Taken from his ‘SUM OF THEOLOGY REHEARSED OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES; (Geneva, 1665)’
Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) was a prominent Dutch Reformed theologian and biblical scholar, born in Bremen but deeply associated with the Dutch Reformed tradition through his academic career at Franeker and Leiden universities, where he taught Hebrew, theology, and biblical exegesis until his death. A leading architect of covenant (federal) theology, Cocceius is best known for systematizing the concept of successive covenants in Scripture, notably distinguishing the pre-Fall covenant of works (requiring perfect obedience for eternal life) from the post-Fall covenant of grace (fulfilled through Christ’s redemptive work), as articulated in his seminal work Summa Doctrinae de Foedere et Testamento Dei (1648). His exegetical approach emphasized Christ’s centrality in Old Testament typology and the progressive revelation of salvation history, often contrasting with the more scholastic methods of contemporaries like Gisbertus Voetius, sparking the “Voetian-Cocceian” debates over issues such as Sabbath observance and the abrogation of Mosaic law. Cocceius’ A Sum of Theology Rehearsed Out of the Scriptures (Geneva, 1665) exemplifies his commitment to grounding theology in biblical exegesis, particularly through his priestly Christology and doctrine of satisfaction. In Chapter 61, “Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ," he argues that Christ’s sacrificial death constitutes a penal substitutionary atonement, satisfying divine justice by bearing the guilt of sin and fulfilling the law’s demands, thereby securing redemption for the elect. Rejecting Socinian views that denied the necessity of Christ’s substitutionary payment, Cocceius asserts that God’s holiness inherently requires satisfaction for sin, a theme rooted in his covenantal framework and articulated through detailed engagement with Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 53) and Pauline theology. This work, like his broader corpus, integrates rigorous philological analysis with a redemptive-historical lens, cementing his legacy as a bridge between Reformation orthodoxy and later developments in Reformed scholasticism.
In both states, that of humiliation and that of exaltation, Christ is to be considered as performing His priestly office. For He is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4). In the state of exaltation, His intercession hath its place; so in the state of humiliation, His satisfaction is chiefly to be regarded. We shall endeavor to expound clearly four matters: first, whether Christ truly satisfied for our sins; second, how He satisfied; third, for whom He satisfied; and fourth, what is the efficacy of His satisfaction.
Table of Contents:
We affirm that Christ satisfied, that is, He truly redeemed us from the guilt of sin and the sentence of the curse with a price fully worthy, and purchased true righteousness, whereby we might become the sons of God and heirs of eternal life. And thus He truly and wholly paid whatsoever the execration of God imposed upon sinners, and the law of God required of man for the granting of compulsion and the liberty to seek the reward. This we deem to be signified in Psalm 16:1-3. For after we hear therein the prayer which Christ uttered, Preserve me, O Jehovah, for in Thee do I put my trust—whereby He sought not only His own preservation from death but also the salvation of those given unto Him as His members—we hear also the speech befitting Jehovah, who heareth and granteth His petition. For from the words which we read in the prophetic Scriptures, we must, with careful judgment, discern whose person they concern. Here, the speech in verses 2 and 3 is His, for whose sake grace or goodness was destined unto the saints on earth, and whose whole desire is in them whose leaders are the saints on earth, that is, in the Church to be gathered from Gentiles and Jews. Therefore, He speaketh thus: O my soul, thou hast said unto Jehovah, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to Thee, but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight. These words signify that the goodness of God was appointed for the saints on earth, that is, for those believing the promise and the Gospel proclaimed through Christ. It was incumbent upon Him who prayed for preservation to perform it. But now it is no longer incumbent upon Him, for in truth He hath called Jehovah His Lord with His soul, that is, He hath rendered all obedience unto Him, fulfilled His law, and done His will, as it is written in Psalm 40:8. Thus, nothing hindereth that the grace and goodness of God should come unto the saints who are on earth, that is, unto the disciples of Christ, so that the Holy Spirit should be poured upon them, and they should be clothed with power from on high to preach the Gospel, freed from the yoke of the law, clad with the spirit of adoption, and behold an inheritance among the Gentiles. These words the Septuagint translators corrupted, saying: I said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord, for of my goods Thou hast no need. But what my goodness signifieth, see Psalm 68:10, where they render it kindness.
We deny and abhor as an abominable doctrine that which, following Peter Abelard, Socinus teacheth: that God, without any price paid, remitteth sins by acceptilation (as pious men say unto God, I will not take a pledge, or as the Septuagint hath it, I have taken from a pledge, Job 34:3), and that the redemption of Christ is not a redemption properly so called, nor a true satisfaction rendered by Him. They fashion a covenant of God with the pious and zealous for God. Psalm 50:5 saith: And it is the blood of the covenant or testament by which they are free, who were bound in the pit where there is no water (Zechariah 9:11). Thus, no man can make a covenant with God denying the sacrifice; nor, being free, rejoice in himself save in the blood of the testament shed.
Christ truly satisfied as to guilt, for His soul was made an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Concerning this place, we note that the word to make may signify a free donation or application out of love, but it may also denote the exhibition and ascham. The word ascham signifieth: first, guilt, that is, the debt of punishment; second, the cause of guilt, that is, fault; third, satisfaction for guilt, or the punishment or fine imposed for guilt, such as a certain species of sacrifice called by this name in the law of Moses. Now, Christ did not make or exhibit guilt, that is, obligation to punishment (for He came not to make men guilty, nor that the world should be condemned through Him, but that the world through Him might be saved, John 3:17), nor fault, which entered the world through Adam and is the work of the devil, which He came to destroy. It remaineth, therefore, that His soul, loving God and the sinful brother, by willingly laying down His life, is acknowledged to have made satisfaction for fault unto the release of guilt, and to have given it to whom He willed, namely, to His people. As to the right of sons, because He fulfilled all righteousness and the commandment given unto Him as Sponsor and Priest, so He Himself was made unto us righteousness from God (Matthew 3:15, 1 Corinthians 1:30).
The justice of God requireth satisfaction for sin, that is, that rectitude of God whereby, as He cannot be like unto a sinner, so He cannot but judge the sinner, and manifest the foulness of sin by exclusion from His goods and imposition of punishment, that the creature made in His image may know His holiness and hatred of sin, and the sinner may feel what it is to have denied his Creator, Lord, good, end, and pattern, unto which he was made, and His power to reward good for obedience and evil for disobedience through sin. For if God should commune with the sinner, He would deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) and testify that He is as the sinner (Psalm 50:21). For the giving of life is the praise of good work (Romans 2:29). Hence, to the force of the divine name Jehovah, insofar as it signifieth Him who is, manifesting through the work which is by nature, pertaineth also the punishment of sin. Wherefore, that saying, I am Jehovah, is set down as the first reason of God’s sentence. And hence God placeth among His properties, as part of His name, that will by no means clear the guilty(Exodus 34:5-7). It is also His glory that He calleth Himself a jealous God (Exodus 20:5), and compareth Himself to a consuming fire of thorns and briars (Deuteronomy 4:24, Isaiah 17:4, Hebrews 12:29). Hence He is said to be a possessor of fury (Nahum 1:2), purer of eyes than to behold evil, and who cannot look on wickedness (Habakkuk 1:13). And therefore God is said to be sanctified in the punishment of transgression (Leviticus 10:3, Ezekiel 38:23). Moreover, that this pertaineth to the justice of God is shown by the righteous judgment(Romans 2:5), and that the just sentence of God, naturally known by the Gentiles, is that they who do evil are worthy of death, and, as the Socinian Crellius himself saith, unworthy of life (Romans 1:32); also, that it is just with God to render affliction to them that afflict the godly (2 Thessalonians 1:6)—how much more to them that deny God through sin? This judgment is called reproof (Psalm 50:21, 6:2), and is shown to befit God no less than the chastening of the nations; so that it is absurd to deny it, given any knowledge of God and justice among the Gentiles (Psalm 94:10).
The necessity of satisfaction is further evident from the law of works, which was not given without the promise of life and the threatening of death. Nor is this more from good pleasure than from the consequence of nature; for as man could not be created but that he should desire union and communion with God (not in vain), and this would be his natural rectitude, and without it he would be evil, so also, if he became evil through fault, he would fall from union and communion with God, and sink into darkness and death. Whence sin is called a fire devouring unto hell (Job 31:12), and the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56)—the law being natural and not without cause repeated. On the other hand, God, in giving the law, declared that man should not attain life except in the power of obedience and the perfect righteousness of the law. Therefore, both the truth and the nature of God require satisfaction. And for this cause, the passions of the Savior are referred to the decency of God, and through them He is said to be perfected, that is, brought to the point that He might have all things which the captain and author of salvation ought to have (Hebrews 2:10, 5:7-9). And the Savior is said to be made under the law, and specifically under the sentence of the curse (Galatians 4:4, 3:13). For we could not die to the law that condemneth except through the same law absolving (Galatians 2:19), and the law is at last dead unto us in Him to whom we were held (Romans 7:5). Otherwise, Christ had died in vain, and not necessarily for the abolition of sin and the law, and the bringing in of righteousness (Galatians 2:21).
Hereunto pertaineth the impotence of the law, not in awarding life to the obedient—for it containeth precepts which, if a man do, he shall live in them (Ezekiel 20:11)—but insofar as it was impotent through the flesh, that is, unable to condemn sin by accusing guilty sinners, and to justify us (Romans 8:3). For if sins could have been remitted by acceptilation, nothing would hinder the law from being potent to justify man even after sin, now abolished by acceptilation. But the law was impotent through the flesh, so that, because we were sinful, we could neither be brought back to obedience by the law, nor, even if we had done all things (which was impossible), could we attain the reward. And significantly, the Apostle calleth the law, while it is the strength of sin and maketh it potent, the law of sin and death, that is, the law serving and patronizing sin and death, as we have taught in chapter 21, section 11. Whence also in Romans 7:23, when he saith he seeth another law in his members, which he also calleth the law of sin, he signifieth indeed the dictate of sin, but as having dominion, which it obtained by the law and still retaineth (though broken) in the members. For the same reason, he calleth the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus the same law, insofar as it awardeth the redeemed unto the Spirit of Christ, that through Him they might live in Him (Romans 8:2). Therefore, the Scholastics err greatly, from whom Socinus drew his heresy, as Durandus, denying the necessity of satisfaction. From which error certain of our own are not free, who in recent writings dispute for the same sentiment, unless they expressly add: Given that God willeth to manifest His virtues through the business of redemption, we could not otherwise have been saved. But it was not fitting for God to save us without the manifestation of His virtues. Whence also it is said that God hath declared unto us the Savior, and He is made unto us wisdom, etc.