tlie fathers in treating of the qualifications of Christ as a Saviour, insisted tiiat He must be, (1.) God ; (2.) a man ; and (3. ) as man free fi-om sin.^ It is a liistorical fact that the two doctrines of the divinity of Chi'ist, and expiation through the blood of the Son of God, have gone hand in hand. The one has seldom been long held by those who deny the other. The doctrine of expiation, therefore, is so wrought into the whole system of revealed truth, that its rejection effects a radical change, not only in the theology. but also in the I'eligion of the Bible.
§ 4. The Grovernmental Theory.
This theory was introduced into the Church by Grotius, in the seventeenth century. He Avrote in opposition to the Socinians, and therefore his book is entitled: "Defensio fidei catholicas de satis- factione Christi." It is in point of learning and ability all that could be expected from one of the greatest men of his generation. The design with which the book was written, and the universally received formulas of expression at that time prevailing, to the use of which Grotius adheres, give his work an aspect of orthodoxy. He speaks of satisfaction to justice, of propitiation, of the penal character of our Lord's sufferings, of his death as a vicarious sacri- fice, and of his bearing the guilt of our sins. In short, so far as the use of terms is concerned, there is hardly any departure from the doctrine of the Reformed Church, of which he was then a member. Different principles, however, underlaid his whole theory, and, therefore, a different sense was to be attached to the terms he used. There was, after all, no real satisfaction of justice, no real substitution, and no real enduring of the penalty of the law. His Socinian opponents, when they came to answer his book, said that he liad given up all the main principles in dispute. Grotius was a jurist as well as a theologian, and looked at the whole subject from a juridical standpoint. The main elements of his theory are, —
1. That in the forgiveness of sin God is to be regarded neither as an offended party, nor as a creditor, nor as a master, but as a moral governor. A creditor can remit the debt due to him at pleasure ; a master may punish or not punish as he sees fit ; but a ruler must act, not according to his feelings or caprice, but with a view to the best interests of those under his authority. Grotius says that the overlooking the distinctions above indicated is the fundamental error of the Socinians.^ In opposition to this view, he
1 Dogmengeschichte, pp. 384, 385, being the sixth volume of his Ecclesiastical History. 8 De Satinfactione, ii. [§ 3] ; Works, edit. London, 1679, vol. iii. p. 307, a, 25-3-i. " Vult
574 PART m. Cn. IX. — THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT.
says : " Omnino hie Deum considerandum, ut rectorem. Nam poenas infligere, aut a poem's aliquein liberare, queni punire pos- sis, quod justificare vocat Scriptura, non est nisi rectoris qua talis prirao et per se : ut, puta, in fainilia patris ; in republica regis, in universo Dei." ^
2. The end of punishment is the prevention of crime, or the preservation of order and the promotion of the best interests of the community. " Justitise rectoris pars est servare leges etiam positi- vas et a se latas, quod verum esse tarn in universitate libera quani in rege summo probant jurisconsulti : cui illud est consequens, ut rectori relaxare legem non liceat, nisi causa aliqua accedat, si non necessaiia, certe sufficiens : quse itidem recepta est a jurisconsultis sententia. Ratio utriusque est, quod actus ferendi aut relaxandi legem non sit actus absoluti dominii, sed actus imperii, qui tendere debeat ad boni ordinis conversationem." ^ On a previous page, he had said, in more general terms : " Poena omnis propositum habet bonum commune, ordinis nimirum conservationem et exemplum."
3. As a good governor cannot allow sin to be committed with immunity, God cannot pardon the sins of men without some ade- quate exhibition of his displeasure, and of his determination to punish it. This was the design of the sufferings and death of Christ. God punished sin in Him as an example. This example was the more impressive on account of the dignity of Christ's per- son, and therefore in view of his death, God can consistently with the best interests of his government I'emit the penalty of tlie law in the case of penitent believers.
4. Punishment, Grotius defined as suffering inflicted on accoiuit of sin. It need not be imposed on account of the personal demerit of the sufferer ; nor with the design of satisfying justice, in the ordi- nary and proper sense of that word. It was enough that it should be on account of sin. As the sufferings of Christ were caused by our sins, insomuch as they were designed to render their remis- sion consistent with the interest of God's moral government, they fall within this comprehensive definition of the word punislunent. Grotius, therefoi'e, could say that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, as his sufferings were an example of what sin deserved.
5. The essence of the atonement, therefore, according to Gro-
(Socinus) partem oiiinem offenRain esse poeniB creditorem: atque in ea tale habere jus, quale alii creditores in rebus sibi debitis, quod jus sa;pe etiam dominii voce appellat: ideoque jaepissime repetit Deum hie spect:induni, ut partem offensam, ut creditorem, ut doniinura, tria ha'C pmiens tanquam tantundem valentia. Hie error Socini . . . per totaiu ipsiui tractationeni diffusus .... ipsius to Trpwrof «^eC5o5 [estj" 1 Ibid. II. [§ 1] ; p. 305, b, 20-24. 2 Md. v. [§ IP ; p. 317, b, 31-41.