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.

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