was actually contained, and therefore that the Church doctrine o.' satisfaction agreed with the literal sense of the Scriptures ; yet it was insisted upon that this literal doctrine of the Bible involved difficulties affecting our moral nature, and was evil in its practical effects, and inconsistent with what the Scriptures themselves else- where taught of guilt, merit, imputation, and of God's justice." Hence, he goes on to say, that to escape from this dilemma it was taught that when in the New Testament it is said " that Jesus suffered punishment in the place of men, and procured for them the forgiveness of sin, this can only mean that God, through the death of Christ and the sufferings therewith connected, declared himself to be the righteous judge of all evil." ^
C. Ch. Flatt endeavoured to find " a middle way between the course of those who introduced into the Scriptures their own phi- losophical opinions, or the philosophy of the age in which they lived, and the strict grammatical, historical interpretation of those who insisted on taking the words of Scripture either in their etymo- logical sense, or in that sense in which it can be historically proved that at least a part of the contemporaries of the sacred writers understood them, or which stupid Rabbinical literal ists attached to certain phrases without regard to the fact how often the meaning of words, without a change of form, through higher culture and refinement of moral feeling, is spiritualized and ennobled." ^ This middle way, according to Flatt, leads to the conclusion that the main design of Christ's death as viewed by Himself was effectually to correct the false ideas of the Jews concernina; the Messiah's kingdom as one of earthly splendor, and to open the way for the entrance of his doctrine which taught that blessedness is to be secured by moral excellence. This doctrine of Flatt agrees with the governmental theory so far as it denies the Church doctrine of a satisfaction to justice, and makes the design of Christ's death purel}^ didactic.
Storr, in all his works, and especially in his " Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews," and his dissertation on the design of Christ's death, makes the Scriptures his authoritative guide, and therefore approaches much nearer to the Church doctrine than perhaps any German theologian of his generation. He assumes that Christ as man was bound to render the same obedience to the divine law as is due from all other men. But in virtue of the union of his human with the divine nature He as man was entitled
1 Lehre von der Versohnung, Tubingen, 1838, pp. 5D7, 598.
2 Von der Versohnung, Zweiter Theil, Stuttgart, 1798, Vorrede, p. xxxii. TOi<. n. 37
678 PART III. Cii. IX. —THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
to all the exaltation and blessedness of which humanity is capable. Any reward, therefore, for his perfect obedience, and especially for his death on the cross, must be some benefit granted to others for his sake. The salvation of his peoi)le, therefore, is tlie Re- deemer's reward. Sucli benefit, however, could not consistently be bestowed on sinners unless the death of Christ had been a vindication of the righteousness of God by beuig intended as an " example of punishment ; " a manifestation of God's hatred of sin and of his determination to punish it.^
American Theologians.
The governmental theory of the atonement seems to have had an entirely independent origin in this country. It was the neces- sary consequence of the principle that all virtue consists in benevo- lence. If that principle be correct, all the moral attributes of God are modifications of benevolence. There is no such perfection in God as justice other than the purpose and disposition to promote happiness. The death of Ciu'ist, therefore, could have no other design than to render the forgiveness of sin consistent Avith the best interests of the moral government of God. This theory was elab- orated by the younger President Edwards, presented in full in Dr. Beman's work on the Atonement, and adopted by that numerous and highly influential class of American theologians wdio embraced the principle on which the theory, as held in this country, is founded. In the work of Dr. E. A. Park, of Andover, on the' Atonement, there is a collection of discourses from the pens of the most distinguished teachers of this doctrine. In the introduction to that volume Professor Park gives an interesting history of the development of this view of the atonement as held in this country.
Objections to the Theory.
1. The first and most obvious objection to this theory is that it is founded on an erroneous idea of the nature of punishment. It assnmes that the special design of punishment is the good of society. If the best interests of a community, either human or divine, a com- monwealth of men or the moral government of God, can be secured without the punishment of crime, then no such punishment ought to be inflicted. But suffering inflicted for the good of others is not punishment any more than suffering inflicted for the good of the sufferer. The amputation of a crushed limb is not of the nature
1 G. Ch. Storr, Pauli Brief au die Bebrder. Zweiter Theil, iihtr den eigentlichen Zroeck des TodeaJesu. Tubingen, 1789.