02.25. The Atonement:its Nature, Necessity, Perfection, and Extent.
Chapter 25 The Atonement:its Nature, Necessity, Perfection, and Extent.
I. The Nature of the Atonement.
1. Define the usage and true meaning of the different terms used in the discussion of this topic.
1st. The present word used to designate the precise nature of Christ’s work of self–sacrifice on the cross is “ATONEMENT.” In the Old Testament, it is used frequently to translate the Hebrew word
2nd. The old word used by the divines of the seventeenth century was “SATISFACTION.” This accurately and adequately expresses what Christ did. As the Second Adam he satisfied all the conditions of the broken covenant of works, as left by the first Adam. (a.) He suffered the penalty of transgression. (b.) He rendered that obedience which was the condition of “life.”
3rd. The distinction between a PENAL AND A FINANCIAL SATISFACTION. The first concerns crime and person, the other concerns debt and things. They differ.
(1.) In crime the demand terminates upon the person of the criminal; in debt upon the thing due.
(2.) In crime the demand is for that kind, degree, and duration of suffering that enlightened reason discerns to be demanded by justice; in debt the demand is precisely and only for the thing due, an exact quid pro quo.
(3.) In crime a vicarious suffering of the penalty is admissible only at the absolute discretion of the sovereign; and the consequent release of the criminal is a matter of grace; in debt the payment of the thing due, by whomsoever made, ipso facto liberates, and its acceptance and the release of the debtor is no matter of grace. (Turretin 50. 14. Qs. 10).
4th. The significance of the term PENALTY and the distinction between CALAMITIES, CHASTISEMENTS, and PENAL EVILS. Calamities are sufferings considered without any reference to the purpose with which they are indicted or permitted. Chastisements are sufferings designed for the moral improvement of the sufferer. Penal evils are sufferings inflicted with the design of satisfying the claims of justice and law. “Penalty” is that kind and degree of suffering which the supreme legislator and judge determines to be legally and justly due in the case of any specific criminal. If these sufferings are endured by a substitute, they are no less the penalty of the law if they in fact satisfy the law. The nature and degree of the sufferings may be changed justly with the change of the person suffering, but the character of the sufferings as penalty remains, or the substitution fails.
5th. The meaning of the terms SUBSTITUTION and VICARIOUS. Substitution is the gracious act of a sovereign in allowing a person not bound to discharge a service, or to suffer a punishment in the stead of a person who is bound. The discharge of that service, and the suffering of that penalty by the substitute and therefore the services and sufferings themselves, are strictly vicarious, that is in the stead of (vice) as well as in the behalf of the person originally bound.
6th. EXPIATION AND PROPITIATION. Both these words represent the Greek word
7th. IMPETRATION and APPLICATION. Impetration signifies the purchase, or meritorious procurement by sacrifice, of that salvation which God provides for his own people, and Application signifies its subsequent application to them in the process commencing with Justification and Regeneration, and ending in Glorification.
8th. The usage as to ATONEMENT and REDEMPTION.
(1.) During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the words Redemption and Atonement were used by all parties, Calvinist and Arminian, as equivalent, as in Baxter’s and Dr. Isaac Barrow’s treatises on “Universal Redemption” (See Dr. Cunningham’s “Hist. Theo.,” Vol. 2, p. 327, and Dr. H. B. Smith in Hagenbach, “Hist. Doc.,” Vol. 2, pp. 356 and 357). Also “Confession of Faith,” ch. 8, § 1, and “Larger Catechism,” Q. 59.
(2.) In modern times some Calvinistic advocates of an indefinite atonement distinguish between the terms thus. Atonement, or the sacrificial impetration of salvation, they claim to be made indefinitely for all men. Redemption, which they understand to include the intended application as well as the impetration of salvation, they hold to be confined to the elect (Dr. W. B. Weeks, in “Park’s Atonement,” p. 579).
(3.) In the Scriptures Atonement
9th. MERITUM and SATISFACTIO. This distinction was first signalized by Thomas Aquinas (1274), “Summa Theologiae,” Pars. 3., Q. 48, 49. Christ as the Second Adam fulfills in our behalf all the conditions of the broken Covenant of Works. “Satisfactio” expresses the quality and effect of his entire earthly work of suffering obedience even unto death regarded as a suffering of the penalty, in order to the release therefrom of his people. “Meritum” expresses the quality and effect of the same work regarded as the rendering of that obedience which was for them the condition of life. In Protestant theology this distinction is expressed by the terms active and passive obedience. or the one vicarious work of Christ, viewed (a) as a suffering of penal evils, (b) viewed as obedience to covenant requirements.
2. State the difference between the “natural,” the “federal,” and the “penal” relations which men sustain to the divine law.
1st. Every moral agent is brought at the moment of creation, in consequence of his nature, necessarily under obligation to be conformed in state and act to the divine law of absolute moral perfection, any want of conformity to which is sin. This relation is “natural,” perpetual, inalienable, and incapable of being assumed by one person in place of another, or representatively sustained.
2nd. It pleased God graciously to place man at his creation under a special covenant, in which, upon condition of perfect obedience under a special test, and favorable conditions, for a limited period, he promised to endow the race with “eternal life,” including establishment in an indefectable, holy character, and a heavenly inheritance forever. The penalty of instant “death” being the alternative. This is the “federal” relation to law, in which originally the whole race fell, represented by Adam. and in which subsequently the elect are made to stand, represented by Christ.
3rd. By the fall of Adam all men are brought into “penal” relation to the law, from which the elect are relieved, since it has been voluntarily assumed in their behalf by Christ.
3. What is Antinomianism? And show that this abominable heresy is in no degree involved in the common doctrine of the Protestant Reformers and their followers.
“Antinomianism,” as the word imports, is the doctrine that Christ has in such a sense fulfilled all the claims of the moral law in behalf of all the elect, or of all believers, that they are released from all obligations to fulfill its precepts as a standard of character and action. This horrible doctrine, slanderously charged against Paul, is repudiated by him.—Romans 3:8; Romans 6:1. In their natural reaction from the Papal doctrine of work righteousness, Luther and Melanchthon at first used some unguarded expressions which seem to suggest this heresy. But their entire theological system, the spirit of their lives, and the body of their writings, are as far as possible removed from it. When real Antinomianism was consistently taught by John Agricola (1566), he was strenuously opposed and successfully refuted by Luther, and caused to retreat. Some hyper–Calvinists in the 17th century, in England, e. g., Dr. Crisp, rector of Brinkworth (1642), are charged with it, though they denied the inferences put by others upon their doctrine. It has often been ignorantly or maliciously charged upon Calvinism as a necessary inference by Arminians. As a tendency it naturally besets the human heart when religious enthusiasm is unqualified by Scriptural knowledge and real sanctification, and is one to which ignorant fanatics and all classes of perfectionists are liable to be betrayed.
It is evident that the doctrines of satisfaction by Christ, and of justification by the imputation of his righteousness, as held by the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, have nothing in common with Antinomianism. Because they teach—
(1.) That Christ discharges for his people only the federal and penal obligations of the law, and that his obedience and suffering in that relation constitute his righteousness, which is imputed.
(2.) That the very end of his satisfaction is to “redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”—Titus 2:14.
(3.) Believers remain under the “natural” relation to the law, which is personally untransferable, in which they will be gradually perfected by that sanctification which the righteousness of Christ impetrates for them.—See “Vindication of Luther,” by Julius C. Hare.
4. Show how the perfect satisfaction of Christ embraces both his “active” and his “passive” obedience, and the relation which each of these elements sustains to our justification.
Christ, although a man, was a divine person. As such he voluntarily “was made under the law,” and all his earthly obedience to the law under human conditions was as vicarious as his sufferings. His “active” obedience embraces his entire life and death viewed as vicarious obedience. His “passive” obedience embraces his entire life, and especially his sacrificial death, viewed as vicarious suffering.
Adam represented the race under the original gracious covenant of works. He fell, forfeiting the “eternal life” conditioned on obedience, and incurring the penalty of death conditioned upon disobedience. Christ, the second Adam, assumes the covenant in behalf of his elect just as Adam left it. He (a) discharges the penalty—“the soul that sinneth it shall die,” and (b) earns the reward—“he that doeth these things shall live by them.” His whole vicarious suffering obedience, or obedient suffering is one righteousness. As “passive” obedience it “satisfies” the penal demand of the law. As “active” obedience it merits for us eternal life from regeneration to glorification. The imputation of this righteousness to us is our justification.
5. State the true doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction.
1st. Negatively.
(1.) The sufferings of Christ were not a substitute for the infliction of the penalty of the law upon sinners in person, but they are the penalty itself executed on their Substitute.
(2.) It was not of the nature of a pecuniary payment, an exact quid pro quo. But it was a strict penal satisfaction, the person suffering being a substitute.
(3.) It was not a mere example of a punishment.
(4.) It was not a mere exhibition of love, or of heroic consecration.
2nd. Positively.
(1.) Its MOTIVE was the ineffable love of God for the elect.—John 10:15; Galatians 2:20.
(2.) As to its NATURE. (a.) Being a divine Person he assumed the legal responsibilities of his people under the conditions of a human being. (b.) He obeyed and suffered as their Substitute. His obedience and suffering were vicarious. (c.) The guilt, or just legal responsibility of our sins, were imputed to him, i. e., charged upon and punished in him. (d.) He did not suffer the same sufferings either in kind, degree, or duration, which would have been inflicted on them, but he did suffer precisely that suffering which divine justice demanded of his person standing in their stead. (e.) His sufferings were those of a divine Person in a human nature.
(3.) As to its EFFECTS. (a.) It was the effect not the cause of God’s love. It satisfied his justice and rendered the exercise of his love consistent with his righteousness. (b.) It expiated the guilt of sin, and reconciled God to us as a righteous Ruler. (c.) It secured the salvation of those for whom he died, purchasing the gift of the Holy Spirit, the means of grace, and the application and consummation of salvation. (d.) It did not ipso facto liberate, as a pecuniary satisfaction, but as a vicarious penal satisfaction its benefits accrue to the persons, at the times, and under the conditions, prescribed by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Its application is a matter of right to Christ, but of grace to us. (e.) Being an execution in strict justice of vicarious punishment it is a most effective and real example of punishment to the moral universe. (f.) Being an exercise of amazing love it produces legitimately the most profound moral impression, melting the heart, subduing the rebellion, and dissipating the fears of convinced sinners.
BIBLICAL PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE.
6. State the argument in support of this doctrine derived from the nature of divine justice.
It is obvious that God punishes sin, either (1) because of its intrinsic ill–desert, which is opposed to the essential and immutable rectitude of his nature; or, (2) because of the injury it does his creatures, from a principle o wise benevolence prompting him to restrain it by furnishing deterring motives; or, (3) from pure sovereignty. But we have before proven (See above, Ch. 8., Q. 59–66)—
(1.) That the moral perfection of God is essential and fundamental, and not a product of his self–determination.
(2.) That his essential moral perfection includes a principle of justice which makes the punishment of sin an end in itself.
(3.) That virtue, and especially justice, can not be resolved into disinterested benevolence. The essential attributes of benevolence and justice do not conflict. Justice is free but not optional. Benevolence to the undeserving is grace, which is essentially optional.
7. State the proof derived from the immutability of the divine law and from the absolute truth of God. The will of God is freely determined by his nature. His law including precept and penalty is the expression and revelation at once of his nature and his will As far as the law represents his nature and purpose it must be immutable. As far as it is a revelation of that purpose, its immutability is pledged by his inviolable truth.
But—
1st. God has declared that his law is immutable, Luke 16:17, i. e., his revealed law in all its elements, if the ceremonial, a fortiori the moral law.
2nd. It is declared that Christ came to fulfill and not to suspend or abate the law.—Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:31.
3rd. It is affirmed that God will punish sin.—Genesis 2:17; Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 3:26.
8. Show that the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered as our Substitute in the definite sense of that term. A substitute is one appointed or accepted to act or to suffer in the stead of another, and his actions or sufferings are vicarious. That Christ obeyed and suffered as the substitute of his people is proved—
1st. The preposition
2nd. The preposition
3rd. The same is proved by what the Scriptures teach as to our sins being “laid upon” Christ.—See below, Q. 9.
4th. And by what the Scriptures teach as to the nature of sacrifices, and the sacrificial character of Christ’s work.—See below, Qs. 10 and 11.
9. Do the same with regard to those passages which speak of our sins being “laid upon” Christ, and of his “bearing” sin or iniquity.
Sin may be considered (1) in its formal nature as “transgression of law,”1 John 3:4; or, (2) as a moral quality inherent in the agent, Romans 6:11-13; or, (3) in respect to its legal obligation to punishment. In this last sense alone is it ever said that the sin of one is laid upon or borne by another.
1st. To impute sin is simply to charge it to one’s account as the ground of punishment.
(1.) The Hebrew word
(2.) The same is true with regard to the Greek word
(3.) The Scriptures assert that our sins are imputed to Christ.—Mark 15:28; Isaiah 53:6 and Isaiah 53:12; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13.
2nd.
(1.) The Hebrew word
(2.) Also
(3.) The Septuagint translates these words sometimes by
10. Show that the Jewish Sacrifices were vicarious sufferers of the penalties to which the offerers were exposed, and that they were in the strict sense typical of the Sacrifice of Christ.
It is admitted by all that sacrifices prevailed among all heathen nations from the earliest times, and that they were designed to propitiate offended justice.
I. That victims of the Jewish bloody sacrifices vicariously suffered the penalty due the sins of the offenders is proved—
1st. From their occasion.—Leviticus 4:1-35; Leviticus 5:1-19; Leviticus 6:1-13. This was some sin, including moral as well as ceremonial transgressions.
2nd. From the qualifications of the victims. They must be the highest class of clean animals intimately associated with man, e. g., sheep, bullocks, goats, pigeons, the individuals selected to be the most perfect of their kind, as to age, sex, and physical condition.—Leviticus 22:20-27; Exodus 22:30; Exodus 29:1.
3rd. From the ritual of the sacrifice itself:This included—
(1.) The laying on of hands, with confession of sins.—Leviticus 1:4; Leviticus 3:2; Leviticus 4:4; Leviticus 16:21; 2 Chronicles 29:23. This act always in Scripture expresses transfer from the person imposing to the person or thing upon whom the hands are imposed; e. g., of official authority, Deuteronomy 34:9; Acts 6:6; or of healing virtue, Matthew 9:18; Acts 9:12; Acts 9:17; or of sin, Leviticus 16:7-22. Rabbi Aaron Ben. Chajim says, “Where there is no confession of sins there is no imposition of hands.”—Outram, De Sacrificiis D. 1., C. 15., §§ 8, 10, 11. Hence the victim, although perfect in itself, was always called
(2.) The slaying of the victim. It was offered by the sinner, and “accepted for him to make atonement for him,”Leviticus 4:1-35 :, and then executed,“ for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”—Leviticus 17:11.
(3.) The sprinkling of blood, in the case of ordinary sacrifices on the horns of the altar, but on the Day of Atonement the blood of the victim offered for the whole people was carried within the veil and sprinkled on the mercy–seat.—Leviticus 4:5, etc. This signified its application to the covering of sin, and its acceptance by God.
4th. From their effect which was always forgiveness. “And it shall be forgiven him” was the constant promise.—Leviticus 4:20-31; Leviticus 6:30, etc. It is expressed everywhere by the Hebrew word
5th. This is the interpretation of these rites given by all learned Jews of subsequent ages.—See Outram, “De. Sac.,” D. 1., Chs.20–22.
II. That they were in the strict sense typical of the sacrifice of Christ is proved—
1st. They are expressly called “shadows” of which Christ is the “body” and “patterns.”—Hebrews 9:13-24; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:13; Hebrews 11:12.
2nd Christ affirms that the law as well as the prophets spoke of him and his work.—John 1:45; John 5:39; Luke 24:27.
3rd. He is declared to be “our Passover sacrificed for us.”1 Corinthians 5:7 and Luke 24:44. Compare Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12.
4th. He is declared to be “sacrificed” for his people, by his “blood” being made a sin–offering, etc.—John 1:29; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14; 1 Peter 1:19; Ephesians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 5:21.
5th. He is everywhere declared to accomplish for the man who comes to God through him precisely what the ancient sacrifices did on a lower sphere.—Galatians 3:13; Matthew 20:28; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; Romans 3:24-25; Romans 5:9-10; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:14-20.
11. Exhibit the argument derived from the fact that Christ made satisfaction for his people as their High Priest.
I. The priest was—
1st. A man taken from among men to represent them in things pertaining to God.—Hebrews 5:1. This was especially true of the high priest. “He represented the whole people, all Israel were reckoned as being in him.” Vitringa, Obs. Sac., p. 292; Exodus 28:9-29. If he sinned it vas regarded as the sin of the whole people.—Leviticus 4:3. He wore the names of all the tribes on his breastplate. He placed his hands upon the scape–goat and confessed the sin of the whole people.—Leviticus 16:15-21.
2nd. He had a right to “bring near” to God, and all the people had access to God only through the priest, especially the High Priest.—Numbers 16:5.
3rd. This the priest effected by propitiary sacrifices and intercession.—see above, Ques. 10. Hebrews 5:1-3; Numbers 6:22-27.
II. Christ is declared to save his people in the character of a High Priest.
1st. He is expressly asserted both in the Old Testament and in the New to be a Priest.—Psalms 110:4; Zechariah 6:13; Hebrews 5:6.
2nd. He possessed all the qualifications for the office.
(1.) He vas chosen from among men to represent them.—Compare Hebrews 5:1-2 with Hebrews 2:14-18; Hebrews 4:15.
(2.) He was chosen of God.—Hebrews 5:4-6.
(3.) He was holy.—Hebrews 7:26.
(4.) He possessed right of access to God.—Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 9:11-14.
3rd. He discharged all the functions of a priest.—Daniel 9:24-26; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:12; 1 John 2:1.
4th. The instant Christ’s work was accomplished the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and the whole typical sacrificial system was discharged as functus officio.—Matthew 27:50-51.
12. Prove the truth of the doctrine as to the nature of the satisfaction of Christ above stated from the effects which are attributed to it in Scripture.
1st. As these effects respect God they are declared to be propitiation and reconciliation.
(1.)
(2.)
(3.)
2nd. As these effects respect sin they are declared to be expiation.—Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10; Leviticus 16:6-16.
3rd. As they respect the sinner himself they are declared to be redemption, that is, deliverance by ransom.—1 Corinthians 7:23; Revelation 5:9; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 51:11, and Isaiah 62:12.
Christ’s work is set forth in the same sentences as (a) an expiatory offering, (b) a ransom price, (c) a satisfaction to the law. Thus we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Christ “gave his life a ransom for many.” He “redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us.” God “hash made him, who knew no sin, to be a sin–offering for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Thus Christ is not said to be a sacrifice and a ransom and a bearer of the curse of the law, but that he is that particular species of sacrifice which is a ransom—that his redemption is of that nature which is effected by his bearing the curse of the law in our stead, and that he redeems us by offering himself as a bleeding sacrifice to God.
13. In what sense and on what grounds was the satisfaction rendered by Christ necessary? and how does the true answer to this question confirm the orthodox doctrine as to its nature?
Since the salvation of men is a matter of sovereign grace, there could have been no necessity on the part of God for the provision of means to secure it, but on condition of God s determining to save sinners, then in what sense was the satisfaction rendered by Christ necessary?
1st. The advocates of the Socinian or Moral Influence Theory say that it was necessary only contingently and relatively, as the best means conceivable of proving the love of God and of subduing the opposition of sinners.
2nd. The advocates of the Governmental Atonement Theory hold that it was only relatively necessary as the best sin deterring example of God’s determination to punish sin.
3rd. Some Supralapsarians, as Dr. Twisse, prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, in order to exalt the sovereignty of God, held that it was only hypothetically necessary, i. e., because God had sovereignly determined to forgive sin on no other condition.
4th. The true view is that it was absolutely necessary as the only means possible of satisfying the justice of God in view of the pardon of sin. The grounds of an absolute necessity on the part of God, can, of course, only be found in the immutable righteousness of his nature, lying behind and determining his will. That it is absolutely necessary is proved—
(1.) If salvation could have been secured otherwise Christ would be dead in vain.—Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:21.
(2.) God has declared that his gift of Christ is the amazing measure of his love for his people. If so, of course, he could have had no alternative, otherwise his love would not be the cause of the sacrifice.—Romans 5:8; John 3:16; John 4:9.
(3.) Paul says it was necessary as a vindication of God’s righteousness in view of the forgiveness of sins that were past.—Romans 3:25-26.
It is plain that if the necessity for the satisfaction was absolute, it must have had its ground ill the nature of God. If so, it must have been in its essence a satisfaction of the justice or essential righteousness of that nature. But a satisfaction of outraged justice is penal suffering.
14. Prove that Christ’s satisfaction includes his “active” as well as his “passive” obedience.
See above, Ques. 1, § 8. Christ as the second Adam takes up the covenant obligations of his people as these were left by the fall of the first Adam. The sanctions of that covenant were—
(1.) “The man that doeth these things shall live by them.”—Leviticus 18:5, comp., and Romans 10:5, and Galatians 3:12, and Matthew 19:17.
(2.) The penalty of death. If Christ should only suffer the penalty of death, and not render the federal obedience required of Adam, it would necessarily follow, either (1) God would alter the conditions of law and give “eternal life” in the absence of the condition demanded; or, (2) we must continue forever destitute of it; or, (3) we must start where Adam did before his apostasy, and work out the conditions of the covenant of works in our own persons. This last would have been impossible, and therefore Christ by his obedience fulfilled them for us. This is proven—
1st. The Scriptures explicitly declare that he not only suffered the penalty but also meritoriously secured for us “eternal life,” the “adoption of sons,” and an “eternal inheritance.”—Galatians 3:13-14; Galatians 4:4-5; Ephesians 1:3-13; Ephesians 5:25-27; Romans 8:15-17.
2nd. It is expressly said that he saves us by his obedience as well as by his suffering.—Romans 5:18-19.
15. What is the Church doctrine as to the Perfection of Christ’s Satisfaction?
I. As to its intrinsic justice–satisfying value it has been held—
1st. By Duns Scotus (1308), who referred the necessity of the Atonement to the will and not to the nature, that “every created oblation avails for just as much as God pleases to accept it.” He graciously pleases to accept the sufferings of the human nature of Christ as sufficient, on the principle of accepti latio, “the optional taking of something for nothing, or of a part for the whole.”
2nd. Grotius (1645) in his great work,“De Satisfactione” etc., held that as the law was a product of the divine will, God had the inalienable prerogative of relaxing it (relaxatio), and that he did graciously relax it in accepting in the sufferings of Christ something different and less than the demands of the law, an aliud pro quo, not a quid pro quo.
3rd. Limborch and Curcellaeus (1712 and 1659)—“Apol. Theo.,” 3. 21, 6, and “Institutio Rel. Christ,” vol. 5., chap. 19., § 5—held that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but saves us as a sacrifice, which was not a payment of a debt; but a condition graciously estimated as sufficient by God, upon which he graciously remitted the penalty.
4th. The Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches have always held that the satisfaction of Christ was that of a divine Person, and hence (1) was superogatory, not due from himself; and free to be credited to others, (2) was of infinite value. From the time of Thomas Aquinas the Catholic Church has held that it is of superabundant value. Hence they satisfy the claims of the law in strict rigor of justice.
II. As to its intention and effect—
1st. The Reformed Churches all agree in opposition to the Romanists, Arminians, and advocates of an indefinite atonement, that the satisfaction of Christ is perfect in the sense of not only making the salvation of those for whom it was offered possible, but of meritoriously securing its own application to them and their certain and complete salvation.
2nd. The Romanists hold that through the instrumentality of baptism the merits of Christ (1) cancel the guilt of all sins original and actual preceding baptism, and (2) transmute the penalty of all post–baptismal sins from eternal death to temporal pains. Nevertheless persons guilty of post–baptismal sins must expiate them by penances or works of charity in this world, or in the next by the pains of purgatory.—“Counc. Trident,” Sess. 14, ch. 8., and Sess. 6, can. 29 and 30.
III.. Arminians hold that the satisfaction of Christ makes the salvation of all men possible, and secures for them sufficient grace, but that its full effect is suspended on the condition of their free choice. The truth of the Reformed doctrine is proved (1) from the fact that the Scriptures refer the removal of condemnation solely to the death of Christ, and represent all sufferings of believers as disciplinary.—Romans 8:1-34 and Hebrews 12:5-11.
(2.) They declare that the blood of Christ “cleanses from all sin,” and that we are “complete in him” who “by one sacrifice” perfects us.—Colossians 2:10; Hebrews 10:12-14; 1 John 1:7.
(3.) Salvation is conditioned only upon trust in Christ’s work, and this very trust (faith) is itself given to us as a result of Christ’s merits.—Ephesians 2:7-10.
(4.) We have above proved (Ques. 14) that the satisfaction of Christ meritoriously secures actual and complete salvation for its beneficiaries, and not merely the possibility of salvation upon conditions. See also below, Ques. 21.
16. State and answer the objections which have been urged against the truth of the orthodox doctrine.
1st. It is objected by Socinians and others that while it is an imperative duty and Christian virtue in man to forgive offenses freely, that our doctrine ascribes the vice of vindictiveness to God.
We ANSWER.—
(1.) That we forgive injuries and have nothing to do with the punishment of sins, while God punishes sin, and is incapable of suffering injury.
(2.) We have proved above, Ch. 8., Q. 53–58, that all virtue can not be resolved into benevolence, and that justice is an essential attribute of God, and that sin is intrinsic ill–desert.
2nd. Socinus and others maintained that if sin is punished it can not be forgiven, and that if it is forgiven it can not be punished, and hence our doctrine excludes the exercise of free grace on the part of God in man’s salvation.
We ANSWER.—
(1.) Free grace is shown in the sovereign admission and acceptance by God of Christ’s substitution.
(2.) In the sovereign imputation of his merits to the individual sinner.
(3.) That the infinite freeness of the love of God and the self–sacrificing grace of Christ is a thousand times more conspicuous in view of the facts that men were righteously condemned, and that justice inexorably demanded satisfaction in the self–humiliation of our Substitute, than it could have been in any merely sovereign relaxation of law, or by any simple forgiveness upon repentance.
3rd. That Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, because that included essentially (a) remorse, (b) eternal death.
We ANSWER that the penalty of the law is essentially simple divine displeasure involving the withdrawal of the life–giving communion of the Holy Ghost. This in the case of every creature (a) leads to spiritual death, (b) hence is naturally everlasting. Christ suffered this displeasure and desertion, Matthew 27:46, but being a divine person spiritual death was impossible. He suffered precisely that kind and degree and duration of pain which divine wisdom, interpreting divine justice, required in a divine person suffering vicariously the penalty of human sin, for the same reason the temporal suffering of one divine Person, is a full legal equivalent for the ill–desert of all mankind.
4th. The objection urged by Piscator (Prof. at Herborn 1584–1625) and others against the recognition of the active obedience of Christ as an element of his satisfaction.
(1.) That the law made obedience and penal suffering alternatives. If the precept is obeyed the penalty should not be inflicted.
(2.) That Christ, as a man, needed his active righteousness for himself, as the essential qualification of his personal character.
We ANSWER.—
(1.) As shown above, Ques. 2 and 14. Christ stood as our Representative in our federal and not in our natural relation to law. His active and his passive obedience have different purposes, the former merits the positive rewards conditioned on obedience, the latter merits the negative blessing of remission of penalty.
(2.) Christ, although a man, was a divine person, and therefore never personally subject to the Adamic covenant of works. He was essentially righteous, but he was made under the law only as our representative, and his obedience under the voluntarily assumed conditions of his earthly life was purely vicarious.
5th. It is objected by Arminians and others that the doctrine that Christ satisfies in our behalf the preceptive demands of the law by his active obedience, as well as the penal demands by his passive obedience, leads to Antinomianism. This is ANSWERED above, under Ques. 3.
6th. It is objected by Socinus (1539–1604) and by all the adversaries of the orthodox doctrine, that the demands of justice for penal satisfaction are essentially personal. The demand of outraged justice is specifically for the punishment of the person sinning. How then can the demands of the divine nature be satisfied by pains inflicted upon a person arbitrarily substituted in the place of the criminal by the divine will? How can the sufferings of an innocent man take the place in the eye of justice of those of the guilty man.
ANSWER.—The substitution of Christ in the stead of elect sinners was not arbitrary. He made satisfaction for them as the truly responsible Head of a community, constituting one moral person or corporate body. This responsible union with his people was constituted (a) by his own voluntary assumption of their legal responsibilities, (b) by the recognition of his sponsorship by God, the source of all law in the universe, (c) by his assumption of our nature. This, at least, is the testimony of revelation, if it can not be explained, it can not be disproved. THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
17. State first negatively, and then positively, the true doctrine as to the design of the Father and the Son in providing satisfaction.
I. Negatively—
1st. There is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless.
2nd. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relations of all to the demands of the law are identical. What would save one would save another.
3rd. Nor to the bona fide character of the offer which God has made to “whomsoever wills” in the gospel. It is applicable to every one, it will infallibly be applied to every believer.
4th. Nor as to its actual application. Arminians agree with Calvinists that of adults only those who believe are saved, while Calvinists agree with Arminians that all dying in infancy are redeemed and saved.
5th. Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies—and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it.
II. But positively the question is what was the design of the Father and Son in the vicarious death of Christ. Did they purpose to make the salvation of the elect certain, or merely to make the salvation of all men possible? Did his satisfaction have reference indifferently as much to one man as to another? Did the satisfaction purchase and secure its own application, and all the means thereof, to all for whom it was specifically rendered? Has the impetration and the application of this atonement the same range of objects? Was it, in the order of the divine purpose, a means to accomplish the purpose of election, or is the election of individuals a means to carry into effect the satisfaction of Christ otherwise inoperative? Our Confession answers—
Ch. 8., sect. 5.—“The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, . . . purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.”—Chapter 3., sect. 6. “As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they that are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ. . . . Neither are any other redeemed by Christ . . . . but the elect only.”
Ch. 8., sect. 8.—“ To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same.”—“Articles of Synod of Dort,” Ch. 2., §§ 1, 2, 8. The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually does effect in the result.
1st. Incidentally to remove the legal impediments out of the way of all men, and render the salvation of every hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that each one has a right to appropriate it at will, to impetrate temporal blessings for all, and the means of grace for all to whom they are providentially supplied. But,
2nd. Specifically his design was to impetrate the actual salvation of his own people, in all the means, conditions, and stages of it, and render it infallibly certain. This last, from the nature of the case, must have been his real motive. After the manner of the Augustinian Schoolmen Calvin, on 1 John 2:2, says, “Christ died sufficiently. for all, but efficiently only for the elect.”—So Archbishop Ussher, Numbers 22:1-41; Numbers 23:1-30 of Letters published by his Chaplain, Richard Parr, D.D.
18. State the Arminian doctrine on this subject. That the design of Christ was to render a sacrificial oblation in behalf of all men indiscriminately, by which “sufficient grace” is meritoriously secured for each, and their sins rendered remissible upon the terms of the Evangelical Covenant; i. e., upon condition of faith.—Watson’s “Theo. Institutes,” Pt. 2., Ch. 25.
19. What was the doctrine of the “Marrow Men” in Scotland? The “Marrow of Modern Divinity” was published in England, 1646, and republished in Scotland by James Hog of Carnock, 1726. The “Marrow Men” were Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, and their followers in the Secession Church. They were perfectly orthodox with respect to the reference of the atonement to the elect. Their peculiarity was that they emphasized the general reference of the atonement to all men. They said Christ did not die for all, but he is dead for all, i. e., available. “God made a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all men.” They distinguished between his “giving love,” which was universal, and his “electing love,” which was special (“Marrow of Mod. Divinity”). Dr. John Brown said before the synod of the United Secession Church, 1845, “In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men” (“Hist. of Atonement Controversy in Secess. Church,” by Rev. And. Robertson).
20. State the doctrine of Amyraldus of the French School of Saumur, and of Baxter in England. This scheme of Hypothetical or Conditional Universalism holds that God gave his Son to die in order to provide redemption for all men indiscriminately, suspending its actual enjoyment upon their free appropriation of it. At the same time he sovereignly wills to give the effectual grace which determines that free self–appropriation only to the elect. The ordinary Calvinistic doctrine logically makes the decree to provide redemption the means to carry into effect the decree of election. The French and Baxterian view makes the decree of election the means of carrying into effect so far forth the general purpose of redemption (See “Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ,” by Richard Baxter. Answered by John Owen in his “Death of Christ,” etc.). These “Novelties” were explained away before the French Synod, 1637, and virtually condemned.
21. Exhibit the Biblical evidence upon which the Calvinistic doctrine as to the “Design” of the Atonement rests.
1st. It is proved by the fact that this doctrine alone is consistent with the Scriptural doctrine that God has from eternity sovereignly elected certain persons to eternal life, and to all the means thereof. It is evident that the rendering of satisfaction specially for the elect is a rational means for carrying the decree of election into execution. But, on the other hand, the election of some to faith and repentance is no rational provision for executing the purpose to redeem all men. R. Watson (“Institutes,” Vol. 2., p. 411) says that the view of Baxter, etc., “is the most inconsistent theory to which the attempts to modify Calvinism have given rise.” It is plain that if God purposed that the elect should certainly be saved, and others left to the just consequences of their sins, Christ could not have designed the benefits of his death indifferently for all men.
2nd. Its design is shown from the very nature of the atonement as above proved.
(1.) Christ expiated our sins as our substitute in the strict sense. But a substitute represents definite persons, and his service, when accepted, actually discharges the obligation of those for whom it was rendered.
(2.) Christ being our substitute under the “covenant of works” actually and perfectly satisfied all the demands of the covenant. In that case the terms of the covenant itself provide that those for whom it is satisfied must enjoy the reward. It is not the possibility of life, but life itself that is promised.
3rd. The Scriptures declare everywhere that the design and legal effect of Christ’s work is not to render salvation possible but actually to save, to reconcile God and not to render him only reconcilable.—Matthew 18:11; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:16.
4th. The Scriptures everywhere teach that Christ purchased faith, repentance, and the Holy Spirit’s influences by his death and obedience. Hence he must have purchased them for those for whom he suffered and obeyed, and they can not, therefore, be the conditions upon which the enjoyment of the benefits of his death are suspended. “We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ.”—Ephesians 1:3-4. The Holy Ghost is “shed on us through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”Titus 3:5-6; Galatians 3:13-14; Php 1:29; Titus 2:14; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:30.
5th. Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal covenant between the Father and himself. This is certain—
(1.) Because three intelligent eternal Persons must have always had a mutual plan comprehending all their works, prescribing their several parts therein.
(2.) The Scriptures often refer to this covenant.—Psalms 89:3-4; Isaiah 13:6-7, and Isaiah 53:10, Isaiah 53:12.
(3.) Christ made constant reference to it while executing it. Luke 22:29; John 6:38; John 10:18.
(4.) Christ claims its reward.—John 17:4-9
(5.) And speaks of those who had been previously given him by his father.—John 10:15-26. Then he must have died specially for those “whom the father had given him.”
6th. The motive for his self–sacrifice is always declared to be the highest form of personal love.—John 15:13; Romans 5:8; Romans 8:32; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:18-19; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 4:9-10.
7th. The doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect is everywhere stated in scripture.—John 10:11; John 10:15; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32-35; Ephesians 5:25-27.
22. If Christ died only for his own people, on what ground does the general offer of the gospel rest?
“The Lord Jesus, in order to secure the salvation of his people, and with a specific view to that end, fulfilled the condition of the law or covenant under which they and all mankind were placed. These conditions were—(1) perfect obedience (2) satisfaction to divine justice. Christ’s righteousness, therefore, consists of his obedience and death. That righteousness is precisely what the law demands of every sinner in order to Justification before God. It is, therefore, in its nature adapted to all sinners who were under that law. Its nature is not altered by the fact that it was wrought out for a portion only of such sinners, or that it is secured to them by the covenant between the Father and the Son. What is necessary for the salvation of one man is necessary for the salvation of another and of all. It is also of infinite value, being the righteousness of the eternal Son of God, and therefore sufficient for all.”—Hodge’s “Essays,” pp. 181, 182. A bona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all men—
1st. Because the satisfaction rendered to the law is sufficient for all men.
2nd. Because it is exactly adapted to the redemption of all.
3rd. Because God designs that whosoever exercises faith in Christ shall be saved by him. Thus the atonement makes the salvation of every man to whom it is offered objectively possible. The design of Christ’s death being to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that salvation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or because there is any other barrier in the way of his salvation than his own most free and wicked will.
23. How can the condemnation of men for the rejection of Christ be reconciled with the doctrine that Christ died for the elect only? A salvation all–sufficient and exactly adapted to his necessities is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes; and in every case it is his, if he believes; and in DO case does any thing prevent his believing other than his own evil disposition. Evidently he is in no way concerned with the design of God in providing that salvation beyond the assurance that God intends to give it to him if he believes. If a man is responsible for a bad heart, and the exercises thereof, he must be above all worthy of condemnation for rejecting such Savior.
24. On, what principles are these texts to be explained which speak of Christ bearing the sins of the WORLD, and of his dying for ALL?
These are such passages as Hebrews 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:6; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; John 6:51. These terms, “world” and “all,” are unquestionably used in very various degrees of latitude in the Scriptures. In many passages that latitude is evidently limited by the context, e. g.,1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18; Romans 8:32; John 12:32; Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:20; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. In others the word “world” is opposed to the Jewish nation as a people of exclusive privileges.—Romans 11:12; Romans 11:15; 1 John 2:2. It is evident that statements as to the design of Christ’s death, involving such general terms, must be defined by the more definite ones above exhibited. Sometimes this general form of statement is used to give prominence to the fact that Christ, being a single victim, by one sacrifice atoned for so many.—Compare Matthew 20:28, with 1 Timothy 2:6, and Hebrews 9:28. And although Christ did not die with the design of saving all, yet he did suffer the penalty of that law under which all were placed, and he does offer the righteousness thus wrought out to all.
25. How are we to understand those passages which speak of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died?
Such passages are hypothetical, and truly indicate the nature and tendency of the action against which they warn us, and are the means which God uses under the administration of his Spirit to fulfill his purposes. God always deals with men by addressing motives to their understandings and wills, thus fulfilling his own design through their agency. In the case of Paul’s shipwreck, it was certain that none should perish, and yet all would perish except they abode in the ship.—Acts 27:24-31. On the same principle must be explained all such passages as Hebrews 10:26-30; 1 Corinthians 8:11, etc.
HISTORY OF THE VARIOUS VIEWS HELD IN THE CHURCH.
26. State the general character of the Soteriology of the Early Fathers.
1st. From the very first the representative Christian Fathers taught in a crude, unscientific manner that Christ suffered as a substitute for his people, to expiate sin and to propitiate God.
They freely applied to Christ’s work the sacrificial language of the Scriptures. Outram, Dis. 1, ch. 17.—“As it regards the work of Christ as the Redeemer of mankind, we find already in the language used by the Church Fathers on this point, in the period under consideration, all the elements that lay at the basis of the doctrine as it afterwards came to be defined by the Church.”—Neander’s “Ch. Hist.,” Vol. 1., p. 640, see testimonies below.
2nd. Together with this view there was combined during the whole earlier age until the time of Anselm a view especially emphasized by Origen (185–254) and Irenaeus (200), to the effect that Christ was offered by God as a ransom for his people to Satan, who held them by the power of conquest. This view was founded on such passages as Colossians 2:15, and Hebrews 2:14.
27. State generally the four theories under one or other of which all views ever entertained as to the nature of the reconciliation effected by Christ may be grouped.
1st. The MYSTICAL, which, although it has assumed various forms, may be generally stated thus:The reconciliation effected by Christ was [brought about by the mysterious union of God and man accomplished by the incarnation, rather than by his sacrificial death. This view was entertained by some of the Platonizing fathers, by the disciples of Scotus Erigena during the Middle Ages, by Osiander and Schwenkfeld at the Reformation, and by the school of Schleiermacher among modern German theologians.
2nd. The Moral Influence THEORY first distinctively elaborated by Abelard (1142) and held by the Socinians, and such Trinitarians as Maurice, Young, Jowett, Bushnell, etc. The points involved are—
(1.) There is no such principle as vindicatory justice in God.
(2.) Benevolence is the single ultimate principle determining God in his provisions for human redemption.
(3.) The sole object of the life and death of Christ is to produce a moral effect upon the individual sinner, subduing his obdurate aversion to God and his sullen distrust of his willingness to forgive. Thus reconciling man to God instead of God to man.
(4.) The Socinians held in addition that Christ’s death was the necessary precondition of his resurrection, by which he brought immortality to light.
3rd. The Governmental Theory, which, presupposing all the positive truth contained in the “Moral Influence Theory,” maintains—
(1.) That justice in God is not vindicatory, but is to be referred to a general Governmental rectitude, based upon a BENEVOLENT regard for the highest ultimate and most general well–being of the subjects of his moral government.
(2.) Law is a product of the divine will and therefore relaxable (3.) God’s sovereign prerogative includes the right of pardon.
(4.) But the governmental rectitude above explained, in view of the fact that indiscriminate pardon would encourage the violation of law, determines God to condition the pardon of human sinners upon an imposing example of suffering in a victim so related to mankind and to himself, as effectually to demonstrate his determination that sin should not be indulged with impunity. Therefore—(a.) Christ’s sufferings were not punishment, but an example of a determination to punish hereafter. (b.) They were designed not to satisfy divine justice, but to impress the public mind of the moral universe with a sin–deterring motive. This theory was first elaborated by Hugo Grotius (1645) in his great work, “Defensio Fidei Catholicoe de Satisfactione Christi,” in which he abandoned the faith he assumed to defend. It has never been embodied in the creed of any historical church, but has been held by several schools of theologians, e. g., the Supernaturalists of the last age in Germany, as Staudlin, Flatt, and Storr, and in America by Jonathan Edwards, Jr., Smalley, Maxey, Dwight, Emmons, and Park.
REMARKS.—While this theory embraces much precious truth, it fails in the essential point on which the integrity of the whole depends. For—
(1.) Only a real bona fide punishment can be an example of a punishment, or a proof of God’s determination to punish sin.
(2.) It ignores the essential justice of God, and (3.) the [act that sin is an essential evil in itself, and (4.) the fact that Christ suffered as the HEAD in whom all his members were UNITED.
4th. The SATISFACTION THEORY consistently embraces the positive elements of the “Moral Influence” and “Governmental” theories above stated. It was first analyzed and set forth in a scientific form by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (1093–1109) in his epoch–making book, “Cur Deus Homo,” and it has formed the basis of the Soteriological doctrines of all the creeds and classical theological literature of all the historical churches since his time. It has been sufficiently stated and proved in the former part of this chapter.
LITERATURE.—Hase, “Libri Symbolici Eccle. Evangelicoe”; Nieleyer, “Collectio Confessionum,” etc.; Streitwolf, “Libri Symbolici Eccle. Catholicoe.”“De Sacrificiis, Gulielmo Outramo Auctore”; Neander’s and Shaff’s “Church Histories”; Archb. Magee, “The Atonement”; Shedd’s “History of Christian Doctrine”; Owen’s “Works,” vol. 10, “Redemption”; Ritschl, “Crit. Hist. of the Christ. Doctrine of Reconciliation”; Candlish, “The Atonement”; Watson’s “Institutes.”
CLASSICAL AND CONFESSIONAL AUTHORITIES.
Origen, “Homil. ad Levit.,” 1, speaking of Christ says, “He laid his hand upon the head of the calf, i. e., he laid the sins of mankind upon his own head, for he is the head of the body, the Church.”
Athanasius(373), contra Arianos, 1, 45–60.—“The death of the incarnate Logos is a ransom for the sins of men and a death of death.” . . . “Laden with guilt the world was condemned by law, but the Logos assumed the condemnation, and suffering in the flesh gave salvation to all.”
Gregory the Great(604), “Moralia in Jobum,” 17, 46.—“Guilt can be extinguished only by penal offering to justice. . . Hence a sinless man must be offered. . . . Hence the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption (culpa). He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice.”
Bernard of Clairvaux(1153), “Tract. contr. Err. Abaelardi,” cap. 6, 15.—“ If One has died for all, then all are dead (2 Corinthians 5:14), that is. the satisfaction of one is imputed to all, as that One bore the sins of all, neither is it found that he who offended is one, and he that satisfied another, for the head and the body is one Christ. Therefore the Head made satisfaction for his members.”
Wycliffe(1324–1384), “De Incarn. et Mort. Christ.”—“And since according to the third supposition, it is necessary that satisfaction should be made for sin, so it was necessary that that same race of man should make the satisfaction as great, as it had, in the first parent, made the offence, which no man could do, unless he were at the same time God and man.” The Valenses of Piedmont, in 1542, presented a Confession to Francis I. of France through Cardinal Sadolet. In it they say, “This Confession is that which we have received from our ancestors, even from hand to hand, according as their predecessors in all times, and in every age, have taught and delivered. . . We believe and confess that the gratuitous remission of sins proceeds from the mercy and mere goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died once for our sins, the just for the unjust, who bore our sins in his own body on the gross; who is our advocate with God, himself the price of our reconciliation, who alone has made satisfaction for believers, to whom sins are not imputed as they are to the unbelieving and the reprobates.”
John Wessel(1419–1489), “De Causis Incarnationis.”—“Truly himself God, himself priest, himself victim, he made satisfaction for himself, of himself to himself.”“Exempla Scaloe Meditationis,” Exodus 1:1-22, p. 544.—“Our loving Father willed thee his own loving Son to be a surety, sponsor guaranty with respect to sufficient doing and sufficient suffering, upon just pledge, for my universal failure and miscarriage.”
“ORTHODOX CONFESSION OF THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC EASTERN CHURCH,” composed by Petrus Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kiew, 1642, and sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem 1672, p. 85. “The death of Christ was of a very different kind from that of all other men in these respects; first because of the weight of our sins, secondly, because he wholly fulfilled the priesthood even to the cross, he offered himself to God and the Father for the ransoming of the human race. Therefore even to the cross he fulfilled the mediation between God and men.”
ROMAN DOCTRINE.—“Council of Trent,” Sess. 6, chap. 7.—“Christ who when we were enemies, on account of the great love wherewith he loved us, merited justification by his most holy passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction to God the Father for us.”“Catechism of Council of Trent,” Pt. 2., ch. 5, Q. 60.—“The first and most excellent satisfaction is that by which whatever is due by us to God, on account of our sins, has been paid abundantly, although he should deal with us according to the strictest rigor of his justice. This is said to be that satisfaction, which we say has appeased God and rendered him propitious to us, and for it we are indebted to Christ the Lord alone, who having paid the price of our sins on the cross, most fully satisfied God.”
LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, Hase’s “Collection,” p. 684, “Formula Concordiae.”—“That righteousness which before God is of mere grace imputed to faith, or to the believer, is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, by which he for our sakes satisfied the law, and expiated our sins. For since Christ was not only man, but God and man in one undivided person, so he was not subject to the law, nor obnoxious to suffering and death on his own account, because he was Lord of the law. On which account his obedience (not merely in respect that he obeyed the Father in his sufferings and death, but also that he for our sakes willingly made himself subject to the law and fulfilled it by his obedience) is imputed to us, so that God on account of that whole obedience (which Christ by his acting and by his suffering in his life and in his death, for our sakes rendered to his Father who is in heaven) remits our sins, reputes us as good and just, and gives us eternal salvation.”
REFORMED DOCTRINE.—“Thirty–nine Articles,” Arts. 11 and 31.—“The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.”Homily 3d. “On Salvation.”—“God sent his only Son our Savior Christ into this world, to fulfill the law for us, and by shedding his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction to his Father for our sins.”“Heidelberg Cat.,” Ques. 12–18 and 40. “West Confession Faith,” ch. 8., sect. 5, and ch. 11., sect. 3. “Form. Cons. Helvetica,” cans. 13–15. Cocceius (“De Faed. et Testam. Dei,” cap. 5, 92). “Thus that greatest mystery (the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son) is revealed in what manner we are justified and saved by God, in what manner God may both be the one who judges, and who acts as surety, and who thus is himself judged who absolves and who intercedes, who sends and is sent. That is in what manner God himself satisfied himself by his own blood.”
REMONSTRANT DOCTRINE.—Limborch, “Apol. Thes.,” 3, 22, 5.—“It may here be questioned in what way the sacrifice of one man is able to suffice and in feet did suffice for expiating the innumerable sins of so many myriads of men. Answer. It sufficed on two accounts. First with respect to the divine will, which required nothing more for the liberation of the human race, but was satisfied with this one sacrifice alone. Secondly with respect to the dignity of the person, Jesus Christ . . . 21, 6. The satisfaction of Christ is so–called inasmuch as it releases from all the penalties due our sins, and by hearing and exhausting them, satisfies divine justice. But this sentiment has no foundation in Scripture. The death of Christ is called a sacrifice for sin, but sacrifices are not payments of debts, nor are they full satisfactions for sins; but a gratuitous remission is granted when they are offered.”
Remonstrantia, etc., five articles prepared by the Dutch advocates of universal redemption (1610), Art 2.—“Therefore Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all and every man, so that he impetrated for all through his death reconciliation and remission of sins, nevertheless on this condition, that no one should have actual fruition of that reconciliation, unless he is a believer, and that also according to the gospel.”
SOCINIAN DOCTRINE.—“Rac. Cat.,” Sec. 5, ch. 8.—“What was the purpose of the divine will that Christ should suffer for our sins? Ans. First, that a most certain right to, and consequently a sure hope of, the remission of their sins, and of eternal life, might by this means be created for all sinners (Romans 8:32; Romans 5:8-10). Secondly, that all sinners might be incited and drawn to Christ, seeking salvation in and by him alone who died for them. Thirdly, that God might in this manner testify his boundless love to the human race, and might wholly reconcile them to himself (John 3:16).”