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.