A position which makes a revelation ridiculously super- fluous. (2.) This argument rests upon analogies drawn from observation of human governments and divine providence. And then thirty-nine pages are devoted to the confirmation of these views, thus brought in by rea- son, with the concurrent testimony of Scripture. The same trait is just as strikingly characteristic also of Be- man, Jenkyn, and Taylor, and generally of all writers of this class. On the other hand, I have aimed to show, what the Church has always believed, that the true theory of the Atonement is inseparable from the facts of Scripture, and therefore just as much in Scripture as the facts themselves—just as much as the Copernican system has always been with the stars in the sky. In- telligent observation and accurate interpretation are the limit of legitimate human agency in both cases. The Atonement can be known by us only as it is revealed. The humble, patient induction of the law, from all the data given in Scripture, is the only method which in such investigations can for one moment be allowed. And the pursuit of such a method certainly never issued in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement.
10. There is no doubt whatever that in the great majority of instances the real predisposing cause, giving force and currency to this view of the Atonement, is a prejudice, not unnatural, but certainly not enlightened, _ against what is often though erroneously called a limited
_ Atonement: “The last objection we will here urge against this theory [Satisfaction] is, that it leads, by a logical necessity, either to the doctrine of a limited atonement, on the one hand, or to the doctrine of uni- versal salvation, on the other.’ *
Now, as will be seen in the following chapters, I show that, when thoroughly analyzed and accurately defined,
* Fiske, Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xviii., p. 3805.
CHAPTER XXI.
Its only plausible support is its rela- tion to an indefinite Atone- ment.
CHAPTER AX,
318 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
the true doctrine, that Christ satisfied the retributive justice of God by bearing the very penalty of the law, does not logically lead to any consequences which can be accurately expressed by the phrase limited Atonement. The expiatory work of Christ is (a) exactly adapted in- differently to each and every man; (5) is sufficient for all; (¢) is offered in good faith to each man to whom the gospel comes; (d) it removes all legal obstacles out of God’s way to the salvation of any one indifferently whom he pleases ; (e) it makes salvation in an objective sense possible to every one to whom it is offered, if he has, or as soon as he obtains, the necessary subjective condition, faith. But God’s pleasure is eternal; therefore he pleases to save now precisely those whom he pleased to save when he gave Christ ; therefore he gave Christ with the design of saving those whom he does save—in other words, the elect: and therefore the expiatory work of Christ was, not in respect to the suffermgs in them- selves considered, but in respect to Christ’s intention in suffering, definite, and not indefinite, in its relation to persons. The question concerning the personal bearing of the Atonement, when analyzed, yields but five ele- ments: (qa) its adaptability—which is unlimited; (0) its sufficiency-—which is unlimited ; (¢) its offer—which is unlimited; (d) its intended application—which every Calvinist must admit is peculiar to the elect; (@) its actual application—which is peculiar to those who are not lost. If any Calvinist disagrees with the above statement, let him either state wherein it fails to exhaust the whole case, or let him show how the denial that the “intended application” of the Atonement relates only to the elect is consistent with the doctrine of unconditional election.
It is very plain, therefore—-(1.) That the doctrine of the definite design of the Atonement is not so revolting
GOVERNMENTAL THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. 319