We subjoin a brief his/on/ of this doctrine. Good materials for its history may be found in Walch's in- augural disputation, De obedientia Christi actica (Got- tingen, 1754, 4to). See also Bullet. Theol. Jan. 17, p. 22. Passages are found even among the ancient fathers which teach that the fulfilment of the divine law by Christ is to be considered as if done by us (see the pas- sages cited by Walch). Many of these passages, how- ever, appear very doubtful and indefinite, and this doc- trine was by no means universally established in the early Church. Even Anselm, who built up such an arti- ficial system, did not make this application of the two- fold obedience of Christ. This, nevertheless, was the tendency of his theory, especially of the doctrine cle re- missione ciilpce et pcence. But after his time this ex- planation of the satisfaction made by Christ by means of his twofold obedience was adopted by several school- men, who now looked up texts for its support. Yet it was never very generally adopted by theologians of the Romish Church. In the Protestant Church, on the contrary, it has been almost universally taught by the theologians since the sixteenth century, and even in- troduced into the ''Form of Concord" (Morus, p. 1(59, n. 5), which, however, never received a universal symbol- ical authority in the Lutheran Ch'.irch. This explana- tion is not found in the other symbols. One reason, per- haps, of the reception of this explanation in the Prot- estant Church is the supposition that the theory de obedientia cictiaa could be used to advantage against the Catholic tenet of the value of one's own good works. Another reason is that the imputation of the active obedience of Christ was denied by the Socinians and Arminians. On these grounds, most of the Luther- an and Reformed theologians accounted this doctrine essential to sound orlhodoxv. But doubting whether the active obedience of Christ constitutes a part of his satisfaction has no influence upon the plan of salvation through repentance, faith, and godliness. Baumgarten and Ernesti have therefore justly pronounced this dis- pute as uf no great dogmatical importance. In fact, the difference among theologians upon this subject has often been more apparent than real. There were, in- deed, some Protestant theologians, even in the 16th century, who denied the merit of the active obedience of Christ— e. g. the Lutheran theologian Karg (or Par- simonius), also the Reformed theologian John Piscator, who hatl many followers; more lately, John la Placette, and others. The same was done by many of the Eng- lish theologia)is, who in general adopted the Arminian views. But from the end of the sixteenth to the mid- dle of the eighteenth century the opinion was by far the most jjrevalent in the Lutheran Church that the active obedience of Christ is of the nature of satisfac- tion, or ric/iiioiis. This opinion is defended even by Walch in the work just referred to. Since the time of T(illuer, however, the subject has been presented in a difterent liglit. He published a work entitled De?- thdtif/e aclwrs'jm Ckristi (Hreslau, 17(58. 8\-o). In this he denied that the active obedience of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction. Thereupon a violent controver- sy ensued. Scluil)ert, Wichmann. and others, wrote against him. and he, in reply, published his Zusdtze (Berlin, 1770). The best criticpie of this matter is that of Ernesti, TheoL Bibl. ix, 914 sq. For the history of the whole controversy, sec Walch, Neueste Religioiisge-
schichte, iii, 311 sq. The subject is considered also by Eberhard, Ajwloyie des Socrates, ii, 310 sq. Of late years, a great number of Protestant theologians have declared themselves in favor of the opinion that the active obedience of Christ is properly no part of his satisfaction, which is the effect solely of his passive obedience. Among these are Zachariii, Griesbach, and Doderlein.
It may help to settle the controversy on this subject to consider that it has originated solely in mistake. Two things liave been separated which never can be put asunder, and which never are so in the Bible, but, on the contrary, are always connected. All that Christ did and suffered for our good receives its peculiar worth from the fact that he did it from obedience to the di- vine wiU. This is the virtue or obedience of Christ. If we would partake of the salutary consequences of his sufferings, we must, under divine guidance and as- sistance, follow his example. This is an indispensable condition. The two things are always connected in the Bible, and should be so in our instructions ; and then this doctrine cannot be abused. The remarks made by Morus (p. 170, 171) are directed to this point. The Bi- ble, indeed, justifies us in saying (1) that everything which Christ actively performed during his whole life, in obedience to God, is salutary to us, was done on our account and for our good. But (2) we therefore truly affirm tliut our whole happiness (ffoiJTijpia) is the fruit in a special manner of his obedience to the divine com- 7nand, both in his suffering and in all the actions of his life. Had he not shown this obedience, we should not have attained to this happiness. So the Scriptures everywhere teach. The obedience of Christ in suffer- ing is therefore the foundation, and imparts to us the assurance that all his other obedience, in respect to all the divine commands, will be for our benefit (John vi, 51 ; iii, 14-16 ; xii, 24 ; 1 John iv, 9 ; 1 Thess. v, 9 sq.). No injury to morals need be apprehended if the Script- ure doctrine is followed, and things which belong to- gether are not separated. See Knapp, Christian The- ology, § 115; Smeaton, Doctrine of the Atonement (see Index) ; Harless, Christian Ethics (see Index) ; Ull- mann, Sinlessness of Jesus (see Index) ; Graves, Works, vol. iv; Edwards, l^o?•^•s ,• Fletcher, H'o?7i«,- Presb.Con-' fession; Theol. Medium, or Cumberl. Presb. Rer. Oct. 1871; Presb. Quar. and Princet. Rev. Jan. 1874, art. iv ; and the references in ^Malcolm, Theol. Index, s. v.