ble also to discover what these quotations have to do with Christ's atoning for sin as a sacrifice in lieu of goats and bullocks. So 2 Cor. V. 21. " for he hath made him to be sin." &c. has no reference to the atonement which the Editor insists upon: It implies no more than that "God hath made him subject to sufferings and death, the usual punishment and consequence of sin, as if he had been a sinner, though he were guilty of no sin; that we in and by him might be made righteous, by a righteousness imputed to us by God." See Locke's works vol. VIII. page 232.

The Revd. Editor now refers to Ch. LIII. of Isaiah, laying great stress upon such phrases as the following found in that chapter;" surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." "He was wounded for our transgressions" the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all." "He shall bear their iniquities." Do these sentences prove that he like a sacrificial "lamb" or "sheep" atoned for the sins of others? Did ever a sacrificial lab or goat hear the iniquities of men? The scapegoats are stated to have borne the iniquities of Israel, a circumstance far from being applicable to Christ even typically; for he, as was predicted, made no escape from the hands of his ene

mies. My readers may peruse the whole of Ch. LIII and may find that it conveys but the idea that Jesus as a prince, though innocent himself, was to suffer afflictions or rather death for the transgressions of his guilty people while interceding for them with a king mightier than himself.

To this question of the Editor "Is not our repentance sufficient to make atonement with the all-merciful?" My answer must be in the affirmative, since we find the direct authority of the author of this religion and his forerunner John the Baptist requiring us to have recourse to repentance as the means of procuring pardon for sin. Vide page 22. Had the human race never transgressed or had they repented sincerely of their transgressions, the son of God need not have been sent to teach them repentance for the pardon of their sins; to lay before them the divine law calculated to prevent their further transgressions; the fulfilment of which commission was at the cost of his life.

As I have already noticed in page 60 et seq. the Editor's reference to human ideas of justice in support of the doctrine of atonement, and his censuring me for the same mode of reference to

natural equity. I will not renew the subject here.

The Editor seems contented with the quotation of only two passages of Jeremiah: viz. Ch. XXIII. Behold the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch" &c. and Ch. XXXI. as being quoted in Hebrews VIII. "Behold the days come saith the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the land of Judah. I will put my law in their inward parts &c." The Editor then quotes (page 539) I Cor. I. 60. "Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption." But what these quotations have to do with the vicarious sacrifice of Christ I am again at a loss to perceive; being able to discover in them nothing more than a prophecy and its fulfilment, that Christ was to be sent to direct mankind to sincerity in worship, righteousness in conduct, sanctification in purity of mind, and salvation by repentance.

The Editor then advances that "Ezekiel also predicts the promised redeemer in Ch. XXXIV. 13. "He says I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; and he shall be

T

their shepherd." I never denied in any of my publications that Jesus was sent as the promised Messiah; nor did I ever interpret the above passages, as some Jewish writers, that the Messiah would be not only of the race of David but also of his spirit. How is it theu, that the Editor thinks it necessary to attempt so often to prove the kingdom and redemption of Jesus as the promised Messiah in the course of his arguments in favour of the atonement? He afterwards quotes Daniel IX. 26. “Shail Messiah be cut off but not for himself." There is no term in the original Hebrew passage answering to the words "but" or " himself" found in the English version. We find in the -"no person or nothing for him;" that is "Shall Messiah be cut off and no one be for him." The translators used the term" but" instead of "and" as in the Hebrew, and the term "himself" in lieu of "him." In illustration I shall here cite the same phrase found in other instances both in the original Hebrew scriptures and their translation also in the English version. Exodus XXII. ì. him." Numbers XXVII. 4.77 pHe hath no son." Psaim LXXII. 12. 1 y And him that hath uo helper.” Daniel XI. 45. « And none shall help him."

ואין לו Hebrew

”. No blood for him :: אין לו דמיכם

66

But even were we to ad

mit this mistranslation or perversion of the original scriptures, the words "shall the Messiah he cut off but not for himself," would to my mind convey nothing more than that the Messiah should be cut off, not for any guilt he committed himself, but by the fault of his subjects, who continued to rebel against the divine law though instructed by their intercessor even at the hazard of his own life.

The Editor quotes Hosea III. "After that the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their God and David their King &c." and Joel II. 28. "And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy" &c. and also Amos IX. In that day

will I raise up the tabernacle of

David which

is fallen" &c. Had he been pleased to shew the tendency of these quotations to the proof of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus, I would endeavour to examine the connection between them; as he has omitted to do so, and their relation to the question is certainly not obvious I must spare myself the trouble.

The Revd. Editor says (page 541) "nor does Obadiah in his short prophecy wholly omit the Redeemer's Kingdom. He alludes thereto in