Having in the last chapter asserted the necessity of the atonement, we shall now endeavour to prove its
. 5 oe.. truth, which the Socinians not only call in question, but expressly deny. Though, in order to conceal their real views, they appear willing to retain the word Il satisfaction, and indeed often use it, yet it isin a sense widely different from that of the orthodox divines; as will appear from the statement of the question. The subject in controversy is not, whether Christ, by a general satisfaction, has fulfilled all the conditions which the divine will imposed upon him, in order to procure our salvation; for our adversaries admit such a satisfaction, as Crellius professes in his book against Grotius. But we inquire whether the satisfaction. made by Christ was strictly penal, and not only fulfilled the will of God, but also satisfied his justice; Christ having taken upon himself our sins. Our opponents deny; we affirm.
The controversy does not respect a metaphorical satisfaction, which is effected by a nominal remission of sin; a satisfaction, which by supplication obtains, through the mere indulgence of God, some favour. This is admitted, and often spoken of by our adversaries to deceive the simple. But they pertinaciously deny that Christ has made a true and proper satisfaction, by paying a full price, and by obtaining, through his merits, the acquittal of the sinner on the ground of justice. We maintain that this is the true scriptural atonement.
It is not whether the death of Christ is advantageous to us. and in various respects promotes our inter- ests; for this also they willingly admit. 1t is whether, by substituting himself in our place, he suffered the punishment due to us. We maintain that he did. 1t is not whether Christ is our Saviour, on account of his doctrine announcing to us the way of salvation; on account of the example of his life, in which by his virtues and miracles he confirmed the truth; or on account of his efficacious power, by which he will assuredly bestow on us this salvation; for all this Socinus grants to Christ. The great subject of debate is, whether Christ, by his satisfaction and merits, is our Saviour in the strictest sense of the word. Our opponents have openly made the utmost exertions to over- turn this doctrine, which has been constantly held by the orthodox, and is proved by various solid and irresistible arguments.
I. The first argument is drawn {from those texts in which Christ is said fo have redeemed us at the price of his blood; for the payment of a price properly so called and perfectly sufficient, shows that a satisfaction in its true and proper sense has been made, since price always has reference to distributive justice. These texts are various. “Ye were redecemed by a price” t “Ye were redeemed from your vain conversation, not by corruptible things such as silver and gold, but by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without spot.” Christ gave himself for us, that he might redecin (purchase) us from all iniquity.’ In whom we have redemption through down his life a ransom for many—>Avrpov avre moAidv— his blood.” “The Son of man came that he might lay i.e,apriceof payment, in theroom of many. The name
I 34 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. Jesus was given to him, “because he saves his people from their sins.”
Though the word Redemption is sometimes used in Scripture to denote a mere deliverance, which is procured without the payment of any price, as Moses is called 2vrpwrycs, a deliverer;t and as God is said to have “redeemed Israel out of the house of bondage;” yet it docs not follow that in this argument itis to be taken in that senze. Many things prove that in the business of man’s salvation, the word is to he understood as signifring redemption by the payment of a price. 1. This is the primary import of the words Avrpov, amodvroov, and we may in no case give them any other, unless for a very solid reason. This is not denied by Socinus himself.t “To redeem any one, properly signifies nothing else but to free a captive, by paying a price to him who detains him.” 2. The condition of man requires this; since he is a prisoner not only of Satan and death, but also of sin, both as to its guilt and its pollution, and therefore of the divine law and justice. Te is condemned of God and a child of wrath, and ean- not be released but by a satisfactory payment. 3. Such is the redemption procured by the price mentioned, (1 Cor. vi. 20.) Why should the apostle use Avrpov and Teun, price of redemption and punishment, if nopricewas
paid? The reply usually made to this is, that the term is used in a figurative sense, and denotes that we are freed from the power of sin. This is an assump- «tion, which, as we do not grant it, our opponent is bound to prove. Nay, the contrary is evident. The price is compared to very precious earthly things, such as gold, silver, and jewels, which have always a rela- i tion to price, strictly so called, (1 Pet. i. 18.) 4. We have not only the word Avrpov, a price of redemption, but also the word avriivrpov, applied to the suffering and death of Christ. Nothing can be more express than this word evmidvrpov. It denotes not merely a price, but such a price as is perfectly equal to the debt which it pays; this is the force of the preposition avi, which here expresses substitution. I Aristotle uses the same word avridvrpor, in the “9th book of his Iithics, and 2d chapter, to denote the redemption of a life, by substituting another in its room.
Hence it appears that this redemption is not a mere manumi=sion, such as that in which a master, without any price, sets free his slaves; nor is it simply an act of power, by which captives are rescued from the hand of an enemy; nor a bare exchange, such as that of I prisoners of war. Tt is a real satisfaction, such as a surety makes by paying in full for the debtor. Our deliverance, indeed, is procured without any price paid on our part, and purely through the free grace and
SESS —————— 36 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. mercy of God. The divine power, too, is displayed gloriously in emancipating us from the tyrannical dominion of Satan, over whom Christ obtains a victory and triumph.t There is also an exchange in respect of Christ, who was substituted in our place, and suffered the punishment due to us. Yet in relation to the justice of God there is a real and perfect satisfac- tion made. II. The truth of the atonement is also proved from those passages of Scripture, in which Christ is said to have died. not only for our advantage, but also wm our stead. as a substitute. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly—in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” “For Christ also hath suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust.”$ Our reasons for understanding these phrases in this sense and none other, are: 1. This is the common import of the preposition vrep, (for,) which 1s used in these texts, and which, when applied to persons, denotes \ among the Greeks substitution: as in Romans, v. if: “Reareely for a just man will one die,” i. e., in his place; and in Romans, xi. 3, “avafena vwep adeipow,” “for or in the room of his brethren.” 2. It is elsewhere expressed by av=i, in the room of, as in Matt.
xx, 28, and by erridvrpor, a price of redemption, asin 1 Tim. ii. 6. “Who gave himself a ransom (avTiAvrpor) Jor all.” Both of these import substitution; life for life, as in the phrase “eye for (avr) eye.” 3. Christ is said to have died for us in a manner peculiar to himself—a mamner in which neither Paul nor Peter could be said to die or be crucified for us.t Yet either of these might be said to dic for our edification and confirmation in the faith. Hence the sufferings and death of Christ were vicarious; and in their design entirely different from that of the apostles or martyrs. Though the apostles may be said to have suffered for the Church, yet it does not follow from this, that the object of their death was the same with that of Christ’s. They suffered as martyrs, to edify, confirm, and comfort the Church, by bearing testimony to the truth of the Christian system; as it is expressed by the apostle: “Whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation;”} hut Christ alone laid down his life to redeem the Church. And if we are com- manded to lay down our lives for our brethren as Christ laid down his life for us, this means that we are not to refuse to undergo the danger of death, nay, to suffer with firmness even death itself, whenever the glory of God, the good of our neighbour, or the edifi- Matt. v. 38. t 1 Cor. i. 13.
Em — cation of the Church requires it, as was the case with the martyrs. Ilence, indeed, we may infer that we I should in this way imitate the example of Christ; but it does not hence follow, that cur death for our breth- I ren is for the same purposes as Christ’s death for us. We are unable to pay a ransom for our brother, that we may free him from death, as the Psalmist expresses it in Psalm xlix. 8: nor by our death can we procure { his reconciliation with God and purge him from sin— all which Christ does for his people by his death. Thus our death may in some respects he compared to that of Christ, but not in all. In relation to an example of love, a compariron may be instituted, but not in relation to the merit of satisfaction. The particle abu, as, denotes similitude, not equality, as may be { learned irom its use in Matt. v. 48: “Be ye perfect, I even as (kaBwg) your Father in heaven is perfect.” IIL. Another proof is derived from those Scrip- tures in which Christ is said fo have borne our sins, and on account of them to have been afflicted, to have been wounded, to have died. “Ile bore our sins in kas own body on the tree) This passage is taken by the apostle from the 53d chapter of Isaiah, in which the Chaldee Paraphrase and the ancient Jews consider!
I7S TRUTIL 39 the prophet as treating of Messiah, “He hath borne A. our griifs and carried our sorrows—he was wounded for our transgressions, ke 1vas bruised for our iniquities—the chastiscient of our peace was upon him—ithe Lord hath laid on him the iniguily (i. c., the punishment) of us all—he shall make his soul an off riny for sin.” In proving thie atonement from these texts, we rea- son as follows —1. From bearing cur sing:—tihough to bear and to carry are sometimes figuratively put for taking away and pardoning, yet there is no good reazon why we thus should understand them in these f passages. Nay, there are most weighty reasons which forbid us to depart from the primary and most i common signification, according to which, as Socinus himzelf acknowledges, t to bear sin, is the same thing as to bear the punishment of sin. The word xa. which sometimes relates to a simple {aking away of sin, is indeed usad; hut the word 920. which signi- fies the bearing of a burden laid upon one, is also nsed, and clearly intunates the sufiering of punish- ment. 20 Tue saanner of bearing the sins confirins us in this view. The sins are borne by the bearers laid upon him. Nouc of these could be said. unless being bruised and woundod. Rin is also said fo be Christ took upon himeseli’ and =uflered the punishment of sin. 3. Christ made his soul an offering, and laid
—— - —————— i down his life an offering for sin, bore sin in the manner of a victim; may, he made himself in reality a victim hy suffering death and shedding hiz blood in the room of sinners. 4. AN things which indicate a i real satisfaction occur in thiz portion of Scripture: our sins as the moving, the meritorious cause, “Ae was bruised for our iniquities,” v. 4 5, 6: the suffering of punishment due to sin: “he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows,” v. 4: the imputation of our sins to Christ by God as a judge: “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all” v. 6: the voluntary under- taking of Christ ax our surety: he was oppressed and afflicted. yet he opened not his mouth,” in complaining of his sufferings, ov in refusing to bear them, v 8: an expiation for sin awd a full paywent of the debt; “yet il pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put J him to grief: when thou shalt inake his soul on offer- I ing for sin.” v. 8, 10. Now, with what propriety could all these things he affirmed, if Christ laid down Liz life merely to exhibit an example of patience and love, und not to make =atixfaction for xin?
In Matt. viii. 17, we are, indeed, informed that this prophecy of Izaial was fulfilled, when Christ healed bodily dizeases, which. properly speaking, he did not bear, but take away; yet we cannot infer from thig, that the same thing may be affirmed of sins which are the diseases of the mind; for the diseases of the Hf body are to be viewed in a different light {from those of the mind. In healing the former, it was not neces- ] sary that Christ should himself become sick; it was only necessary that he should exercise his power. Not =o the latter. He nmst first take them upon himself before he could take them away from wus. Hence he is held forth hy the prophet as wounded and bruiged, which were not necessary to the healing of bodily maladies, but to bearing those of the mind I alone; from which it is casy to infer what the mind said to have been fulfilled when Christ healed eorpo- of the Holy Spirit is in this prophecy, and how it is ral diseases. Without doubt, it relates primarily to spiritual disease and debility, i. c., to sin, the pun- ishment of which was laid upon him, that he might suffer its desert in our room. But bodily infirmities and pains arc a part of the punishment of sin, and on this account, in a secondary and subordinate sense, it I refers to them; because Christ had a right to heal them. Thus, what the prophet declares in general concerning all diseases, Peter applies in particular to the diseases of the mind, and Matthew to the diseases I of the body, not excluding, but rather including, those of the mind. Ie demonstrates that by removing the cause the effect was taken away. Spiritual and physical maladies are intimately eonneeted with each other; the former draw after them the latter, while the latter presuppose the former. Christ is =aid to have borne both, mt in different ways, according to
E 42 TCRREITIN ON THE ATONEMENT. their different natures. Bodily griefs he bore only by cficacionsly taking them away, not hy undergoing them in Lis own person; but he hore spiritual griefs in two methods: by suffering them himself, and by taking them away. Nor, if Matthew asserts that Christ healed the sick, and thus fulfilled this prophe- ev. may we thence rightly infer that the Spirit refers hi to them alone; because it is well known, that in the Scriptures. a prophecy is said to be accomplished, not I only when it is completely and ultimately fulfilled, but also when a partial accomplishment of it is begun,
Here also are to be considered those Scriptures which assert that Christ was made sin and a curse for us. How can he be said fo have been made sin, i. e., an offering for sin, hy God = a judge: and a “curse,” i i. e., a subject of the malediction which the law pronoun es acain=t sinners; not, indeed, for himself, seeing - he was most holy and supremely beloved by his Father, but for us; unless it was as being substituted in our place, and taking upon himself that curse which the law justly pronounces against our sins, in order that he 3 might bear it, and Ly bearing it take it away? Thus i he was made a blessing, by procuring for us the remis- sion of ovr sins and a right to eternal life. What reference is there here to an example of patience, or
_—e— mr ——— to a confirmation of doctrine? Is it not most evident that there was a real substitution of Christ in our I room; and that in consequence of this substitution, a rcal satisfaction, expiation or atonement has been made, and that this is the doctrine taught by these Scriptural phrases? The force of this argument can- not he evaded by objecting that Christ is said to have been a curse, not on account of having really borne the curse of the law, which could not have been laid on him, a perfectly blessed and holy person; but because he suffered eruncifixion, which, under the las, was denominated a curse. The very words of the apostle, and the redemption from the curse of the law, futility of the objection. low can he be a curse, and which Christ by his death procured for us, evince the that for the express purpose of delivering us from the curse, unless lie took it upon himself? It is no solid Il objection to this reasoning, that he is the only-begot- ten Son, and the ever-blessed God; for he did not en- dure the curse, in and for himself as the Son of God, but as our surety and on our behalf. Ifence as to his person, he is styled “Dlessed forever,” and in his official character as our representative, he is said to have suffered the punishment due to our sins, Henee we arc enabled to understand the force of the expression, “he was delivered jor our offences.”
Socinus contends, that all which is here intended, is, that an occasion for the death of Christ was given by our offences, or that Christ died only with the view that he might, by his example, incline us to leave off the commission of sin, and render us certain of its pardon. All which ix incompatible with the Scriptures quoted above, which teach us that the meritorious and moving cause, for Christ’s being delivered over to death, was our sins, that he might suffer the punish- } ment due to them and take away their guilt. 1e is said “to have been delivered for our offences.” as saeri- fices were offered for «in, doubtless, on account of its guilt and to take it away. Hence the guilt of our sins was the meritorious cause of the death of Christ, and its final cause or chief end. to expiate and remove this guilt. IV. The truth of the atonement is further proved,! from the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, of which the Scriptures so often speak. Why should Christ be so often and so expressly called a priest, truly and properly a priest, far more excellent than all the Levitical priests, one who by his oblation appeased the wrath of God, and obtained eternal salvation for us; unless because a full expiation for sin has been made zal. liii. 10, John i. 29, Eph. vi. 2, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, passim.
Ey ITS TRUTH. 45 -_rrby his satisfaction, and a more Iuminous display of the truths shadowed forth by the ancient figures? As by the sacrifices under the law, doctrines were not confirmed, examples of love and obedience were not” given, no coveuint was entered into, nor could they by their own efficacy appease the wrath of God; these sacrifices must have been instituted with a primary i view to represent a real satisfaction, an atoning sacrifice for sin. This is more particularly confirmed: 1. From the nature of the priesthood which Christ sus- tains. Ie ix constituted a priest in things pertaining the nature of the victim which is substituted in the to God, to appease hin by an atoning sacrifice. 2. From room of sinners, to hear the punizlunent of death due to then, as evinced by the rite of imposing hands upon li = the head of the offering, and over it making a confes- i sion of sin. 3. From the threefold effect of the sacri-! fice: in respect to God, hy the propitiation of his wrath; in respect to xin, by the expiation and removal of its guilt; in respect 10 man, by the pardon which followed from the propitiation of God and the expiation of sin. Fora person cannot be freed and obtain pardon, with- I out the substitution of a victim in his room; nor can Gol be appeased without the shedding of blood; nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment. The objections which Volkelius and others oppose to this reasoning, do not, in the least, weaken its force.
te mes ox on ome JR 46 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. ] They object: (1.) That the propitiatory sacrifices = did not all prefigure the sacrifice of Christ; but the annual sacrifice only, which vas offered upon the great day of expiation, and which contained no satisfaction; as a satisfaction could flow neither from the victims offered up nor from the person of the chief priest.” The Apostle Paul, on whose judgment more dependence is to he placed than on that of our opponents, opposes not one propitiatory sacrifice only, but all the sacrifices to that of Christ, and hence he infers their abrogation. Neither the perpetual sacrifice offered up daily. nor the other propitiatory offerings of lambs which were of a private nature, could refer to any- thing else than the oblation of the immaculate Lamb of God for us. Ii is no objection to this view, that they were offered for individuals, and not for all in common; for, ag the sacrifices which were offered for the whole congreaation of Israel, signified that Christ I jj as to make a propitiation for the sins of all his people, go those which were offered for each individual, were designed to show that every one of Christ’s people laden with sin, should seek and obtain reconciliation through the offering of Christ. Turther, although those saeri- fices did not, in the sight of God, contain a satisfaction J properly so called; because the soul of man is of too exalted a value to be purchased with the blood of hulls
or of goats: yet a typical, ceremonial satisfaction, i pertaining to the purity of the flesh, was made by them, a satisfaction, which by the appointment of God was to he attributed, neither to the victims, nor to the officiat ing priest separately, but jointly to both. Another objection is that: (2.) “An expiation is nothing else than an entire deliverance from the dominion of sin, which deliverance cannot be in the way of merit attributed to the death of Christ, but only in the way of example and declaratively.” In this objection, the cause is confounded with the effect. The office of the judge, who releases the prisoner, is confounded with the office of the surety, who pays the ransom. The judge sets the prisoner at liberty, while the prisoner, or some one in his place, pays the price of his redemption. Hence it follows that the purging of guilt and the removal of the accusation are effected by the suffering of punishment cither in the person of the accused, or in that of another. If all the end answered by the death of Christ was to declare that an expiation was to he made, it effected nothing more than the victims under the law, which might, nay did attest the same thing; yet the Apostle Paul expressly Il declares that they could not make expiation for sin. f If there were any propriety in this objection, the expiation might be attributed no less to Christ’s. resur-
TT Ep TES —— rection than to his death, which the Scripture nowhere 48 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. ee does. Besides, declaration respects men, expiation i God; that belongs rather to his prophetical office, this to his priestly. Though the work of expiation may sometimes be attributed to God the Father who never makes satisfaction, yet we cannot justly infer that this expiation ix of the sume nature with that of Christ; because, according to the different nature of the subjects to whom the expiation is attributed, it is to be differently understood. For God the Father to expiate, is to admit ofan expiation made hy a priest, which is done by pardon and acceptance. But for a priest and victim i to expiate, is to effect reconciliation meritoriously by the shedding of blood and vicarious suffering It iz further objected that: (3.) “Sacrifices were offered up only for smaller offcuces, such ax were com- mitted through ignorance or error; while for more I aggravated, wilful transgressions, there were no saeri- I fices instituted: but that Christ died for all sins with- out distinction.” This objection is grounded on an assumption which we do not admit. It is indeed ex- I pressly contrary to Scripture. On the great day of annual atonement. the goat is said to hear all the iniquities of the children of Israel. Sacrifices are elsewhere said to be offered up not for those sins only which are committed through error, but for those
Deut. xxi. 3
res i which are committed willingly, and which are ex- pressed by pws, ows son, 99, and similar words. And though the priest is said to have offered for the errors (eyvonuatwv) of the people yet it does not follow that wilful sins are excluded; for the word ayvonua, which signifies properly an error of the mind, is used to denote every kind of sin, because every sin proceeds from an error of the mind. Hence wicked men are called fools, avoyror. The Septuagint renders yw and ows by the Greek word ayvoe, and these Hebrew words signify wickedness and rebellion. For some aggravated crimes, such as murder, idolatry, adultery, ete., we do not read of any sacrifices having been particularly instituted; because God determined to punish them by the sword of the civil magistrate with capital punishment; and those who sinned thus had no need of this remedy, as their death was a satisfaction to the public.
v. 1. Again, we argue for the doctrine of the atone- went, from our reconciliation with God, which Christ by lis death has procured for us. Since that reconcilia- tion supposes the making up of the breach which sin had produced between God and his creatures, this could not be cffceted without the removal of a two- fold barrier, by a satisfaction. On the part of God, Lev. xvi. 21, 22. t Leh. ix. 6, 7.
his justice must be satisfied, and on the part of man, the guilt of sin must he removed by suffering the punishment due to it. The Apostle Paul, everywhere, teaches us that Christ procured for us such a recon- ciliation.
The substance of the objections which our opponents offer against this argument is, that this reconciliation is effected hy our conversion to God, and not at all by appeasing the divine wrath, because God is not said to be reconciled to us, but we to God; nay. he is said to procure for us this reconciliation, which is not the part of an enemy, but of a friend.” This capital error of our opponents iz refuted by many powerful arguments. 1. The Scriptures speak of a double en- mity and reconciliation, not only on the part of man, who by sin is become a hater of God, an enemy in his mind by wicked works;} but also on the part of God, by his wrath which is revealed from heaven against all iniquity. Hence men are by nature children of wrath. God is aid to be of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. He hates 2’l workers of iniquity. Now as there is an alienation on both sides, go there must be on each side a reconciliation: on the part of God, by a turning away of his wrath; on the i
f ITS TRUTH. al a { part of man, by a conversion to God: ail which the Apostle clearly teaches, (2 Cor.,v. 18,19.) In conse- quence of God’s reconciling us to himself through Christ, Paul shows that the apostles, in the name of Christ, exhorted sinners to be reconciled to God. 2. If reconciliation were nothing but conversion, then it should rather be said to proceed from Christ’s holy i life, than from his bloody death. On this ground, no I reason can be offered why the Apostle should propose nothing can be the medium and end of itself. This sanctification as the end of our reconciliation, for would be to say that the end of reconciliation was 1 reconciliation. 3. It is such a reconciliation as is! effected by not imputing to us our sins, on account of their having been imputed to Christ, who was made sin for us;t a reconciliation effected by the substituP tion of Christ in our place, that he might die for us; as we collect from the comparison instituted between I him and the man who would dare to dic for a good man;} which implies a proper satisfaction, not a simple conversion. 4. This reconciliation is effected “dy malking peace through the blobd of his cross,’$ and hy an atoning sacrifice, tlaopoc Al these denote not I mere conversion; but primarily, the appeasing of the di- vine wrath, which is effected by the death of a victim, “Col. i. 22. +2 Cor. v. 18, 21. f Rom. v. 7.
52 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. ————— + ——————— i Though the Scriptures commonly speak of our being reconciled to God, rather than of God’s being recon- ciled to us, because those who offend have need to be reconciled to him who is offended; yet this, so far from excluding the reconciliation of God to us, in- cludes it; because there can be ih offence. unless justice ix injured; and this injury must be repaired before God can reconcile men to himself, and admit them to hold communion with him. God’s procuring thi= reconciliation for us, is no evidence that he has \ not been angry with us, or that he was at peace and in a state of friendship with us. [t only proves that I God, moved towards ns with a love of henevolenee, decreed to procure for us a reconciliation; not that he was forthwith to be deemed appeased and reconciled, but only that he might become xo, while yet, in the mean time, he could not but he offended at our sins.
In vain is it pleaded by our opponents, that “Christ is said to be our propitiation and expiatory i sacrifice; not that he may reconcile an angry God to us. but that he may testify that God is already appeased and by no means angry with ux.” The blood i of Christ was not shed to prove the remission of sin, but to obtain it, as was the case in the propitiatory sacrifices mnder the Old Testament dizpen=ation: otherwise, there was no need that Christ should die and & l hed his blood. when the truth of the remission could be as well attested by hi life and doctrine. Nor nes2 i because the covering of the ark is improperly and declaratively called ieornpov, or an expiation, be- cause hy it God declared his benevolence towards his people, are we thence to infer that it was of the same nature with the expiation made by Christ. The making of expiation is attributed to Christ not so much passively as actively, and in the strictest sense of the word. What was only typically and symbolically shadowed forth in the mercy-seat and by the sprinkling of the blood of victims, Christ truly and properly effected by the shedding of his own blood. Again: though the application and fruit of this atone- ment is imparted to us through the medium of his con- tinual intercession in heaven, yet we may not heneeinfer that Lic has made it in heaven only. The passage in Heb. ii. M docs not relate to this; for it is not there said that lic makes reconciliation for the sins of the I people in heaven, but only that he must be made like unto his brethren in all things, that he may be a i faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God, and in this character make reconciliation, which he had done hy his death and suflering, as is intimated in the following verse.
v. 1. The doctrine of the atonement is also con- firmed Vy the nature and circumstances of Christ’s passion, ax well as by the kind of death which he suffered; in all which we have everything requisite to a o4 TURRETTIN ON TIE ATONEMENT. full and perfect satisfaction. Let us consider the essence and kind of the punishment. The death i which he endured was not a common death; but vio- lent and most bitter, inflicted as a punishment, and accursed of God himself: one in which he suffered the greatest ignominy and experienced the severest pains in his most holy body. His soul was seized with the most appalling terror and sorrow, with such fear and anguish that an angel was sent to minister comfort to him. Sweat flowed from the pores of his body like great drops of blood, and “he offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him. With a voice of deepest sadness, he complained that he was forsaken hy God the Father, though not by a dissolution of the union, nor hy withdrawing a pfwticipation of holiness, nor by withholding his supporting power, vet by withholding from him the heatific vision, by suspending the sense and fruition of full felicity. How shall we find an adequate cause for all these sufferings in a perfectly holy person, unless by admitting that avenging justice demanded from Christ a full atonement for our sins? Or shall we say that Christ was of more fechle mind and possessed less heroic firmness, than innumerable martyrs, who have suffered the same most painful death of the cross,
J.
errr eee ASR i nay, if possible, torments more intolerable, and yet { with unshaken fortitude, with the greatest alacrity, 1 and without any indications of grief or terror? Such blasphemy shocks the cars of the Christian. Though the tinie of Christ’s sufferings was but finite in dura- tion, yet, in consequence of the dignity of the sufferer, it was equal in value to infinite duration of torment. The law, indeed, demands that the person who sins shall suffer; but the Gospel, through the fatherly i kindness of God, declares it meet that there shall be a substitution; that it suffices to punish sin, and let the sinner go free. VII. A final argument is drawn from the Perfections of God. By the atonement we have an astonishing display of the divine Aerey, which is so great that God spared not his own Son, that he might spare us. It asserts the claims of Justice, which, that it might remain unimpeachable, demanded even the blood of the Son of God. It gloriously exhibits the divine Wisdom, which found out an admirable plan of recon- f ciling mercy with justice, and untied a knot which otherwise could never have been loosed; a plan by “which the conscience of man, alarmed with a pene trating sense of sin, judgment, and the divine malediction, is rendered peaceful and serene. Take away the atonement, and what becomes of the Truth of God, ” which so uniformly denounces death and a curse against sinners? What becomes of justice, which not “only acquits the guilty and convicted sinner without inflicting upon him the deserved punishment, but also bestows on him rewards most honourable? Besides, by denying the atonement, the following absurdities are unavoidable:—1. That our redemption may be attributed no less to the death of the apostles and martyrs than to the death of Christ; since, by their death and sufferings, they have given strong testimony in favour of the doctrines of the Gospel, and Ji have set before us in their lives illustrious examples of patience and obedience. 2. That Christ saved us rather by his life and miracles than by his death, since the promulgation of his doctrines and the example of lis life were much more plain exhibitions of truth than his death affords. 3. The priestly office is altogether taken away from this world, and confounded with his prophetical and kingly offices. 4. The saints under the Old Testament were not saved hy Christ; because they had not the benefit of his example, nor did they hear him preaching doctrines.
We now proceed to remove the difficulties which have been raized.
Though the word sati=faction is not expressly used in the Neriptures, vet. what is quite sufficient, there are other words used which are altogether equivalent to it, and which either have no meaning or lse mean
- ee that real satisfaction for which we contend. Such arc the words amoivrpwotc, the redemption of a cap- i tive, by making a payment; evridvroo, a price of re- demption; tiaopoc, a propitiation; Tir, a price of punishment; xarapa, a curse; dvoa, a sacrifice; mpoo- dopa, an offering; and many others of the same im- port, which we have mentioned above. As Christ sustains a twofold relation to believers— I one in the character of their Surety, bound to satisfy Justice in their behalf; the other in the character of their Head and Lord, operating in them by the ani- mating and directing influence of his Spirit—so he had a twofold ond in his death and sufferings: one, the payment of a price of redemption for us to jus- tice: the other, to set before us an example worthy of imitation. [lence his sufferings may be viewed either as satisfactory or as exemplary. Though the sufferings of Christ are proposed to us as aif exam- “ple, and his death as that which we should imitate by dying for our brethren, at his command;t yet we are not hence to infer that by his death he made no real satisfaction; for the nientioning of the one end does uot exclude but supposes the other. There is a wide difference between a payment made by a debtor in his own person, and a payment made by a surety. As to the reality of payment there is no
— i PEELED Il 58 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT.! difference in the eye of the law, but in relation to grace there is a striking difierence. When a debtor pays out of his own purse his debts, it cannot he said that i the creditor has forgiven hiin the debt or shown hun I favour; but if tiie debt has been paid by another and tuat other has been found out by the creditor, then I grace may he said to have been shown. Satisfaction and remission are lneonsistent with each other, when referred to the same thing, ut not xo when they are # referred to different things. Satizfuetion has God for i its object, remission man for its object. Natixfaction, is made by Christ to God for man, and yet man is freely pardoned. Justice and mercy kiss each other. ( Justice is exercised against sin as imputed to Christ, i and were, free and sovereign erey, is shown to sin 1 ners. The pardon granted to us is citirely of grace, while full satisfaction is demanded of the surety. Nothing i= demanded of us, full payment having been made by Curis.
If Curist makes satisfaction, we cannot say that he. satisfies himself, in the same character in which he & makes the satisfaction; he zatizhes himself as God and I the Son of God, notas Christ. Thus itis not precisely ly in the same character nor in the tae relation, thathe gives and receives the satisfaction. Christ givestit as God-man, as mediator, and receives it as God the judge. Itis indeed absurd to suppose that the sme person should make satisfaction to himself, when the subject treated of is of a private nature, by which a private loss is compensated or money that is due paid, for in that case the person would take of his own and with it pay himself. But when we speak of a public satisfaction, by which a public injury is repaired, it is not absurd to say that a judge who has violated the law, may make satisfaction to himself as judge by suf fering, either in lis own person or in the person of } another, that punishment which the law denounces; and thus it is in the work of Redemption. i Christ did not suffer eternal death but a death of three days only, and yet he fully paid the debt of everlasting punislunent which we owed. His, which was one of finite duration, was equivalent to an everlasting death suffered by us, because of the infinite dignity of his person. His were the sufferings not of a mere man, but of the true (rod, who purchased the Church! with his blood. [fence what was deficient in dura- “tion is supplied by the divinity of the sufferer, which gave infinite importance to a temporary passion. Yet we may not hence infer, that as the person suffer- ing was infinite, one drop of his blood was sufficient for our redemption. Tle smallest passion of Christ might have infinite value considered merely in relation to the infinite exaltation of him who suffered; yet death only IB could possess inluite value, in respect of the judge by Acts xx. 28.
ee ee 60 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. whose sentence it was inflicted. The dignity of the person increases the dignity of the punishment endured—the more exalted the person is, so much the heavier is the suffering which he undergoes; yet noth- nounces can sati=fy its claims upou the guilty. Death I ing but that species of punishment which the law de- I “and death alone could fulfil the demands of law and justice.
It was not necessary, when Christ was suffering the punishment due to sin, that he should suffer that despair and gnasling of teeth, which are a part of the punishment of the damned; for these are not essential to the punishment which the judge inflicts or which the surety must bear. They are mere ecircumstances, which arize from the character of the persons of the damned, who, when they find that their tor- utter despair and gnashing of teeth. This could nients are overwhelming and eternal, sink into not he so with Christ, who iu the midst of his greatest agonies, had full assurance of deliverance and a resur- rection from the tomb, and hence when encompassed Dy tortures the most excruciating, always manifested his faith in God—” My God! My God!” are his words.
Though a death of infinite value was due for every individual sinner, yet such a death as Christ’s 18 quite sufficient for the redemption of the whole elect world. A penal satisfaction is not of the same nature with a pecuniary payment, which is valued only by the amount paid, without regard to the person who pays: and hencecan be of avail to none but the individual for I whom the payment is made. But penal satisfaction is estimated by the dignity of the person who makes it, and is increased in worth in proportion to his dignity, I and hence avails for many as well as for one. Money paid by a king is indeed of no more avail in the dis- I charge of a debt, than money paid by a slave: but the life of a king is of more value than the life of a vile slave, as the life of King David was thought of more worth than that of half the Israclitish army. In this way Christ alone is more excellent than all men togeth- er. The dignity of an infinite person swallows up all the infinities of punishment due to us: they sink into it and are lost. Besides, it is no new thing that what is necessary for one should he amply sufficient for many. One sun is necessary to the illumination of an individual, and yet the same sun illuminates the whole human fami y- One victim was sufficient for the priest and all the people, and yet it would have been requisite for one. Although there were as many atone- ments necessary as there were Israelites, yet the one great annual expiatory sacrifice atoned for the sins of all the people, because it was so offered for the whole congregation as that by divine appointment it availed
for the case of each singly. On this subject the Scrip-tures arc so express, that no one, unless he have the hardihood to contradict the Holy Spirit, ean deny it. “The Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all.” If one died for all. “By one offering of himself he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified.”} Whatdo all these Scriptures teach, unless that one death of Christ is sufficient to make a full atonement for all the elect, in the same manner as the disobedience of Adam made many sinners? One cannot satisfy for many, when he and they arcof the same rank. One plebeian cannot satisfy for many plebeians; but one prince may satisfy for many plebeians. If this is admitted among creatures who are all finite and wortal, how much more between l creatures and the Creator, between whom there is an infinite distance? The rule which is laid down in Ezckicl 18: 20, “the soul that sinneth, it shall die,’ cannot he understood as absolute and universal, for so all imputation of sin would be barred, which yet the Scriptures teach by many examples. It must be referred to the ordinary dispensations of Providence, and not to an extraordinary dispensation of grace. Or it may relate toa I particular providence towards the Jews, to whom the Lord speaks in such a way as to close their mouth, Tsai. liii. 6. t 2 Cor. v. 14. 1 Heb. x. 14.
and prevent them from complaining that they had un- Il deservedly suffered punishment on account of the sins of their fathers; and not to the general government of men, in which God declares that he will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children until the third and fourth generation.
So far is the doctrine of the atonement from open- ing a door to impiety and spreading a couch on which spiritual sloth may repose in security, that itis the most efficacious means of holiness, and the death of sin itself, which is, among others, one of the ends that Christ assigns for his death— that being dead unto sin, we may live unto righteousness; that henceforth we may no more live unto ourselves, but to him who died for us and was raised again for our justification.” See the 6th chapter of Romans, for the manner in which the Apostle Pan reasons on this subject; also Titus, ii. 14, and 1 Pet. ii. 24.
I — — — ————