Concerning the matter and parts of the satisfaction, various opinions have been embraced by divines. 3 Some limit it to the sufferings and punishments which lie endured for us. This opinion appears to have
ter, and after lim by Piscator, a Reformed professor at Herborne. Some of the divines who embrace it, confine that righteousness hy which we are justified to the death which he suffered; while others of them comprehend in it, also, all the sufferings of his life. This they call his passive righteousness. The obe- dience which he yielded to the precepts of the law, they term his active righteousness, which they suppose to have been necessary in the person of the Mediator to the performance of his mediatorial functions. They maintain, however, that it forins no part of his atonement, or his merits, which are imputed io us. The common opinion in our churches is, that the atonement made hy Christ, which is imputed to us for righteousness before God, is not confined to the suf ferings which he endured either in his life or at his death, but extends also to the obedience of his whole life; to all those just and holy actions by which he perfectly obeyed the law in our stead. From these two parts, his sufferings and his obedience, they maintain that the full and perfect price of our redemption proceeds.
In order to ascertain preeiscly the state of the question, we remark, that the subject of controversy is not, whether Christ perfectly fulfilled both the general law binding him to serve God, and the special law commanding him to submit to death. Nor, whether the obedience of Christ’s whole life was for the promotion of our interests, and necessary to procure our salvation. Both are granted by our opponents. They acknowledge that he fulfilled both laws, that the obedience of his life was necessary for him in the performance of his mediatorial duties, and in many respects profitable for us. We inquire whether this obedience forms a part of the satisfaction which he made to God for us; whether it was yielded in our stead.
Again, the inquiry is not, whether the mere sufferings belong to the satisfaction. For those, whose opinion we controvert, acknowledge that no suffering can be of an atoning nature, unless it be of an active character, voluntarily endured. They also admit that, in order to its being acceptable to God, it must include an active obedience or voluntary oblation, which unites the highest love with the most perfect right- eousness and holiness. They even say that the observ- ance of the whole law was condensed into one action, that of Christ’s death.
But the inquiry is, whether the obedience which Christ through lis life yielded to the law, is to be joined to the obedience which he yielded in his death and sufferings, in order to constitute our justifying righteousness before God. We must distinguish be- tween what Christ did directly and immediately to make an atonement, and what only pertained as previous conditions to his making it. In this last we place the personal holiness of Christ. Hence the question is reduced to this point: is the atonement which Christ made for us restricted to his death alone, or at least to all those sufferings which were either antecedent “to his death or accompanied it? Or does it comprehend all which Christ did and suffered for us, from the beginning to the end of his life? The former is the opinion of Cargiuz, Piscator, and their followers; the latter is our opinion and that of our churches gener- ally. In order to set forth more clearly the doctrine for which we contend, we make the following remarks:
1. The atoning sufferings of Christ extend to elf those which were inflicted upon him, not only in the garden of Gethsemane, but also during his whole life. We cannot approve of the hypothesis, which restricts the expiatory sufferings of our Redeemer to the pains he suffered during the three hours in which the sun was darkened, and he hung on the cross before his death; while it excludes all the other sufferings of his life, as, at most, necessary only to vindicate the truth of Godand to accomplish the typical representations of Christ under the law. We admit, indeed, that the greatest ~agonies of Christ were those to which he was exposed during those hours of darkness. But it is abundantly evident that all his other sufferings were expiatory. (1.) Because the Scripture nowhere restricts his expiaer gut _ _
tion to the three hours in which the sun was darkened, but refers it to his sufferings in general, without any limitation. They even extend it to his whole humiliation.t (2.) Because the agonies which he en- dured in the garden, and which are expressed by the words grief, sorrow, agony, heaviness, amazement, and being exceeding sorrowful even unto death, on account of the tremendous weight of divine wrath and maledic- tion, were the chief sufferings which Christ had to endure in his soul for us. (8.) The contrary opinion wrests from many pious Christians one great meansof consolation. In the sufferings of Christ’s whole life, as expiatory, they find rest to their souls. This idle imagination of Cargius and Piscator would snatch from Christians all this solace, and deprive them of innumerable evidences of the divine love. The objection which is brought against this reasoning from Zech. fil. 9: “will remove the iniquity of that land in one day,” is of no avail. That from these words of the Apostle, “We are sanctified through the ofl Jering of the body of Jesus once for all,’ is equally unsubstantial. The inference to be drawn from these texts is not that the sufferings of Clirist, antecedent to those on the cross, are not expiatory; but only that the atone- ment was consummated on the cross. In consequence Isa. iii. 4, 5. 1 Pet. ii. 21, and iii. 18. Matt. xvi. 21. leh. v.17, and x. 8, 9. t Phil. ii. 6, 7. 1 Heb. x. 10.