progress made towards the full development of such a theory for more than a century and a half. The Catho- lic view upon the one hand, and the Socinian view on the other, generally prevailed. It was reserved for cer- tain New England divines of the last century first clearly to state and defend as a whole what has been variously called the New School Theory, the Edwardean Theory, the Hopkinsian Theory, the Consistent Theory, or, more commonly and appropriately, the Governmental Theory. To Jonathan Edwards, junr., more than to any other man, belongs the honour of giving to the world this new theory of the Atonement. His three celebrated sermons | on the subject, published in 1785, which marked an era in the history of this doctrine, contain, perhaps, the most thorough exposition and defence of this doctrine which has yet been made. The elder Edwards, and his inti- mate friends Bellamy and Hopkins, by their suggestive discussions of the subject, while retaining the general features of the old view, yet contributed not a little to the development of the new view. Among those emi- nent divines who early accepted the Governmental Theory, and helped to give it currency, were Smalley, Maxey, Burge, Dwight, Emmons, and Spring, who, while differing on minor points, were yet agreed in holding and advocating the essential principles on which the theory rests. It now holds a recognized place in that doctrinal system which is distinctively called the ‘New England Theology. oe
The main points of this theory are:—1. All ane excellence is ultimately reducible to benevolence: ‘‘ ‘The attributes of God are not so many distinct qualities, but one perfection of excellence, diversified in our concep- tions by the diversity of the objects towards which it is manifested.’ This is a felicitous statement of the truth,
* Rev. Daniel T. Fiske, D.D. Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1861.
GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT, 305
provided that LOVE:OR BENEVOLENCE be that ‘one per- tection of excellence.” * ‘All the moral perfections of the Deity are comprised in the pure love of benevo- lence.’ 2. God is a wise and benevolent Ruler. The origin and end of the moral law lie in the divine pur- pose to promote by means of it the good of the universe. The ultimate ground of the divine government as a whole, and of both the precept and the penalty of the law therefore, is to be found in the benevolence of God. The law is a product of pure benevolence, designed to effect the highest good of all its subjects regarded as a whole. The annexed penalty is for the purpose of vindi- cating and maintaining the law. Hence it follows—- (a.) That the motive and end of the law are also the motive and end of the penalty—that is, the penalty also is a product of benevolence, designed to effect the highest good of the subjects of moral law as a whole; and (b.) That “the sole function of penalty is that of a legal sanction ”’-—that is, a violent motive addressed to the intelligent self-love of all the subjects of the law, induc- ing them to observe it for the general good. 3. “That the suffermgs of Christ (the atonement) were not, lite- rally and strictly, the penalty of the law, but a substitute
CHAPTER- XXT.
jor it, and an equivalent—that is, had the same efficacy .
in respect to the divine law and government that the penalty was designed to have, and would have if inflicted in cases where it is remitted.” 4. The atonement renders the salvation of all men possible, and it bears, from its very nature, precisely the same relation to the _non-elect that it does to the elect. Its sole design and effect is to remove legal obstacles out of the way of the
* Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xviii., p.gi4.
ft Dr. Emmons in Dr. Edward A.:Park’s volume of Discourses and
Treatises on the Atonement, by Edwards, Smalley, Maxey, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks, with an Introductory Essay by the editor,
Be p. 116.
CHAPTER XXII.
Its supe- riority to the Moral Theory.
306 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
salvation of all men indifferently. It secures nothing more than this for any man. The principles which secure its actual application to individual men, whether these le ultimately in the free-will of men or in the sovereign election of God, in either case have no place in the Atonement itself. Emmons* strives to prove that the only thing Christ purchases for mankind is pardon on condition of faith ; and that after we believe we are rewarded for our own goodness, on the same principle that Adam would have been if he had continued obedient.