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.
90 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. of this consummation all the sins of all the elect were, in one day, blotted out. The reason why the Apostle, by a figure common in all languages, refers the expiation of our sins to the one offering of Christ, is, that his sufferings on the cross were the last and most piercing, without which all his antecedent sufferings would have been insufficient; as the payment of the last farthing completes the liquidation of the debt and cancels the bond. Because lie was inaugurated into his mediatorial office, in the thirtieth year of his age, we may not thence infer, that previously to that time, he was neither a priest nor a victim; for by the same mode of reasoning, it would follow, that before thirty years of age hie was not a Mediator, That Christ was in favour with God, that le was his well-beloved Son, nay, that he was sometimes in lis life glorified, does not prove that he did not then bear the divine wrath. These two are not at all incompatible with each other. Christ, viewed in himself, never ceased to be most dearly beloved of his Father, not even in his excruciating tortures on the accursed tree, though, as our surety, he bore the load of the divine wrath, and was made a curseforus. It was not necessary that the punishment which Christ underwent should be so intense, that it could admit of no intervals of alleviation by which he might be animated to encounter gloriously the dreadful conflict sect before him.
2. In the actions and sufferings of Christ, fwo things are to be considered: their substance and their form. They arc considered in relation to their substance, when we examine their nature and intensity. They are considered formally, when they are examined as constituting a rightcousncss to be sustained before the tribunal of God. In the former light the actions and suf- ferings are many and various. In thc latter they are to be considered under one form only, that of a whole, composed of all his actions and passions—a one and perfect righteousness. Wherefore one action or pas- I sion alone cannot be said to effect a full atonement, be connected with it. Ifence, although various de- because it is necessary that a perfect obedience should grees and acts may be remarked in the obedience of I Christ, which commenced at his birth, was continued through his life, and completed at his death, yet it is unique, as to the completion of the work of salvation and the righteousness which it accomplishes. 3. There is in the obedience of Christ a fwofold efficacy. The one is expiatory, that by which we are freed from those punishments to which we were liable on account of sin. The other is a meritorious efficacy, by which, through the remission of our sins, a title to eternal life and salvation has been acquired for us. For as sin has brought upon us two evils—the loss of life, and exposure to death; so redemption must procure two benefits—Iliberation from death, and a title to life: or, deliverance from hell and an introduction
92 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. into heaven. There are various passages of Scripture which clearly express these two benefits. “To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness.” “Christ hath redeemed us from the law, being made a curse for us—that the blessing of JAbra-ham might come on the Gentiles.t God sent forth his Son—to redeein them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’} “We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more being reconciled, we shell be saved by his life.’ That they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified.”
These two blessings, indeed, which flow {rom the obedience of Christ, are indissolubly connected in the covenant of grace, so that no one who obtains the pardon of sin can fail of acquiring a right to life. Yet they must be distinguished, and not confounded as if they were one and the same thing. It is one thing to free from death, another to introduce into life; one thing to deliver from hell, another to conduct into heaven; one thing to {rec from punishment, another to bestow rewards. Though it is true that no one is freed from death, who is not also made a partaker of life, yet it does not follow that a deliverance from the death which we deserve is not to be distinguished
from the acquisition of glory. There are many grades i of life as well as of holiness. The possession of life I does, indeed, follow liberation from death, but itis not necessary that this life should be a happy and glorious one; as liberty follows deliverance from prison, but it may be liberty without a throne and a diadem. Joseph might have been freed from prison and not set over the land of Egypt. Between death and life simply there is no medium, but between eternal death, and a life happy and glorious, there is a medium—the life of bondage in which man is now placed. The present life, in which man is bound to the performance of duty, is a state of pilgrimage, not of heavenly rest. While we believe it necessary to make distinctions I such as these, we think it improper to inquire curiously, as some do, by what particular acts Christ made atonement, and by what he merited life for us. Those who make these too nice distinctions, attribute the atonement to his sufferings; and the acquisition of a right to life, to his active obedience to the law. These distinctions receive no countenance from Scrip- ture, which nowhere distinguishes the obedience of Christ into parts, but, on the contrary, represents it as a thing unique, by which he hath done in our place everything which the law requires of us. As Christ,
otherwise personally bound: so by this i 94 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. ee Ye TTT has satisfied the law, as to those demands which it makes upon us: and hence his active obedience par- I takes of the nature of satisfaction. Again, as his passive obedience proceeded from unspeakable love to us, and as love is the fulfilling of the law, we cannot deny but it was meritorious, and of the nature of a price of redemption, by which a right to life has been acquired i for us. Therefore, we should avoid those curious distinctions, and consider liberation from death and our right to life as flowing from all the mediatorial duties, which Christ performed during his humiliation, and which, considered as a whole, are called the obedience of Christ. Sin could not be expiated before the law was fulfilled, nor could a right to life he acquired, before the charges preferred against us on aeeount of sin were blotted out. Christ merited by making atonement, and by meriting he made atonement.
Herein lay the utmost merit that lhe performed a most arduous work, impos=zible to all other beings and by no means obligatory upon himself, by his perfect I obedience. This obedience was at once a great proof of love to us, an act of submission to the Father and a conformity to the special law of his own veoeation. Yet it would have been of no avail to us, had it not been sealed and consummated by his death. The atonement is not to be ascribed merely to the external shedding of his blood, but also, and principally, to an internal aet—his spontaneous and unchangeable will to suffer even to the death of the cross for us. By this voluntary offering of himself, we are said to be sanctified. It is to be ascribed to the payment not of the last farthing, hut of the whole of the price of redemption, which is Christ, delivering up and subjecting himself for us.
The objection which Socinus offers against this is of no force. He says, that “atonement and merit areincompatible with eaeh other, for satisfaction or atonement is the payment of a just debt, whereas merit is effected by giving something not due on the score of justice.” This is accurate when applied to a satisfaction or payment made by a debtor in his own person, but not when applied to a viearious satisfaction, in which a surety, while making satisfaction, may have merit with both the debtor and the creditor: with the debtor, by paying, when under no obligation to do so, a debt for him, and thus graciously freeing him from all obligation to the creditor: with the creditor also, especially if a covenant has been made, in which it is stipulated that upon making a specified payment, it shall be admitted not only as a satisfaction for sin, but as procuring a title to blessings not otherwise due. This is the case here, as appears from Isa. liii. 10; Heb. ix. 15; Col. i. 19, 20, and similar passages.
e 96 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT.
4. There arc two things contained in the law. These are precepts, which prescribe duties; and sancI tions, which ordain rewards to those who keep the law, and punishments to its transgressors. Man, who I is under the obligation of the law, may be at the same time bound both to obedience and punishment. This, however, cannot take place in a state of primitive ree- titude, but in a state of sin. For sinful man sustains a twofold relation to God—one the relation of a crea- ture, the other that of a sinful and condemned creature. In the former he always owes obedience to God, and can never be freed from this obligation so long as he continues a creature, no matter how situated. In the latter he is obnoxious to punishment. Yet we cannot infer from this doctrine that man pays his debt twice to God. A penal debt is very different {from a debt of obedience. A penal debt arises from past transgressions; a debt of obedience, from the indispensable obligation of the creature to obey the Creator, which is coextensive with the whole term of its existence, and neither is nor can be relaxed, even while the creature is suffering the punishment of its transgressions.
5. There is a threefold subjection to the law—a natural, a federal, and a penal subjection. The natural subjection arises from the law as a rule of holiness, and respects the creature as a creature. It is eternal and indispensable, because, in every situation, the crea- “ITS MATTER. N97 ture is bound to be subject to God and to obey him. The federal subjection arises from the law as preseribing a condition, upon the fulfilment of which a reward is to be attained; respects the creature as placed in a covenant state; and prescribes the performance of duty under the promise of rewards and punishments. The penal subjection respects the creature as placed in a state of sin and condemnation, and binds him to suffer the punishment which the law denounces. The first is absolute and immutable; for as long as there is a I creature and a Creator, the creature must be subject to the Creator. God can no more dispense with his claim of subjection upon the creature than he can deny I himself. The second is economical and changeable, I N because, as it respects man not in a natural, butina constituted state, it continues in force as long as man has finished his probation, and, by fulfilling the con- continues in that state, and no longer. So soon as he dition, has obtained the reward, he is freed from his subjection. The third is necessary and inevitable, whenever the creature falls into sin, which is always followed by punishment. The first is founded in a right essential to God; in his natural, underived, and nceessary authority over the creature, and in the natural dependence of the creature upon him. The whereby he has been pleased to enter into a covenant second is founded in the sovereign pleasure of God, with his creature, and promise life under this or that
condition. The third is founded in the judicial authority and vindicatory justice of God, by which he avenges the transgressions of his creature. “Vengeance is mine, and 1 will repay.” All creatures, anI gels and men, are under the natural subjection to the law. Adam, in a state of innocence, was under the federal subjection. Devils and reprobate men are under the penal subjection.
In this third respect, it is easy to conceive how Christ was subjected to the law— Made under the law,” as the apostle expresses it; and whether he was subjected to the law for himself or for us. As a man, there is no doubt but hie was subject to the law for himself asa rule of holiness by a common and natural subjection, under which angels and glorified saints are in heaven, who are bound to love and serve God. But it does not follow from this that he was subject to the Witsing, the legant author of the “Economy of the Covenants,” as well as Turrettin and President Edwards, takes this view of the obligations of Christ as a creature. But, as Turrettin says the human nature of Christ is only an adjunet of his divine person, he could owe no obedience for himself. It is a person only, who is the subject of the moral law, and the person of Christ is the second person of the Trinity, who is Lord of the law. His humility is everywhere in Scripture represented as voluntary. Had he been subject to the law Those great divines rather express themselves loosely than erronefor himself, he could not have performed an obedience for others ously; not foreseeing the bad use which men of subtle and unsound mind would make of their inaccurate phrases. ee ee
ITS MATTER. - 99 law as to that which imposed the indispensable condi- tions of happiness. Nor that he was federally subject to it, so as to need to earn eternal life by obedience, for sueh life was his already by virtue of the hypo- statical union. Much less was he bound by a penal subjection, for he was most holy and absolutely free from all sin. So that when he undertook the twofold office of fulfilling the precepts of the law, and suffer- ing its sanction, all this was to be done in eonse- quence of a voluntary arrangement, by which he, as Mediator, engaged to perform them for us. It result ed from his covenant with his Father, to do and suffer as our surety all those things which the law claimed of us, and which were necessary to our redemption.
These remarks being premised in order to an aeen- rate understanding of the subject, we now proeced to offer proofs in support of our opinion. It is eon- firmed from many passages of Scripture.
I. The first we adduce is Rom. v. 19: “For as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, are many made righteous.” llere the atonement is referred to his obedience, not to that of his death, hut also that of his life. 1. Because the
ee An incomplete obedience will not suit the language here used by the Spirit. 2. He treats concerning an obedience, which imports universal conformity to the law, not only with respect to the penal sanction, but also, and indeed chiefly, with respect to observing its precepts. 3. Ie treats of what is called, v. 17, the “gift of righteousness,” which cannot be applied to the sufferings of Christ. -t. He speaks of an obedience which is opposed tq the disobedience of Adam; and as the disobedience of Adam was a violation of the whole law, so the obedience of Christ must be a fulfilment of the whole law. 5. Of an obedience which was due from us, both as to precept and penalty It will be of no avail to object, “that the obedience is nothing else than the one righteousness mentioned verse 18, and which is said to be to justification of life, and that the condemnation of sin under which we have fallen arose from one sinful act of Adam.” The righteousness spoken of here does not intend one act of righteousness; it denotes a righteousness effected by a complete and perfect obedience. Nor, though the offence came upon all from one sin, can the righteousness be derived to all from one act: because the the whole law. least failure in performing the demands of the law is sin; whereas righteousness requires the fulfilment of II. The obedience of Clirist is said to have been even fo death, in which not only its intensity as to degree is expressed, an intensity the greatest which I can be rendered by any one; but also its extension and duration, from the beginning of his life to its end. This appears from his obedience being referred to the whole of his humiliation, which appeared not in his death only, but in his whole life. In other portions I of Scripture, the obedience of Christ is described by the writing of the law in his hecart,t and his active I observance of it.} Again, itis spoken of as a race I which Christ had to rung and as a work which he had to perform.] These were not to be consummated I by one aet, but to be a constant tenor of obedience through his whole life. III. It beloved Christ to be made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he might supply what the law could not do, in that it was weak, and fulfil the claims of the lawinus. This weakness of the law is not to be un- derstood subjectively, as if it were in the law, but objectively, in the sinner in relation to the law; on account of his inability to perform any one of the duties which it commands. This law is said to be weak, not in relation to the infliction of punishment, but as to I the observation of its precepts. Christ, therefore, by
4. Phil. ii. 8. t Pal. x1. 1 Heb. x. 5.
Heb. xii. 1, 2. [I John xvii. 4. 1 Rom. viii. 3, 4. ee ea supplying what the law could not do in us, must fulfil all the law demanded of us, and work out what the I apostle calls “righteousness,” or the rights of the law, without doubt a right to life, obtained by doing what the law commands. This required not only a passive, i but also an active obedience. Tor seeing the law and commands of God are the same, punishments cannot be said to fulfil the law, or its commands. They satisfy its denunciations only. Who would say that a malefactor, who had been eapitally punished for his crimes, had obeyed the king or the law? To act agreeably to law is a good and praizeworthy thing, which cannot be asserted respecting the suffering of punishment, per se, unless it will he asserted, that he is to be applauded who suffers the punislinents of hell.
IV. We argue, in favour of extending the atonement to the active obedience of Christ, from his being hound to al that the law required of us, in order ta acquire a title to life. To this, obedience of life was no less requisite than the suffering of death; because the sinful creature is bound to both these, and both were necessary to the obtaining of pardon and a right to life. In the law, life is not promised to him who suffers its penalties, but to him who performs its duties. Do this and thou shalt live” Hence, to undergo the penalty by dying, was not sufficient, without the obeying of the precepts. Let it not here be object ed, “that there is a difference between evangelical and legal justification; that in the latter a perfect obedi- ence to the law is requisite, but not in the former.” The difference of our justification now under the Gospel, from that under the covenant of works, is not placed in the thing itself, but in the manner in which we obtain it. Justification, whether legal or evangel- ical, must be founded on a righteousness, perfect, abso- lately perfect, in” all its parts; a righteousness which shall comply with all the conditions that the law im- poses for the purpose of obtaining eternal life; a righteousness which shall answer to the eternal and immutable claims of God upon the creature. These were qualities in that righteousness by which we were to be justified, that could not be dispensed with even in Christ; “for he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.” The only difference of our justification lies in the manner in which it comes to ns. What thelaw demanded of us as a perfect righteousness to be wrought out in our own persons, has been wrought by another, even by Christ, in our stead.
v. 1. We infer that the active obedience of Christ is comprehended in that atonement which he made for gin, from the atonement’s being founded in his right-
104 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. SE ———— eousness,as appears from various passages of Scripture. “Whence justification is said to be effected by the imputation of righteousness. But the righteousness of Christ does not consist in his suffering, but in his doing. The righteousness of the law is not obtained by suffering, but by doing, even as the sentence of condemnation is pronounced for sinning. Christ testifies, that it “heeame him to fulfil all righteousness,”} by doing in everything the will of his Father; and Paul says, “that Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”” By which it is to be understood, that, as those sins which violated the law were imputed to Christ, so his righteous actions, by which he fulfilled the law, are imputed to us fora justifying righteousness.
v. 1. The same doctrine is established from 1 Cor. i. 13, where it is said, that Christ is not divided. Hence, we infer that his righteousness is not to be divided, but, as a whole and unique inheritance, is to be bestowed on us. The paschal lamb was to be eaten whole; and, in like manner, Christ, who was typieally represented by that lamb, is to be received by us in all his mediatorial fulness, both as to what he did and what he suffered. This view of the subject attributes
ITS MATTER. ~ 105 greater glory to Christ and presents richer fountains of consolation. This consolation is greatly diminish- f ed by those who take away from the price of our redemption a part of his perfect righteousness and most holy obedience, and thus rend his seamless coat. We shall now proceed to the removal of objections. Ifour redemption and salvation are attributed to the death and blood of Christ, this is not done to the exclusion of the obedience of his life; for such a restrie- tion is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. On the eon- trary, the work of man’s salvation is, in many places, as shown above, attributed to the obedience and righteousness of Christ. When the death or blood of Christ is mentioned alone, and our redemption ascribed to it, this is done by a synechdoche, a figure which I puts a part for the whole. The reason is, that his death was the lowest degree of his humiliation and the completion of his obedience, that which supposes all the other parts, and without which they would have been of no avail. No righteousness merits anything unless it is persevered in to the last breath; a payment I is never perfectly made, until the last farthing is paid and the bond caneelled. Though the Apostle Paul attributes the blessedness I of the saints to the remission of sin which flows from
the blood of Christ, yet it does not follow from this, that all our righteousness and the whole of the satisfaction made by Christ, are founded in his passion. For the apostle docs not argue from the pardon of _ sin’s being precisely equivalent to the imputation of righteousness and its proceeding precisely from the same thing in the atonement; but from the indissoluble connection among the blessings of the new covenant, a connection so intimate, that every one who obtains pardon of sin, necessarily and immediately obtains a right to life and becomes an heir of the kingdom of heaven. In the same way Paul treats of love to our neighbour, and the fulfilling of the whole law, as the same thing; because, when love to our neighbour exists, all the other duties of the law will necessarily be performed.
Though each obedience of Christ, as well that of his life as of his death, was perfect in its kind, yet neither of them alone was a sufficient satisfaction, which required the observance of precepts as well as the suffering of punishments, that liberation from death and a right to life might be procured. One does not exclude the other; nay, they mutually include each other.
What one person owes for himself, he cannot pay for another, if he be a private person. But nothing prevents such a payment, when the person is a public
character, who may act both in his own name and in the name of those whom he represents. He who pays what he owes for himself, cannot by the same thing make a payment for others, unless Lie has voluntarily made himself a debtor for them, in which case he can. For, although he may be a debtor, yet this character arises from his own voluntary act—the debt which he has to pay for himself is a debt which, were it not for Lis own voluntary deed, he is not bound to pay, and hence, while he is paying for himself, he may, by the same act, pay for another. So Christ, who be came man, not for his own sake, but for our sakes, was under obligation to fulfil the law in order to “merit life, not for himself, but for us. Though Christ, asa creature, was naturally subject to the law, yet he was not under it by a covenant and economical subjec- tion, binding him to obtain life for himself, and stand as a surety in the room of sinners; for this arose from a voluntary agreement entered into between him and his Father. In an economical sense, he owed nothing for himself, because he is the Son of God, and I Lord of the law. As to his human nature, he was not thus bound cither absolutely or partially. Not. absolutely. for his human nature was an adjunct of his divine person; and as this was not subject to the law, neither could the nature be which was assumed by it. Moreover, since the assumption of human nature was a part of his humiliation, the same must be wo a _—__— —— - — bi
EE REELS 108 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. true of all that results from that assumption. One of these results is the subjection to the law. Not relatively, because, as man, lie was not bound by the old legal covenant, which belonged only to those whom Adam represented, and who were naturally de- ~ scended from him. From all which T infer, that he had no need to perform the duties of the law to acquire for himself a right to life; which right, of necessity, results from the eonncetion of his human nature with the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. Tenee also I infer, that Christ owed all his covenant obedience for us, and this in the eharaeter of a surety who represented us.
Though Christ obeyed God in our room, we cannot {if thence infer that we are no longer bound to obedience in our own persons. It is indeed fairly to be inferred, that we are not bound to obey for the same end and from the same eanse—to obtain life by the performance of duties, to which we are bound by covenant obligation. Yet we may be, and are, in perfect consistency with the obedience of Christ for us, bound by a natural obligation to yield the same obedience to God, not that we may obtain life, but because we have obtained it; not that we may acquire a right to heaven, but that, having through Christ obtained a title, we may be prepared for entering upon its enjoyment. Hence, though Christ has died for us, we are still obnoxious to natural death; not, however, for a
punishment, but for a deliverance from the evils of this life and an introduction into heaven.
We must distinguish between a righteousness of innoceunce, which takes place when one is accused of no i fault, and a righteousness of perseverance, to which a reward is due for duties done. The pardon of sin I produces the former kind of righteousness, by taking away every accusation on account of sins committed; but it does not of necessity so produce the latter, _ that he who obtains it must be forthwith adjudged to have performed all duties. Tt is one thing to free a person from the punishment which is due to the omission of duty; another to account him really righteous with the righteousness of perseverance to which life is promised, just as if he had omitted no duty and done no evil. The former of these is obtained in the day of pardon, but not the latter; which would be contrary to truth and the just judgment of God. Pardon docs not remove sin, but prevents its imputation. He who is pardoned may and does commit sin; but in consequence of the pardon which he has obtained, it shall not be imputed to him for condemnation. Pardon takes away only the guilt of sin, and consequently its punishment, buf not its pollution. Thus, to be viewed as having done no sin and as having omitted no duty, can be understood in a twofold sense: 1. In relation to punishment—that Wwe can 10 a be punished than if we had in reality LE A
- — ea 110 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. committed no sin and omitted no duty; because we are freed from all that punishment which is due to sin. 2. In relation to the obtaining of reward—that he who is esteemed to have performed all duty and I avoided all sin, shall be judged by God to have done all things which are necessary to life. In this latter sense, it is not true that he whose sins are remitted is to be esteemed free from all sin: for, as was remarked above, pardon takes away punishment; but God is mot, by the sentence of pardon which he pronounces, bound to hold the sinner as free from all delinqueney, as having fulfilled all his duty, and as a perfectly just Jf person. This is not true in fact. The guilty is not to be esteemed righteous, because, through supplication and confession, he has obtained pardon from the Judge.
It cannot be said that God demands a double payment of the same debt. For the law binds the sinner I both to obedience and punishment, as is said above; and the actions and sufferings of Christ do not constitute a double payment, hut both together constitute one payment; one unique righteousness, by which deliverance from death and a right to life have been acquired for us.
A perfect fulfilment of the law cannot be said to have been condensed into the voluntary death of Christ. For the law demands perfect obedience to all its several precepts, and this not in degree only,
Bm ee but in duration, from the beginning to the end of life; I all which cannot be accomplished in one action.
So fais the whole of Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to us, from being placed in his sufferings, Il that, strictly speaking, uo righteousness is placed in ) suffering, but in doing only. No one can be called righteous merely because lie suffers, for misery is not virtue. Besides, sufferings yield no obedience to those commands of the law to which life is promised; they only satisfy its sanctions, and cannot be called, per se, righteousness. If there is any righteousness in purizhment, it belongs to the person who inflicts the punishment, and not to him who is punished. il Calvin, in many parts of his works, teaches the doctrine for which we contend. Take the following passages. “When it is asked how. by the removal of sin, Christ hath taken away the enmity between God and us; and brought in a righteconsness which hath made God our friend? It may be answered in fl general, that he has done this by the whole course of his obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul, as by the transgression of one, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many were made righteous. Llzewhere, the ground of pardon, that which de- livers us from the curse of the law, the same apostle extends to the whole of Christ’s life. When the ful-
112 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. mess of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. Even I in his baptism, God declares, Christ fulfilled a part of this righteousness, because he obeyed his Father’s will Finally, from the time that he took upon himself the form of a servant he began to pay the price of our redemption. Nevertheless, that the Scripture may define more precizely the manner in which salvation is procured, it azeribes peculiarly the price of redemp- tion to the death of Christ.” Ile afterwards adds, i «Yet the remaining part of his obedience which he performed during his life ix not excluded; for the apostle comprehends the whole of his obedience from the beginning of his life to the end. when hie says, that ke Jumbled himself. and took wpon him the Jorm of a ser vant, and was obedient to his Father unto death, even the death of the cross.” Tudeed, his death occupies the first grade in his voluntary subjection: because a sacrifice availed nothing. unless it was offered freely” Elsewhere, he remarks, that accepting grace, is nothing else but his unmerited goodness, by which the Father embraces us in Christ, clothes us with his innocence, causing us to accept it. that on account of it, he may esteem us holy, pure and innocent. It behooves the righteousness of Christ, which alone is perfect and i will stand in the sight of God, to he presented for us,
Inst., book iil. eap. 14, see. 12
ee ee
ITS MATTER.. 113 A a I —— il and as a righteousness offered by our surety, to Le set to our account in the judgment. Furnished with this, we, through faith, obtain perpetual remission of sin. By its immaculate purity, all our defilements are washed away: they are not laid to our account, but before the splendour of Immanuel’s righteousness, are banished and flee away, never more to rise against us in judgment.” The Gallic Synods, by repeated acts, have given their most explicit testimony in favour of the same truth. “Since man can find in himself, cither before or after effectual calling, no righteousness by which he ean stand before the tribunal of God, he cannot be I justified unless in our Lord Jesus Christ, who was obedient to God the Father, even from his entrance into the world until his ignominious death on the cross. In his life and at his death, he fulfilled the whole law given to man and the command to suffer and lay down his life, a price of redemption for many. Dy this perfect obedience we are rendered righteous; for through the goodness of God it is imputed to us and received hy faith, which is the gift of God. We, by the merit of the whole of this obedience, obtain remi=sion of our sins and are rendered worthy of eter- nal life.” I Privatensis Synodus, anno 1612, and Tonninensis, anno 1614.