tor has not attempted to dispute that applied. to human affairs the motive to which he assigns the will of God in ordaining the death of Jesus on the cross would be palpably iniquitous. Should not this induce him to pause and permit nothing but the most express and positive declaration couched in language not capable of being explained in a metaphorical sense, to sway him to a belief so irreconcilable. to common sense? Yet he is willing to assume at once this conclusion on the bare fact that Jesus was provided with a body.

Do not orthodox divines often offer it as a reason for the necessity of an atonement being made for the crimes of men that it would be inequitable in the perfect nature of the just God to remit sin without some sort of punishment being inflicted for it as a satisfaction to his justice? Do they not in consequence represent the death of Jesus as an atonement for the sins of mankind? If they do and are allowed to do so, I think myself also authorized to urge in reference to human notions of juustice that "it would be a piece of gross iniquity to afflict one innocent being who had all the human feelings and who had never transgressed the will of God, with the death of the cross for crimes committed by others especially when he declares such

great aversion to it." But if the Editor abandon this mode of reasoning and confess the unsearchable, inscrutable nature both of divine justice and of divine mercy, I am perfectly ready and willing to do the same.

66

The Editor now refers to the prophets; (nave 533.) saying that Isaiah in Ch. VII. “ predicting the birth of Christ identifies his divine and his human nature." As Isaiah VII. 14. and IX. 6. have no relation whatever to the doctrine of atonement, I deem it proper to defer the notice of them to the subsequent chapter on the Trinity.

The Editor in his next quotation from Isaiah first introduces Ch. XI. "And he shall make him (Jesus) of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord;" but my limited capacity has failed to enable me to ascertain what he really means to establish by the quotation of this passage (page 536). The Editor was in the course of an attempt to prove the deity and the atonement of Jesus Christ, but the force of truth would appear to have induced him here to cite a verse which, containing such phrases as-" make him of quick understanding" and "in the fear of the Lord” go to prove his created nature. In like man

ner I must confess my inability to discover any allusion whatever to the atonement in his next quotation from Isaiah, XIX. 19 and 20.

The Editor having endeavoured in his former review to prove the doctrine of the atonement from the application of the term "Saviour" to Jesus, I noticed in my Second Appeal that "we find the title Saviour applied frequently in the divine writings to those who have been endued with the power of saving nations, whether in a spiritual sense by the imparting of the divine will, or by affording temporary protection to them; altho' none of those saving prophets or princes atoned for the sins of their fellow creatures by their death:" (page 64) and that "all those who have been instrumental in effecting the deliverance of their fellow creatures from evils of whatever nature, were dependant themselves upon God, and only instruments in his hand." The Editor though unable to deny this fact, thus turns away the subject saying; It surely required but little knowledge to discern, that a man's delivering his country does not elevate him to an equality with God, or that to overcome an invading enemy is an act totally different from saving sinners from their sins:" but the force of truth again makes the Revd. Editor quote here

66

the following passage (" and he shall send them a Saviour and a great one and he shall deliver them") which does not only refute his own position, but proves what I advanced in my Second Appeal; that is, as Christ and others who saved people at different times in their peculiar capacities were dependent themselves upon God and only instruments in his hands." Is it not possible for God who could raise, as the Editor confesses, personages to save men by their miraculous strength from the grasp of their enemies, to raise one to save mankind from sin through his divine instructions? If not, how should we reconcile such disavowal of the power of God to the following assertion of the evangelist Matthew that the people "glorified God who had given such power to men?" (IX. 8.) and if Jesus was not entitled to the appellation of a saviour from the saving power of his divine instructions, in what sense should we understand those declarations of Jesus himself to be found even in a single Gospel John V. 24. Vl. 63. XV. 3.

To his question "When previously to Christ's coming did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah for deliverance and when previously was Israel the third with Egypt and the Assyrians?" my answer must be in the negative; that is, S

neither previous to Christ's coming did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah and join the Assyrians

and Israel, a blessing in the midst of he land,

nor have they subsequently to the c min; of Jesus, up to this day, cried to the Go of Is- : rael, or joined Israel and the Assyrians in asking a divine blessing.

The Editor says page 537 that in Ch. XXXV. the blessings of Christ's kingdom are declared in the most glowing language" I do not dispute it in the least. If verse 10. (the ransomed of the Lord shall return &c.) have any allusion to Jesus, it must have reference to his implicit obedience to the will of Jehovah, even to the laying down of his own life for the safety of mankind; as explained in my Second Appeal pages 57 and 58. Any one who has a tolerable knowledge of the idiom of Hebrew or Arabic, or even of Per. sian, must be aware that the word " Ransom' is often used to express extreme attachment or obedience, without implying an actual sacrifice as an atonement for

فراء

or ףדיןם

sins.

He again quotes Isaiah XLII. "He shall not cry &c. The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness sake:" but I am una