Introductory Note: These articles were first drafted in 1879 and adopted by the United Presbyterian of Scotland as a Declaratory Statement. At the time, there was considerable hostility to them, claiming that they were contrary to the entire Reformed tradition. However, all the key propositions in these two articles have direct and exact precedents in first generation Reformation Calvinism. These two articles, along with five others were adopted by the Presbyterian Church of Australia in 1962, and published as a Declaratory Statement.

Redemption:

(i) That in regard to the doctrine of redemption as taught in the subordinate standard, and in consistency therewith, the love of God to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and the free offer of salvation to men without distinction on the grounds of Christ’s all sufficient sacrifice, are regarded by this Church as vital to the Christian faith. And inasmuch as the Christian faith rests upon, and the Christian consciousness takes hold of, certain objective supernatural historic facts, especially the incarnation, the atoning life and death, and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and His bestowment of His Holy Spirit, this Church regards those whom it admits to the office of the Holy Ministry as pledged to give a chief place in their teaching to these cardinal facts, and to the message of redemption and reconciliation implied and manifested in them.

God’s Eternal Decree:

(ii) That the doctrine of God’s eternal decree, including the doctrine of election to eternal life, is held as defined in the Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Section 1., where it is expressly stated that according to this doctrine, “neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”; and further, that the said doctrine is held in connection and harmony with the truth – that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, that He has provided a salvation sufficient for all, and adapted to all, and offered to all in the Gospel, and that every hearer of the Gospel is responsible for his dealing with the free and unrestricted offer of eternal life.

Consensus Tigurinus:

IV. Christ, Priest and King,

We must therefore regard Christ in His flesh as a Priest, who has expiated our sins by His death, the only Sacrifice, blotted out all our iniquities by His obedience, procured for us a perfect righteousness, and now intercedes for us that we may have access to God; as an expiatory Sacrifice whereby God was reconciled to the world; as a Brother, who from wretched sons of Adam has made us blessed sons of God; as a Restorer (Reparator), who by the power of His Spirit transforms all that is corrupt (vitiosum) in us, that we may no longer live unto the world and the flesh, and God himself may lire in us; as a King, who enriches us with every kind of good, governs and preserves us by His power establishes us with spiritual arms, delivers us from every evil, and restrains and directs us by the sceptre of His mouth; and He is to be so regarded, that He may lift us up to Himself, very God, and to the Father, until that shall be fulfilled which is to be at last, that God be all in all. John Calvin, “The Consensus Tigurinus: The Formula Consensus Helvetica,” in AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 652.

Latin: 4. Christus sacerdos. Christus Rex.

Ita Christus in carne sua considerandus est nobis sacerdos, qui peccata nostra unico mortis suae sacrificio expiavit, qui omnes nostras iniquitates delevit sua obedientia, qui perfectam nobis iustitiam comparavit, qui nunc intercedit pro nobis, ut accessus nobis ad Deum pateat. Considerandus est tanquam victima expiatrix, qua placatus est Deus mundo. Considerandus est frater, qui nos ex miseris Adae filiis effecit beatos Dei filios. Considerandus est reparator, qui spiritus sui virtute reformat quicquid in nobis est vitiosum, ut mundo vivere desinamus et carni, ac deus ipse in nobis vivat. Considerandus est Rex, qui omni bonorum genere nos ditat, qui nos gubernat sua virtute, ac tuetur, qui spiritualibus nos armis instruit, ut adversus diabolum et mundum invicti stemus qui nos ab omni noxa liberat, qui oris sui sceptro nos moderatur ac regit. Atque ita considerandus, ut ad se Deum verum, et patrem nos evehat, donec impleatur illud, quod tandem futurum est, nempe, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus.

[Note: It looks very apparent that the Beveridge English translation of this simply leaves out the critical line: “as an expiatory Sacrifice whereby God was reconciled to the world.”]

The English Confession:

Thus of His free mercy, without compulsion, he offered up himself as the only sacrifice to purge the sins of all the world, so that other sacrifices for sins are blasphemous, and derogate from the sufficiency thereof.

[Source: Reformed confessions of the 16th century, ed., by Arthur C., Cochrane, (Philadelphia, Westminster Press 1966), 132. The English Confession of Faith Used in the English Congregation at Geneva, 1556, written by the English exiles during the reign of Mary. John Knox also signed this confession and thus it can be found in the Works of John Knox. Interestingly, this confession was also received and approved by the then Church of Scotland.]

Heidelberg Catechism

Q37: What do you understand by the word “suffered”?

A37: That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life. [Lord’s Day 15, Q 37.]

[Note: there are two interpretations of this passage. There is the one side which Nicole outlines in his “The Doctrine of Definite Atonement in the Heidelberg Catechism,” in The Gordon Review 8 (1964) 138-144. This school might suggest such things as: by “the whole human race” Ursinus meant “all sorts of men;” or, that ‘the wrath of God is against the whole range of sin,’ and so does not refer to “the range of the substitutionary sin bearing of Christ,” (Voetius, cited by Nicole; 142). One can scan the commentaries on the HC by De Witte, VanderKemp (and others), down to G.I. Williamson saying similar things. What is unfortunate, is that Nicole in this article, never takes the time to analyze Ursinus’ own explanation of this Catechism, or to analyze the phrase as found in many of Usinus’ contemporaries or teachers. For nowhere can one find either of these glosses in Ursinus, Paraeus or in anyone of this generation or the Reformers. Some of us, however, prefer to take Ursinus‘ own explanation (see entry #6) of this question, in conjunction with the other instances where Ursinus expresses the same language and idea, along with David Paraeus’ comment on Question 40 as being a surer guide to the meaning of Question 37.  Of  David Paraeus, Nicole in this article admits: “It is very likely indeed that Paraeus understood rightly the teaching of Ursinus,” (144).  Nicole says this, all the while ignoring Paraeus’ own explanations.]