In the preceding chapter we reasoned against the followers of Socinus. In this chapter we contend for a doctrine that is denied by the Romanists, They indeed pretend to hold the unity and perfection of the satisfaction of Christ, and often exclaim that great injustice is done them, when they are charged with maintaining that “Christ by his sufferings did not make a full and complite satisfaction for our sins; while in Bellarmine, Book II. concerning Indulgences, chapter 14.
reality they, in many ways, weaken and overturn this doctrine, by maintaining that it must be confined to {I sins committed before baptism and to the pollution of sin; but that it does not extend to punishment either temporal or eternal.
In order to ascertain distinctly the question, we observe, that a satisfaction made to God is of a nature different from a satisfaction made to man. Among men, satisfactions are of two kinds. One is private, and is called a reparation; the other public, and is called canonical, because prescribed by the ancient canons of the Church. Satisfaction of the latter kind is very often demanded by civil and ecclesiastical courts, for the reformation of offenders and the re- moval of scandals. In treating of the satisfaction made to God, we speak strictly concerning the Avrgov, the price of redemption, hy which Christ, as our surety, atoned for our transgressions. This is by Romanists in part ascribed to certain meritorious, cxpiatory works, by which they pretend to atone for their own sins and for those of others. It is of the atonement for sin and satisfaction to justice, which Christ made, that weare to treat in this chapter. The point in controversy is not whether the satisfaction of Christ bars all human satisfactions, public and canonical, or private, which are imposed upon offend- ers for their correction, and to remove scandals from the Church. We admit that these were, with pro- —— err
66 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. —m4@@M8M———————————pricty, often demanded under the Old Testament dispensation, and may yet be laudably exacted. But we inquire, whether, besides the satisfaction made by Christ, other satisfactions for sin are to be made to God, and =hould be imposed upon the saints? Here we and our opponents are at issue. They affirm that such additional satisfactions are to be made by the saints themselves; while we maintain that they are not only useless, but contrary to the Scriptures. The infliction of chastisements on the people of God when they go astray—chastisements which are of a medicinal or corrective character, such as are inflicted upon children in their father’s house—forms no part J of this controversy. We cheerfully admit that God, for valuable purposes, exercises his people with such wholesome discipline. But does the atonement of Christ exclude penal expiatory sufferings on the part of the saints; sufferings designed, not as proofs of their piety, or to heal their backslidings, but as a satisfaction to avenging justice; not inflicted by God as a father and through parental love, but decreed by God as a judge; sufferings which the law denounces against the wicked? Our adversaries affirm that the atone- ment does not exclude such sufferings. We maintain that it does. The Church of Rome teaches, that though the satisfaction of Christ is of infinite value, yet that it is not so full and ample, but that various atonements are to be made by believers in their own persons. These, they say, are necessary, if not on account of their guilt and liability to eternal punish- ment, which they admit are taken away by Christ, yet to save them from temporal punishment. Hear what they say: “If any one shall affirm that, on account of the merits of Christ, there is no necessity that we should make any satisfaction to God, through temporal punishments inflicted by Christ and patiently borne hy us, or through punishments enjoined by the priest, not voluntarily undertaken—such as penances, prayers, fastings, alms, and other pious exercisesand shall further say that the new life only is the best penitence, let that man be accursed.” The Remonstrants,t or Arminians, endeavour not a little to destroy the perfection of the atonement. Though they have not yet been so bold as, with the disciples of Socinus, to reject the atonement entirely, yet they make every effort in their power to diminish its efficacy and fulness. They maintain that the satisfaction of Christ was accepted by God, not on account of its own dignity, but merely through grace; that 1t was not a real, but a nominal satisfaction. The substance of the doctrine which they teach on this head is, that God forbore to punish after the
death of Christ, not because satisfaction had been Il truly rendered to his justice, but because he was graciously pleased to admit the satisfaction, notwithstanding its imperfection, as altogether sufficient.
The doctrine for which we contend is, that Christ hath so perfectly satisfied divine justice for all our sing, by one offering of himself; and not only for our guilt, but also for both temporal and eternal punishment, that henceforth there are no niore propitiatory offerings to be made for sin; and that though, for the promotion of their penitence and sanctification, God often chastises his people, yet no satisfaction is to be made by them either in this or a future state of ex- Such is the perfection of the atonement, that it cor- istence. responds to the justice of God revealed in the Word, to the demands of the law, and to the miseries and necessities of those for whom it was made. ad it been in its own nature deficient, and derived its suffi- ciency only from God’s acceptance of it through mere grace, then the victims under the law might have possessed equal efficacy in making atonement for gin, contrary to Heb. x. 4. Its perfection is derived from its own intrinsic fulness of merit. It is perfect: (1) In respect to parts; lLecause it satisfied all the demands which the law makes upon us, both in rela- tion to the obedience of life and the suffering of death. By enduring the punishments due to us, it fins freed us from death and condemnation. And by its meritorious efficacy, it has reconciled God the Father to us and has acquired for us a title to etermal life. (2.) It is perfect in degree; for Christ has i not only done and suffered all that which the law claims of us, but all this in a full and perfect degree; so that nothing more, in this respect, can possibly be desired. The perfection in degree is derived from the infinite dignity of the person who suffered and the severily of the punishment exacted. (3.) Hence fol- lows the perfection in its effects. In respect of God, it has effected an entire reconciliation with him; in relation to sin, it has wrought full expiation and pardon; and in relation to believers, its effects are perfection in holiness and complete redemption, both as to de- liverance from death, and as to a title to life and its possession.f
We now offer the proofs which establish this view of the atonement.
I. The dignity of Christ’s person, which is not only of immaculate purity, but also truly divine; a person in which all fulness dwells. In Christ’s person I there is a fulness of divinity, a fulness of office, a fulness of merit and graces. Who, then, can doubt Rom. v. 10, and 2 Cor. v. 18.
70 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. but that the satisfaction which he has made is one of infinite value and efficacy, and therefore of such fulness and all-sufficiency, that nothing can be added to it? Lor though Chrigt’s human nature, which was J the instrument in the obedience and sufferings, was finite, yet this does not lessen the value of the satisfaction, because it derives its perfection from the divine person of Christ, to which all his actions must be attributed: as he is the person who obeyed and suffered. I II. Our view is alzo established by the Oneness of Christ’s Offering. Why does the Apostle Paul assert that Christ has once offered himself for us ( and that by one offering of himself he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified? Why does he always sct before us the obedience of Christ alone as the ground of our justification, unless this obedience is full and complete? As a repetition of the same offering argues its imperfection, so. on the other hand, an offering’s having Leen but once made, necessarily imports its plenitude and the full accomplishment of its object. I III. The Perfection of the Atonement is confirmed by the Approbation of God as Judge. 1f God declares
that he is perfectly satisfied, let no one dare to say that the satisfaction is imperfect. The question is, whether the supreme judge, who demands the satisfaction, approves of and receives it as altogether sufficient. That the atonement has been approved and accepted by God, is established, not only by the appointment of Christ to the mediatorial office, of whom the Father often declares that he is his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased; but especially by his resurrection from the dead, which is irresistible evidence both of his divinity and of the perfection of the atonement. Unless Christ had satisfied to the uttermost, can we believe that God the judge, whose inexorable justice demands full payment, would have freed him, and have exalted him to that supreme glory, which was the reward of his sufferings?t Would the creditor free the surety from prison before he had paid the full debt? Could Christ, when he had undertaken to pay to divine justice the debts which man owed, be sct free, until he had to the full redeemed the debt? Seeing, then, that Christ has gloriously arisen, being raised by the power of the Father, there is no room left for doubt respecting the perfection of the satisfaction, the full payment of the price of redemption; of the full discharge of which, the Father has given us such indubitable testimony.
Rom. i. 4, Pil. 9
IV. The cffccts which are produced by the atonement prove it: entire sufficiency. Why are our reconciliation with God and the appeasing of his wrath; the expiation and pardon of sin, and this not partial, bunt full and complete; and our redemption and glorification, all attributed to the death and obedience of Christ, unless his atonement was full and complete? A perfect effect requires a perfect eauseito The doctrine thus established overthrows at onee produce it. the Romanist dogmas of the sacrifice of the Mass, of human merits in this life and of Pnrgatorial expiations hereafter. For if these are allowed, it follows either that Christ’s satisfaction is inadequate, or else that God unjustly exacts a double satisfaction for the same gins.
In vain do our opponents contend, that by pleading for satisfactions to he made by the saints, they do not derogate from the infinity of Christ, nor from his satisfaction; since they make all their virtue and effi- cacy to depend upon the atonement of Christ, who not only has satisfied for us, but also gives us the power to satisfy for ourselves; and since they do not esteem our good works as atoncments to be associated with that of Christ, and as of the same exalted nature, but See Col. i. 20; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 John, i. 7; Rom. iii. 24. and v. 10;
Eo rrrinferior and subordinate.” They assume what they ought to prove. We do not grant that Christ gives us any power to atone for ourselves. Such a supposi- tion receives mo countenance from Scripture, and is contrary to the very natufe of an atonement. It is one thing to make satisfaction, another to give the power to make satisfaction. They are indeed utterly inconsistent with each other. If Christ has made a complete satisfaction, why is any other de- manded? Where the primary cause is solitary, no co-operative or subordinate causes are admissible. So - far is this doctrine of our opponents from advancing the glory of Christ, that it in reality, by resorting to other grounds of salvation than those afforded by him, offers an indignity to him and his atonement. What he, as our Redeemer, has engaged to accomplish, they pretend to effect, at least in part, by other agents. And though in the application of this redemption, men arc bound to contribute by their efforts as fellow- workers with God, yet they are unable to eo-operate with him in its acquisition. Lqually futile is their reasoning, when they resort to the “distinction between sin and punishment, contending that though Christ has satisfied for our sin, he eternal punishment, at least not for temporal, which has not fully satisfied for our punishment; or if for nnst be suffered by the saints themselves, either in the present or a future state.” DBecanse the remission of sin on account of the satisfaction made by Christ is perfectly complete; “there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus;” and in consequence of his atonement, their justification is perfect, and in due time they shall obtain fult glorification. Besides, the {I distinction thus made between sin and its punishment is absurd, for there is a necessary connection between sin and suffering. Sin is the cause and suffering the effect; take away the cause, and the effect is necessarily destroyed. Remission of sin iz nothing but a deliverance from all punishment, which cannot be justly inflicted where there is no transgression. Would it be just to demand the payment of a debt which is already either paid or remitted?
They also assert, “that Christ, in a limited sense, makes satisfaction for temporal punishment, in and by us.” 1. This assertion is rash, having no countenance from Scripture. 2. It is dangerous, associating men with Christ in making satisfaction, and thus taking a part of the work of redemption out of his hands; for redemption and satisfaction arc words of similar imnport, there being no other way to redeem, but by rendering satisfaction. 3. It is false and contrary to Scripture, which asserts, that Christ by himself hath satisfied once for sin, and that there is no further sat- isfaction to be made by others.
Rom. vii. 9
pe ee
The view which we have given of the perfection of the atonement prostrates the Arminian doctrine of nominal atonement. When a full payment is made, [ what was no more than nominal. In making pay- there is no room for the exercise of grace in accepting ments grace is not considered, nor merely the dignity Il of him who pays, but alzo the value of the thing given, or its equality to the debt. This is confirmed from Rom. viii. 3, where Christ is said to have been sent, that all righteousness might be fulfilled. Christ ful- filled all righteousness, or satisfied all the demands of the law, by doing what we ourselves were not able to do, on account of the weakness of the law. Now if] by the satisfaction of Christ, the demands of the law are fulfilled in us, this satisfaction must equal the claims of the law. Farther, an imperfect atonement graciously accepted, we cannot admit, for Christ took upon himself all the punishment which was due to of the law itself.t Finally, if God might have accept- us, even that which was the most grievous, the curse ed of any imperfect satisfaction, it was unnceessary that Christ should stand as our surety, and be exposed to extreme tortures and a most painful death; for satisfaction could Lave been received from any other man.
We shall now proceed to remove objections. An Isa. lil. 6, 7, 8. t Gal. iii. 13.
objection is drawn from those expressions of Scripture, where the apostles are said to suffer for the Church. But it is one thing to suffer for the Churely, in order to! purchase ler by paying a price of redemption, and I another to suffer persecution and death for the purpose of consoling and confirming the people of God, by placing before them an example of patience and obedience. When Paul says that he suffers for the Church or for the body of Christ, it is not in the former sense, for lie elsewhere denies that any one except Christ alone is crucified for us;t hut in the latter, as he himself teaches us, 2 Cor. v. 6, “for your consolation.” In 2 Tim. ii. 10, he says that he endures all things for the elects sake, not to redeem them from temporal punishment, but that, confirmed and animated by his example, they may obtain salvation by Christ. The remark made by Thomas} on this subject is a correct one. “The sufferings of the saints are profitable to the Church, not as a price of redemption, but as affording it example and czhortation not to depart from the truth.”
When Paul says “that he fills up that which ts behind of the sufferings of Christ,” he means not the sufferings endured by Christ in his own person; but the sufferings of Christ mystical, i. e., of his body, the Church; sufferings which are to be endured by every
Col. 1. 24. 1 Cor. i. 13. 1 3 Quest. 48, Art. 3. Col. i. 24
ITS PERFECTION. CT Christian, after the manner of Christ, whose members they are. Paul, as well as all other saints, had to take up his cross and follow Christ, and endure that share of tribulation which God allotted him, while on the way to the kingdom of heaven. In filling up this measure of tribulation, the apostle bears his cross with alacrity. Christ is often thus, by a figure, put for his body, the Church: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest I thou me?’ The sufferings of the saints are often called the sufferings of Christ: “For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us.” + They are called so in rela- tion to their origin, because Christ, as supreme direetor of the theatre of life, appoints them to us, and calls upon us to suffer them} in relation to their ob- Ject, for they are laid upon us on account of Christ and his Gospel; and also in relation to our union and communion with Christ, for we are one with Lim; so that blessings and sufferings arc in some sense eom- mon to us and Christ: “In all their afflictions he was afflicted.” We are called to participate in his suffer- before we are conformed to him in his glory. ings, that we may he conformed to him in his cross,
It is one thing for a person to atone for his sins by area satisfaction, another to break them off by works I of repentance and charity. It isin the latter sense Acts ix. 4, and 1 Cor. xii. 12. t 2 Cor. i. 5. i t Acts ix. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 21; Phil. i. 29. Rom. viii. 18.
i 78 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. ER cd ——————————— that Daniel advises Nebuchadnezzar to break off his sins. The Hebrew word pus, used by the prophet here, does not primarily signify to redeem, nor even to deliver; its primary sense is to tear away, or break off; and hence, as a collateral signification, to deliver. ~The prophet exhorts the king to repentance and a change of life, in order to make reparation to men, and not to God, for the injuries and oppressions which he had practised; and that thus, by breaking off his course of sinning, he might be more prosper- ous, escape from the ruin which was hanging over i him, and obtain a longer continuance of peace in his empire. To the same purpose are all those places of Scripture in which pardon of sin is promised to repentance. The repentance is not a meritorious cause, but a condition annexed, the medium through which pardon is obtained. Sufferings are of two kinds. In the one, they are exacted by a judge to make satisfaction to justice; in the other, they are inflicted for the correction of the offender. We admit that the latter species of offer- ing is often appointed to believers, not for vengeance, but for healing; not for destruction, but for correction. God lays it upon them, not as a judge, but as a father; not out of hatred, but out of love. Cyprian says, “The Lord chastises the saints that he may advance
their holiness, and he advances their holiness that he may save them.” To the same purpose Thomas speaks: “Before pardon, the sufferings of the elect are punishments for sin; after pardon, they are exercises.” Au- gustin happily explains the difference between the punishments of the wicked and the chastisements of the saints: “All, both good and evil, suffer the same I afflictions; nor by their afflictions can we distinguish. between the righteous and the wicked; for all things I happen alike to all: there is one lot to the righteous and to the wicked. There is, however, a distinction between the persons who suffer. All who are sub- jected to the same pains are not alike vicious or virtwous. In the same fire gold shines and stubble smokes; by the same fan the chaff is blown away and the wheat purged. Dregs must not be confounded I with oil, because both are pressed in the same press. The very same afllictions which prove, purify, and re- fine the righteous, are a curse and destruction to the wicked. Hence, under the pressure of the same calamities, the wicked detest and blaspheme God, while the righteous pray to him and praise him. Thus the difference is not in the natare of the punish ts, but in the character of those who suffer them.” The chastisements which the saints experience sometimes, indeed, retain the name punishments, but
80 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. leer eee eee eee ER——————not in a strict sense. 1. Because punishments, in a strict sense, are inflicted by the Supreme Judge upon transgressors, on account of their violation of his law. Hence, even after the state of a man is changed and he becomes a saint, the pains and griefs which he suffers are called by the ame name, because, though not formally, they are materially thesame. 2. Because thereare many points of resemblance between them and punishments properly so called: like them, they are not joyous, but grievous to the flesh, which they are designed to subdue; they are dispensed to the saints, by the will of a gracious God. with as much care and attention as he, in the character of an avenging judge, dispenses punishments: sin gives occasion to loth: both produce in the mind the same apprehension that God is an anary judge: and both serve as an example salutary to other offenders. But this grand difference still remains—that, in the punishments of the wicked, God, as a judge, has in view satizfaction to his justice; while in the chastisements of his people, he, as a father, designs the correction and amendment of his dizobedicnt children.
The death of David’s child, which affliction happened to him after the pardon of his sin was nota judicial punishment, but a fatherly chastisement; for i his sin having been once pardoned, no punishment
could remain to be borne. The reason which God I assigns for thus afflicting the King of Israel gives no countenance to the idea that the affliction was judicial and expiatory. By his sin, he had given occasion to the enemy to blaspheme the name of God, and thus the discipline of the house of God had been most Dascly violated. This breach of discipline must be healed by a salutary example. Nor can we infer that it was judicial, from David’s deprecating it. It is the part of human nature to endeavour to escape what- ll ever is painful, just as a sick man deprecates the caustic powders, the pain of the amputating knife, and the bitterness of medicine; though nothing can be further from the nature of punishment than these.
Though death cannot be inflicted upon us to guard us against future transgression, nor for our amendment, yet it by no means follows that it is designed as an atonement for sin. There are many other weighty reasons, rendering it necessary that all should die: such as, that the remains of sin may be destroyed; that we may pass from a natural and terrestrial state to one spiritual and heavenly; that piety may be exercised; that Christian virtues may be displayed in the most brilliant manner; and finally, that we may have a most powerful excitement to amend our life, and prepare for entering upon a better inheritance.
The judgment, which, the Apostle Peter tells us,
1 82 TURRETTIN OX THE ATONEMENT. must begin at the house of God is not the legal judgment of avenging justice, which proceeds from God as a wrathful judge, but a fatherly and evangeli- cal chastisement; not to punish and destroy, but to hold ont a useful example, and to correct us, that thus we may not be condemned with the world, as Paul says, (1 Cor. xi. 32.) The revenge mentioned 2 Cor. Ji wii. 11, is not properly a punishment inflicted by God I in the character of judge; but either an eccelesiasti- cal censure, such as excommunication, which is adjudged by the Chnreh for the removal of scandal; or it rather denotes the repentance and contrition in which a sinner is offended with himself, and, as it were, takes vengeance on himself for his offences. Though those under the Old Testament dispensa- tion, whose sins were pardoned, had still to offer sacrifices for sin, vet a warrant for attempting to make human atonements is not thence to be inferred. The sacrifices then offered were not, properly speaking, a satisfaction for sin; they were types of a future atonement to be made by Christ, through the efficacy of which they procured pardon.
When Solomon says t that “by mercy and truth iniquity is purged)” mo countenance is given to the human satisfaction for which the Church of Rome contends. There are two opinions maintained re-
=. eITS PERFECTION. 83 speeting this passage. One is, that by “mercy and truth” are meant, the mercy and truth of God: then the wise man would directly allude to and assert the mercy and truth of man are intended: then the doctrine atonement of Christ. The other opinion is, that the which the text teaches would be, that mercy and truth arc a condition always required when sin is pardoned, (hut not the cause for which the sentence of pardon is pronounced:) because, against the unmerciful, judgment without mercy will be exercised; while on the other hand, “the merciful shall obtain mercy.
The Hebrew word 993, which is here translated “purged,” does not properly signify expiatory purg- ing, but cither covering and remission only, which I God bestows on the believing and merciful; or else the removal of the power of sin, in which sense it is used by the Prophet Isaiah.t Then the passage would intimate that the exercise of mercy and sincere piety I removes the contrary vices. The following clause of the verse confirms this interpretation of the word: “By the fear of the Lord men depart from coil”
Though nothing defiled can enter into the New Jerusalem, yet there is no need of any satisfaction in this life, besides that of Christ, nor of a purgatory
in another, to purge away the pollutions of sin; for in the moment of death, when the soul is separated from the body, all the remains of sin are entirely removed by the Spirit of Christ.
i