Dr. Priestley considered the death of Christ, as a means of procuring the salvation of sinners, chiefly by giving authority to his religion, proving the divinity of his character and mission, establishing the certainty of a resurrection and a future state of just retribution, and thus presenting the strongest possible motives to penitence, piety, and holiness of character, which alone can secure the pardon and acceptance of God. Near the close of a full exposition of his opinions concerning the death of Christ, he asks, “When by this means our Lord put the finishing hand to so extensive a scheme, in which was done whatever was practicable to recover fallen man to immortal virtue and happiness, is he not with great propriety styled our redeemer, saviour, and mediator ?"* As to the opinions of the English Unitarians of the present day, it needs only be said, that they accord with some or all of the views above detailed.

The same may be said of Unitarians in this country. Although they do not think alike in every particular, yet they agree in believing the death of Christ to have been essential in the Gospel scheme, and in bringing about the conversion and salvation of sinners. It will be enough to quote two or three writers of deservedly high authority. In alluding to the prevailing sentiments of Unitarians in this country, Dr. Channing says, "Some suppose, that the death of Christ contributes to our pardon, as it

* Theological Repository, 3d edit. Vol. i. p. 426. For a detection and exposure of Dr. Magee's misrepresentations of Dr. Priestley, see Carpenter's Examination of Charges, &c. Chap. vi.

was a principal means of confirming his religion, and of giving it a power over the mind; in other words, that it procures forgiveness by leading to that repentance and virtue, which is the great and only condition on which forgiveness is bestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied with this explanation, and think that the Scriptures ascribe the remission of sins to Christ's death with an emphasis so peculiar, that we ought to consider this event as having a special influence in removing punishment, as a condition or method of pardon, without which repentance would not avail us, at least to the extent, which is now promised by the Gospel."* After enumerating various particulars by which redemption from sin is procured through Jesus Christ, Dr. Ware concludes, "He was our redeemer by doing and suffering all, that was necessary to affect our deliverance from the power of sin, to bring us to repentance and holiness, and thus make us the fit objects of forgiveness and the favour of heaven."†

According to the faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches composing the Synod of New York, "Christ died on the cross, that we might have a sure pledge, that God is willing to pardon our sins, without requiring any further sacrifices, since Jesus has sacrificed himself; and finally, that he might rise again, and thus confirm our hope in a future and

*Ordination Sermon at Baltimore, p. 33.

+ Letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists, p. 92.

eternal life."* These quotations together, I believe, give an accurate representation of the opinions of Unitarians in this country.

From the preceding view, three general opinions concerning the effects of Christ's death seem to prevail among Unitarians. First, that it was a sacrifice designed to expiate, or take away the guilt of sin, by its influence in procuring the pardon of God, which would not have been granted without such a sacrifice. Secondly, that for the sufferings and death of Christ he has been rewarded by the Father, in an exalted state, with supreme power to forgive sins, to make effectual intercessions for transgressors, and bestow salvation on all such as are truly penitent and worthy. Thirdly, that his death was chiefly instrumental in leading men to embrace his religion, obey his commands, repent of their wickedness, forsake their sins, and attain that perfect holiness of character, which God is always ready to accept and reward with pardon, and without which no man can be fitted for his future kingdom.

It will be observed, that in the view here taken, no attempt has been made either to prove or defend any particular doctrine. I have aimed at nothing more than simply to state the sentiments of Unita

Catechism for the Use of the Churches belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of the State of New York, drawn up by the Rev. Dr. Quitman, p. 39. I take it for granted, that these churches are Unitarian, as no allusions to a trinity are to be found, either in their Catechism, Liturgy, or the Prayers they recommend. Whether these books are approved, and used by the Evangelical Lutheran Churches in other parts of the United States I am not able

to say.

rians, as they have been expressed by different authors, and held by different classes of christians.

LETTER V.

Trinitarian Views of Atonement.

SIR,

I COME now to examine the orthodox opinions of atonement. This task, however, can only be executed in a general manner, and to a certain extent ; for the views of many writers on this side of the question are so obscure and unsettled, that you may read treatises on atonement without being able to tell, with any degree of precision, what the authors would have you understand by the word. This arises, no doubt, in some measure from the abstract nature of the subject, as well as from the indefinite notions, which these writers themselves entertain of this branch of their faith. Every man, who claims the title of orthodox, professes a belief in what he calls the atonement. For the most part, also, these professed believers join in the cry of heresy and censure against those, who do not acknowledge the same form of faith.

From this unanimity of profession and censure, it

would be reasonable to expect a unanimity of sentiment in regard to the doctrine, a disbelief of which is represented as the offending cause. In such an expectation every one will be disappointed. Not only individuals differ, but sects and parties have grown up with contending and almost opposite opinions, which have been incorporated into creeds and systems of faith, and denominated respectively the doctrine of atonement. Some of these will now be examined; but I have room only for a few of the more prominent.

The calvinistic notion of atonement teaches, that the anger of God was so intense against his offending creatures, that he would not pardon their sins, nor receive them into favour, till his only Son, a being equal to himself, had suffered agony and death in this world, and the torments of wicked spirits in hell, to appease his wrath, and satisfy his justice. The calvinistic standard of faith tells us, that the Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, “ hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father;" that God justifies sinners "by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them;" that Christ, "by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction of his Father's justice in their behalf.” We must observe, however, that this applies only to the "elect, whom God did from all eternity decree to justify." For the remainder, who were doomed to

26