All the varieties of opinion to which our attention has been directed, both of Unitarians and Trinitarians, as far as they relate to the specific effects of the death of Christ, may be arranged in two general classes.

The first class embraces those views, according to which his death is regarded as a means by which the guilt of sin is removed, and God is induced to pardon offenders, and bestow upon them the gift of eternal life. Whatever may have been the extent of the influence of Christ's death, or however this influence may in the wisdom of God have been applied, it is supposed to have operated only in calling into exercise the mercy and love of God, or rather in putting sinners into such a condition, that God may grant them his pardoning mercy and acceptance, without any violation of his justice and holiness. Within this class may be ranked all Unitarians, and a large portion of Trinitarians, both of whom go upon essentially the same principles, and are aiming at the same object, although they may be conducted in different directions.

The second class embraces those persons, who look for the efficacy of Christ's death in the satisfaction it has made to divine justice, in its power to appease the wrath of God, and in its value as a sacrifice to the Deity, without which he could not pardon or save his creatures; and those, also, who believe Christ to have suffered by way of punishment, as a substitute for the elect, and to have purchased for them the forgiveness of sin and a title to salvation by

becoming their surety, releasing them from the obligations of the law, and discharging their debt of obedience. This scheme is called the doctrine of satisfaction, and sometimes the popular doctrine of atonement. It is chiefly, if not entirely, confined to Calvinists. It is universally rejected by Unitarians, as being, in their opinion, opposed to the Scriptures, irrational in itself, derogatory to the character of God, and pernicious in its influence.

To this doctrine my future remarks will be confined, with particular reference to its reasonableness and moral tendency.

LETTER VI.

On the popular Doctrine of Atonement, as affecting the Character of God.

SIR,

IN my two last letters, I have endeavoured to bring together some of the opinions, which christians of various denominations have entertained, concerning atonement by the death of Christ. I have attempted to simplify the subject, and compress its numerous branches within as small a space as possible. This is not the only topic in religion, it is acknowledged, about which much time has been idly expended, unmeaning words profusely multiplied, and

elaborate works composed, without communicating light or profit to the reader; yet the facts collected in my two last letters abundantly prove, that no speculations or discussions have been less fruitful of truth and sound knowledge, than those relating to atone

ment.

We arrived at the conclusion, however, that notwithstanding many important minor differences, all the opinions, which have come to light, may be classed in two general divisions. The first division comprises those persons, who refer pardon and divine acceptance exclusively to the free mercy and love of God, and look upon the death of Christ as a means, by which God is induced to forgive past transgressions, and sinners are qualified, by accepting certain conditions, for enjoying the blessed gifts of salvation. The second division takes in all those, who regard the death of Christ as a bloody sacrifice to satisfy the justice, and appease the wrath of God, and thus to purchase for transgressors the divine forgiveness, and eternal life.

To this latter scheme our attention will now be turned; and that we may have its several parts distinctly before us, it will not be amiss to commence with the following delineation of its features.

It gives us to understand, that God created man innocent, but left him exposed to evil, with the power of choosing or avoiding it; man sinned, and thus committed such an offence against the justice of God, as no effort of his own could either eradicate or diminish; God was wrathful and implacable to

sufferings and pu

such a degree, that he could not be appeased, nor allow his mercy to extend to his creatures, till his justice was fully satisfied by the nishment of an innocent being. That all men might not perish forever, Christ, the Son of God, who was also God, voluntarily offered to endure the full amount of suffering required to quell the anger of the Father, and reconcile him to his creatures; this offer the Father accepted, and in compliance with the contract thus made, the sins of men were imputed to Christ, or he took them upon him in such a way, that their guilt became his own; in this condition, he suffered as guilty of the sins of the whole world, although it was impossible for him to commit a single sin. As Christ has performed his part of the contract, and paid the debt of sinners, he may justly demand the fulfilment of the Father's promise, and claim the blessings of salvation for all whose merited punishment he has endured.

Such are some of the outlines of the doctrine commonly called the doctrine of satisfaction, or the popular doctrine of atonement. It is no part of my present undertaking to confute this tenet, nor to oppose the arguments by which it is supported. In this letter I shall attempt nothing more, than a few remarks on the principles which it involves, with the special purpose of ascertaining in what manner these affect the character of God, and how far they have a purifying and practical influence in promoting piety, devotion, and the various duties to our Maker. Unless I am greatly deceived, the doctrine in these

important respects is not only deficient, but fraught with much positive evil.

Let us begin with the first principle of the whole system, which relates to the nature of the divine justice. It is assumed as an established position, that the justice of God is rigid, unyielding, and relentless, having an absolute control over mercy, goodness, and every other moral attribute, and refusing the pardon of any sin, till a full measure of punishment has been inflicted. This position is radically erroneous. Justice gives the right to punish, but it does not impose an obligation to exercise this right. As God has an undoubted right, it would always be just for him to punish transgressors; but it does not hence follow, that he is obliged to do it. Whenever God punishes sin, it must be for some end; and if this end can be answered in any other way, his justice does not require punishment. If he chooses, for instance, to pardon sinners on certain conditions, or unconditionally, he may do it without any violation of his justice. may certainly do as he will with his own. It is perfectly consistent with all his attributes, that he should propose such conditions, as in his wisdom and goodness he may deem sufficient to promote the ends of his government. When the conditions on the part of the sinner are complied with, the veracity and the justice of God are pledged to make good his promises.*

He

* President Edwards says, that when Christ died, "all was finished that was required, in order to satisfy the threatenings of the law, and all that was necessary, in order to satisfy divine justice. Then the utmost that vindictive