ATONEMENT. 



61 



Atonement, reason : the Socinians have a separate contest to 

 maintain, when they attempt to reconcile their opi- 

 nions with the declarations of scripture. In the first 

 place, it is a favourite argument with both, that no 

 atonement is necessary, because repentance is suffi- 

 cient to procure forgiveness : this they say is de- 

 monstrable on principles of reason ; which we posi- 

 tively deny. Before the necessity of repentance was 

 so strongly insisted on in the gospel, very little stress 

 seems to have been laid on this quality; we will do 

 the heathen moralists the justice to say, that they 

 were, in general, men of too good sense to maintain 

 this unreasonable and dangerous doctrine, that repen- 

 tance was a sufficient reparation for offences. This 

 would indeed have made sin sit very light on the con- 

 science, when the perpetrator knew that a little sor- 

 row would absolve him from guilt ; and the argument 

 drawn from such an opinion, would apply with equal 

 force against the infliction of civil punishment, as 

 against an atonement for crimes. The repentance of 

 criminal is never admitted by the laws of any coun- 

 try as a sufficient compensation for guilt ; nor does 

 the criminal himself regard it in this light ; but whilst 

 he expresses his sorrow for the offence, confesses at 

 the same time the justice of- his punishment. This 

 favourite doctrine then of Deists and Socinians, as to 

 the independent efficacy of repentance, seems to have 

 no foundation, either in the practice or in the con- 

 science of men. Nor does it receive any countenance 

 from the general analogy of nature, or the usual course 

 of the divine dispensations. Even in the ordinary af- 

 fairs of life, when men neglect their duty, or give 

 themselves up to intemperance, we frequently observe, 

 that repentance, and reformation cannot save them 

 from the natural consequences of their guilt or ne- 

 glect ; but the ruin of their affairs and the loss of 

 their health follow as the punishment of their former 

 misconduct. Thus, then, to use the words of Bishop 

 Butler, " There is a certain bound to imprudence, 

 and misbehaviour, which being transgressed, there 

 remains no place for repentance in the natural course 

 of things." If we then offend in our high capacity 

 of rational and immortal beings, we have certainly no 

 reason to expect that our repentance can of itself de- 

 liver U3 from that punishment which God has annex- 

 ed as the natural consequence of our transgressions. 

 Thus, then, though it is evident that repentance is 

 necessary, yet it is no less evident that it is not of it- 

 self sufficient to procure forgiveness. 



In the second place, the alleged absurdity of vica- 

 rious suffering, or the injustice of an innocent per- 

 son's suffering for the guilty, is another point at 

 which Deists and Socinians make a stand, to combat 

 the doctrine of atonement. But if good is to be 

 produced, where is the absurdity of an innocent per- 

 son suffering ? This objection comes with a bad 

 grace from a Socinian, who admits that Christ suf- 

 fered ; and alleges it as the reason that we might 

 be taught patience and resignation by his example. 

 This is giving up the point at once, when it is ad- 

 mitted that Christ's sufferings were intended to teach 

 us any useful lesson ; for it is admitting that an inno- 

 cent suffered for the benefit of the guilty. Indeed this 

 is such a common occurrence, that to affirm it to be 

 unjust, would be to arraign the whole economy of 



providence, and the whole moral government of God ; Atonement, 

 for we daily see the innocent suffering for the sake of 

 the guilty : and in many cases the laws of all nations 

 admit of a substitution, as a sufficient compensation 

 for violated justice. In a thousand instances, nature 

 and reason demand that we should interpose, and mi- 

 tigate the sufferings of the imprudent or unfortunate, 

 by bearing a share of their calamities. This is so 

 very evident, that Grotius, in his tract De satisfac- 

 tione Christi, c. 4., observes, Vbi consensus aliquis 

 antecedcrot, forme ausim dicere omnium eorum quos 

 Paganos diximus, neminemfoiisse, qui alium ob alte- 

 ring delictum puniri injustum duceret. 



But modern Socinians, or, as they call them- 

 selves, Unitarians, (and, indeed, there is a wide 

 difference between some of their opinions and those 

 of Socinus, who certainly approached much nearer 

 to the orthodox system than they do, ) have had the 

 boldness to affirm, that the doctrine of atonement is not 

 once to be found in scripture. This is maintained 

 by Priestley, in his answer to Paine, with a view to 

 render Christianity palatable to that unbeliever, by 

 explaining away its most peculiar and most obnoxious 

 doctrines. " The doctrines of atonement, incarna- 

 tion, and the Trinity," says he, " have no more 

 foundation in the scriptures than the doctrines of 

 1 transubstantiation or transmigration." This is new 

 ground indeed : we know that the scriptures have 

 often been rejected because they contained the doc- 

 trine of atonement, &c. ; but it was reserved for Dr 

 Priestley and his associates to discover, that such 

 doctrines were not to be found there. Neither the 

 friends nor the enemies of Christianity had ever sus- 

 pected such a thing before ; and it would have been 

 almost as easy to have persuaded them that Homer 

 did not write of Troy, as that the evangelists did 

 not write of the atonement. It is not once hinted 

 at in the gospels, say these writers ; we would be 

 obliged to them, then, for a satisfactory explanation 

 of these expressions : " the Son of man came not to 

 be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his 

 life a ransom for many;" Mark, x. 45. " This is 

 my blood of the new testament which is shed for 

 many, for the remission of sins;" And if we turn to 

 the epistles, we can scarcely find a page where this 

 doctrine is not either expressly taught or alluded to. 

 If it is therefore to be reckoned among the corrup- 

 tions of Christianity, as Dr Priestley affirms, we 

 should be forced to conclude, that Christianity was 

 corrupted by its founder, and that its first preachers'" 

 exerted themselves to propagate- a delusion. It is 

 lamentable to see the judgment of a man, otherwise 

 acute, so miserably warped by prejudice, as to be 

 unable to discern the clearest truths. We shall see 

 still farther reason for this observation, when we at- 

 tend to the extraordinary position which he advances 

 on another occasion : " From a full review of the re- 

 ligions of all ancient and modern nations, they ap- 

 pear to have been utterly destitute of any thing like 

 a doctrine of proper atonement." Is it possible that 

 such a sentiment should be seriously maintained by a 

 divine, a scholar, and a historian, a sentiment which 

 any peasant might refute from the Jewish law, and 

 any school-boy from the practice of ancient nations ? 

 What so common as expiatory sacrifices amongst all 



