*This forms the first of a series of translations of Turretin’s De Satisfactionis Christi Veritate which forms part of vol. iv. of his Opera. Turretin was born at Geneva in 1623 and became professor of theology in 1653. He is specially remembered as a zealous defender of the theology of the Synod of Dort and a strong opponent of the theology of Saumur advocated by Amyraldus. He attained to a first place among the Reformed theologians by his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae.—Editor.
I.
SINCE the most sweet doctrine of the atonement of Christ is the principal stay of our salvation, the anchor of faith, the refuge of hope, the rule of charity as holy Athanasius says; and so the true basis of Christianity and the most precious treasure of Christians; when it is intact both the framework of the former remains firm and the consolation of the latter, and again when it is either destroyed or corrupted the structure of the whole religion is necessarily loosened and scattered in ruins, so nothing ought to be dearer to the worshippers of divine truth than that it be considered by an accurate investigation and set out in clear light to be owned by all, and that firm confidence may be retained and founded on the Word of God.
II.
This subject ought to be handled with the more pains because scarcely any mystery of the Christian religion has been assailed by the devil and the world, the chief enemies of our salvation, with greater hatred and spite, either by open warfare or secret devices continually, none which they attempt to confuse and overturn by so many errors almost daily for the destruction of the Church.
III.
For to pass by the Pharisees and false apostles who lived in the time of Christ and His Apostles, of whom the former directly attacked this most saving doctrine, endeavouring to set up their own righteousness Rom. x. 3, the latter indeed indirectly and insidiously opposed it, joining Moses with Christ, works with faith, the righteousness of men with the righteousness of God by a pernicious combination, of whom Paul moreover says, Galat. v. 4, Katargeisthai apo tou Christou, that is they so disappear and are cut away from Christ so that He is rendered palpably useless to them: also the Valentinians and Gnostics, Arians and Photinians and other worthless men of that kind who were condemned long ago by ancient Councils and Fathers. Let us omit heresies well known by the stamp of infamy such as of the Christomachi, and it is better known that they were enemies of the merit and atonement of the Saviour than to require proof. Who is ignorant of Pelagius himself who among various and multiple errors to which he gave birth thought that the saving grace of Christ was placed in His doctrine alone and His example? For he thought Christ came for the purpose, not of delivering the human race from any captivity or any prison, but only to show a way of salvation and to hand down proofs of eternal life, to provide an example of a useful life by placing Himself before us as an instance of humility and patience, as can easily be seen from different places in Augustine. This destructive plague had infected the Christian Church so much by its own contagion that the remains of this pest remained up to the times of Bernard.
IV.
For in the twelfth century as the darkness of the sophists was coming in there arose among the Gauls, Peter Abelard, a man of acute intellect and of as many sided learning as those times afforded. It was said of him by the writers of that age that he denied the atonement of Christ with ancient heretics impiously and wickedly, whence Clara-Vallis the Abbot in his exe. epistle to Pope Innocent relates his various errors and pestilent doctrines, but especially concerning the mystery of redemption, because he taught that Christ appeared in the flesh and underwent death for no other end than our instruction by word and witness of His love through death: He attacked the mystery of the incarnation which he agreed was firmly believed by teachers after the apostles, partly because there was no need for an atonement because God was able to restore the human race by the promulgation of His word, partly because it was cruel and wrong that He who was innocent and Himself the Son of God, should by a bloody and shameful death atone to God for the sins of others.
V.
They were not lacking who attribute a better spirit to Abelard, for Peter Cheniacensis, not a mean writer of those times, testifies of him in a certain letter that he concluded the last act of his life holily and devoutly in the monastery of Cheniacensis. Moreover, concerning the subject of the atonement in a certain apology he left this statement written, “I profess that the Son of God became incarnate solely to deliver us from the slavery of sin and the yoke of the Devil and that He might by His own death open to us the entrance to the highest life.” Wherefore there is no reason why John Crellius in his reply to Hugo Grotius should boast of Abelard’s support in attacking the atonement of the Saviour so much.
VI.
After the Reformation indeed in the re-birth of the Gospel and all branches of knowledge, although that salubrious light which illuminated the heavens seemed bound to scatter the deadly darkness of blind error, there were however too many who attempted to vitiate and corrupt this most sacred doctrine. It is known what Michael Servetus, a man fit for any wickedness, inspired by the devils themselves, blasphemously declared concerning this, also what George Blandrata, Valentine Gentile, David Georgius held impiously as opinions. To these were added Tallius Socinus, Bernard Ochinius and at length that unhappy Faustus Socinus, a descendant of Tallius, who both laboured to attack and destroy by detestable and evidently devilish effrontery the divinity and atonement of Christ. They erred far more dangerously in this point than the Papists themselves. For although the worshippers of the Pope strive to weaken in more than one way the value and efficacy of that merit and atonement by calling its perfection in doubt while they do not blush to add to it the rags of human merits and atonements, never, however, have they advanced to this extent of madness as to deny the necessity and truth of it openly, as that unhappy band of Socinians, who have nothing left of Christ but the name, have attacked it with great power by bringing to life old heresies long since rejected. There are not wanting plain answers to these opinions, whatever each was able to bring forward in confutation of the, Leidenses in his criticism, Festus Hommius in his treatise and Bodecherus in his reply to the Socinians abundantly proved.
VII.
Although in truth in cleansing the church from these monsters both heroes of a former generation and very recently a great number of most distinguished men, whom it became more to engage in a struggle, spent their strength; not yet, however, alas! that it should be so, do we view the heresy so lifelessly removed but that from time to time new devices are brought into action to renew the struggle, and reinforcements are sent up from which one may conjecture that the matter is not so exhausted that one should not exercise diligence as each one is able in those things. Therefore we hope it will not be unwelcome if, for our guidance in throwing more and more light on the truth and asserting it, we consider in a few points the orthodox opinion and lay it before the public in a treatise by the good help of God.—Translated by Rev. D. J. Macaskill, M.A.