divine forgiveness: and as conditioning His resurrection and ascension to glory.
Grotius (Defense, 1617) set out to defend the orthodox position by first securing a new point of departure. Both the Calvinists and Socinus had viewed God in the matter of sin and penalty as the offended party. Employing the analogies of human law, Grotius said God is not the otTcnded party, but the Divine Ruler (rectoral theory) : and the sufferings of Christ do not satisfy justice, but are a penal example de- signed to deter men from sin, thus rendering it consistent with the interests of the divine government to forgive the penitent.
Socinianism has undergone much change, espe- cially of spirit, in modern Unitarianism. One of its best Knglish advocates, the Rev. Prof. John James Tayler (died 1869), presents the doc- trine thus:
"'There is one mediator between God and men — the man Christ Jesus.' This can only refer to unrivaled preëminence, not to exclusive function. For all higher minds do, in fact, mediate between their less gifted fellow-crea- tures and the great realities of the invisible world. This 'one' is a human mediator, 'the man Christ Jesus' — not a being from another sphere, an angel or a God, but a brother from the bosom of our own human family. 'He gave Himself a ransom for all' who embrace his offfers and will harken to His voice. He brings from God a general summons to repent; and with that He conveys, through faith, a spiritual power to shake off the bondage of sin, and put on the freedom of a new heart and a new life. He is a deliverer from the power of sin and the fear of death. This is the end of His mediation; this is the redemption of which He paid the price. His death, cheerfully met in the inevitable secpience of faithful duty, was only one among many links in the chain of in- strumentalities by which that deliverance was «fl"ected. It was a proof, such as could be given in no other way, of trust in God and immor- tality, of fidelity to duty, and of love for man- kind. In those who earnestly contemplated it, and saw all that it implied, it awoke a tender response of gratitude and confidence, which soft- ened the obdurate heart and opened it to serious impressions and the quickening influences of a religious spirit."
The American leader of Unitarianism, Chan- ning (died 1842), was less clear in affirming the simpla humanity of Jesus; but with reference to the atonement, he founds our salvation upon the 'boundless and almighty goodness of our Father,' and describes the work of Christ as consisting in His teaching and example. The death of Christ he seems to regard simply as an impressive element of His instruction. More modern Unitarians generally regard it as the death of a martyr, incidental to His mission as the greatest of religious leaders.
A distinct period in the history of Calvinism in regard to this doctrine was introduced by the influence which Grotius gained in America in the last quarter of the Eighteenth Century. Under the pressure of the Universalist con- troversy, a number of New England leaders adopted the idea that the position occupied by God in the matter of penalty is that of niler, and that the sufferings of Christ are a penal example. The justice that was satisfied was the 'general' justice of God, which was identi- fied with love. Hence, sinners cannot claim forgiveness in 'justice' (as the Universalists had said, founding thereupon their doctrine that all men may claim it, since Christ died for all), for the sufferings of Christ only make it con- sistent with the general interests of God's gov- ernment to forgive the penitent, yet not obliga- tory upon God. Atonement is general, that is 'sufficient' for all, though 'efficient' only for the elect. There is no imputation, whether of our sins to Christ or of His merits to us. Propitia- tion does not placate God, as if He were en- raged against men, whom, on the contrary. He loves, sending His Son for them. But it removes obstacles lying in His government and prevent- ing forgiveness without atonement, and thus inclines Him to forgive. The analogies of gov- ernment were more emphasized tluin the ethical root of the theory, and it therefore assumed a somewhat mechanical form ; but it was the be- ginning of a new emphasis upon the ethical ele- ment. It spread widely in America, and got a considerable following also in Great Britain. The most recent period of discussion of this doctrine has been marked by the effort to rid it of 'artificial' elements in favor of the ethical. Among the protagonists of this period must be mentioned John M'Leod Campbell (Nature of the Atonement, Cambridge, 1856). His views are as follows: The work of the Son of God, who came to do and did the will of His Father, must, in view of the deliverance which He wrought, be regarded as twofold — first, as dealing with man on behalf of God, and, second, as dealing with God on behalf of man.
In dealing with man on behalf of God, Christ revealed to us the Father in His relation to a sinful world; showed us what our sins were to God; vindicated in the world the Father's name, and witnessed to the excellency of that will against which we were rebelling. In thus re- vealing the will of the Father toward sinful men. He necessarily became a man of sorrow and suffering; but these arose naturally out of what He was, and the relation in which He stood to those for whom He suffered; and to the holiness and love of His very nature must we refer their awful intensity and immeasurable amount. He suffered what He suffered just through seeing sin and sinners with God's eyes, and feeling in reference to them with God's heart. By what He suffered He condemned sin, and revealed the wrath of God against it. His holiness and love, taking the form of suffering, compose the very essence and adequacy of His sacrifice for sin.
Again, in dealing with God on behalf of man, the oneness of mind with the Father, which toward man took the form of condemnation of sin, became in His dealing with the Father in relation to us, a perfect confession of our sins, which was a perfect Amen in humanity to the judgment of God on the sin of man. Such an Amen was due in the truth of all things; due on our behalf, though we could not render it; due from Him as in our nature and our true brother. He who was the truth, could not be in humanity and not utter it; and it was necessarily a first step in dealing with the Father on our behalf. This confession of our sins by Him who, as the Son of God and the son of man in one person, could perfectly realize the evil of man's alienation, was a peculiar development
