FEDERAL THEOLOGY
519
FEDERAL THEOLOGY
omy of the covenant of grace to the several Persons of the sacred Trinit3-, by showing that the Father re- veals himself, especially in the Old Testament, as the universal Ruler maintaining the cause of justice ; the Son especiall}'^ during liis life on earth, as the Media- tor dispensing mercy ; and the Holy Ghost, especially since the day of Pentecost, as the Comforter exercising divine and saving power. This arbitrary assignment of the divine attributes, however, has never been ac- ceptable. Though the Heidelberg Catechism was com- posed before the federal theory was distinctlj' broached, most of the great commentaries which have been writ- ten upon it were written by Federalists. The maturest fruit of that system may be seen in the writings of Solomon van Til (Tilenus), a professor in Dort and Leyden, whose Compends {Compend of Nat. and Rev. Theol. Lej^den, 1704, and Compend of Thaologij^ Berne, 1703) were the organic union of the three great ten- dencies of Scholasticism, Federalism, and Cartesian- ism, and have obtained general acceptance in the schools of Holland ; and in those of F. A. Lampe, the pastor of several influential congregations and a pro- fessor in Utrecht (1720-27), whose doctrinal and practi- cal works in the German vernacular have had the hon- or of reconciling Pietism to the orthodox Church, and have sometimes had a popularity scarcely inferior to the authorized Catechism of the national Church. It does not appear that the Federal system has at an}' time found universal acceptance in the Reformed churches. It has never been either condemned or sanctioned by the public synod, and such has been the balance of parties that, by right of long-established custom, one Federalist must l)e appointed in each of the universities of Holland (Ebrard, Christ. Dogm. § 41).
A modification both of the Scholastic and Federal theolog}' made its appearance among the Protestants of France. The rival theological schools of Saumur and Montauban zealously adopted the federal sj'stem. But John Cameron, a Scotchman, who at different times was a professor in both institutions [see Cam- eron], and his pupils, Moise Amyraut (Am3'raldus) and Joshua de la Place (Piacicus), who were associated as professors at Saumur (1633-G4), proposed, and for many years maintained, a peculiar system, which at- tempted to reconcile it witli the doctrine of a univer- sal redemption. See Amyraut and La Place. The result was a crude syncretism of an ideal or hypothet- ical Universalism with a rigid and real Particularism. Amyraut maintained that there were three instead of two general covenants witli man — the natural, with a positive prohibition and a promise of a blessed life in Paradise ; a legal, promising the land of Canaan on condition of a life of faith ; and the gracious, promis- ing eternal life on the condition of faith in Christ. La Place also drew a distinction between a mediate and an immediate imputation, according to which Adam's sin might be imputed to his posterity, either medi- ately, on account of a previously recognised inherent depravity in tliem ; or it might be imputed to them immediately, simply on account of their federal repre- sent.ition in Adam. This wliole sj'stem was strenu- ouslv opposed by the elder Spanheim, of Geneva and Leyden ; J. H. Heidegger, of Zurich ; and Francis Tur- retin, of Geneva. At the two last national synods ever held in France (Charenton, in 1645, and Loudun, in 16.39) the authors successfully defended themselves from the charge of heresy, and maintained that their views were only a more distinct statement of doctrines which had been universally held by the orthodox Church since primitive times, and especially by Au- gustine and Calvin ; but a statement of opinions im- puted to them (incorrectl}', as tliey maintained) was condemned at a synod at Charenton (1642), and the Formula Consensus Helvetica was composed principal- ly by Heidegger (1675), and was adopted and sent forth to guard the churches against sucli views. Al-
though this is one of the most scientific and highly esteemed of the Calvinistic confessions, and is the only one among the Continental confessions which is con- structed expressly upon the basis of the federal sys- tem, its authority has never been aclvnowledged in France, and it was received by onlj' five of the Swiss cantons (and there mainly through the support of the civil magistrates), and finally lost all public sanction within fifty years from its promulgation (Ebrard's Christ. Dogm. § 43; L. Noack's Christ. Dogmengesch. § 74; Shedd's Hist. ofCkr. Doct. ii, 412).
In the British Islands, and especially in those churches which adhere to the confession of faith put forth b}' the Synod of Wastminster (1643-8), we have the stronghold of the federal system. The represent- atiyes of the English Church at tlie Synod of Dort (1618-19), and especiall}' bishop Davenant, had main- tained a sj'stem similar to that of Amyraut, and a large party in that Church have always held views based upon the federal theology. Even Jeremy Taylor maintained it (1654), witli some Arminian, and even Pelagian modifications, in one of his treatises (On Re- pentance, ch. i, § 1). The celebrated Richard Baxter, though he "sul)scribed to the Sj'nod of Dort without any exception, limitation, or exposition of anj' word," was an ardent admirer of the federal theology, as qual- ified by Amyraut (Preface to The Saints' Rest, 1650 ; Calh. Theol. 1675; Univ. Redemp. 1657; Orme's Life of Baxter, vol. ii, ch. ii). The assembly of divines at Westminster was, in fact, contemporar}' witli the first publication of Koch's principal work on the covenants (1648), and deserves a credit, perhaps, equal to his for the origination and precise statement of the doctrine. The national Scotch Church, with its afiiliated branch- es in Scotland and Ireland, has alwaj's upheld the sys- tem in its utmost consistencj' and extrcmest form. The United Presbyterian Church alone is said to main- tain it, with some modifications connected with the theor\' of a general atonement (Wardlaw, On the Ex- tent of the Atonement, § 13-15). Among the orthodox dissenters of England it has also been accepted, and found some of its most able defenders. The Wesley- ans of England and America claim that they are ena- bled, \yy their peculiar modifications of it, to "carrj^ through the sj'stem with greater consistency than the Calvinists themselves, inasmuch as thej' more easily account for certain good dispositions and occasional religious inclinations in those who never give evidence of actual conversion." By their doctrine of a general redemption, thej' maintain that in spite of the loss of the supernatural aids through the Fall, and the conse- quent incapacity- of unassisted man to have such good dispositions, there is given to every one, through Christ, those gracious influences which, if not resisted, would lead on to a saving conversion (Watson's Theol. Instit. ii, 48-52 ; Porter's Comp. of Methodism, pt. ii, ch. iv). The reason that these gracious influences are not resisted tlie}- can only refer to the doctrine of free-will, and from the nature of the case they can give no farther account of it. The orthodox Congre- gationalists and the New-school Presbyterians of the United States usually object to the phrase '■^universal redemption''' as used by the Amyraldists of France, the Baxterians of England, and the Arniinians generally, inasmuch as the word redemption properly signifies more than what is obtained simply bj' the expiatory work of Christ, and includes an entire deliverance from sin. They therefore use the word atonement to signify the objective or expiatory work of Christ, and contend that this is for sin, smAfur all men, while re- demption implies the salvation of men, and must, of course, be confined to such as shall be saved (Dr. W. R. Weeks, in Parks's Collections on the Atonement, p. 579). Such an atonement is not merely hj-pothetical, but reallj' opens the door of salvation to all men, who are supposed, even since the Fall, to possess all those faculties and powers which render them responsible for