to be illustrated when the work of Christ is compared in Scripture and in the writings of theologians to the payment of a debt. The creditor has no further claims when the debt due to him is fully paid. This perfection of the satisfaction of Christ, as already remarked, is not due to his having suffered either in kind or in degree what the sinner would have been required to endure ; but principally to the infinite dignity of his person. He was not a mere man, but God and man in one person. His obedience and suflPerings were there- fore the obedience and sufferings of a divine person. This does not imply, as the Patripassians in the ancient Church assumed, and as some writers in modern times assume, that the divine nature itself suffered. This idea is repudiated alike by the Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed churches. In the " Second Helvetic Confession"^ it is said, " Minime docemus naturam in Christo divinam passani esse." The "Form of Concord " ^ teaches the same thing, quoting Luther, who says that our Saviour to suffer must become man, •' non enim in sua natura Deus mori potest. Postquam axitem Deus et homo unitus est in una persona, recte et vere dicitur : Deus mortuus est, quando videlicet ille homo moritur, qui cum Deo unum quiddam, sen una persona est." This is precisely wliat the Apostle, in Hebrews ii. 14, teaches, when he says that He who was the Son of God, who made heaven and earth, who upholds all things by the word of his mouth, and who is immutable and eter- nal, assumed our nature (flesh and blood) in order that He might die, and by death destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Christ is but one person, with two distinct natures, and therefore whatever can be predicated of either natui'e may be predicated of the person. An indignity offered to a man's body is offered to himself. If this principle be not correct there was no greater crime in the crucifixion of Christ than in unjustly inflicting death on an ordinary man. The principle in question, however, is clearly recognized in Scripture, and therefore the sacred writers do not hesitate to say that God purchased the Church with his blood ; and that the Lord of glory was crucified. Hence such expressions as Dei mors, Dei sanguis, Dei passio have the sanction of Scrip- tunil as well of Church usage. It follows from this that the satis- faction of Christ has all the value which belongs to the obedience and sufferings of the eternal Son of God, and his righteousness, as well active -is passive, is infinitely meritorious. This is what the Apostle clearly teaches in Hebrews ix. 13, 14 : " For if the blood of bulls and of goats .... sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; l XI.; Niemeyer, p. 485. 2 viii. 44; Hase, p. 772.
484 PART m. Ch. VII. — satisfaction of CHRIST.
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through (or with) an eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? " The supe- rior efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ is thus refexTed to the in- finitely superior dignity of his person.
It follows from the perfection of Christ's satisfaction that it supersedes and renders impossible all other satisfactions for sin. The sufferings which justified believers are called upon to endure are not punishments, because not designed for the satisfaction of justice. They are chastisements intended for the benefit of tiie sufferer, the edification of the Church, and the glory of God. In this view all Protestant churches concur.
Romish Doctrine of Satisfaction.
Romanists, while on the one hand they exalt to the utmost the intrinsic value of Christ's satisfaction, yet on the other hand they restrict its application. At one time, it was the prevalent doctrine in the Latin Church that the work of Christ availed only for the pardon of sins committed before baptism. With regard to post- baptismal sins, it was held either that they were unpardonable, or that atonement must be made for them by the sinner himself. Tiiis idea that the satisfaction of Christ avails only to the forgiveness of sins committed before conversion has been adopted by many Rationalists, as for example by Bretschneider.^ He says, " Fiir spatere Siinden der Christen gilt das Opfer Christi nicht, sondern es geht deni Siinder nur einmal, bei der Taufe, zu Gute." " The sacrifice of Christ does not avail for the later sins of the Christian. It benefits the sinner only once, at his baptism." ^ What is more remarkable, Dr. Emmons, Puritan though he was, has very mucli the same idea. The only benefit we receive from Christ, he says, is the foro-iveness of sins. This is granted when we believe. After that, we are rewarded or punished, not only according to but on account of our works.^ The doctrine that post-baptismal sins are unpardonable, having been rejected as heretical, the Romish theo- logians adopted the theory that the satisfaction of Christ availed only to the remission of the penalty of eternal death ; leaving the sinner bound to suffer the temporal punishment due to his trans- gressions or to make satisfjiction for them.
The Romish doctrine of satisfiictions arose out of a perversion of
1 Dogmalik, part ii. ch. vi. 2, §§ 154-158, 3d edit. vol. ii. pp. 280-310.
2 Sysiemntische Entwickdung, § 107, 4th edit. p. 624.
8 Works of Nathaniel Emmons, D. D., edited by Jacob Ide, D. D. Boston, 1842, vol. v Sermons 46, 47.