THE translation of Grotius’s “Defence” herewith offered to the Christian public is an attempt to present in pure and readable English this masterpiece among works upon the atonement. It has been the first endeavor to make the translation readable as well as exact, and the next to make it literal. Grotius’s style was eminently sequacious. He delighted in linking his sentences together by iraumerable connective particles, and availed himself freely of the resources of the Latin language to accomplish this. As ic as was thought consistent with English idiom these connective particles have been retained. But it was thought necessary to break up some of the longer sentences into shorter ones, and to take the same liberty with the paragraphs. An occasional Greek phrase, which in our day would seem pedantic, has been silently translated, and the Greek put at the bottom of the page, along with the numerous notes which were incorporated by Grotius with the text.
To these foot-notes some small additions have been made vii
viii TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.
by the translator, for self-evident reasons, and enclosed in brackets. The preface of Vossius has been omitted. Otherwise no change has been made; and it is hoped that the translation may enable the English reader to gain as true an idea of Grotius’s work as the Latin itself would afford him.
The translation is made from the Amsterdam edition of Grotius’s Theological Works and Letters, in four volumes, folio, 1679. Two other editions have also been employed in the work; one probably the first edition, Leyden, 1617, another the second edition of the same year and place. These texts differ somewhat, for the folio was printed from — the author’s private copy, upon the margin of which certain additions had been made, chiefly citations of authorities. The folio edition is a most careful and excellent one, and reflects great credit upon its editor. For ready reference the pages and columns of the folio are printed in the margin of the translation.
The only other English translation of the work ever made, was first published in London, 1692, and bears the translator’s initials only —— W.H. This translation is, of course, now unreadable, and often obscure. But it never was a perfect translation; for beside the fact that the English is Latin-English, such as never was spoken, and never
could be, W. H. has not infrequently failed to gain precisely
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. ix
the author’s meaning. He is hardly ever felicitous, abounds with small errors of various kinds, and in some places positively blunders; while throughout he has permitted his work to be seriously marred by careless proof-reading. But he is literal, and is in general very faithful to his task.
This translation was first printed in the Bibliotheca Sacra in the year 1879. The notes which accompany the text were prepared at that time, and are reprinted without change. Reference is made to them by small superior letters in the text. The text itself has been modified in but two places. But the translator has added a brief Introduction, which attempts to show the place of the Grotian theory among theories of the atonement in the light of its history. ‘This is the chief addition to the former edition, and will, with the Index,— for which I am indebted to my pupil, Mr. M. S. Freeman — increase the value and convenience of the book.
At this time, when amid the shifting opinions of a period of theological transition the merits of the governmental theory of the atonement have been often overlooked, and even the meaning of its principal idea lost sight of, it is hoped that a study of its history and earliest form in the treatise before us, may serve to secure a recognition of its
value, and promote soundness of theological belief.
ned bias a 5 +s oie { J 7
To understand the place, character, and influence of the Grotian theory of the Atonement, we shall need first to pass in rapid review the previous history of the doctrine in those thinkers whose ideas have proved to be of decisive influence in its development.
The first attempt to explain the nature of the atonement which yielded a result worthy of the theme, or of any doctrinal value, was that which, Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, embodied in his treatise entitled, “Cur Deus Homo?” It was an attempt as noteworthy for its spiritual as its intel- ~ lectual qualities. Under the inspiration of profound reverence for the great Creator of all things, Anselm viewed sin principally as an impai of onor. of God. The creature owes it to God that not only every act, but every thought, and even fleeting wish, should be subject to him. Not to render this is to
impair the honor of God,.and_to incur a debt,— not
xii HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
a commercial debt, it is true, but a real debt, since the honor of God has been impaired precisely as if the sinner had said in words that God had no claim
to the absolute obedience of his creatures. Thus —
in inundamantally. 8 deni of She ANEMONE
This debt may be paid by the punishment of the [Bi or by the rendering of a satisfaction. Punishment would annihilate the guilty race, but satisfaction may repair the honor of God and still admit of the salvation of man. The profundity of Anselm’s thought is specially manifest at this point, since he treats the satisfaction in a way to relieve it from the eruder conceptions of those later writers who struggled to find a way of expressing the exact equivalency of the sufferings of Christ to the deserts of men. The satisfaction must render, says Anselm,
ja aerarererryesmaecrrremaere <0) . refused, but also— ymethin ’
>m, 9 an this. The thief has not made full een for his theft when he has returned the simple sum he had appropriated. The satisfaction, since it atones for infinite sin, must be of infinite worth, as well as voluntary, and one which the offerer is not bound to make. Now, when Jesus Christ dies, he has voluntarily rendered that which he was not bound to render, It is the most complete possible denial of self, and so the most emphatic possible acknowledgment of the claim of God upon man. It ascribes to God as
of w hich the sin of man had deprived him, And its
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Xili
infinity adds the “something more,” for which the nature of the case called.
The nature and necessity of the atonement, thus brought to the attention of the church by Anselm, were discussed repeatedly during the middle ages, but until the Reformation nothing was added to the development of the theory. Different writers among the scholastics now taught, and now denied, the objective necessity of an atonement, and finally left this point in great obscurity. The direct line of advancing thinkers, leading to the work of Grotius, is not resumed until we reach John Calvin.
Calvin occupies a position in some respects identical with that of Anselm, and in some respects diiferent from it. Like Anselm, he teaches sa aataile ive necessity of the atonement, but he founds it up on a different principle. Iti is not the honor of God, 4
ipaired and i neoding to. be restored, but the off ti nded | , which Calvin presents as/ the ground of the atonement. There is “a perpetual and irreconcilable opposition between righteousness and iniquity,” 480 that the holy God cannot be propitious to guilty man. The guilt must be re-
- moved, and this is epeoynees tirouat the sacrificial death. This deathis™ asat ’ to the Si ineetiiemnninnkisenieted. ° oe by a mysterious relation of the cross to man, our entire guilt and punishment are transferred to Christ, and may, therefore, be no longer imputed to or exacted of us. Such are the main thoughts of Calvin ;
1 Institutes I]. xvi. 3.
xiv HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
yet it is very noticeable that he does not pursue the abstract course of reasoning which has been so commonly used since his day to establish them. He does not begin with the justice of God “ demanding punishment.” He looks at the facts. He sees the sufferings of Christ, that he sustained the character of a malefactor, that the punishment of our sins was upon him, and that by his stripes we are healed, and he says, This is what justice demanded because it is what justice exacted. Thus his reasoning was wholly @ posteriori, and it was left for later writers to start with abstract conceptions and principles and deduce the necessity of the satisfaction by an @ priori a) cess.’
With the increase of the scholastic tendency ©
among the followers of Calvin, the logical formulation of his conception of the atonement was made much more rigid. Beza, Calvin’s successor in the theological school at Geneva, defined God as “ consummately and perfectly just, from which it follows that he approves no iniquity, nor leaves any unavenged.”? And when Socinus arose, he found the Calvinistic theory represented by Covetus,.a minister of the city of Paris, who derived from the immutability of God the idea that justice was inseparable from his perfections,® and that it was therefore
necessary, with the necessity which exists in the na-
1 In Note a, ch. i., the distinction between Calvin and his followers is not observed.
2 “ Confessio,’’? Theol. Tract. II. p. 2.
8 Socinus, ‘‘ De Jesu Christo Servatore,”’ I. 1.
ture of God, that justice should be’ satisfied, and that, since it could not be satisfied, if we were to be redeemed, by us, it must be by another. To these ideas and those logically involved in them, Socinus
objected." He i teenigediereete
opponents in wew! ing. God. in-thedight..or..the party.) — offended b: sion. ., This had been the common er of Aneelin and all
subsequent writers. And here Socinus would seem to have the best of the argument. If God is the offended party, and deals with men in this capacity, then it follows, as Socinus says, that he can entirely forgive sin without any satisfaction whatever. For God thus to forgi
ing 1 men, or in ae giving ens is ae to be conceived of as a judge who administers the law of another from the letter of which he is not permitted to depart; but as a sovereign Lord and Prince, whose will alone, since he is dealing only with his own rights, is the law of all things and the most perfect norm.” <A private man can not only do this, but he is praised for doing it. We cannot deprive God of the same right without committing horrible sacrilege. A man can forgive a debt without payment: so can God.?_ These arguments are conclusive, and wholly overturn the fundamental assumption as to the office of satisfaction made by Socinus’s opponents
1 See more in detail in the notes. 2 Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, Vol. II. p. 186, B.
Xvi HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
from Anselm down. And yet the doctrine which is thus undermined is in substance correct, and that propounded in its place by Socinus is wrong. What adjustment shall be made in the church dectrine to remove from it the error which Socinus refutes?
It is Grotius’s immortal service to have answered this question. He silently concedes all that Socinus has to say about imputation * and all that he hints as to the non-moral character of the attribute of
justice as conceived by the Calvinists. He would —
perhaps have said, if Socinus had demanded it, that to press the necessity of a satisfaction to justice, as was done by Covetus, was to convert justice into a natural, instead of a moral attribute in God. But he objects to Socinus’s destruction of the idea of satisfaction because, as he says, God does not act in the capacity of the offended party in the punish- ‘me unishment does not belong to the offended party as such, and it has nothing to do with the regaining of lost rights. It
is the act of the sovereign asa sovereign. ‘True, he |
is the offended party in this case, but he does not act in this capacity, but only in that of a sovereign, in exacting punishment. Hence there may be a
necessity for a satisfaction, if sin is to be forgiven, ‘ and the fact that it is made shows that it is neces-_
sary. This is precisely the @ posteriori method of reasoning which had been adopted by Calvin. Thus the truth Socinus had is acknowledged, but the doctrine of satisfaction is maintained in spite of his ob-
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. XVil
jection, by showing that the objection derives its force against the doctrine not from the idea of satisfaction, but from this f ion of ‘the _relation..oceupiedby..God, which corrected leaves the point in hand unaffected.
We need not. dwell upon the theory of Grotius, since the reader has the treatise itself before him. We pass to the main object of the present essay, which is to describe the reception with which this theory met, and its influence upon various schools of thinkers down to the present day. In doing this, we shall for brevity’s sake keep in view, for
} ® the most part, the fundamental ideas of the Groti - theory, viz. that God is EERE meapagagy
and that the sufferings of Christ served
PER onte
rather than descend to its more minute
elements. The history is not in all respects a pleasant one. It illustrates how theological thinkers, like other men, often decide from appearances, associations, and prejudices, rather than from the merits of the case. The Arminia ) condemned at Dort, and Pathind Arrvitaee fell into disrepute with it. Grotius suffered under the ban laid upon his fellow-Arminians. As a commentator, he received considerable attention from time to time, but was often met, even in this field, with prejudice and hostility. But his theory of the atonement never received from the orthodox theologians of his day an adequate consideration.
Of this we have an amusing example in the criticisms of Hermann Ravensperg, Professor at Gro-
XVill HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
-ningen. His misunderstandings of Grotius are so ‘ ludicrous that it would not be worth while to con- ' sider him except that Vossius deemed him of - sufficient importance to devote a small treatise to a reply... The abundant quotations of Vossius show that he completely misunderstood both Socinus and Grotius. He thought that the former taught that Christ paid the penalty of our sins for us, and that this punishment was for a demonstration of the divine justice; and that Grotius taught that nothing but faith and penitence was necessary to free men from sin, no other means intervening,® and denied that the justice of God was one of the causes of the punishment of Christ.‘
Or if we turn to so eminent a representative of the orthodoxy of Dort as Francis Turretin (1623- 1687), we find, to be sure, what may be traces of Grotius’s influence, but if this be so, the result has only been an obscuration of Turretin’s own thought, not a change in his theory of the doctrine. He introduces the term “ Ruler of the Universe ”’ as the appropriate designation of God when inflicting punishment. He says:*® “God, indeed, occupies the position here not merely of a creditor who can relinquish his own right at pleasure, nor merely
1 G. J. Vossii Responsio ad judicium Hermanni Ravenspergeri de Libro ab Hugone Grotio, ete., bound up with an English edition of Grotius’s treatise: Oxford, 1636, pp. 136.
® Institutio Theologize elenctice, Locus XIV., quaest. x., ix. and x., N. Y. edition, 1847, Tom. II. p. 370.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. X1X
that of the offended party and lord, who can do as he will with his own without injuring any one, but of the judge and ruler of the universe, to whom \ alone pertains the infliction of punishment or liber- | ation from punishment, because, as all jurists recog- — nize, this is the part of the supreme magistrate and of ‘the higher power’ alone.” But this ruler acts not as aruler, but as the offended party, inasmuch as he conducts his government with exclusive reference to his offended justice. ‘So far as the punishment is concerned.. . the right [or law, jus] of God is plainly indispensable, inasmuch as it is founded in the justice of God. . . . The satisfaction of Christ, both as respects the justice of God and his will, is necessary.” This is proved by the “ vindicatory justice of God, for, since this is of the nature and essence of God, as was proved in part I, etc., where the law of God, the judge, was shown to be eternal and natural, from which God can no more dispense than he can deny himself, it is not possible that the exercise thereof should not be necessary.” The word “ruler” is accordingly used in asense altogether different from that of Grotius.
Heidegger (1633-1698) was glad to borrow from Grotius+ the idea of ruler to ae efend the orthodox doctrine against the objections of Socinus. ‘The creditor is free,” he says, “to remit a debt. Not. so in the case of punishment, especially with him
1 Corpus Theologize Christiane: Zurich, 1700, Locus XIX. Ixxx. Sentence after sentence is taken from the ‘‘ Defence ”’ (ch. ii.) entire or with the slightest modifications.
who is to be considered not merely as a creditor, but as the ruler of the universe.” And yet, it is again a ruler who is guided by no governmental considerations, but acts solely with reference to his ~ own nature, that is, conducts himself as the offended party; for “God was unwilling to save sinners except upon expiation, after the demonstration of the justice of him who punishes sin, nor could ever,
\indeed, save man otherwise because the justice that punishes sin belongs to his nature.” 1 If there can be any doubt as to the meaning of this, the following passage from Heidegger’s treatment of the attributes of God will remove it. He says: 2 “ Punishment so follows upon committed sin by the fit behavior [decentia], holiness, and justice of God that it cannot be that it should not follow.”
To note one more example, but from another school, Cocceius (1608-1669), who mitigated somewhat the ‘Severity ‘of some portions of the Calvinistic system, though honoring Grotius with considerable attention, was generally opposed to him on questions of theology and interpretation, and accordingly did not modify the old theory of the atonement. “We say that Christ satisfied justice, that is truly redeemed us from the guilt of sin and the sentence of condemnation, by a worthy price.”*® Justice is so defined as to lead to \the sentence: “But he is not able not to pun-
1 Tbid. Ixv. 2 Tbid., Locus III. xeviii. 8 Opera omnia, Frankfort-on-the Main, 1689, Vol. VL, ‘Summa Theologie,’’ p. 215.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. XXi
ish,” which is intended to convey the exact sense of the writers just quoted. And finally he says: “Tt is therefore a manifest error to confound this dedication or ratification of the New Covenant [viz. in the Lord’s Supper] with the threatening of destruction against him who should not abide by the covenant, by the effusion of the blood of a victim, under the analogy of the legal: sanction which subjects the life of man to the law. Compare Hugo Grotius on Matt. xxvi. 28.”2 This passage, while not exactly touching upon the theory of the atonement, sufficiently shows that Cocceius rejected the analogy between human and divine law in application to this subject.
Hard as was the fate of the Grotian theory: among the Orthodox for misunderstanding, confusion, or neglect, it was even harder among the Arminians of Holland, where it could at least hope to be met without prejudice, or even with some © degree of sympathy. For one reason or another, it was rejected by all the great leaders of the school.
Kpiscopius (1533-1643), it is true, did not live to complete his system of doctrine. As it is presented to us in an imperfect treatise, his statement of the atonement lacks the theoretic element. But what is to be found, speaks against rather than for the Grotian theory. He says: “God could, if he would, through his absolute right and supreme power, being, as he is, a lord, under obligations and
XXil HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
oath to no one, have forgiven the human race all its sins, and so have plainly yielded his own right by which he could inflict upon it evil and the misery merited by its sins. . . Nor is there any reason for saying that the distributive justice of God necessarily demands that he should punish the sinner, otherwise divine justice could not consist with the supreme lordship of God,” i. e. with his power of forgiving at his sovereign pleasure. This is to agree entirely so far with Socinus, both in the point from which the divine person is viewed, viz. as the offended party, and in the recognition of the fact that, as the offended party, he can relax his demands. This is to reject the Grotian theory in ‘its fundamental principle. But Episcopius does not follow the Socinian theory into its extreme antithesis to the Scriptures. He says again: * But the feeling of justice [affectus justitie] by which God hates the creature which has sinned, and is in misery of its own proper fault, i. e. lies under the dominion and rule of sin, prevented him from simply forgiving. ... For if God, on account of his feeling of pity, had absolutely and simply remitted all sin, the feeling of justice, by which God hates sin and loves righteousness, would have in no way appeared; there would, have appeared also no effect of the divine threatening or of the divine veracity by which he had designed or threatened death to sinners; and consequently a free opportunity for
1 Institutiones Theologice, Works, The Hague, 1678, Vol. 1. p. 407.
sinning would have always been afforded to man.” ! Hence, as a result, God would not forgive, “ except upon the intervention of a propitiatory sacrifice.” Thus the object of the atonement is to prevent men from sinning, in which Episcopius agrees with Grotius; and also to reveal the character of God, and in this respect he agrees with the Calvinists; but in the very act of agreeing, he disagrees with both Calvinists and Grotius, for he says that the necessity of an atonement lay in the will of God — (“God willed that forgiveness should not be granted ) \ except through a sacrifice.” ? |
It is at this point that the later Arminian theory —for all the great writers subsequent to this take substantially the same _ position — diverges from Grotius and approaches the Socinians. Vossius, indeed, says that the theory that the form of forgiving men through an atonement depended upon the mere will of God is an ancient opinion, and quotes among many others Calvin himself. ® But the passage from Calvin does not support Vossius. It runs: “If any inquiry be made concerning the necessity of this, it was not indeed a simple, or, as we commonly say, an absolute necessity,
but such as arose from the heavenly decree upon
ae ne the oe oie of men depended,” * That is to bix2 say, when God had decreed to save men, a propitiation was necessary ; but conceivably he might not
have thus decreed at all. In the same way, Grotius held that when man had sinned, the punishment of Christ was a governmental necessity... But the later Arminians departed fundamentally from the Calvinistic view. Whatever expressions those agreeing with the Calvinists may adopt as to the sacrifice of Christ depending upon the will of God, they view God’s will and his nature as so harmoniously operating, and so intimately connected, that the will always is as the nature. Indeed, this position is the only possible one upon their theory of the will, by which the will and the affections are confounded. Hence, whether they argue in the a posteriori way like Calvin, or in the @ priori way, they always hold that the fact of the infliction of punishment on Christ is sufficient proof of its necessity. The Arminian theory of the will was different, and the meaning of the phrase that the propitiation depended upon the will of God fundamentally another. They held that God could relinquish his right; the Calvinists, always, that he could not. They held that his not relinquishing it depended upon his mere will; the Ca this matter was as his nature, which demanded the ‘maintenance of his right. Thus Vossius’s defence of his theory is superficial, and his attempt to show that he is in the line of the orthodox theories fails.
1 This point is developed in Note a, ch. iii. Vossiug says that Grotius designedly left the point undecided, implying that he was privately of the same opinion as himself. Responsio, pp. 128, 129.
Curcellzeus follows the line of thought opened by Episcopius. He asks the question whether God was obliged by some necessity of his nature to exact from Christ the performance ofthe sacerdotal office. He replies, No; because any one can remit as much of his own right as he may wish without impairment of justice, and hence God may forgive without satisfaction... There is a more express rejection of the Grotian theory in the words: “If there were anything which prevented God from remitting sins freely and without intervening satisfaction, this would have to be sought in his nature, not beyond it.”? He then goes on to speak of essential mercy and essential justice, and the conflict between them, which renders the whole theory of the origin of the atonement in the nature of God absurd. And so he says that “‘it depends upon the mere will of God (mero ejus arbitrio) whether he shall punish or forgive.” ?
But against the Socinians_he teaches that there was_a satisfaction. “ That God might show how much he hates sin and might hereafter more effectually deter us from it, he willed not to forgive us, (noluit id facere) except upon the intervention of that sacrifice by which Christ offered his own slain body to him.”® The nature of the satisfaction he places in the performance of the will of the Father,
1 Opera Theologica, Amsterdam, 1675, p. 291 ff.
2 He presents some further arguments in favor of the Socinian position upon page 292.
xxvi HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
“For God required nothing else of Christ, and could require nothing else.” ?
Limborch (1633-1712), who holds perhaps the next place to Episcopius among the Arminians, but continues this style of thinking. After examining the views of Socinus as to the satisfaction of Christ? and then those of the ‘ Contraremonstrants,” in which he repeats Curcellzus’s arguments without variation in their order, he presents his own view in the following terms: “ Our own view is that the Lord Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for our sins, truly and properly so called; by sustaining the most grievous tortures and the cursed death of the cross, and afterwards, when raised from the dead, by entering with his own blood into the celestial sanctuary, and presenting himself there before the Father, he appeased him, angry with our sins, and reconciled us to him. Thus he bore for us and in our place the most grievous affliction, and so turned away from us deserved punishment.” ® The phrase most likely to strike the attentive student of the history of this doctrine will be “ grievous affliction,”
1 Tbid. p. 825. A number of arguments are also given upon p. 300 against the idea that Christ paid the exact penalty our sins had merited. (1) This does not belong to the nature of sacrifices. (2) Christ did not suffer eternal death, (8) Satisfaction is not necessary to produce love in God towards us. (4) This theory leaves no place for gratuitous forgiveness. (5) On this theory forgiveness would be due to us whether repentant or not.
2 Theologia Christiana, Amsterdam, 1715, p. 256 ff.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. XXVil
which is substituted for our punishment. Limborch dwells somewhat upon this idea at a later point. Christ satisfied justice, he also says, “not as satisfying the rigor of the divine justice, but the will of /God, which is both just and merciful,” and he did all things “ which were demanded by God for our reconciliation.” 1 And, like the others, he refers all the plan of salvation to the will of God, saying that “God has the absolute right of declaring at what price he will be satisfied,” ? and that “the supreme Lord may remit of his own right when he chooses.” ?
Such was the reception of his views among Grotius’s own countrymen. The reason is not far to seek. Under the pressure of the intolerant measures which followed upon the Synod of Dort, the Remonstrants, driven in upon themselves, deprived of the corrective influences of free intercourse with their orthodox brethren, grew gradually more and more lax. Their movement lacked the vigorous flow of religious life, and their thinking partook of the same defect. Occupying a middle position between the Socinians and the Calvin- | ists, they had the virtues of neither, and were only. saved from entire agreement with the former by their convictions as to the meaning of the Scriptures.
There was at this time another movement, often supposed to be of a liberal character, which was represented by the school of Saumur in France. Schweizer, the learned historian of the Reformed
xxviii UISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
Theology, has selected the following sentence as comprising the whole peculiarity of this school: “ God wills that all men be saved under the condition of faith, a condition which they are certainly able of themselves to perform, but which they without exception, in consequence of inherited depravity, despise, so that this general purpose of salvation brings no single individual actually to salvation. In addition to this, God wills particularly from all eternity to save a certain number of particular persons, but to pass over all other persons with this grace; these elect are as certainly saved as all others are certainly lost.”? This is precisely the doctrine which is known in America as the doctrine of general atonement, and it is logically entirely inconsistent with the idea that the atonement of Christ is the payment of a debt, or the satisfaction of justice strictly so called, as in the Calvinistic scheme. If God wills in any way the salvation of all men, then the atonement of Christ must be sufficient for all men, and so he must have satisfied for all. But if Christ has satisfied for all ‘men, and only a limited number are saved, he has, ‘if satisfaction be the payment of a debt, paid an ‘unnecessary price, which is inconceivable; or, in _accordance with another valid objection to the _ theory, if he has suffered for all men, he has on this ‘ theory paid the debt of all men, and so all men not _ only can be, but are already saved, precisely as James Relly actually argued. Hence this “hypo-
1 Herzog, Realencyclopedie, Vol. I. p. 358.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. XX1X
thetical universalism” is inconsistent with the theory which starts out with making God the offended party, and insists upon the satisfaction of distributive justice. —
But it does not seem that this inconsistency was perceived, or that the Grotian theory, which is the natural ally of the doctrine of general atonement, was received with any favor at Saumur. The “Theses Salmurienses ”’! are so arranged that the treatise amounts to a standard of dogmatics for the whole school. It consists of disputations held under the presidency of different members of the faculty at Saumur, and probably all would agree with the opinions presented in it. It expresses itself with entire distinctness in agreement with the ordinary Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement. La Place employs in one place the following language: “ We confess that human salvation might/ have been provided for in many other manners and ways, if God had so willed. . . but nevertheless we\ think the divine virtues demanded such a sacrifice; and so we aflirm that it was necessary.” ? If this is not a momentary confusion of thought, it must be explained in accordance with the principles suggested in the remarks made upon Vossius above.
Such was the reception of the theory upon the con-
1 Published at Saumur, 1665.
2 See, e. g., pp. 12,16. Pars sec., pp. 21-17.
8 Placeus, Opera'Omnia, Franeker, 1699, Vol. I. p. 475. See also Thesaurus Disputationum (Geneva, 1661) by various leading members of this school, which teaches the same doctrine.
tinent, amid friends at home and those abroad who would naturally have formed a more favorable opinion of, or actually adopted the ideas of Grotius, had they not been too much absorbed in the theological controversy in which they were engaged on their own account to be in a frame of mind hospitable and receptive to new ideas. Among the English Arminians, however, Grotius found a different atmosphere, and a kinder reception. The English theologian has never been so inaccessible to extra-theological influences as his continental neighbors, and, from the first, Grotius’s work upon international law and his defence of the Christian religion’ were highly prized in England, and undoubtedly led to a more favorable consideration of his dogmatic writings. The original editions of the “ Defence” were read in England; it was reprinted at Oxford in 1636;
‘and the first translation was made in 1692. The
English Arminians read, and, as.we.shall see; largely
adopted, the Grotian theory. Archbishop Tillotson —1694) stands first in
ecclesiastical rank among this school, but his theo-
- logical importance is not so great. There is little
of theological definition in his discourses, or of sharp discrimination and cogent reasoning. He is evidently largely under the influence of such men as Episcopius, and reminds us of him and of the other writers of the same school by the use of their characteristic language. In a sermon upon “The
1 Symon Patrick, Bishop of Ely, translated the ‘‘ Truth of the Christian Religion.”’
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. XXXI1
Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ,” he says: “ Both of these [viz. forgiveness and satisfaction], if God had so pleased, might, for anything we certainly know to the contrary, have been effected by the abundant mercy and powerful grace of God without this wonderful method and dispensation of sending his Son in our nature to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself; but it seems the wisdom of God thought fit to pitch upon this way and method of salvation, and no doubt for good reasons, among which these three seem to be very obvious and very considerable: 1. To vindicate the honor of his laws, which, if sin had gone altogether unpunished, would have been in great danger of falling into contempt. ... 2 That God might forgive sin in such a way as yet effectually to discountenance and discourage it, and to create in us the greatest horror and hatred of it. 3. A gracious condescension and compliance ° of Almighty God with a certain apprehension and
- persuasion which had very early and universally
obtained among mankind concerning the expiation of sin, and appeasing the offended deity by sacrifices.”1 — 5
The implication of the last phrases is elsewhere - confirmed, and it seems that the archbishop thought it doubtful whether the Jewish sacrifices arose from a divine revelation. He speaks in another place of God’s accepting Christ’s ‘“‘death as a meritorious sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that by this wise counsel and permission of
1 Works, London edit. of 1820, Vol. III. p. 382 f.
his providence he might forever put an end to that barbarous and inhuman way of serving God, which had been so long in use and practice among them.” }
The feebleness of Tillotson’s grasp of theological principles is very evident in these remarks. They follow neither Calvin, Socinus, nor Grotius. Tillot- ’ son seems to view God as the offended party, as when he suggests that God’s demands for punish- / ment may be entirely relaxed, and then explains | the actuality of the atonement by God’s purpose to vindicate his laws and to deter men from sin. He even goes so far as to say: “God did not command his Son to be sacrificed, but in his providence permitted the wickedness and violence of men to put him to death. And then his goodness and wisdom did overrule this worst of actions to the best ends.” ? In the same line he remarks that the sufferings of Christ were “so highly acceptable and well pleasing to him, that he thereupon was pleased to enter into a covenant of grace and mercy with mankind.” ®
But Symon Patrick, Bishop of Ely (1626-1707),
3 Ibid. Vol. vi. p. 103. In his famous sermon (XXXYV.), *‘Of the Eternity of Hell Torments,”’ he fails to distinguish between the demands of government in fixing proper penalties for transgressions, and the governmental necessity of executing solemn threatenings. He says: ‘‘ He that threatens, keeps the right of punishing in his own hand, and is not obliged to execute what he hath threatened any further than the reasons and ends of government do require ; and he may, without any injury to the party threatened, remit and abate as much as he pleaseth of the punishment that he hath threatened.”
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. xxxili
was & more vigorous thinker. Like others of his school, he is not given to theological theorizing in his treatises or popular sermons. But in his published works the following passage occurs, which is distinctly Grotian in its theory, and even in its language. He says: “ What do you mean... when you say that Jesus suffered for your sins? What was it... that he gave satisfaction unto? Was it not all those glorious attributes of God; his wisdom, his truth, his justice, his holiness; saving the honor of which he might not pass by the offences of returning sinners? Was it not that the credit of all these might be maintained, and yet the rebels not perish? That the sentence might not be executed, and yet the authority of the laws preserved? There is nothing plainer than that this death of Christ did do great honor to God in the face of the world: asserted his right; gave countenance to his authority; proclaimed his righteousness and purity; was a notable testimony on his behalf against sinners; and so there could be nothing more powerful to move God to grant a pardon to those rebels that would submit to him, since now he should lose nothing by it, but that which he had a mind to give away and not demand, viz. the penalties which they had incurred by the breach of his laws. But is it not manifest then that God cannot love sin, nor be friends with sinners until they amend? Did not the death of Christ show that his nature is such that he cannot indulge men in their trespasses? Is it not apparent that it was not fit to pardon even
xxxivy HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
penitent and returning offenders unless he showed his displeasure at their offences? Did he not take care to secure his authority when he issued out a pardon? . . . How should he maintain any government in the world if he himself should be the cherisher of traitors? If he should take care for their protection and set up a sanctuary to which they may boldly fly? . . . It cannot be that God should be so liberal as to give away all his own right. He cannot quit his title and claim unto our universal obedience. It is impossible that Christ by his death should repeal all the laws of God and absolve us from our duty. There is no question that he intended to strengthen them when he made a relaxation; and when he procured a dispensation, he did more establish and secure that which is not dispensed withal. It is a rule of reason, that all exceptions do confirm the law.” }
In Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) we find a still clearer presentation of the Grotian theory. He = entirely rejects the several ideas that “God could freely pardon the sins of the whole world without a ‘satisfaction to his offended justice”; that “there be nothing in God as Rector of the Universe that requires that he should punish sin or show his displeasure against it”; and that “the punishment of sin...depends... purely upon his arbitrary will.” ? This is to leave the standpoint of the Dutch Arminians and come clearly back to the Grotian position.
In his sermon on “The Satisfaction of Christ” he presents the Grotian theory in terms very largely drawn from Grotius’s work. All his language is ) cast in the mould of the Grotian terminology, as. when he says that God would not pardon sins “without a valuable consideration.” A portion of his defence of the wisdom of God in making the atonement may be inserted here. He says: “Should God have issued out a general indemnity and given us a full remission of our sin without anything required by way of reparation for the violation of his law, he must have pardoned sinners without any demonstration of his holiness and justice, or of his hatred of sin and resolution not to let it go unpunished, and so without sufficient motive to _deter us from it for the future; which seems not well consistent with his holiness and justice or that relation to us of our governor and great. lawgiver which seemeth plainly to require the vindication of his honor, and the preservation of the laws he hath established, from contempt.” ? And he further says: “‘ By the obedience of our Lord Christ to the death in our stead, all the great ends of punishment designed by wise governors were signally obtained,” etc. These are: “Firstly, maggdevuc, that they who suffer may be examples to others, etc. Secondly, vovdecla, instruction, that the offender may learn wisdom. Thirdly, tyuwele, the vindication of the prince’s honor and the preservation of the laws he hath established, from conxxxvi HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
tempt.” 1. The “ends of punishment designed by wise governors” are evidently Grotian in their origin, for not only is the idea entirely so, but the first two terms here employed are to be found associated in a similar definition in Grotius’s work,? and the third is also not unfamiliar to him. So completely does Whitby stand upon the Grotian basis.
We come now to the last of this school of English Arminians we shall notice, Samuel Clarke (1675-1728). He unfolds his views in a sermon upon “The Nature of the Sufferings of Christ.” ® There is some degree of uncertainty in his conception of the relation which God sustains in the matter of punishment, and the sharp distinetions of the second chapter of Grotius’s “ Defence”
are not always kept in mind. He says: “God,:
being the supreme and absolute lord of all things, has an absolute and unquestionable right to remit upon what conditions he pleases offences committed against himself; either without requiring any satisfaction at all, or upon whatever satisfaction he shall think fit to appoint in conjunction with the sincere repentance of the offender, for the vindication of the authority of his laws and government. ° For the obligation to punishment is.. . only a right in
the lawgiver to inflict it; which right being entirely -
his own, he may remit as much of it as he pleases, and upon whatever terms or conditions he thinks
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. xxxvii
fit.” In this passage Clarke either views God as the offended party in the matter of. forgiveness, or else hopelessly confounds the two positions of offended party and ruler. However, he rights himself in the following passage, which is in juxtaposition with the other: “When the honor of God’s laws had been diminished by sin, ’twas reasonable and necessary (notwithstanding God’s power and absolute right of forgiving; yet in respect of his wisdom in governing the world) ’twas reasonable and necessary that there should be a vindication of | the authority of his laws; and therefore it was necessary, in that sense of necessity, either that the sinner should perish, or that some other satisfaction should be made in his stead.” ? And again he says: “ We cannot presume to say but God might consistently with mere justice have remitted as much of his own right as he pleased, by his own supreme and uncontrollable sovereignty, without requiring any satisfaction at all; but the death of Christ was necessary at least in this respect, to make the pardon of sin consistent with the wisdom of God in his good government of the world, and to be a proper attestation of his irreconcilable hatred against all unrighteousness.”*® It seems accordingly that he would have said, had he had the strict antithesis brought before him which we have in mind in these discussions, that if God be considered as the offended party, the position of Calvin must be abandoned for that of Socinus; but
‘that the true part performed by God in forgiving or punishing sin is that of a ruler, as Grotius said. Upon this basis, Clarke summarizes his theory in the following terms: “1. That it was from the beginning infinitely reasonable that all possible honor and obedience should at all times be paid by all creatures to all the laws and commands of God. 2. That this honor due to the laws of God is diminished, as much as in us lies, by the sins and impieties of men.
‘ 3. That it is highly reasonable and necessary, after
such presumptuous transgression, that God should
make some proper vindication of his divine authority.
4. That the first and most obvious method of doing
this is by the punishment or destruction of the
offenders. 5. But because God hates not the
persons of sinners and hath no pleasure in their
destruction, but only a just zeal for the honor of
his divine and righteous laws, therefore, when that
is by any means vindicated, his wrath is appeased.
Lastly, that our Saviour, by his obedience and humil-
‘lation even unto death, has in the most glorious
manner vindicated the honor and authority of God :
and, by establishing a covenant of grace upon the merits of his sufferings and obedience, has secured, to all that truly repent, pardon and remission of sin,
consistent with the honor of the divine laws.” } _
- In one important point Clarke makes an improve. ment upon the phraseology of Grotius by avoiding the designation of the sufferings of Christ as a punishment. He says: “God was “pleased to accept the
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. xxxix
vicarious suffering of his Son in the stead of the punishment that was due to the sinner in his own person;”* and speaks of the Messiah’s suffering, of the effect of Christ’s suffering,’ but, unless some passage has been overlooked, nowhere of his being punished. We have thus far followed the Grotian theory among men whose names will have a somewhat questionable sound among the generality of those (of whom the writer will confess himself one) in whose estimation the name of orthodoxy is venerable, and to whom the maintenance of a sound theology seems to be one of the principal duties of Christians. These English Arminians are essentially heterodox. If Tillotson and Patrick are not to be reckoned among the Arians, there can be no doubt that Clarke and particularly Whitby were the chief promoters of that movement which gave rise to Unitarianism in both England and America. A theory, like a man, is known by the company it | keeps. The admirers of Grotius must confess that hitherto he has been found in questionable company; and they can only offset the prejudice which may be excited by this fact, by calling attention to the further fact that the Arminian school in Holland, which was soon to land in utter Rationalism, had already illustrated its downward tendency by the rejection of the Grotian view, and the adoption of a vacillating and untenable intermediate position between the Calvinists and the Socinians.
We are soon to enter upon scenes altogether different, amid which whatever odium may have attached to the Grotian theory from its surroundings is, as we hope, to be entirely removed. But we pause at this point to anticipate the course of history for the sake of completing our consideration of English theology. The heterodox Arminians, ;whom we have just been reviewing, were succeeded after the lapse of almost exactly one hundred years _by an evangelical Arminian school — the Wesleyans — among whom the.Grotian-theory reappeared.
Wesley left no System of Doctrine. The place of the systematic divine among his followers was filled by Richard Watson (1781-1833), whose “ Theological Institutes” appeared in the year 1823-24, In his theory of the atonement he rests directly and) confessedly upon Grotius.1 He begins with a discussion of the “principles of God’s moral goyernment.” ? ‘The existence of a divine law, obligatory upon man, is not doubted by any who admit the existence and government of God.” This law involves penalties which it is important to understand “both with reference to [God’s] essential holiness and fo his proceedings as governor of the
1 He quotes Grotius frequently, translating long passages from him in many places in the “‘ Institutes,’”’ as, for example, New York edit., 1826, Vol. II. pp. 281-326. Besides the substance of Doctrine, phrases occur which are derived from Grotius, as “‘king’’ and ‘“‘ prince” (p. 265), ‘‘ relax’? (pp. 265, 312), ‘meritorious cause’’ (p. 276). The illustration
of Zaleucus is employed a number of times, pp. 801, 311, 321. 2 Ibid. pp. 257 ff. More succinetly p. 271.
world.” Hence certain definitions of holiness and justice follow, in which the distinction is made between commutative, distributive, and _ rectoral justice, of which the last, “by which [God] maintains his own rights and the rights of others, and gives to every one his due according to that legal constitution which he has himself established,” is the underlying motive governing his acts. “The essential rectitude of God was concerned.. . to regard these rights in the creatures dependent upon him, and to adopt such a legal constitution and mode of government under which to place them as should respect the maintenance of his own rights of sovereignty and the righteous claims which his creatures, that is the general society of created beings, had upon him.” This requires the infliction of penalty upon transgressors of God’s laws and the provision of some mode of sustaining the authority of the law, if any such transgressor is to be forgiven.
It is thus clear that Watson accepted the posi-\ tion of Grotius that God was to be considered in the matter of forgiveness.as a ruler and not as the’ offended party. He expressly rejects the latter idea when he says that there is “no relaxation of right in the divine administration and no forgiveness of sin by the exercise of mere prerogative.” } He presents his own theory in antithesis to that which makes distributive justice “inflexibly require the punishment of those who are.. . objects of [God’s wrath] ” and in which the satisfaction conxlii HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
sists in Christ’s “ taking the place of the guilty,” and to that of the looser Arminians described above, who taught that satisfaction was not absolutely necessary, and insisted upon the “ wisdom and fitness of the measure.”+ He himself says: “ We call the death of Christ a satisfaction offered to the divine justice for the transgressions of men with reference to its effect upon the mind of the supreme lawgiver. As a just God, he is satisfied and contented with the atonement offered by the vicarious death of his Son, and the conditions upon which it is to become available to the offenders; and their punishment, those conditions being accomplished, is no longer exacted. . . . The satisfaction of divine justice by the death of Christ consists, therefore, in this, that, this wise and gracious provision on the part of the Father having been voluntarily carried into effect by the Son, the just God has determined it to be as consistent with his own holy and righteous character and the ends of the law and government to forgive all those who have true faith in the blood of Christ, the appointed propitiation for sin, as though they had all been personally punished for their transgression.” Thus the necessity of the atone-
‘ment is founded upon the nécessity of the govern go 77 ment o :
Nd hinge
2 In conformity with his views as to the atonement, Watson rejected the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification (II. p. 401), and the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race (II. 418).
We return from this anticipation to take up the course of the history where we left it. We have meantime seen that the Grotian theory is not necessarily allied only with heterodoxy and with corrupt systems of theology, for the Evangelical /
Arminianism of the Methodists is not such. But we are now to see it handed on, possibly by its English latitudinarian and Arian supporters, and
introduced into new surroundings. It shall find its /
home now among men who are possessed of an ear- | nest and evangelical spirit, who are sending mis-.
sionaries to the heathen on the one hand, and to the wilds of a new country, but just in the process of settlement, on the other. It shall be embosomed in churches which have passed through declension and revival, and for a hundred years are to prove an ageressive, converting, and saving influence in the midst of a nation developing under new conditions and in absolute freedom. The doctrinal errors which were condemned at Dort and which infected the Arminian body of Holland, and the doctrinal looseness and indifference which characterized the English Arminians, are to be replaced by earnest devetion to dogmatic truth and by a Calvinistic orthodoxy which in undergoing various internal modifications is to remain in substance Calvinistic
to the last. ‘To watch the development of the theory in surroundings so novel and at first glance so_
unfavorable, will be to see its genuine character tested and exhibited. And such surroundings the theory found in New England.
xliv HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
The line of connection between the treatise of Grotius and the New England theory of the atonement is direct though obscure. We know that the treatise itself was early read in New England. John Norton quotes it with approval in the year 1653.1. A copy was in the library of Harvard College as early as 1723, and thus accessible to men who borrowed from that source. Nathaniel Mather, writing on justification, quotes Grotius’s Commentary upon Rom, y. 21, in the year 1694. But, aside from the influence of Grotius’s books themselves, his doctrine had a number of other ways of entering into the mind of the New England divines. They were men of catholic reading, though not engaged in such forms of literary work as would naturale lead them to be scrupulous to refer every idea to its known source. Richard — Baxter was an author familiarly known and highly prized among them. He speaks in many places of his obligations to Grotius, from whom, in his own language, he had “learned more than from almost any ee writer,” beat, mentioning the treat ise De Satisfactione.” But Baxter did more than merely quote Grotiuse Although he did not entirely accept the theory that the relation sustained by God in the matter of forgiveness was that of a ruler alone, he says expressly: “Government and punishing justice formally as such belong to God only as rector, and satisfaction is made to him emi-
1“ A Discussion of ... the Sufferings of Christ, ete.,””.
nently in that relation”! He generally explains
the atonement from the Grotian standpoint, as in the following case: “The true reason for the satisfactoriness of Christ’s sufferings was that they were & most apt means for the demonstration. of the governing. justice, holiness, wi id. mercy.of God, by which God could attain the ends of the Beer arid government better than by executing the ‘law on the world in its destruction.”2 Thus Baxter introduced the person of Grotius, and the special work which he did upon the atonement, to the notice of the New England divines in that favorable manner in which one who is_ himself much trusted and admired always can.
There were also other modes in which the ideas of Grotius could be introduced, at first sight less favorable to them. Circumstances had made the, New England divines particularly acquainted with the writings of the English Arminians, for they had been early spread throughout the country. Whitby’s ‘“ Discourses on the Five Points” was the work which called out Edwards’s Treatise on the Will, and John Taylor’s “ Original Sin,” the provoking cause of his work upon that subject. Whitby and Clarke were read by Dr. Samuel Hopkins,® in whose writings the governmental theory of the
1 Catholic Theology, London, 1675, ‘‘ Of God’s Government and Moral Works,’’ p. 69.
2 Tbid. pp. 40, 41. See also the Methodus Theologia Christiane, London, 1681, Part III. ch. i. pp. 49-51.
8 Works, Memoir, Vol. I. p. 53.
xlyi HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
atonement makes its first appearance in New England. And at least Dr. Clarke was well known to
/ Dr. Jonathan Edwards,! the chief formulator of
>
the doctrine, who also had access, if he chose to avail himself of it, to Grotius’s original text in the library of Yale College during his settlement in New Haven.? That he did read Grotius, the illustration of Zaleucus, introduced into his third sermon on the atonement, is some evidence. From — these Arminian writers the New England fathers, who rejected their fundamental principles, nevertheless learned much. John Taylor’s doctrine of original sin was never accepted in New England, and yet many of his single objections to the prevailing theory were subsequently to be found word for word in New England divines. These early heroes read much Latin, and knew the meaning of the sentence “ Yas est ab hoste doceri.” They were hospitable to good and useful thoughts wherever they might be found, and it is by no means incredible that to Samuel Clarke or Whitby may be due the credit for introducing that suggestion which, under the influence of the Edwardean theory of virtue, has led to the prevalence of the governmental theory of the atonement in the Congregational
‘and a large portion of the Presbyterian denomination in America.
1 Quoted by him on the will, Works, Vol. I. pp. 307, 317, 325, 339, 366.
2 The Opera Omnia Theologica of Grotius were put in the library of Yale College by Bishop Berkeley, in 1733.
8 Works, Vol. II. p. 46.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. xlvii
Prof. Park, in the elaborate essay prefixed to a collection of treatises on the atonement, has drawn out in detail those modifications of the common method of stating the doctrine which are to be regarded as preliminary to the introduction of the Edwardean theory by the sermons of Jonathan Edwards in 1785. In the case of both Prest. Edwards and Bellamy, one cannot avoid the im- - pression that various thoughts are stirring in their minds which do not start from any determinate principle, or tend to any definite end.. Bellamy was a close friend of Hopkins, and in one passage seems to present clearly the governmental theory.? But this is an isolated case, the significance of which is much diminished by the inconsistencies of the writer. Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803) seems, however, to have adopted the governmental idea completely, and thus to have incorporated the first of those two ideas which in beautiful harmony were to form the logical frame and substance of the New England theory.
A. brief examination of Hopkins’s writings will show how complete is his adoption of the Grotian idea. |
He begins with the law of God, of which, “in order to understand the work of the Redeemer, we must have right views.”*® This “points out the
1 “The Atonement. Discourses and Treatises, etc., with an Introductory Essay by Edwards A. Park.’’ Boston, 1863.
2 “True Religion Delineated,’’ Works, Vol. I. p. 267.
8 Works, with Memoir, Boston, 1852, Vol. I. p. 320 ff.
xlviii HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. ’
duty of man and requires of him what is perfectly
right, and no more or less. . . . It is, therefore, an
eternal, unalterable rule of righteousness which cannot be abrogated or altered in the least iota by an
infinitely perfect, unchangeable legislator and governor, consistent with his character, his perfect rectitude and righteousness. ... Every creature under this law is under infinite obligations to obey it without any deviation from it in the least possible instance,. . . and every instance of rebellion tends to infinite evil—to break up the divine goyernment and bring ruin and misery on all the moral world. . . . If man cannot be redeemed and saved consistent with maintaining this law and showing the highest regard to it, God cannot be true, just, wise, or good in saving man or showing him any favor. But to pardon man and restore him to favor and happiness in this situation. . . would be joining with the sinner to disregard and dishonor the law, and favor, justify, and éncourage rebellion. This would be inconsistent with rectitude, righteousness, wisdom, and goodness. . . and would put an end to all perfect, moral government. It would dethrone the governor of the world, destroying his kingdom, and give full scope to the reign of rebellion, confusion, and misery forever. ... Here [in — Rom. iii. 25-26] the great design of the Redeemer
is expressed, and the great thing he is to accomplish is to maintain and declare the righteousness, rectitude, and unchangeable truth and perfection of God in opening a way by his blood, his sufferings unto
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. lis
death, for the free pardon of man consistent with rectoral justice and truth, and doing that which is right and just, both with respect to himself, his law and government, and all the subjects of his kingdom.” This he did by “suffering the penalty of the law.”
_It will be noted that the whole tendency of this passage is to exalt the government of God. God establishes a moral government over moral creatures. He is the ruler who maintains and executes his law. He cannot dishonor it, but must maintain | and execute it, though he forgives the sinner who transeresses it. All this is Grotian. But there is already a tendency to deepen the Grotian conception. The government—ofGod_rests.upon-his-char- _acter.. The law which establishes the rule of right for men is the reflection of God’s own righteousness. He is worshipped by his creatures because he ° is and is known to be infinitely worthy of their worship. Hence the necessity of maintaining the law is made more evident, and grounded upon a deeper thought than Grotius reached, who neglected to state the relation existing between the government and the character of God.!_ Hopkins has thus taken his stand upon what is the characteristic feature of the Grotian theory, viz. the idea that in the matter of forgiveness God acts not as the offended party, but as a ruler. He is a ruler with a character, whose government depends upon his character,
1 This idea is developed somewhat fully in Note a, ch. ii.