Objections to this Theory. The obvious objections to this moral view of the atonement in all its forms, are, —
1. That while it retains some elements of the truth, in that it recognizes the restoration of man to holiness and God, as the great end of the work of Christ, and regards his work as involving the greatest j)ossible or conceivable manifestation of divine love, which manifestation is the most powerful of all natural influences to operate on the hearts of men ; yet it leaves out entirely what is essential to the Scriptural doctrine of atonement. The Bible exhibits Christ as a priest, as offering Himself a sacrifice for the expiation of our sins, as bearing our sins in his own body on the tree, as having been made a curse for us, and as giving Himself as a ransom for our redemption. The Scriptures teach that this exj)iatioii of guilt is absolutely necessary before the souls of the guilty can be made the subjects of renewing and sanctifying grace. Before this expiation they are spiritually dead under the ])enalty of the law, which is death in all its forms. And therefore while thus under the curse, all the moral influences in the world would be as useless as noonday light to give sight to the blind, or sanitary measures to raise the dead. In rejecting, therefore, the doctrine of expiation, or satisfaction to justice, this theory rejects tlie very essence of the Scriptural doctrine of atonement.
2. This theory does not meet the necessities of our condition. We are sinners ; we are guiltv as well as polluted. Tlie conscious- jiess of our responsibility to justice, and of the necessity of satisfy- ing its demands, is as undeniable and as indestructible as our con- sciousness of pollution. Expiation for the one is as much a necessity as sanctification for the other. No form of religion, there- fore, which excludes the idea of expiation, or which fails to provide for the removal of guilt in a way which satisfies the reason and conscience, can be suited to our necessities. No such religion has ever prevailed among men, or can by possibility give peace to a burdened conscience. It is because the Lord Jesus Christ is re- vealed as a propitiation for our sins, as bearing in our stead the penalty which we had incurred, tliat his blood cleanses us from all sin, and gives that peace which passes all understanding.
The idea that there is no foro-iveness with God : that bv inex- orable law He deals with his creatures according to tlieir subjective state and character, and that therefore the only salvation necessary or possible is sanctification, is appalling. No man is in such an
'572 PART m. Cn. IX. — THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENi.
inward state, either during life or at deatli, tluit lie can stand before God to be dealt with according to that state. His only hope is that God will, and does, deal witli his people, not as they are in themselves, but as they are in Christ, and for his sake ; that He loves and has fellowship with us although polluted and defiled, as a parent loves and delights in a misshapen and unattractive child. We should be now and always in hell, if the doctrine of Dr. Young were true, that justice by an inexorable law always takes effect, and that sin is always punished wherever it exists, as soon as it is manifested, and as long as it continues. God is something more than the moral order of the universe ; He does not afhninis- ter his moral government by inexorable laws over which He has no control. He can have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and compassion on whom He will have compassion. He can and does render sinners happy, in spite of their sin, for Christ's sake, remitting to them its penalty while its power is only partially broken ; fostering them, and rejoicing over them until their restora- tion to spiritual health be completed. Anything that turns the sinner's I'egard inward on himself as a ground of hope, instead of bidding him look to Christ, must plunge him into despair, and despair is the portal of eternal death. In any view, therefore, whether as bold rationalistic Deism, or as the most high-toned por- traiture of divine love, the moral theory of the atonement presents no rational, because no Scriptural, ground for a sinner's hope toward God. He must have a better righteousness than his own. He must have some one to appear before God in his stead to make expiation for sin, and to secure for him, independently of his own subjective state, the full pardon of all his offences, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
3. All the arguments presented on the preceding pages, in favour of the doctrine of expiation, are of course arguments against a tlieory which rejects that doctrine. Besides, this theory evi- dently changes the; whole plan of salvation. It alters all our rela- tions to Christ, as our head and representative, and the ground of our acceptance with God ; and consequently it changes the nature of religion. Christianity is one thing if Christ is a sacrifice for sin ; and altogether a different thing if He is only a moral reformer, an example, a teacher, or even a martyr. We need a divine Savioui if He is to bear our iniquities, and to make satisfaction for the sins of the world ; but a human saviour is all that is needed if the moral theory of the atonement is to be ado[)ted. Gieseler says, what every Christian knows must be true witlnrnt being told, that