most beneficial effects upon those who believe it from the heart, (s. 108, II.) So experience teaches. We see the most convincing proofs of the beneficial tendencies of this doctrine in those Christian communities, both of ancient and modern times, where it has been faithfully taught and cordially believed. [Cf. Tholuck, Lehre von der Sünde und vom Versöhner, s. 104, ff. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 475-500. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 245-355. Neander, b. i. Abth. ii. s. 70-78. Flatt's Magazine, b. i. s. 1-67, Ueber die Möglichkeit der Sünden-Vergebung.-TR.]

SECTION CXV.

OF THE ACTIVE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST.

Theologians commonly hold that the active obedience of Christ was as much a part of his atonement or satisfaction as his passive obedience. This opinion might be more clearly and definitively expressed as follows:-The satisfaction which Christ has made consists both in his enduring the punishments incurred by men and in his yielding a perfect obedience to the divine laws. This is what is meant by theologians. This opinion is derived from the twofold obligation of men (a) to keep the divine laws, and (b) when they have failed, to suffer punishment for their sin. In this way the satisfaction of Christ came to be considered as consisting of two parts, active and passive. This view was then connected with the theory of Anselmus, respecting the removal of the guilt and penalty of sin. The suffering of Christ removes the penalty, and his

I. What is meant by Active Obedience; and a His-active obedience the guilt of sin; and the per

tory of this Doctrine.

fect righteousness of Christ, or his fulfilment of the law, is imputed to us, in the same way as if we ourselves had fulfilled the law, and thus our defective obedience is made good. Respecting this doctrine de remissione culpæ et pænæ. Vide s. 109, II. 2. This is in brief the common theory, which will be more particularly examined, No. II.

We subjoin a brief history of this doctrine. Good materials for this history may be found in Walch's Inaugural Disputation, de obedientia Christi activa; Göttingen, 1754, 4to.

CHRIST'S cheerful discharge of the commission given him by God is called his obedience (vnaxon); according to the example of the Bible-e. g., Phil. iii. 9; Rom. v. 19; Morus, p. 161, s. 7. Morus justly defines the obedience of Christ to be, peractio eorum, quæ peragere debuit, et in peragendo summa virtus. Christ exhibited this obedience in two ways—viz., (a) by acting (agendo)—i. e., by keeping and observing the divine laws; (b) by suffering, (patiendo)—i. e., by cheerfully undertaking and enduring suffering for the good of men, in accordance with the divine determination. Cf. s. 93, III., and s. 95, ad finem. The former way is called obedientia activa, (not active in the sense of busy, which would be actuosa, but in the sense of acting, Germ. thuender ;) the latter, | obedientia passiva. These two ways may be thus distinguished in abstracto. But they ought not to have been separated from each other. Christ's active obedience is not properly different from his passive obedience. His obedience is one and the same in all cases. Suffering, in itself considered, so far as it consists in unpleasant sensations, is not obedience. A person may suffer and not be obedient, but impatient, disobedient, and refractory. But for one to suffer obediently, or to shew obedience in suffering, this is an acting, a fulfilment of duty, or that virtue which is called patience, one of the greatest and most difficult of virtues! But how can a virtue, which consists entirely in acting, be called passive? In truth, then, the obedience of Christ" Form of Concord," (Morus, p. 169, n. 5,) is one and the same thing, consisting always in acting. It is that virtue by which Christ fulfilled not only the moral laws of God, but also the positive divine commands which were laid upon him, to suffer, to die, &c. Obedience is never wholly passive, and what is simply passive is not obedience. But a person shews obedience by acting in suffering.

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. Vide the passages cited by Walch. Many of these passages, however, appear very doubtful and indefinite, and this doctrine was by no means universally established in the early church. Even Anselmus, who built up such an artificial system, did not make this application of the twofold obedience of Christ. This, however, was the tendency of his theory, especially of the doctrine, de remissione culpa et pœnæ. But after his time, this explanation of the satisfaction made by Christ by means of his twofold obedience was adopted by several schoolmen, who now looked up texts for its support. But it was never very generally adopted by theolo gians of the Romish church. In the protestant church, on the contrary, it has been almost universally taught by our theologians since the sixteenth century, and even introduced into the

which, however, never received an universal symbolical authority in the Lutheran church. This explanation is not found in the other symbols. One reason, perhaps, of the reception of this explanation in the protestant church, is the supposition that the theory de obedientia activa could be used to advantage against the catholic tenet of the value of one's own good works.

But since the time of Töllner the subject has been presented in a different light. He published a work entitled, "Der thätige Gehorsam Christi;" Breslau, 1768, 8vo. In this he denied that the active obedience of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction. Upon this a violent controversy commenced. Schubert, Wichmann, and others, wrote against him, and he, in reply, published his "Zusätze;" Berlin, 1770. The best critique of this matter is that of Ernesti, | viz., Theol. Bibl. b. ix. s. 914, f. For the history of the whole controversy vide Walch, Neeuste Religionsgeschichte, th. iii. s. 311, f. The subject is considered also in Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates, th. ii. s. 310, f. Of late years, a great number of protestant theologians have declared themselves in behalf 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 Zacharia, Griesbach, Döderlein.

(a) Christ never spoke of an imputation of his obedience and virtue, as he frequently did of his sufferings and death. The same is true of the apostles. Christ frequently speaks in general of his doing the will of his Father for the good of men, and teaches that this obedience will be for the good of those who believe on him. He does so very frequently in the Gospel of John, iii. iv., vi., xiii., seq. 17. But here he refers to his whole obedience both in acting and suffering, and does not separate one from the other. Indeed, there are passages

II. The worth and uses of the Active Obedience of where the apostles must necessarily have spoken

fect obedience is made good. But nothing of all this! For the consolation of the pious, he mentions only the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ, Rom. viii. 33, 34.

as this from them; but the scripture doctrine of the merit of the whole obedience of Christ is fully secured against perversion by the frequent inculcation of diligence in holiness. Vide s. 114, ad fin. It has as little resemblance to the Jewish doctrine of the merit of the good works of Abraham, as it has to that of the Romish church, respecting the desert of the good works of the saints.

(c) Many questionable conclusions may be deduced from this doctrine, which would indeed be rejected by its advocates, but which cannot be easily avoided.

(a) We might conclude from the doctrine that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us, and that on account of it we are rewarded by God, that the long-continued and high virtue of a confirmed Christian is of no greater value in the sight of God, and will receive no greater reward, than the imperfect virtue of a beginner; for the deficiencies of the latter in personal holiness will, according to this doctrine, be made up by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to him-i. e., considered as his own obedience. But this is contrary to the fundamental principles both of reason and revelation.

(3) However much this doctrine may be guarded against perversion by saying that the personal virtue of the Christian is not excluded or dispensed with, it must doubtless weaken the motive to holiness of life, and thus prove injurious to the interests of morality. Why was it necessary for Christianity to point out so many means of holiness, in order that we might attain perfect happiness, if in this way it could be at once attained with so little difficulty and labour.

The active obedience of Christ, however, is not excluded. In Rom. v. 19, the apostle makes mention of it. In this passage, which is cited as one of the most important proof-texts, we read, "As through the disobedience of Adam many became sinners, so through the obedience of Christ many are made righteous," or are pardoned. In ver. 18, the naрantwμa 'Adáμ and dixaiwua Xpiovoù are contrasted. Now, according to the uniform scriptural usage, this obedience of Christ does not refer simply and exclusively to his active obedience, but principally to his obedience to the divine command to suffer and die for us, Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8, 9. But in the passage cited, the apostle clearly comprises under the word izazoń the whole obedidience of Christ, and teaches that this, especially as shewn in suffering for us, is for our good. Cf. Rom. x. 4. On the whole, then, our position, that the perfect obedience of Christ to the divine commands, separately considered, (i. e., disconnected from his death,) is never mentioned in the Bible as meritorious, is confirmed. The scriptures declare that the whole obedience of Christ, exhibited both in acting and suffering, is for our good. But they never divide this obedience, as theologians have frequently done. The whole obedience of Christ is useful to us principally on account of his obedience shewn in suffering. (b) The perfect obedience of Christ, it is asserted, must needs be imputed to us, in order to make good our defective obedience to the law, since the justice of God demands perfect obe- Note. It may help to settle the controversy dience. But to this it may be answered, (a) on this subject to consider that it has originated That it is difficult to see how this is necessary; solely in mistake. Two things have been sepafor our imperfect obedience to the divine law is rated which never can be put asunder, and either guiltless on our part,-in which case there which never are in the Bible, but, on the conis no imputation of guilt, and consequently no trary, are always connected. All that Christ reason why another's righteousness should be did and suffered for our good receives its pecuimputed to us, or it is guilly and deserving of liar worth from the fact that he did it from obepunishment. But this punishment is already dience to the divine will. This is the virtue removed by the sufferings and death (the pas- or obedience of Christ. If we would partake sive obedience) of Christ. But that the guilt of the salutary consequences of his sufferings, as well as punishment of sin is and must be we must, under divine guidance and assistance, removed by Christ, cannot be proved. Vide s. follow his example. This is an indispensable 109, II. 2. (3) It is inconsistent with many condition. The two things are always connectother principles and declarations of the Bible-ed in the Bible, and should be in our instruce. g., with the principle that man will be re- tions; and then this doctrine cannot be abused. warded or punished, xarà rà ěpya avrov, Rom. The remarks made by Morus, p. 170, 171, are ii. 6. Here the imputation of the merit of an- directed to this point. other's works is entirely excluded. The ancient prophets, and all the teachers of the New Testament from the time of John the Baptist, contended strenuously against the opinion of the Jews respecting the imputation of the vicarious righteousness of Abraham. Vide s. 108, I. 3. We should not therefore expect such a doctrine

The Bible 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, that our whole happiness (owτnpía) is the fruit in a special manner of his obedience to the

divine command, both in his suffering and in all | tirely omit this important part of Christ's work,

the actions of his life. Had he not shewn this passed it by in this connexion, in order to avoid obedience, we should not have attained to this all fellowship with such an opinion, and to afhappiness. So the scriptures everywhere teach. ford no appearance of diminishing in the least The obedience of Christ in suffering is therefore from the influence of the atonement or satisfacthe foundation, and imparts to us the assurance, tion of Christ. But in conformity with the that all his other obedience, in respect to all the Bible, even the ancient fathers considered both divine commands, will be for our benefit; John, of these things as belonging to the work of revi. 51; iii. 14-16; xii. 24; 1 John, iv. 9; 1 demption-e. g., Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Thess. v. 9, seq. No injury to morals need be Great, and Gregory the Great. The latter says, apprehended if the scripture doctrine is follow-Christ became man, not only to atone for us ed, and things which belong together are not by his sufferings and death; but also to instruct separated. Vide s. 114, ad finem.

PART II. OF CHAPTER IV.

ON REDEMPTION FROM THE POWER OR DOMI-
NION OF SIN.

SECTION CXVI.

us, and to give us an example." This is the full scriptural idea of ἀπολύτρωσις. Cf. s. 106, II. Therefore redemption (åñoxvtpwols) comprises the two following parts-viz., (1) Deliverance from the punishment of sin (inɑouós, atonement, xaraλλayń); (2) from the power and dominion of sin. The former is effected by his sufferings and death, and is confirmed by his resurrection and intercession. The latter is effected by his doctrine, accompanied by divine power (the assistance of the Holy Spirit,) and

OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE; ITS CON- by his example.

FORMITY WITH SCRIPTURE; AND THE MANNER

The connexion of these two parts, as we learn

IN WHICH WE ARE FREED FROM SIN THROUGH it from scripture and experience, is this:

CHRIST.

I. Importance of this Doctrine.

When an individual is assured of his forgiveness through Christ, he is filled with the most sincere love and gratitude to God and to Christ.

In treating of the work of redemption, writers" He to whom much is forgiven, loves much;" have commonly considered only the first part -the atonement, or freedom from the punishment of sin. But deliverance from sin belongs as really to the redemption of Christ as deliverance from punishment, which indeed Ernesti and others have before remarked. By the death of Christ we are indeed, as the scriptures teach, delivered from the punishment of sin. But since the disposition to sin is so strong and universal among men, (and this is the whole cause of their degeneracy and unhappiness,) some means must needs be pointed out, in the proper use of which they may, under divine assistance, overcome this bias and propensity to sin, and may attain to true holiness and the practice of virtue, acceptable in the sight of God. If Christ had not shewn us such means, his work of redemption would have been incomplete, and his atonement in vain. For we can participate in the blessings of redemption, even after we have obtained forgiveness, only by avoiding sin and living righteously. And had not Christ furnished us with means to do this, his atonement would be of no avail.

The reason why this has not been commonly considered in the systems of theology as making a part of the work of redemption, is, that the Socinians have regarded it as constituting the whole of this work, exclusive of the atonement of Christ by his sufferings and death. Evangelical writers, therefore, though they did not en

Luke, vii. 47. These feelings render him disposed and desirous to obey the commands of God and Christ. This obedience, flowing from love, is not burdensome, but easy and joyful; 1 John, v. 3, seq. The actual participation in the benefits of this second part of Christ's work, belongs, therefore, in all its extent, to those only who have experienced the benefits of the former part. A Christian teacher, therefore, proceeds preposterously, and contrary to the example of the holy scriptures, when he exhibits and inculcates only the second part, either passing the first in silence, or exciting doubts with regard to it, or casting contempt upon it. He ought to connect the two parts, and to exhibit them clearly and scripturally, as the apostles have done. The method of the apostles has been proved the best by experience. Whenever the atonement of Christ, or the first part of the work of redemption, has been omitted, little has been effected by preaching morality, and holding up the example of Jesus. Men may be taught in this way what they should be, but are left ignorant of the means of becoming so.

II. This Doctrine True and Scriptural. It is the doctrine of the Bible, that Christ became man, not only to free us from the punishment of sin, but from sin itself. Jesus himself says this, John, viii. 32, 36, seq. Cf. John, vi. The writings of the apostles contain passages

of the same import-e. g., Titus, ii. 11-14. | possible ideas, and avoid the vague and obscure Here Paul shews Titus what he ought to teach. expressions with which mystics are wont to He says (ver. 11, 12), that Christianity makes darken their own views. In representing the men pious and virtuous, and gives them the matter briefly, writers are often content with most cheerful anticipations of the future. Now saying that new power and ability to do good is (ver. 14) he mentions the redemption of Christ, afforded us by Christ. This representation acimplying (a) that he died for us (dwxev kavròv | cords perfectly with the holy scriptures, with vèρ nur); (b) that he designed to deliver us the promise of Christ, and with Christian expe(vrpwontai) from all unrighteousness (anò rience. From this language, however, we are áons arquías), and make us the friends of God, not to understand that any miraculous assistance and ready for all good works, (Christian vir- is furnished by Christ. This power is usually tues.) Here plainly drovτpwots implies both afforded in a natural manner, and the scriptures the particulars above mentioned. So 1 Pet. i. themselves clearly point out the means by which 18, Christ delivered us (λurpoùr) ix paraías it is obtained. That Christ frequently and disàvastpoprs, from a sinful, heathenish, vicious life. tinctly promised his aid and support at all times Ephes. ii. 9, 10, “We are xviodévtes èv Xploty to all his followers, if they on their part perêni èpyois ȧyadois”—i. e., renewed, placed in a formed the requisite conditions, is made certain situation in which we can act virtuously. Gal. from the scriptures; Matt. xxviii. 20. The i. 4, " Christ gave himself περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν | term δύναμις Χριστοῦ occurs frequently in John (to deliver us from sin), and to rescue us from and in the epistles. Vide John, xv. 1, seq.; 2 our former condition in the service of sin, (ónws Cor. xii. 9; 2 Pet. i. 3, 4. ἐξέληται ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος πονηρού.)” The two things are connected still more clearly, 1 Pet. ii. 24, "Christ suffered on the cross the punish-use of the Christian doctrine, does not act in a ment of our sins; we ought therefore to die to sin, and live entirely for holiness. For to his sufferings are we indebted for all our blessedness (this twofold good); by his stripes we are healed."

In order deeply to impress the mind with the close connexion and the practical use of both of these parts, the apostles frequently transfer the terms relating to the death of Christ to the moral improvement or holiness of men, effected by him. E. g., We ought to die spiritually to sin, as he died for it bodily; to rise, &c. Vide the texts already cited; also Rom. vi. 4; viii. 10, &c.

This assistance of God and Christ which is promised to Christians in connexion with their

manner inconsistent with the powers and constitution of human nature, but wholly in accordance with them. According to the wise constitution of our nature, all our actions are principally dependent upon the fixed determination of the will, which is again dependent upon the strength and clearness of the motives present to the understanding. Now we are frequently hindered by external circumstances which are beyond our control from the practice of virtue. In this case we are without guilt, and the omission cannot be imputed to us. (Here, however, we are liable to deception by thinking we are without fault, when this is not true.) But often the fault is in ourselves. We allow sense to rule our reason. We refuse properly to consider the motives placed before us, or we neglect opportunity of instructing ourselves respecting duty; or are chargeable, perhaps, with both of these faults. If now, in this case, we disobey the law of God, we are apt to bemoan our weakness and want of power for doing good. Such faults and weakness of the understanding and will cannot be corrected by any miraculous power afforded by Christ; and the virtue which should be effected by such a miraculous power would cease to be a personal virtue of the one in whom it was wrought, and consequently could not be imputed to him. There is no other way but for man to learn the motives to piety and the avoiding of sin which are presented in the Christian doctrine, and to form the fixed resolve that, under divine guidance and assistance, he will III. The manner in which Christ delivers us from govern his own will by what he knows to be

More important still are the passages which teach that Christ delivered us from the power and dominion of Satan, as Ephes. ii. 2; that he has destroyed the power of the devil, &c.; John, xii. 31, seq. This phraseology is best explained by the passage, 1 John, iii. 8, ô яov ȧuaptíav èx diaßónov èotív (diaboli filius, or diabolo similis, ver. 12; John, viii. 44); for he sinned of old (ȧn' ȧpxys). Again, Eis Touro ipavepwn ó Υἱὸς Θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ ἔργα διαβόλου. The latter clause, pya diabokov, is clearly synonymous with duapria. Sins are thus described, because the devil is regarded as the author of them, and because by committing sin we resemble him, and are instruments in his hand; as, on the contrary, pya ɛoù, are virtuous and pious actionssuch as flow from likeness to God, or love to him.

Sin.

If we would obtain definite conceptions upon this subject, we must come down to the simplest

the will of God and Christ. Only then, when he has done everything on his part, can he count upon the divine assistance. Until man has