consist not in his suf- ferings only, but in his whole life conformed to the law.” *
When the name of EDWARDS is spoken, all men think . of one man—President Edwards, senr., the great writer on the Will and Original Sin. Surely all honest use of language demands that if any doctrine be styled the “ Kdwardean Theory of the Atonement,” it should be his. He, as all his readers know, maintained on this point precisely the doctrine of Luther, and Calvin, and Turretin. Yet the prestige of his great name has un- candidly been perverted into the support of the Govern- mental Theory, which he never taught: “As there is the same need that Christ’s obedience should be reck- oned to our account as that his atonement should, so there is the same reason why it should. As, if Adam had persevered and finished his course of obedience, we should have received the benefit of his obedience, as much as now we have the mischief of his disobedience; so, in like manner, there is reason that we should receive the benefit of the second Adam’s obedience, as of his atonement of our disobedience. Believers are repre- sented in Scripture as being so in Christ as that they are legally one, or accepted as one by the supreme Judge. Christ has assumed our nature, and has so as- sumed all in that nature, that belongs to him, into such a union with himself, that he is become their head, and has taken them to be his members. And, therefore, what Christ has done in our nature, whereby he did honour to the law and authority of God by his acts, as well as the reparation to the honour of the law by his sufferings, is reckoned to the believer’s account.’
III. It remains for us now only to indicate the
* Formula Consensus Helvetica, canon 15. f Edwards’ Works, vol. v., pp. 899, 400.
HISTORY OF OPINION. 275
conclusions, as to the truth of the doctrine we advo- cmarrrr cate, which the historical facts now approved appear to ine sustain.
We have already conceded to our opponents that the the uni facts show that the mind of the Church advanced more (7ri""4
slowly in the development of the doctrine of the Atone- rene
ment than in the case of any other of the great funda- has in- mental doctrines of Revelation. But we claim that the ete men and confessions quoted above truly represented the cee Church of their respective ages; and that in their charac-
ter as representatives they fully prove that the Church
of Christ had, as a general fact, always understood the redemptive work of the Lord to be a vicarious expiation
of sin in order to propitiate a justly incensed though loving God in behalf of sinners. If this be so, we argue, against all who deny this great truth, that it is impossible that Christians should thus have mistaken Christianity. The question is not whether grave, or even fatal, errors have prevailed in the visible Church;
nor whether true Christians may or may not fall into grievous misconception as to important truths. But the
real question involved is, whether it is possible that the whole Church in all ages, as a general and characteristic fact—and whether with especial uniformity the more spiritual and fruitful portion of the Church—should have entirely mistaken the nature of that foundation upon which their trust reposes, and of that redemption
of which they have been the subjects.