the penances imposed in the early ages upon the lapsed. Those penances were satisfactions rendered to the Church ; that is, they were intended to satisfy the Church of the sincerity of the offend- er's repentance. When they came to be regarded as satisfactions rendered to the justice of God, the tlieologians were obliged to adopt a theory to reconcile the Church practice with tlie doctrine of the infinitely meritorious satisfaction of Christ. That theory was that the satisfaction of Christ, infinite though it was in merit, was designed only to secure the remission of everlasting death. Temporal punishments and the pains of jKirgatory after death are still to be endured, at the discretion of the Churcli, as satisfactions for sins. This is not the place for the full discussion of this subject. It is enough to remark, (1.) That if, as the Scriptures teach, every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life and in that which is to come, then it is out of all question for a sinner to make satisfaction for the least of all his sins. What he offers as the ground of pardon needs itself to be pardoned. This is so i)lain that Romanists have modified their theory so as in fact to destroy it, by teaching that the satisfaction rendered by penitents is accepted as such only for Christ's sake. But if this be so then the satisfaction of Christ is all-sufficient, and is not confined to removing the pen- alty of eternal death. (2.) In the Bible, the work of Christ is said to cleanse from all sin. All other sacrifices and satisfactions are said to be utterly unavailing, even should a man give the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul. (3.) Those who believe in Christ are justified, says the Apostle, from all things. They are not under condemnation. No one can lay anything to their charge. They have peace with God. (4.) This doctrine of supplementary satis- faction is derogatory to Christ and destructive of the peace of the believer, reducing him to a slavish state, and putting his salvation in the hands of the priests. (5.) If Christ be our only priest his work is the only satisfaction for sin. All others are unnecessary, and every other is impossible.
§ 3. Doctrine of the Scotists and Remonstrants.
While Protestants and the Church generally have held thiL doctrine that the satisfaction of Christ, because of the dignity of his person and the nature and degree of his sufferings was and' is infinitely meritorious, absolutely perfect from its intrinsic worth, and completely efficacious in its application to all the sins of the believer, the Scotists in the Middle Ages, and after them Grotiua and the Remonstrants, denied that the work of Christ had inherent
486 PART lU. Ch. VII. — satisfaction OF CHRIST.
value to satisfy divine justice, but said that it was taken as a satis- faction, acceptatione gratuita. The propositions laid down by Anselm, in his epoch-making book, " Cur Deus Homo ? " were, " (1.) Quod necessarium fuit hominem redimi. (2.) Quod non potuit redimi sine satisfactione. (3.) Quod facienda erat satisfactio a Deo homine. (4.) Quod convenientior modus fuit hie, scilicet per passionem Christi." The argument of Anselm is founded on the assumption that the pardon of sin I'equired an infinite satisfac- tion, i. e., a satisfaction of infinite merit, which could only be rendered by a person of infinite dignity. This principle, and all the propositions founded upon it. Duns Scotus contested. He advanced the opposite principle, namely, " Tantum valet omne creatum oblatum, pro quanto Deus acceptat." Therefore any man miglit have satisfied for his own sins ; or one man for the sins of all men, had God seen fit so to ordain. " Meritum Christi," he says, " fuit finitum, quia a principio finito essentialiter dependens. Non enim Christus quatenus Deus meruit, sed quatenus homo." This principle became the foundation of the doctrine of the Remon- strants on the work of Christ, and of the work of Grotius, " De Satisfactione Christi." Limborch ^ says, " Satisfactio Christi dici- tur, qua pro nobis poenas omnes luit peccatis nostris debitas, cas- que perferendo et exhauriendo divinae justitise satisfecit. Verum ilia sententia nullum habet in Scriptura fundamentum. Mors Christi vocatur sacrificium pro peccato ; atqui sacrificia non sunt solutiones debitorum, neque plenarise pro peccatis satisfactiones ; sed ilhs peractis conceditur gratuita peccati remissio. In eo errant quam maxime, quod velint redemtionis pretium per omnia aequiva- lens esse debere miseriae illi, e qua redemtio fit. Redemtionis pre- tium enim constitui solet pro libera asstimatione illius qui captivum detinet, non autem solvi pro captivi merito." - Curcellseus, another distinguished Remonstrant, or Arminian theologian, says the same thing :^ "Non ergo, ut vulgo putant, satisfecit [Christus] patiendo omnes poenas, quas peccatis nostris merueramus. Nam prime, istud
ad sacrificii rationem non pertinet Sacrificia enim non sunt
solutiones debitorum Secundo, Christus non est passus
mortem aeternam quae erat poena peccato debita, nam paucis tantum horis in cruce prependit, et tertia die resurrexit ex mortuis. Imo etiamsi mortem aeternam pertulisset, non videtur satisfacere potuisse pro omnibus totius mundi peccatis. Haec enim fuisset tantum una
1 Theohgia Christiana, in. xxi. 6 ; edit. Amsterdam, 1700, p. 255.
2 Ibid. III. xxi. 8; ut supra, p. 256.
• Opera Theologica, edit. Amsterdam, 1675, p. 300.