of piinisliment ; neither are the sufFerincrs of martyrs, although intended to redound to the good of the Church and of the workl. Tlie sufferings of Paul, which were so abundant and so constant, although so fruitful of good, were not penal. And the sufferings of Christ, if incurred in the dischai'ge of his mission of mercy, and not judicially inflicted in execution of the penalty of the law, had no more tendency to show God's abhorrence of sin than the sufferings of the martyrs.
No evil is of the nature of punishment unless it be inflicted in satisfaction of justice and in execution of the penalty of law. A writer in the " British Quarterly Review " for October, 1866, says : " There is a story of an English judge who once said to a criminal, ' You are transported not because you have stolen these goods, but that goods may not be stolen.' " The reviewer then adds, " No principle more false in itself or more ruinous to public morality was ever announced from the English bench. The whole moral effect of punishment lies in its being just. The man who suffers for the benefit of others is a martyr and not a convict." It is on this false principle that the whole governmental theory of the atonement is founded. It admits of no ground of punishment but the benefit of others. And if that benefit can be otherwise se- cured all necessity for punishment ceases, and all objection to the dispensing of pardon is removed. If the fundamental princi])le of a theory be false, the theory itself must be unsound.
2. The theory contradicts the intuitive moral judgments of men. The testimony of every man's conscience in view of his own sins is that he deserves to be punished, not for the good of others, but for his own demerit. If not guilty he cannot justly be punished ; ^nd if guilty he cannot justly be pardoned without satisfaction to justice. As this is the testimony of conscience with regard to our own sins, it is the testimony of the consciousness of all men with regard to the sins of others. When a great crime is committed, the instinctive judgment of men is that the perpetrators ought to be punished. No analysis of human consciousness can resolve this sentiment of justice into a conviction of the understanding that the Interests of society demand the punishment of crime. That indeed is true. It is one of the incidental benefits, but not the special design or end of punishment. Indeed, the whole moral effect of punishment depends upon the assumption that it is inflicted on the ground of ill desert, and not for the public good. If the latter ob- ject be made prominent, punishment loses its nature and of course its appropriate moral effect. A theory which ignores these intui-
580 PART in. ch. IX. — theories of the atonement.
tive convictions of the mind is not suited to our state, and never can satisfy the conscience. We know that we deserve to be pun- ished. We know that we ouglit to be punished, and tlierefore that punishment is inevitable under the government of a just God. If it is not borne by a substitute in our stead, it must be borne by ourselves. Where there is no expiation for sin there is inevitably a fearful looking for of judgment.
3. All the arguments heretofore urged in proof that the justice of God cannot be resolved into benevolence are valid arguments against the governmental theory of the atonement. The doctrine that happiness is the highest good, and that all virtue consists in tiie desire and purpose to promote the greatest possible amount of happiness, is almost discarded from the schools, and should be dis- carded from theology where it has wrought so much evil. It is so inconsistent with our moral nature, to assert that there is no difference between right and wrong except that between the expedient and the inexpedient, that the doctrine could never have been adopted except as a means of solving difficulties for the un- derstanding, at the expense of the conscience. This point has been already considered when treating of the attributes of God and of the design of creation ; and therefore it need not be further discussed in this place.
4. A fourth argument against the governmental theory is that it is unscriptural. The Bible constantly represents Christ as a priest, as a sacrifice, as a propitiation, as an expiation, as the substitute and representative of sinners ; as assuming their place and sus- taining the curse or penalty of the law in their stead. All these representations are either ignored or explained away by the advo- cates of this theory. Governments, civil commonwealths, from which the principles and illustrations of this theory are derived, know nothing of priests, sacrifices, and vicarious punishments. And, therefore, these ideas do not enter, and cannot be admitted into the governmental theory. But these ideas are the vital ele- ments of the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement ; so that if we renounce them we renounce the doctrine itself, or at least seriously impair its integrity and power. Wiiole volumes on the atonement have been written in which the words priest, sacrifice, and pro- pitiation hardly occur.
5. This theory, as well as the moral view of the atonement, is false, because defective. As it is true that the work of Christ is designed and adapted to exert the most powerful moral influence on sinners to induce them to return to God, so it is true that