that on account of the merits of Christ, there is no necessity, that we should make any satisfaction to God, through tem poral punishments inflicted by Christ, and patiently borne by us, or through punishments enjoined by the priest, not voluntarily undertaken; such as penances, prayers, fastings, alms, and other pious exercises, and shall further say, that the new life only is the best penitence, let that man be accursed."*

The Remonstrants,† or Arminians, endeavour not a little to destroy the perfection of the atonement. Though they have not yet been so bold as, with the disciples of Socinus, to reject the atonement entirely, yet they make every effort in their power, to diminish its efficacy and fulness. They maintain that the satisfaction of Christ was accepted by God, not on account of its own dignity, but merely through grace,that it was not a real but a nominal satisfaction. The substance of the doctrine which they teach on this head is, that God acquiesced in the satisfaction made by the death of Christ, not because satisfaction had been truly rendered to his justice, but because he was graciously pleased to admit the satisfaction, notwithstanding its imperfection, as altoge ther sufficient.

The doctrine for which we contend is, that Christ hath so perfectly satisfied divine justice for all our sins, by one offering of himself; and not only for our sin, but also for both temporal, and eternal punishment, that henceforth there are no more propitiatory offerings to be made for sin;—and that, though for the promotion of their penitence and sanctification God often chastises his people, yet no satisfaction is to be made by them, either in this or in a future state of existence.

Such is the perfection of the atonement, that it corres. ponds to the justice of God revealed in the word, to the demands of the law, and to the miseries and necessities of those

Council of Trent, session 4. cap. 8. canon 13.

† A name given to Arminians, on account of the remonstrance which they presented to the synod of Dort, against that act, by which their tenets were condemned.

for whom it was made. Had it been in its own nature deficient, and derived its sufficiency only from God's acceptance of it through mere grace, then the victims under the law might have possessed equal efficacy in making atonement for sin, contrary to Heb. x. 4. The atonement derives its perfection from its own intrinsic fulness of merit. It is perfect; 1. In respect to parts; because it satisfied, by its expiatory efficacy, all the demands which the law makes upon us, both in relation to the obedience of life, and the suffering of death. By enduring the punishments due to us, it has freed us from death and condemnation. The satisfaction is perfect as to its meritorious efficacy; for it reconciles God the Father to us, and has acquired for us a title to eternal life. 2. It is perfect in degree; for Christ has not only done and suffered all that which the law claims of us, but all this in a full and perfect degree, so that nothing more in this respect, can possibly be desired. The perfection of the atonement in degree, is derived from the infinite dignity of the person who makes it, and the severity of the punishment exacted. Hence follows another view of the perfection of Christ's satisfaction-that which regards its effects. In respect of God, it has effected an entire reconciliation with him;*-in relation to sin, it has made full expiation, and on account of this expiation pardon is obtained—and in relation to believers, its effects are perfection in holiness, and complete redemption, both as to deliverance from death, and as to a title to life and its possession.‡

We shall offer the proofs by which we establish this view of the atonement. 1. The dignity of Christ's person, which is not only of immaculate purity, but also truly divine—a person in which all fulness dwells.§ In Christ's person there is a fulness of divinity, a fulness of office, a fulness of merit, and of graces; who then can doubt, but that the satisfaction which he has made is one of infinite value and efficacy, one of such fulness, and all-sufficiency that nothing

*Rom. v. 10. and 2 Cor. v. 18. Heb. ix. 12. and x. 14.

† Eph. i. 7. Heb. i. 3. and ix. 26. $ Col. i. 19.

can be added to it, and especially by feeble man. For though Christ's human nature, which was the instrument in the obedience and sufferings, was finite, yet this does not lessen the value of the satisfaction, because it derives its perfection from the divine person of Christ, to which all his actions must be attributed; as he is the person who obeyed, and suffered.

The perfection of the atonement is also established, from the oneness of Christ's offering. Why does the apostle Paul assert, that Christ has once offered himself for us,* and that by one offering of himself he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified? Why does he always set before us the obedience of Christ alone as the ground of our justification, unless this obedience is full and complete? As a repetition of the same offering argues its imperfection, so on the other hand, an offering's having been but once made, necessarily imports its plenitude, and the full accomplishment of its object.

Our view of the atonement is confirmed by the approbation which it obtained from God as judge. If God declares that he is perfectly satisfied, let no one dare to say that the satisfaction is imperfect. The question is whether the supreme judge, who demands the satisfaction, approves of and receives it as altogether sufficient. That the atonement has been approved and accepted by God, is established, not only from the appointment of Christ to the mediatory office, of whom in the mediatory character, the Father often declares that he is his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased; but especially by his resurrection from the dead, which is irresistible evidence both of his divinity, and of the perfection of the atonement.† Unless Christ had satisfied to the uttermost farthing, can we believe that God the judge, whose inexorable justice demands full payment, would have freed him, and have exalted him to that supreme glory, which at the Father's right hand, he hath obtained as a reward of his sufferings. Would the creditor free the surety from prison

Heb. vii. 9. and 10.

† Rom. i. 4.

+ Phil. ii. 9.

before he had paid the full debt? Could Christ, when he had undertaken to pay to divine justice the debts which man owed, be set free, until he had to the full redeemed the debt? Seeing then that Christ has gloriously arisen by his own. power, and by the power of the Father, there is no room left for doubt respecting the perfection of the satisfaction, the full payment of the price of redemption; of the full discharge of which, the Father has given us such indubitable testimony. The effects which are produced by the atonement prove its entire sufficiency. Why are our reconciliation with God, the appeasing of his wrath, the expiation and pardon of sin; and all these not partial but full and complete-also our redemption and glorification, all attributed to the death and obedience of Christ,* unless his atonement was full and complete? A perfect effect requires a perfect cause to produce it.

In vain do our opponents contend, "that by pleading for satisfactions to be made by the Saints, they do not derogate from the infinity of Christ, nor from his satisfaction; since they make all their virtue and efficacy to depend upon the atonement of Christ, who not only has satisfied for us, but also gives us the power to satisfy for ourselves-and since they do not esteem our good works, as atonements to be associated with that of Christ, and as of the same exalted nature, but inferior and subordinate." They assume what they ought to prove. We do not grant that Christ gives us any power to atone for ourselves. Such a supposition receives no countenance from scripture, and is contrary to the very nature of Christ's atonement. It is one thing to make satisfaction, another to give the power to make satisfaction. They are indeed, utterly inconsistent with each other. If Chris has made a complete satisfaction, why is any other demanded? Where the primary cause is solitary, no co-operative, or subordinate causes are admissible. So far is this doctrine of our opponents from advancing the glory of Christ, that it

* See Col. i. 20. 2 Cor. v. 21. 1 Joh. i. 7. Rom. iii. 24. and v. 10. Heb. i. 3. and ix. 14. and x. 14.

in reality, by resorting to other grounds of salvation than those afforded by him, offers an indignity to him and his atonement. What he, as our Redeemer, has engaged to accomplish, they pretend to effect, at least in part, by other agents. And though in the application of this redemption, men are bound to contribute by their efforts, as fellow-workers with God, yet they are unable to co-operate with him in its acquisition.

Equally futile is their reasoning, when they resort to the distinction between sin and punishment-when they contend, that though Christ has satisfied for our sin, he has not fully satisfied for our punishment, or if for eternal punishment, at least not for temporal, which must be suffered by the Saints themselves, either in the present, or in a future state. Because the remission of sin on account of the satisfaction made by Christ is perfectly complete; "there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus;" and in consequence of his atonement, their justification is perfect, and in due time they shall obtain full glorification.* This distinction between satisfying for sin, and its punishment, is absurd, for in the providence of God, there is a necessary con- · nection between sin and suffering. Sin is the cause and suffering the effect; take away the cause, and the effect is necessarily destroyed. Remission of sin is nothing else but a deliverance from all punishment, and obligation to punishment, which cannot be justly inflicted where there is no transgression. Would it be just to demand the payment of a debt already, either paid, or remitted?

They also assert, "that Christ in a limited sense, makes satisfaction for temporal punishment, in us, and by us." 1. This assertion is rash, having no countenance from scripture. 2. It is dangerous, associating men with Christ in making satisfaction, and thus taking a part of the work of redemption out of his hands; for redemption, and satisfaction are words of similar import, there being no other way to redeem, but by rendering satisfaction. 3. It is false and

Rom. viii. 9.