it was npt a real equivalent, which by its intrinsic value met the obligations of the sinner, but it was something graciously ac- cepted as such. Although Grotius rejects the use of the word " acceptilatio," and endeavours to show that it does not express his meaning, nevertheless, though he repudiates the word, he retains the idea. He says,1 " Ea est pretii natura, ut sui valore aut aes- timatione alterum moveat ad concedendam rem, aut jus aliquod, puta impunitatem." This amounts to the principle of Duns Scotus that a thing avails (is worth) for what God pleases to take it. Although Grotius does not carry out the principle to the length to which the Schoolmen carried it, and say that God might have accepted the death of one man as a satisfaction for the sins of the world, or the blood of bulls or of goats as a real expi ation, nevertheless, he teaches that God graciously accepted " ali- quid pro aliquo," the death of Christ for the death for all the world, not because of its being a real equivalent in itself, but be- cause as ruler, having the right to remit sin without any satisfac- tion, He saw that the interests of his government could thereby be promoted. Still more clearly is this idea expressed by Lim borch:2 "In eo errant quam maxime, quod velint redemtionis pretium per omnia equivalehs esse debere miseriae illi, e qua re- demtio fit : redemtionis pretium enim constitui solet pro libera asstimatione illius, qui captivum detinet, non autem solvi pro cap-
tivi merito Ita pretium, quod Christus persolvit, juxta
Dei Patris asstimationem persolutum est."
According to Grotius, Christ died as an example, " exemplum poenae." The whole efficacy of his work was its moral impres- sion on the universe. It was not an expiation or satisfaction for past sins, but a means of deterring from the commission of sin in the future. This, as Baur 8 and Strauss 4 remark, is the point in which the theory of Grotius, and that of Socinus coincide. They bdth refer the efficacy of Christ's work to the moral impression which it makes on the minds of intelligent creatures. They refer that moral influence, indeed, to different causes, but moral impres- sion is all the efficacy it has. Although the word satisfaction is retained by Grotius, the idea attached to it by the Church is re- jected. The leading Remonstrant or Arminian theologians, as Episcopius, Curcellasus, and Limborch, differ from Grotius in their mode of presenting this subject. Instead of regarding the work of Christ as an example of punishment, designed to deter from
1 De Satisfaction, cap. 8; Works, edit London, 1679, vol. iii. p. 328, b (12-14).
2 Theologia Christiana, in. xxi. 8, edit. Amsterdam, 1715, p. 262, a.
8 Die christliche Lehre von der Versohnung, n. i. 4, Tubingen, 1838, p. 429. * Dogmatik, Tubingen and Stuttgart, 1841, vol. ii. p. 315.
190 part in. Ch. xvn. — justification.
the commission of sin, they adhere to the Scriptural mode of re- garding Him as a ransom and sacrifice. The difference however is more in form than in reality. They admit that Christ redeems us by giving Himself as a ransom for many. But a ransom, as Curcellseus says, is not an equivalent ; it is anything the holder of the captive sees fit to accept. It is admitted, also, that Christ gave Himself as a sacrifice for our salvation; but a sacrifice is said not to be a satisfaction to justice, but simply the condition on which pardon is granted. Under the Old Testament God pardoned sin on the occasion of the sacrifice of irrational animals ; under the New Testament, on the occasion of the sacrifice of Christ. " Sacrificia," says Limborch,1 " non sunt solutiones debi- torum, neque plenariae pro peccatis satisfactiones ; sed illis perac- tis conceditur gratuita peccati remissio." " Redemtionis pretium constitui solet pro libera aestimatione illius, qui captivum detinet." We know, however, from Scripture that a sacrifice was not merely an arbitrarily appointed antecedent of gratuitous forgiveness ; it was not simply an acknowledgment of guilt. We know also that the blood of bulls and of goats under the Old Testament could not take away sin ; it availed only to the purifying of the flesh, or the remission of ceremonial penalties. The only efficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices, so far as sin committed against God is concerned, was sacramental ; that is, they signified, sealed, and applied the benefits of the only real and effectual expiation for sin, to those who believed. As the victim symbolically bore the penalty due to the offender, so the eternal Son of God really bore our sins, really became a curse for us, and thus made a true and perfect satisfaction to God for our offences.
2. As the Remonstrants denied that Christ's work was a real satisfaction for sin, they of necessity denied any real justification of the sinner. Justification with them is merely pardon. This is asserted by Grotius in the passage above cited ; and even the Rev. Richard Watson, whose excellent system of theology, or " Theological Institutes," is deservedly in high repute among the Wesleyan Methodists, not only over and over defines justifica- tion as pardon, but elaborately argues the question. " The first point," he says, " which we find established by the language of the New Testament is, that justification, the pardon and remis- sion of sins, the non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of righteousness, are terms and phrases of the same import."2 He then goes on to establish that position.
1 Theologia Christiana, m. xxi. 6, 8, ut supra, pp. 261. a, 262 • n. xxiii. ; edit. New York, 1832, p. 426.