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 32; i. e. out of all.

*

thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Do not the phrases, "Thou art cursed above all cattle," and "above every beast of the field," shew clearly that the serpent thus addressed was really no spirit in borrowed form, but the animal so denominated? Does not the circumstance of the serpent being condemned to move upon its belly, and to eat dust all the days of its life, evidently imply that the serpent thus cursed was of the same class that we now see subject to that very malediction to the present day? The sins of fathers are declared in the Scriptures to have been visited by God on their posterity; would it not be, therefore, more consistent with scriptural authorities to attribute the misery of serpents to the heinous conduct of their first origin, than to Satan, of whom no mention is made throughout the chapter in question?

But, in fact, has the power of Satan over the seed of the woman been destroyed? The consequences of the sin which our first parents committed by the ill advice of the reptile, and which they implanted in the nature of their posterity, have been, that women bring forth children in sorrow, and are ruled by their husbands, and that the earth brings forth thorns also and thistles to men, who eat the herb of the field with labour, and return at last to dust. (Gen. iii. 16-19.) If Jesus actually atoned for sin, and delivered men from its consequences, how can those men and women who believe in his atonement be still, equally with others, liable to the evil

effects of the sins already remitted by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus?

If, notwithstanding all the above-stated facts and arguments, the Editor still insists that Satan should be understood by the reptile mentioned in the verse, and Jesus by the seed of the woman, yet his interpretation cannot apply in the least to the doctrine of the atonement. It would imply only, that, as Satan opposed the power of Jesus to procure salvation for all men, as he intended, so Jesus diminished his power and disappointed him by leading many to salvation through his divine precepts. I know not how to answer the question of the Editor, "Of what individual serpent did the seed of the woman break the head, so as for it to bruise his heel ?" unless by referring him to the reciprocal injuries which man and serpents inflict on each other.

The Editor refers to the circumstance of the sacrifice offered by Abel, and approved of God in preference to his brother Cain's, (Gen. iv. 4,) esteeming it as an illustration of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin. (Page 518.) But I am unable to find out what relation there could exist between the acceptance of the offering of Abel by Jehovah, and the death of Jesus, whether sacrificial or not. The Editor, however, founds his assertion, that Abel having looked forward to the atonement of Jesus, his offerings were accepted by God, upon the circumstance of Abraham's seeing the day of Christ by prophetic anticipation, (John viii. 56,) and

of Moses having esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt, (Heb. xi. 26,*) they all having been "of the same catalogue." I therefore should hope to be informed whether there be any authority justifying this inference. On the contrary, we find the fourth verse of the same chapter of Genesis points out, that Abel having been accustomed to do well, in obedience to the will of God, contrary to the practice of his brother, righteous Jehovah accepted his offering, and rejected that of Cain; to which Paul thus alludes, By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain," (Hebrews xi. 4,) without leaving us doubtful as to the sense in which that apostle used the word "faith" in the above verse.

66

"By faith Abel offered unto God," &c. "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death," &c. "But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him." Here St. Paul gives us

"The

* (Improved Version of the New Testament,) Gr., reproach of Christ," or, " of the anointed." The Israelites are called Christ's, or anointed, i. e. a chosen and favoured people, Psalm cv. 15, Heb. iii. 13. "The meaning is," says Dr. Sykes, in loc.," that Moses looked upon the contempt and indignity which he underwent on account of his professing himself a Jew, as much preferable to all the riches and honours of Egypt." See also Whitby, in loc. Dr. Newcome's Version is, "such reproach as Christ endured," which is also the interpretation of Photius, Crellius, and Mr. Lindsey, Sequel, page 278.

to understand that the "faith" which procured for Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the other patriarchs, the grace of God, was their belief in the existence of God, and in his being their rewarder, and not in any sacrifice, personal or vicarious. What could prophetic anticipation by Abraham, of the divine commission of Jesus, have to do with Abel's conduct, in rendering his sacrifices acceptable to God, that any one can esteem the one as the necessary consequence of the other? Moses having called himself a Jew, gave preference to the term "anointed," or "Israelite," a term of reproach among the Egyptians in those days, over all the riches and honour of Egypt, which he might have obtained by declaring himself an Egyptian instead of a Jew; or Moses esteemed (according to the English version) in his prophetic power, the reproach to which Christ would be made liable by the Jews in the fulfilment of his divine commission, greater riches than all the grandeur of Egyptian unbelievers. But neither explanation can support the idea that Abel, or any other patriarch, had in view the sacrificial death of Jesus in rendering their offering acceptable to God.

It is true, as the Editor observes, that sacrifices are divine institutions as a manifestation of obedience to God, through the oblation of any thing that may be dear to man, whether common, as an animal, or dearly valuable, as one's own son. But they are not represented in any of the sacred

books as means

having intrinsically the power of procuring men