Such a High Priest became us, who is holy, harm less, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made high er than the heavens." Heb. vii. 26.
The further exposition of the doctrine of atone ment, with the various opinions entertained respecting it, belongs more properly to the article THEOLOGY : we shall therefore content ourselves at present, with obviating some of the principal objections which have been urged against the general doctrine.
Deists, who reject the whole of revelation, reject of course the doctrine of atonement. In. this they are at least consistent, which is more than can be said for the Socinians, who join them in this re , spect, whilst they pretend to reverence the scriptures as a revelation from heaven : their objections are the same, in so far as they pretend to draw them from 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 a 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 us 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 it 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. 'Phis 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 ; 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 satiffizc hone Christi, c. 4., observes, Ubi consensus aliquis antecedereAferme ausinz dicere onznium eorum yaws Paganos diximus, nerninem fnisse, qui cilium ob cite rius delictztm puniri injustum duceret.