BY FRANCIS TURRETIN.
(Continued from p. 303.)
*This forms the second of a series of translations of Turretin’s De Satisfactionis Christi Necessitate (not Veritate as in last issue) 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.
VIII. Before we do this certain things must be said by way of preparation concerning the word atonement to throw light on the matter.
The word atone among the Latins was always in use but with various meanings; for to pass by the more general signification by which in the Ulpian author we are said to atone to him whose desire we fulfil, it is certain that it is spoken of two things in common phraseology, either concerning the reparation of an injury or the payment of debt, for atonement is made for the injury and for the debt. For he who clears himself and apologises before him who has been injured is said to atone, whence the ancient Roman writers say that he atones who either by deed or words testifies that he is grieved because he has hurt another, and prays sincerely against vengeance and shows that he is willing to be reconciled to him; Cicero, 2 Philippic, “I had agreed just before Caesar’s letter that I would allow you to make atonement to me, i.e., I would receive an explanation and apology from you.” Thus Alemena in Plautus, being rather angry with Amphitryon, by whom she complains that she has been injured by most insulting language, declares that she will not otherwise be reconciled to him unless he makes atonement. Amphitryon, Act 3: “Moreover I, she says, will either desert him, or let him make satisfaction to me; and let him forswear in addition the charges he brought against me in my innocence.”
Hence the form in law concerning atonement among the ancients was, “I would forswear the deed, I will give an oath that you are unworthy of this injury.” Terence Adelphis: “I know these things of yours; I would forswear the action, an oath shall be given that you are undeserving of this wrong.” But for debt, satisfaction is made by paying the debt and freeing from the obligation to pay. Whence it is that in the practice of lawyers the words atonement and payment are used not rarely as synonymous. More often, however, it occurs that they are used in different senses. For to pay is properly said of him who for himself puts down the price, he is said to atone who pays what another owes or its equivalent. To this belongs the scholastic definition of atonement when it is said to be “a voluntary restoration of an equivalent at other times of that which is not owed,” when, of course, the surety pays what another owes or its equivalent to the creditor, Scotus in IV. Dist. XV.
IX. In sacred things the word atonement is found with two meanings at the same time, either for humble confession, acknowledgment of guilt, and prayer for pardon, or for a full payment by which divine justice is satisfied for the debt of our sins.
In the former sense, sinners are said more often in the writings of the Fathers to atone to God when they acknowledge sin with humble confession, and seek for His pardon. Origen homi. 3 in Jud. “Humilia teipsum Deo et satisfacito et in confessione poenitentiae,” Lactantius, li. c. 17, “If we have confessed our sins we shall have atoned to God.” Cyprian speaking of the lapsed, “Confessing their sin with humble and sincere atonement.” Thus the act of every penitent sinner who pleases God and obtains His pardon and grace, by which, of course, he testifies that he is greatly grieved concerning sins committed by him, and that he abjures them, and so from his heart desires to be reconciled to God, goes in their writings by the name of atonement. Because it is well known that the repentance of believers who had lapsed was done especially in public, the word atonement remained in that sense in a peculiar manner among the ancients, Whence in the Church the name atonement increasingly came to signify those evidences of repentance which were wont to be exhibited by those who had fallen into some notorious sin, and were gone through publicly in the ancient Church, for the edification of the faithful and reparation of scandal given, which were styled Canonical Atonements, and given in the outer court of the Church. From these things it is evident, that we may say this in passing, how ridiculous the Papists are while they attempt to drag passages of the Fathers, which speak about that mode of satisfaction, to commend the deceit of their own or others’ atonements, when it is well-known the word has a far different meaning among the latter and the former.
X. Indeed in the second sense when satisfaction is taken as payment it is not the part of any sinner to atone to God.
This is the proper part of Christ alone who for our sins paid the full ransom on the cross, and by His obedience right up to death atoned to the justice of God fully.
This is the proper meaning of this term when we argue about the Atonement of Christ. By it indeed we understand nothing else than the voluntary obedience and suffering of the God-man, by which He offered Himself to God by the eternal Spirit for a propitiatory sacrifice, in order that for us he might fulfil every demand of the Law, and might suffer all the penalties in succession of divine justice, which were transferred to Him as our surety and owing to us; and thus He by rendering a most perfect propitiation for our sins might procure deliverance for us from death and the curse, and at the same time a right to eternal life by His own most absolute righteousness. Whence it is well-known that both the acts and sufferings of Christ concur for this atonement, by which He fulfilled the Law most fully, both by doing what it ordered and by suffering what it threatened.
For when the law demanded both from sinful man, and both were necessary for perfect salvation, both had to be paid by Him for us, so that we might have a perfect righteousness in Him, by which not only we might obtain immunity from the penalties denounced by the law’s decree, but also a positive right to eternal life which the law promises to those who obey it. For although this satisfaction of Christ shone forth especially in death, whence often in the scripture salvation and redemption are wont to be assigned to Him by the figure of synecdoche, because it was the culminating point and crown of His obedience it ought, however, to be extended to the whole of His life in which Christ fulfilled all righteousness, and thus by His merit He made atonement and by His atonement He won merit.—
Translated by the Rev. D. J. Macaskill, M.A.