OPINIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY. 413

CHAPTER II.

OPINIONS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY.

As Christians of all denominations admit that men have sinned, they admit also that the Gospel is a remedy for the present state of moral evil. They readily adopt that "faithful saying," which the apostle Paul declares to be "worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." They adore the love of the Father in sending the Son upon this errand. They profess the warmest gratitude to him "who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity." They acknowledge that the greatest benefits are derived to the world by his sufferings; that we "have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ;" and that by what he did and underwent for our sakes, he is entitled to be honoured as the Saviour, the Deliverer, and the Redeemer of mankind.

But under this uniformity in the language which all who receive the Scriptures are constrained to use, there is concealed much diversity of opinion; and the nature of that remedy, which it is the character of the Gospel to have brought, is one of the subjects in their speculations upon which Christians have departed very far from one another. -The opposite systems are supported partly by general reasonings, and partly by passages of Scripture. The general reasonings are by no means of equal weight upon all sides. But it is possible for able men to reason so plausibly in support of any of the opinions which have been held upon this subject, that the mind might remain in suspense, if the general language of Scripture, when fairly interpreted, did not appear decidedly to favour one of the systems; so that the question concerning the nature of the remedy, like those which we lately discussed concerning the character and dignity of the persons revealed in the Gospel, must be ultimately determined by sound Scripture criticism.

There are three systems with regard to the nature of the remedy, to which we may be able afterwards to affix more significant names from the leading features by which they are distinguished, but which it may suffice at present to mark by calling them the Socinian, the Middle, and the Catholic opinions. By calling the first the Socinian, I do not mean that it was held by Socinus himself, for his opinion went a great deal farther; but it is the opinion held by those who now call themselves Socinians, and it is the simplest system that can be formed with regard to the nature of the remedy. I call the third the Catholic opinion, because it has been generally held in the Chris

tian church since the days of the apostles, and enters into the creed of almost every established church in Christendom. What I call the Middle opinion arose in the course of the last century out of a part of the system of Socinus. It is disavowed by the modern Socinians; but it has been brought forward by some very able divines both in the church of England, and amongst the dissenters, as the best method of steering clear of the objections that have been made either to the Socinian or to the Catholic system.

I think it of importance to give a fair and complete exhibition of every one of these three systems; and the order of stating them, which appears to be dictated by their nature, is to begin with the Socinian, which is the simplest; to proceed to the middle, which professes to be an improvement upon the Socinian; and to end with the Catholic, which, if it is the truth, will bear the disadvantage arising from the previous exhibition of two systems that are founded upon objections to it, and will approve itself to the understanding to be agreeable both to reason and to Scripture.

SECTION I.

THE fundamental principle of the Socinian system is this. Pure goodness, or a desire to communicate happiness, is conceived by the Socinians to constitute the whole character of the Deity. All the moral attributes of the divine nature are regarded as only modifications of benevolence, and it is believed that nothing either exists in God, or forms a part of his government, which may not be resolved into this principle. Infinitely blessed in himself, he could have no reason for creating the human race but to make them happy. His wisdom discerns the best means of communicating happiness; his power carries these means readily and certainly into effect; and although the means vary according to circumstances, the benevolent purpose from which they proceed is always the same. He hates sin, because it makes his creatures unhappy; he forbids it, that his authority may deter them from doing what is hurtful to themselves; he punishes it, that the experience of suffering may convince them of their error. He employs various means for their reformation; he bears patiently with their obstinacy and heedlessness; and at what time soever the recollection of his prohibition, the suffering of evil, or any other circumstance, brings back to their duty those who have sinned, that goodness of the Deity, which had been exercised under the form of long-suffering during their error, becomes compassion and clemency; he receives his returning children into his favour; and without regard to any external circumstance, or any other being, freely forgives their sins. The supreme ruler of the universe, say the Socinians, in thus freely forgiving all sins merely upon the repentance of the sinner, does injury to none. He only remits a part of his own right, a debt which his offending creatures have contracted to him. The independent felicity of his nature suffers no diminution from his not exacting all that he might claim; the glory of his goodness is illustrated by the happiness which the pardon conveys to the

penitent; and in conferring this pardon freely without any consideration foreign to himself, he sets his creatures an example of generosity in forgiving those offences, which they are daily commiting against one another.

This fundamental principle of the Socinian opinion, which seems at first sight to flow from the infinite perfection of the divine nature, and to be most honourable to the Creator and Father of all, is supported by numberless passages of Scripture, which magnify the free grace of God in the pardon of transgressors, which invite them to return, which describe the readiness with which they shall be received, and the joy that there is in heaven over a sinner that repenteth. It is supported by the many instances in which we experience the forbearance of God, that long-suffering which spares us amidst repeated provocations, and leads us by unmerited blessings to repentance. It is supported by all those candid and indulgent sentiments, which dispose us to forget the offences of persons in whom we discover a change of mind, and particularly by parental affection, which, instead of being worn out by the waywardness and perverseness of children, is impatient to embrace them on the first symptoms of a return to obedience. It can easily be conceived that the arguments, of which I have given a short sketch, are capable of receiving much embellishment, and that eloquent men, by fixing the attention upon a particular view of the subject, may leave little doubt in the minds of ordinary readers, that a theory concerning the nature of the remedy offered in the gospel, resting upon this principle as its basis, contains the whole of the truth.

When this principle is applied in forming such a theory, it follows obviously from the principle, that the person who brought the remedy had nothing to do in order to procure the pardon of those who repent. That is freely and purely the effect of the divine goodness. But the circumstances of the world might render it expedient that a declaration of pardon should be made. For if men have been sinners from the beginning of the world, as the Socinians do not deny, if the religion of the heathen was connected with much superstition, i. e. with a blind excessive fear of the deity; and if the Jewish religion appointed a costly burdensome method of approaching the God of Israel, which could not be observed by all the nations of the earth, there seems to be much occasion that a religion not confined to a particular tribe, but professing to spread itself over the whole world, and appointing a spiritual worship, should declare, in the most unequivocal and solemn manner, that encouragement to the penitent which is derived from the essential goodness of God. Now such declarations are known to abound in the gospel: and they appear to the Socinians to give the religion of Jesus that importance which every one expects to find in a divine revelation. God appears there in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and repentance and remission of sins are preached in the name of Christ among all nations; not that God is more gracious than he was at any former time; not that Christ did any thing to render God propitious: but he is the messenger who publishes the divine grace. His first words were, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" his own discourses represent God as merciful; his apostles, after his ascension, preached the forgiveness of sins,

saying, "Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," and his whole religion is a standing declaration of this proposition, which was always equally true, but the truth of which was not at all times perfectly understood, that "whosoever confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy."

This proposition, say the Socinians, approves itself by intrinsic evidence to a philosophical mind. But, in order to rouse the attention of the multitude, the person employed by God to publish it to the world was rendered respectable in their eyes by many mighty works. The miracles, which the power of God enabled the messenger of this grace to perform, were the credentials of a divine commission; and a splendor was thrown around his character by the other purposes which his appearance accomplished.

One of these additional purposes was his being the instructor of the world, who not only restored, by the declaration which he was commissioned to make, the natural confidence that men ought to have in the goodness of their Creator, but also taught them the will of God. As the Socinians do not admit that the first man possessed more knowledge and righteousness than any of his posterity, their principles lead them to deny those remains of the image of God which other Christians trace, to detract very much from the authority of the law of nature, and to resolve all religious knowledge into the tradition of some primary revelation. This tradition could not fail to be obscured and corrupted in the progress of ages; and as gross ignorance of the duties of men is known to have overspread the earth, it is manifest that there was much need of the perfect teaching of a man, whose miracles were both a security that he taught the will of God truly, and a call upon men to listen to him. In this opinion of the usefulness of Christianity, all who receive it as a divine revelation readily agree. But the Socinians, as if desirous to atone by this branch of their encomium upon Christianity, for the dishonour which other parts of their system are conceived to do to that religion, go far beyond other Christians in magnifying the importance of the gospel as a method of instruction. They represent its precepts as not only simple, clear, and authoritative, but as inculcating virtues which are neither explicitly taught in the law of Moses, nor deducible from any of its principles; and they allow the messenger of the grace of God all the honour which can accrue to his character and to his religion from the essential superiority of his precepts.

In delivering to a world full of superstition and vice, precepts so opposite to their maxims and manners, the messenger of the grace of God encountered much opposition; he provoked the civil and ecclesiastical rulers-he alarmed the evil passions that he endeavoured to restrain-and after a life marked with uncommon difficulties and unmerited persecution, he was put to death by the violence of his enemies. His death is considered by the Socinians as the unavoidable result of the circumstances in which he published his excellent religion; an event happening without any special appointment of heaven, according to the course of human affairs; for having persevered during a life of suffering in bearing witness to the truth, and being incapable of retracting, even in the immediate prospect of death, like other martyrs he sealed his declaration with his blood. The death

of Christ, even although regarded merely as a natural event, is full of instruction to his followers. The innocence of the illustrious sufferer was made conspicuous by all the circumstances which attended his trial; the patience, the magnanimity, the piety and benevolence which marked the hour of his sufferings, imprint upon those who cherish his memory with affection, all the lessons of his religion; and having taught men the will of God while he lived, he suffered for their benefit, "leaving them an example that they should follow his steps."

But the example exhibited in his sufferings, and the testimony which he bore by them to all that he had said during his life, are not the only benefits of the death of Christ which the modern Socinians admit. They say also, that it confirmed the truth of the promises of God; for his death was necessary in order to his resurrection, and his resurrection not only completes the evidences of his mission, but is the earnest to mankind of life and immortality, that great blessing which he was commissioned to promise. It is this further purpose of the death of Christ which completes the Socinian scheme of Christianity; and therefore, in order to render the view which I am now giving a fair exposition of that scheme, it is necessary to state the peculiar importance which it affixes to this purpose.

Not admitting any forfeiture to have been incurred by the transgression of Adam, the Socinians consider man as mortal, a creature who would have died whether he had sinned or not. Dr. Priestley

goes farther upon this subject than some of those who adopt his other principles have yet been able to follow him. He holds that the distinction between soul and body is a popular error, derived from heathen philosophy, but contradicted by reason and Scripture; that man is a homogeneous being, i. e. that the powers of thought and sensation belong to the brain, as much as gravity and magnetism belong to other arrangements of matter; and that the whole machine, whose complicated motions had presented the appearance of animal and rational life, is dissolved at death. To Dr. Priestley, therefore, the resurrection promised in the gospel is the highest possible gift, because, according to his system, it is the restoration of existence. But even those Socinians, who do not so far depart from the conclusions of sound philosophy as to believe that the phenomena of thought can be explained without supposing an immaterial principle in man, while they allow that this principle may survive the body, are inclined to compare the state in which it is left, after the dissolution of the body, to a kind of sleep, in which all the faculties of the soul continue suspended till the resurrection. Being led, by their system concerning the fall, to infer from the present appearance of death, that it is part of the original constitution of nature, and finding no reasoning in favour of a future state amongst those who had not the benefit of revelation, so clear and decisive as to satisfy a speculative mind, and no explicit promise in the law of Moses, they consider immortality as a free gift which the Almighty may have bestowed upon those who died in ancient times, but a gift, the assurance of which is conveyed to the human race solely by the religion of Christ. Here, therefore, the Socinians place the great value and importance of the