The doctrine it sought to establish in the place of the one it attempted to overthrow may, in brief, be stated as follows: Man is recon ciled to God by repentance and reformation. Only from an act of man changing his disposi tion, and not from an act of God changing His relation to man, follows his reconciliation with God. God is, in Himself, ever the same toward man—reconciled for all eternity; man alone has to assume a new relation. As soon as he does this, he is immediately reconciled; by this act of his will he is at one with God. Only in man's moral state is there any obstacle to his recon ciliation. This greatest and holiest accomplish ment—the reconciliation of man with God—is achieved by an act of his will.
In this purely subjective theory, repentance occupies the place of faith in the orthodox doctrine, and faith becomes identical with obedi ence; for repentance and reformation are re garded as but the two sides of the same act of the will. It follows from this that justification is of works as well as reconciliation. A neces sity for the sufferings of Christ is shown for the following objects: That he might become our example; better fitted to render us help; that we might have a pledge and guarantee of the divine forgiveness; and as conditioning His resurrection and ascension to glory.
Grotius (Defense, I617) set out to defend the orthodox position by first securing a new point of departure. Both the Calvinists and Soehms 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 offended party, but the Divine Ruler (recto•al 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 English advocates, the Hey. Prof. John James Tayler (died 1369), presents the doc trine thus: " `There is one mediator between God and men—the man Christ Jesus.' This can only refer to unrivaled preftinenee, 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 offers 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. lie 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 sequence of faithful duty, was only one among many links in the chain of in strumentalities by which that deliverance was effected. 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 simple 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 Ilis 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 dMinet 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 ruler, 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 tho 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 Ilis government and prevent ing forgiveness without atonement, and thus inclines Him to forgive. The analogies of gov ernment were more emphasized than the ethical root of the theory, and it therefore assumed a somewhat mechanical form: hut 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.