Christ as a vicarious victim, or he did not. And we may be most sure that if there was no exercise of justice, there was no expression of it; if there was no punish- ment, there was no example of it; if there was no wrath felt, there was no manifestation of. it. Whatever it may not have been, we know that it was the most intensely real transaction this earth has ever witnessed.
5. This doctrine is false, because it involves the denial of those Scriptural principles as to the nature of divine justice, as to the immutability of the law and the abso- lute necessity of the Atonement, as to the nature and design of the typical sacrifices and priesthood, as to the full force of the language which teaches that Christ came in our stead, as our Ransom, and that he bore our sins, &c., which have been so fully proved in the previous chapters of this volume.
6. This theory is untrue, because it teaches necessarily that Christ died indifferently for all men, and that the only effect of his. death was to remove legal obstacles out of the way of the gratuitous forgiveness of all men on condition of repentance. It necessarily teaches that all which Christ purchased for any was that pardon which he purchased conditionally for all, while the application of the benefits of his work to the individual is left un- determined by the Atonement itself. This is, of course, disproved by all those Scriptural arguments by which we have proved that Christ purchased for those for whom he died faith and repentance, the adoption of sons, and an eternal inheritance.
7. It is false, because it is essential to it that justitica- tion should be mere pardon, and that faith should be the divinely accepted condition upon which the pardon pro- ceeds for Christ’s sake, while all other spiritual gifts are given us as the gracious rewards of our own holy obe- dience. ‘This leads to that theory of co-operative justi-
CHAPTER, Bor,
It is in- consistent with the true idea of law, sacrifice, vicarious suffering, ransom, ae,
It neces- sitates the conclu- sion that the At- onement was in- definite.
It is con- nected with the theory of co-opera- tive justi- fication.
CHAPTER XXI.
It is con- tradicted by the uniform faith
of the Church.
It is not
developed
from Scripture.
316 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
fication which is the fundamental vice of the Romish system, and it is disproved very plainly by all that we have proved from Scripture as to the nature of justifica- tion, of faith, and of union with Christ.
8. If not disproved it is greatly discredited by the fact, not only confessed but paraded, that it is the “ New Theory” of the Atonement. We have proved suffi- ciently (a) that the doctrine which maintains that the sufferings of Christ were a true pena vicaria has been at the heart of the faith of the Church from the be- ginning; and (b) that this Governmental Theory is in ~ no intelligible sense a development or improvement of the other. It is a different faith. If then it is “new” in this day, it must withstand the tremendous weight of the presumption that all God’s dear children could not have continued under a delusion with regard to the mean- ing of Christ’s death and the nature of the gospel, which they believed and preached for seventeen hundred years.
9. This theory is discredited by the fact that it is not developed in the first instance by a careful exposition of and strict induction from Scripture. Its advocates do not pretend that they generate it out of Scripture; the most they claim is, that having developed it as a product of speculation, they are able to show that it harmonizes with all the facts of Scripture. Barnes occupies three hundred and sixteen pages with his discussion as to the nature of the Atonement. Of these, two hundred and siaty-eight are occupied with rational speculation and analogical reasoning as to what an Atonement need to be, can be, ought to be, and must be. The foundation of this is (1) & priori ideas as to what God must be, or at least ought to be: “ Apart from any revelation, and back of any revelation, we form our conceptions of God; and we cannot think otherwise of him than we do.”*
* Atonement, p. 821.
GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 317