live unto righteousness; that henceforth we may no more live unto ourselves, but to him who died for us and was raised again for our justification." See the 6th chapter of Romans, for the manner in which the apostle Paul reasons on this subject; also Titus, ii. 14, and 1 Pet. ii. 24.

CHAPTER III.

On the Perfection of the Atonement.

In the preceding chapter we reasoned against the followers of Socinus. In this chapter we shall contend for a doctrine, that is denied by the Catholics. They indeed pretend to hold the unity and perfection of the satisfaction of Christ, and often exclaim that great injustice is done them, when they are charged with maintaining, that “Christ by his sufferings did not make a full and complete satisfaction for our sins;"* while in reality they, in many ways, weaken and overturn this doctrine, by maintaining that it must be confined to sins committed before baptism, and to the pollution of sin; but that it does not extend to punishment either temporal, or eternal.

In order to ascertain distinctly the question, we observe, that a satisfaction made to God is of a nature different from a satisfaction made to man. Among men, satisfactions are of two kinds. One is private, and is called a reparation; the other public, and is called canonical, because prescribed by the ancient canons of the church. Satisfaction of the latter kind is very often demanded by civil and ecclesiastical courts, for the reformation of offenders, and for the removal of scandals. In treating of the satisfaction made to God, we speak strictly concerning the Aurpov, the price of redemption, which Christ, as our surety paid for us, and thereby atoned for our transgressions. This is by Catholics in part ascribed to certain meritorious, expiatory works, by which they pretend to atone for their own sins, and for those

* Bellarmine, Book II. concerning indulgences, chapter 14.

of others. It is of the atonement for sin which Christ has made, of the satisfaction made to God, that we are to treat in this chapter. The point in controversy is not whether the satisfaction of Christ bars all human satisfactions, public, private, and canonical, which are imposed upon offenders for their correction, and to remove scandals from the church. We admit that these were, with propriety, often demanded under the Old Testament dispensation, and may yet be laudably exacted. But we inquire, whether, besides the satisfaction made by Christ, other satisfactions for sin are to be made to God, and should be imposed upon the saints. Here we and our opponents are at issue, they affirm that such additional satisfactions are to be made by the saints themselves, while we maintain, and hope to prove, that they are not only useless, but contrary to the scriptural plan of salvation.

The infliction of chastisements on the people of God, when they go astray,-chastisements which are of a medicinal and corrective nature, such as are inflicted upon children in their father's house, form no part of this controversy. We cheerfully admit, and firmly believe, that God, for the most valuable purposes, exercises his people with such wholesome discipline. Does the atonement of Christ exclude penal expiatory sufferings on the part of the saints, sufferings not designed as proofs of their piety, or to heal their backslidings, but as a satisfaction to avenging justice, inflicted not by God as a father, and through parental love, but decreed by God as a judge,-sufferings, which the law denounces against the wicked? Our adversaries affirm, that the atonement does not exclude such sufferings. We maintain that it does. The church of Rome teaches, that though the satisfaction of Christ is of infinite value, yet that it is not so full and ample, but that various atonements are to be made by believers in their own persons. These, they say are necessary, if not on account of their guilt, and liability to eternal punishment, which they admit are taken away by Christ, yet they are requisite to save them from temporal punishment. Hear what they say: "If any one shall affirm,

that on account of the merits of Christ, there is no necessity, that we should make any satisfaction to God, through temporal 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 altogether 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 corresponds 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 te nets 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 obtainedt-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.t

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.