By FRANCIS TURRETIN.
(Continued from p. 341.)
XI.
Although indeed the term satisfaction, positively taken as far as the word is concerned, is unwritten, however, the equivalent of it in meaning often occurs in the Scriptures. For words having the same significance are found both in the Old Testament and in the New. In the Old Testament indeed padhah and pidhyon, Exod. xiii. 13, Psal. xlix. 7, 8, kaphar and kaphar, Exod. xxi. 30, Levit. xvi. 30, whence dées kapharim, because on it a solemn propitiation for the people was customary; in the new Testament lutron, antilutron, apolutrosis, time, hilasmos, lutron, apolutron, eksagorázein and similar words which plainly denote it as will be seen in the appropriate place, not to mention various phrases from which it is undeniably proved as will appear from what follows.
XII.
But concerning this satisfaction three questions can be especially asked. 1. Was it necessary that Christ should suffer for us? 2. Did He render a true and proper satisfaction? 3. Did He perform all the things that were demanded of Him perfectly and absolutely? In the first the mind is bent to the question of necessity, in the second the enquiry is concerning truth, in the third the matter of perfection is considered. For concerning these three points the greatest controversies are accustomed to take place both in the case of the Socinians and the Papists. We are now on the point indeed of dealing with that first head. 1. We are placing before us the point at issue and the opinion of the different parties. 2. We shall confirm the true and orthodox opinion constructively. 3. We shall confute the principal arguments of our opponents by a destructive criticism.
XIII.
Although the question does not seem involved, certain points, however, must be disposed of as undisputed and foreign to the subject. The question is not do sins deserve and are liable to punishment, for both are admitted; every sin deserves punishment. For although something may be inconsistent with a supreme rule, this is an eternal law. It is utterly impossible that God should not be displeased, and so should not bind the sinner to suffer the penalty. For he who displeases God deserves to be rejected by that very God. But concerning this there is a controversy, are sins punishable that God ought and wishes actually to punish always in accordance with His justice? 2. It is not disputed whether He actually punishes or ought to punish certain sins or not. For our adversaries acknowledge that it is impossible for God to allow unpunished the sins of the impenitent and contumacious. But does He punish all at all times so that He suffers none to pass unavenged? 3. It is not within the bounds of the controversy properly to discuss whether God is able, as a result of His supreme right to the creature and His absolute power to pardon sin without a satisfaction. Nor are we of those who desire to put limits to the Almighty. Nor is it our part to define to what extent that infinite and sovereign power which He has in regard to the creature may be extended. But the question is concerning the right of moderating His virtues and ordained power, according to which He is not only able to act but wishes to act and acts in this matter especially. Finally it is not the question, ought Christ to do and suffer something, by which He might obtain pardon, according to the act of acceptance of the injured party, freely and at the prayer of another. For our adversaries grant that. But ought He to make satisfaction meritoriously, entirely and in very deed, not omitting anything which strictly ought to be rendered, but doing and suffering whatever was demanded for our salvation?
XIV.
Whence the form of the question arises easy and explicit. Is no sin able to be passed by unpunished by God, acting in accordance with His right to moderate His moral perfections, and was the satisfaction of Christ so indispensable for us to such an extent that without it neither remission of sins, nor external salvation could be obtained? On the part of God was it not only convenient and fitting but also necessary that Christ should render a full and perfect satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf, in order to accomplish the work of our redemption? The Papists deny it indirectly. They labour by guile in their answers to undermine the foundations. The Socinians openly and without disguise attack it.
XV.
Socinus has framed the contrary proposition here and there in his book concerning Servetus, and in his lectures. “I think,” he said, “and I consider it is the orthodox doctrine that Jesus Christ was our Saviour on account of the fact that He announced to us the way of eternal salvation. He confirmed it in His own person and the example of His life, and showed it clearly by His rising from the dead. He is able to give eternal life to those who have faith in Him, but that He made satisfaction to divine justice, according to which we deserved to be damned as sinners for our sin, or that there was any need that He should, I deny” (Liber, de Serva. c. Idem statuit Cateches. Racoviensis, Ostoródi Instit., Smalzius contra Frantizium, Crellius contra Grotium, Volkelius against all).
XVI.
The opinion of the orthodox indeed is unvarying, that Christ made a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice for all our sins, and it was so absolutely necessary that He should make satisfaction, that without it there would neither be any remission of sins nor would any ray of hope shine forth of salvation and immortality.
XVI.
Here, however, we are not able sufficiently to be amazed that there are several disciples of Luther, and among them Gerhardus in the part concerning Justification c. xxxvi., who wish an occasion given to the new Photinians of this their blasphemous error by reason of the doctrine of our Churches concerning the decree of election. “For,” he says, “if the elect are to be saved by the absolute will of God in regard to eternal life, then sins are also pardoned to them by the absolute will of God, or they could be pardoned, and so there is no need of the satisfaction or merit of Christ.” Those could have easily proved by the same manner of reasoning that there was no need of faith or repentance. The accusation is most malicious, and is refuted sufficiently by the fact that as we contend for the absolute decree of election, so we strive with all our strength for the real satisfaction of Christ against those monstrous doctrines. Indeed the absolute decree concerning the end does not prejudice the setting up of means, although they are more subordinate, for He who foreordained salvation for us from eternity from His own good pleasure was unwilling, however, that it should be conferred in time unless satisfaction meanwhile had been given. He who loved us with a love of benevolence so that He was willing to give it in Christ and Christ to us, did not love us with a love of beneficence except in Him and on account of Him, whence we are said to be elected in Christ, Eph. i. 4., not as the meritorious and procuring cause of election, but as the foundation for its execution and first consequence as the means of carrying it out.—Translated from the Latin by Rev. D. J. Macaskill, M.A.
(To be continued.)