CHAPTER II. Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Atonement. In his first Review, the Editor began with what he considered "the most abstruse and yet the most important of Christian doctrines, the Deity of Jesus Christ," and then proceeded to substantiate the doctrine of his atonement. I therefore followed this course of arrangement in my Second Appeal; but as the Editor has introduced the doctrine of the atonement of Jesus first in the present Review, I will also arrange my reply accordingly. The Editor quotes first, Gen. iii. 15: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." From this passage he attempts to deduce the atonement of Jesus for the sins of men, demanding, "What could a reptile feel relative to the fate of its offspring through future ages ? Of what individual serpents did the seed of the woman break the head, so as for it to bruise his heel?" Jesus, then," he affirms, "is the seed of the woman who suffered from the malice of Satan, while he on the cross destroyed his power by atoning for sin and reconciling man to God." (Page 517.) I admit that a reptile, as far as human experience goes, is incapable of feeling "relative to the fate of its offspring through future ages;" but I wish to know if a mere reptile could not have the power of conversation so as to persuade a woman to adhere to its advice? Whether the ass of Balaam could be possessed of the power of seeing exclusively the angel of God, and conversing with its own master, Balaam ? And whether ravens could diligently supply the wants of Elijah, by bringing him bread and flesh morning and evening? Are not these occurrences equally difficult to reconcile to "common sense" as the case of the serpent is, according to the Editor? Yet we find these stated in the sacred books, and we are taught to believe them as they stand. Can we justly attempt to represent the ass and those ravens also as either angelical or demoniacal spirits, in the same way as the reptile is represented by the Editor to have been no other than Satan? We might, in that case, be permitted to give still greater latitude to metaphor, so as to take all the facts found in the Bible as merely allegorical representations; but would not the consequence of such interpretations be most dangerous to the cause of truth? The verse in question, with its context, thus runs: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise • *, composed of two words, and 2; i. e. out of all. men to give entire obedience to his precepts; and that Jesus would have recommended the lawyer, whom he directed to righteousness, to have recourse to repentance" had he gone and sincerely attempted" to obey his precepts, "watching his own heart to discern those constant neglects of the duty he owed to the Creator and to his fellow-creatures," and then applied to Jesus for the remedy of his discerned imperfections. I find abundant passages in the Old Testament also representing other sources than sacrifices, as sufficient means of procuring pardon for sin. Psalm li. 17: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ezekiel xviii. 30: "Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be ruin." Prov: xvi. 6: "By mercy your and truth iniquity is purged, and by the fear of the Isaiah i. 18: "Come Lord men depart from evil." now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." To shew the inefficacy of repentance to procure pardon, the Editor appeals to human justice, which, as he says, "inquires not about the repentance of the robber and murderer, but respecting his guilt. The law, indeed, knows no repentance." (Page 506.) I therefore wish to know whether or not human justice suffers an innocent man to be killed to atone for the guilt of theft or murder committed by another? It is, at all events, more consistent with justice, that a judge who has the privilege of shewing mercy, should forgive the crimes of those that truly feel the pain and distress of mind inseparable from sincere repentance, than that he should put an innocent man to death, or destroy his own life, to atone for the guilt of some of his condemned culprits. CHAPTER II. Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Atonement. In his first Review, the Editor began with what he considered “the most abstruse and yet the most important of Christian doctrines, the Deity of Jesus Christ," and then proceeded to substantiate the doctrine of his atonement. I therefore followed this course of arrangement in my Second Appeal; but as the Editor has introduced the doctrine of the atonement of Jesus first in the present Review, I will also arrange my reply accordingly. The Editor quotes first, Gen. iii. 15: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." From this passage he attempts to deduce the atonement of Jesus for the sins of men, demanding, "What could a reptile feel relative to the fate of its offspring through future ages? Of what individual serpents did the seed of the woman break the head, so as for it to bruise his heel?" Jesus, then," he affirms, "is the seed of the woman who suffered from the malice of Satan, while he on the cross destroyed his power by atoning for sin and reconciling man to God." (Page 517.) I admit that a reptile, as far as human experience goes, is incapable of feeling "relative to the fate of its offspring through future ages;" but I wish to |