ment lies in the question, ‘An Christus morte sua, circa Deum aliquid effecerit?’?”* This is indeed the heart of the question. The whole Christian Church, Apostolic Fathers, Schoolmen, Reformers, Greek, Roman, Lutheran, Reformed, and even the Arminian Churches, all answer in one voice in the affirmative. The Arians, Socinians, Rationalists, and advocates of the Governmental Hypo- thesis, answer together in the negative. Let them not pretend, therefore, that their doctrine is an improvement of that old theology the root of which it destroys. Their doctrine is as strauge to the history of the Church as it is to the page of Revelation.
* Shedd’s History of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii., p. 371.
CHAPTER XX.
THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH DOCTRINE STATED AND ANSWERED.
THalY original scheme embraced the purpose of de- cuavrer || voting a separate chapter to the discussion ~~ and solution of the various objections which have been brought against the Church doc- trine of the Satisfaction rendered by Christ to divine justice, and another chapter to the discussion and. refuta- tion of the several erroneous views held in opposition to the truth. I have, however, found it to be impossible to avoid noticing and answering these objections, and stating, contrasting, and refuting these rival theories, as they were severally brought to notice in the development of the true doctrine, at the different points upon which they severally bear. I could not define the true doc- trine without excluding the false doctrine coterminous with it at each several point. I could not prove the true doctrine without, eo vpso, disproving the false alter- native, and solving the objections which were made to the doctrine we advocate or to the evidences by which it is substantiated. I will in this place, consequently, do nothing more than repeat—for the sake of perspicuity and impression—very briefly, the principal objections made against the doctrine of Satisfaction, and the an- swers to them. I wish, however, in the first place, to repeat with emphasis the second of the three conditions of argument which I laid down in the introductory chap-
280 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
GHieten ier of this book: ‘‘ Reasonable objections against the
— evidences by which a doctrine is established have force,
and should be duly considered. But rational objections
to any principle fairly established by the language of
Scripture have no force whatever, unless they amount to
a palpable contradiction to other principles certainly
known. And whenever this can be shown, the reason-
able inference is, not that the teaching of Scripture is
to be modified in conformity thereto, but that the Scrip-
tures themselves are to be rejected as false. Nothing is
more senseless than the attempt to modify the results
of the inspiration of JEHOVAH in conformity with human reason,”
We maintain that it is proved beyond gainsaying that the doctrine of the Christian Church as to the nature of the satisfaction of Christ is explicitly taught in Scrip- ture. Our opponents have only one of three things to do: (a4) Show that the Scriptures do not teach our doc- trine; (b) Accept that doctrine themselves ; or (¢c) Reject the Scriptures. We notice their objections to the doc- trine, not for the purpose of erecting the demonstration of its truth upon the demonstration of their insufficiency or total falsehood, but simply for the purpose of showing that the teachings of God’s Word do not contradict the
Teor. te#chings of that reason with which he has endowed us.
jection 1. All our opponents deny that justice in our strict hatine and absolute sense of the word is a virtue. Hence they ascribes deny that it is a divine attribute. Hence they object tiveness that our doctrine revolts their moral sense by ascribing nen vindictiveness to God.
TheMoral (1.) The advocates of the Moral Influence Theory deny Theory — that the disposition to punish every sin irrespective of justice any ulterior object is an absolute perfection of the divine volence. nature, Socinus said: “If we could but get rid of this
justice, even if we had no other proof, that fiction of
OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 281