These objectors should, however, remember that that obedience which Christ rendered in our stead was not that which the law demands of all moral agents, un- changeably and inalienably in its natwral relation, but precisely that obedience which God, as Sovereign, moral Governor and Guardian of all human souls, required as the probationary condition of their being confirmed in a holy character for ever, and being endowed with ‘the adoption of sons.” Christ, in his divine nature, is from eternity the essential embodiment of this law of absolute moral perfection. In his human nature he was gene- rated by the Holy Ghost into perfect conformity to this law, and ever since sustained therein. As to his person, however, he is absolutely divine and sovereign. The federal claims of law all necessarily terminate upon per- sons, and not upon natures. The law can claim nothing of his divinity, because his nature is itself the fountain of all law, and his will its rule and expression to the entire creation. When he, therefore, condescends to be “bor of a woman, to be made under the law,’ and under the conditions of human life thus “to fulfil all
OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 291
righteousness,” surely such obedience, performed with carrer such design, is, as far as his divine person is con- aa, cerned, a work of supererogation—that is, demanded
by no law, except the free-will law of electing love;
and hence such an obedience may, by the terms of the covenant between the Father and the Son, be rendered vicariously by him in the stead and for the benefit of
his people.
CHAPTER
XXII.
TheMoral Influence Theory.
CHAPTER XXI.
THE MORAL INFLUENCE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT DISCUSSED AND REFUTED.
ALL the theories of the Atonement which men in #| this age of the world have any interest to consider may, as I have already several times declared, be grouped under one or other of the following heads: (a.) Those which regard the suffer- ings and death of Christ as designed solely to produce an effect terminating as a moral impression in the sub- jective condition of the individual sinner. (6.) Those which, while including the preceding idea, regard them as chiefly designed to produce an effect terminating as a moral impression in the public mind of the subjects of the moral government of God. (c.) Those which, while including both of the preceding ideas in their order, re- gard Christ's sufferings and death as a vicarious penalty, designed to produce a justice-propitiating effect, termi- nating upon God. ‘The last of these views is that taught in Scripture, professed by the Church of Christ in all its branches, and advocated in this volume. The other two I will now very briefly discuss in their order.
I. The general view that the great end of the death of Christ was to produce a moral impression upon the hearts of sinners, and thus lead to their moral and spiri- tual reformation, has been taught in various forms by many successive teachers, and has been uniformly re-
MORAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 293
etod as a heresy by the Church. Hagenbach * says that “Socinus defined the object of Christ? s death posi- tively as follows:—1. The death of Christ was an example set before men for their imitation, 2. It was designed to confirm the promises made by God, thus giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins. 3. It was the necessary means, preparatory to his resurrection, by which he entered into glory. ‘Christ died that through death he might attain to resurrection; from which arises the strongest confirmation of the divine will and the most certain persuasion of our own resurrection and attainment to eternal life.” + Thus, according to Soci- nus, the designed effect of Christ’s death is wholly a subjective impression upon the minds of sinners, to
CHAPTER XXII.
Object of Christ’s death de- fined by Socinus.
stimulate them to emulate his heroic virtue; to prove —
and to illustrate the love of God and his willingness to _ forgive sin upon the repentance of the sinner; to con-
firm the truth of all the doctrines he had taught and of
the promises which God had made through the prophets or through himself; and by giving opportunity for his resurrection from the dead to demonstrate the fact of a future life, and to prove and illustrate the future resur- rection of his people. The modern theories of Jowett, Maurice, Bushnell, Young, &c., differ from that of Soci- hal m being ernie re his is logical, con- fused where his is clear, and narrow and partial where his is comprehensive. The lines between truth and error with regard to this central doctrine of the gospel were already definitely drawn in the first half of the twelfth century, at the very opening of the Scholastic era. As to the entire essence of the doctrine, Anselm then stood precisely where the whole Church of Christ in all its branches has ever since stood; and the in- famous Abelard taught in every essential respect the