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.