sonableness, and tendency of what is called the popular doctrine, as explained by its advocates, with the particular object of tracing its moral and religious influence, and comparing it with the same influence of a different faith. Unitarians believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, as firmly and joyfully as persons of any other religious persuasion; and the question is, whether their mode of viewing and explaining this subject, be not as purifying in its nature, powerful in its action, and certain and salutary in its effects, as the doctrine under consideration?

Before I engage in this chief branch of the subject, it will be proper to ascertain, as far as possible, what is meant by the atonement; and to draw, with some precision, the line of difference between those who are said to believe, and those who disbelieve this doctrine.

It is common, nay, if I mistake not, universal with the orthodox, to represent Unitarians as putting no reliance on the death of Christ, making this event of no value in procuring salvation, and not admitting any merit or efficacy in his sufferings, but depending on their own exertions alone for reconciliation with God. This representation is essentially false. They do not all agree in opinion any more than Trinitarians, yet it may be asserted, as a universal and fundamental principle of their faith, that the death of Christ was in the highest degree important in establishing the Gospel scheme; so important, indeed, that without it his religion could never have been introduced, nor its benefits enjoyed. In regard to the

particular effects arising from his death, its efficacy, and the extent of its influence, they have differences of opinion, but none which interferes with the principle above stated; nor in these respects do they differ so much as Trinitarians.*

That I may not be misunderstood, and that this subject may be placed in a clear light, it will be of service to make a short inquiry into the actual state of opinions among both Unitarians and Trinitarians. This can be fairly and satisfactorily done, by introducing examples from works of authority on both sides. I will begin with Unitarians.

It was the faith of the old Polish Socinian Churches, and no doubt of Unitarians generally at that period on the continent of Europe, "That Christ, by the divine will and purpose, suffered for our sins, and underwent a bloody death for an expiatory sacrifice."† According to their views, Christ was sent to be a pro

* Dr. Carpenter observes, "Great stress is obviously laid in the New Testament on the death of Christ, as a means of delivering men from their sins and of reconciling them to God. I never met with any christian who denied the great importance of that event." Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel, p. 296.

+ Racovian Catechism, Sec. v. chap. 3. Again, in the same chapter, it is said, "Christ has by the will of God, shed his blood for the sins of all men ; wherefore, whoever would experience God propitious, and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, must come to Christ through faith in him. This is the only refuge of all sinners."

By an expiatory sacrifice is meant a sacrifice, which takes away sin. Expiation and propitiation are used, as far as I can discover, by all writers on this subject, in nearly the same sense. The Greek word ixxous is twice found in the New Testament, (John ii. 2; iv. 10.) and in each place is rendered propitiation, and means a deliverance from the guilt of sin. Neither the term expiation, nor propitiation, has any regard to the nature of the deliverance, or to the reasons for which it is granted.

66

pitiation for the sins of men; they believed in the atonement, or in the reconciliation of sinners to God, through faith in the blood of Christ," and by his agency as our mediator and redeemer. This is repeatedly declared in the Racovian Catechism, and in other works of the most distinguished writers of the Polish Unitarian Churches. Socinus wrote largely on this subject. In one place, after answering certain charges, he adds, speaking of himself; "Not that he denies Christ to have died, that our sins may be blotted out, for he confesses this truth as most certain, and glories in it. And he readily allows not only, that the death of Christ, and the shedding of his blood for us, were an offering and a sacrifice for a sweet smelling savour to God, as Paul expresses it, but also, that this sacrifice may be said to have been offered for our sins, that is, for this end, that our sins might be blotted out and remitted."* Quotations to this effect might be multiplied from Socinus, Crellius, Slichtingius, Wolzogenius, Wissowatius, and other eminent writers of their time.

The sentiments of the Unitarians at the present day in Geneva and Switzerland, may be seen in the Catechism used in their churches. Three purposes are said in that Catechism to be answered by the death of Christ, namely, "To confirm his doctrine; to give an example of the sublimest virtues; and to expiate our sins." And again we are told, that "The

*Non autem ut neget idcirco moriturum esse, etc. Vid. Socin. Oper. Tom. ii, p. 445. For a well digested account of the opinions of Socinus "On the Death of Christ, and its Efficacy,” see Toulmin's Life of Socinus, p. 173—209.

death of Christ is to be regarded at all times, as the only sacrifice capable of obtaining from God the pardon of our sins."* In support of these views, several passages of Scripture are quoted, especially those which speak of the death of Christ as procuring a propitiation, or remission of sins.

Respecting the opinions of the early English Unitarians, no authority is better, probably, than that of Emlyn. From him we learn that they were nearly, if not entirely the same, as with the Unitarians on the continent. In alluding to their opinions, he would seem to adopt them as his own. He believed, that the sacrifice of Christ was "an acceptable and rewardable oblation to God," in consideration of which his intercessions in his exalted state are made effectual, through his mediation with the Father, to procure pardon for the sins of men.t Dr. Samuel

* Geneva Catechism, Part II. Sec. 9.

+ See Emlyn's Works, Vol. ii. p. 44-46. Emlyn supposed that Christ's obedience, even to the death of the cross, as the Apostle expresses it, (Phil. ii. 8) was an act," with which the holy God was so pleased, that he exalted him to his right hand, and constituted him the only advocate, through whose mediation he would grant pardon and other favours to repenting sinners." p. 102.

Such was the opinion also of the old Polish Unitarians, and their immediate followers. "By this event," [the death of Christ] says B. Wissowatius, "and his obedience to God the Father, he was invested with supreme power over all things, and thus obtained a full right to forgive our sins and bless us with eternal life. He may therefore justly be said to have redeemed and purchased us with his blood." Racov. Cat. p. 313, note.

William Penn's views did not differ materially from those of other Unitarians at that period, if we may be allowed to judge from his remarks in The Sandy Foundation Shaken, where he professes to "confute from Scripture and right Reason the Vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction, and Justification by au imputative Righteousness." See, Works, 3d Ed. Vol. i. p. 19.

Clarke believed, "that the death of Christ was necessary 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 irreconcileable hatred against all unrighteousness."* The sentiments of Henry Taylor corresponded with those of Emlyn. He believed Christ, by his sufferings and death, to have merited and received of God the power of conferring salvation and eternal life on all, who prove by a sincere repentence, and a right conduct, that they accept the conditions of his Gospel.†

John Taylor held the death of Christ to be an atonement for sin, as an expiation, or propitiation. "The sacrifice of Christ," says he, "was truly and properly in the highest degree, and far beyond any other, piacular and expiatory, to make atonement for, or to take away sin." It was a sacrifice by which God was induced to forgive sin, and without which forgiveness would not have been obtained. Dr. Price's views were similar. He says, "As the sacrifices under the law of Moses expiated guilt, and procured remission, so Christ's shedding his blood and offering up his life was the means of remission and favour to penitent sinners."§

*He speaks of it, also, as a means of vindicating the honour of God's laws, which had been violated by sin. See Magee on the Doctrine of Atonement, Dissert. No. xvii.-Ben Mordecai's Apology, Vol. ii. p. 644,

+ His views may be seen at large in his Sixth and Seventh Letters in Ben Mordecai's Apology.

Scripture Doctrine of Atonement examined, § 152.-Also Taylor's Key to the Apostolic Writings, chap. viii. Dr. Magee (Dissert. xvi.) has given a partial and distorted account of J. Taylor's scheme of atonement,

Sermons on the Christian Doctrine, p. 182,