"We therefore conclude, 1st.
That the obedience and sufferings of Christ, considered in themselves,
are, on the account of the infinite dignity of the person, of that
value, as to have been sufficient for redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ, that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them" (Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants, 2.9.2; 1:256). [SOURCE]
[David Ponter notes below--CD]
[Note: In English, there is a type of subjunctive
which is called the hypothetical contrary-to-fact subjunctive. Examples
of this type of subjunctive are: “Had Joan studied more, she would have passed the exam,” or “Had Robert just reached out, he would have been saved.” Joan did not pass and Robert was not saved. Here we see that Witsius is locating the sufficiency purely in its internality or intrinsicality, not in its externality or extrinsicality. (C.f , Owen.) The redemption could have been sufficient for all men, had it pleased God to have Christ to undertake for all men. What
Witsius is saying is that the expiation and redemption are not actually
sufficient for all the men of this world, only that it could have been.
In this revised formula, theologically, the sufficiency is actually
collapsed into the efficiency: as it is only extrinsically or externally
sufficient for those for whom it is efficient. Or another way of
descibing [sic] it, the redemption is only hypothetically sufficient for all
men. This separation of the redemption’s intrinsic and
extrinsic sufficiency has its roots, most probably, in Beza, but it was
the definition of choice for the majority of the Protestant Scholastics.
However, it is a clear modification from the classic Lombardian
formula, as subscribed to by Calvin, Luther, Bullinger, Musculus,
Vermigli, et al. And so, the revision of the formula is not simply about tweaking semantics as some have alleged.]
