tius consisted in this, that the sufferings and death of Christ were designed as an exhibition of God's displeasure against sin. They were intended to teacli tlmt in the estimation of God sin deserves to be punished, and, therefore, that the impenitent cannot escape the penalty due to their offences. " Nihil iniquitatis in eo est quod Dens, cujus est summa potestas ad omnia per se non injusta, nulli ipse legi obnoxius, cruciatibus et morte Christi uti vohiit, ad statu- endum exemplum grave adversus culpas immensas nostrum omni- um, quibus Christus erat conjunctissimus, natura, regno vadimo- nio."^ Again: "Hoc ipso Deus non tantum suura adversus peccata odium testatum fecit, ac proinde nos hoc facto a peccatis deterruit (facilis enim est collectio, si Deus ne resipiscentibus qui- dem peccata remittere voluit, nisi Christo in pcenas succedente, multo minus inultos sinet contumaces) verum insigni modo insuper patefecit summum erga nos amorem ac benevolentiam : quod ille scilicet nobis pepercit, cui non erat a.8La<f,opov, indifferens, punire peccata, sed qui tanti id faciebat, ut potius quam impunita omnino dimitteret, Filium suum unigenitum ob ilia peccata, poenis tradide- rit." ^ It thus appears that, according to this theory, the work of Christ was purely didactic. It was designed to teach, by way of an example, God's hatred of sin. The cross was but a symbol.
Memonstrants.
The Synod of Dort met two years after the publication of the work in which this theory was propounded. Grotius joined those who remonstrated against the decisions of that Synod, and who on that account were called Remonstrants. The Remonstrant theo- logians, however, did not as a class adhere to Grotius's peculiar doctrine. They did not regard the work of Christ as a govern- mental transaction, but adhered to the Scriptural mode of repre- sentation. They spoke of his death as a sacrifice and ransom. They rejected indeed the Church doctrine. They denied that what Christ did was a satisfaction of justice ; that He bore the pen- alty of the law ; that He acted as our substitute, fulfilling in our place all the demands of the law. As these ideas have no part, according to their view, in tlie doctrine of sacrifices for sin, so they have no place in the true doctrine concerning the work of Christ. Under the Old Testament a sacrifice was not an equivalent for the penalty incurred ; it was not a satisfaction to justice ; the victim did not do what the offerer ought to have done. It was simply a
1 Grotius, De Satisfacticme, iv. [§ 18]; vol. iii. p. 315, b. 9-14.
2 Ibid. V. [§ 8] ; p. 317, a, 12-24.
576 PART III. Ch. IX. — theories OF THE ATONEMENT.
divine ordinance. God saw fit to ordain that the offering a sacri- fice shoidd be the condition of the pardon of the violations of the ceremonial law. So also He has seen fit to ordain that the sacri- ficial death of Christ should be the condition of the pardon of sin under the gospel. Even a ransom is no proper equivalent. The holder of a captive may take what he pleases as the condition of deliverance. On this point Limborch says : " In eo e^-rant quam maxime, quod velint redemtionis pretium per omnia gequivalens esse debere miserijB illi, e qua redemtio fit, redemtionis pretium enim constitui solet pro libera sestimatione illius, qui captivum detinet, non autem pro captivi merito. Ita pretium, quod Christus persol- vit, juxta Dei patris aestimationem persolutum est." ^ This is the old Scholastic doctrine of " acceptatio ; " a thing avails, irrespect- ive of its iidierent value, for what God sees fit to take it. The death of Christ was no more a satisfaction for sin, than that of bulls and of goats under the old dispensation. God saw fit to make the latter the condition of the pardon of violations of the ceremonial law ; and He has seen fit to make the former the condition of the pardon of sins against the moral law.
The Supernaturalists.
Althougli the Remonstrants as a body did not accept of the governmental theory as proposed by Grotius, his main idea was frequently reproduced by subsequent writers. This was done especially by the Supernaturalists in Germany in their endeavours to save something from the destructive principles of the Rational- ists. They conceded that the work of Christ was not strictly a satisfaction to justice. They taught that it was necessary as an example and a symbol. ^ It was designed as a manifestation of God's displeasure against sin ; and, therefore, necessary to render its forgiveness consistent with the interests of God's moral govern- ment. This is true of Staudlin, Flatt, and even of Storr. Speak- ing of the first of these writers, Baur says, "It was admitted that in the New Testament doctrine concerning the death of Jesus the Old Testament idea of a sin offering as a substitute and satisfaction
1 Limborch, Theolof/ia Christiana, ill. xxi. 8, edit. Amsterdam, 1715, p 262, a.
2 Tlie word "symbol," iiowever, is iise<l in two senses. Sometimes it is synonymous with sign. 'I'hns it is common to say that tlie brnal and wine in the Lord's Supper are the symbols of Christ's body and blood. At other times, a symbol is that which expresses tiie analogy between the outward and inward. Thus, in one view, the atoning death of Christ is symbolical of God'^ ffiplings towards sinners. In another view, the struggles and triumph of our Lord in conflict with physical evil are symbolical of the believer'? struggles Rnd triumph in the conflict with sin. The former was an illustration of the latter, and intended to encourage the people of God with the assurance of success.