(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, vi. 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, neither previous to Christ's coming did the Egyptians cry to Jehovah and join the Assyrians and Israel, a blessing in the midst of the land, nor have they subsequently to the coming of Jesus, up to this day, cried to the God of Israel, 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, pp. 201, 202. Any one who has a tolerable knowledge of the idiom of Hebrew or Arabic, or even of Persian, must be aware that the word "ransom" or sl is often used to express extreme attachment or obedience, without implying an actual sacrifice as an atonement for sins.

66

He again quotes Isaiah xlii. [2] 21, " He shall not cry," &c. "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake;" but I am unable, 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.

66

The Reverend 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 lamb or goat bear the iniquities of men? The scape-goats 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 enemies. 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 Allmerciful?" 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 p. 367.) 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 399, 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. [5],

66

Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch," &c., and ch. xxxi. [31, 33], as being quoted in Heb. viii. [8, 10], "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) 1 Cor. i. 30, "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.

'I

The Editor then advances, that "Ezekiel also predicts the promised redeemer in ch. xxxiv. 23. He says, I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; and he shall be 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, then, 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 Dan. ix. 26," Shall 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 He

,ואין לו,brew

,אין לו

לו רמים ,אין

,ואין עזר לו

"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. 2, "No blood be shed for him." Numb. xxvii. 4, 12 15 ps, "He hath no son." Psalm lxxii. 12, 15 x 1'), “And him that hath no helper.” Dan. xi. 45, 15, “And none shall help him." But, even were we to admit this mistranslation or perversion of the original Scriptures, the words, "Shall the Messiah be 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. [5], "After that [afterward shall] 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 afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," &c.; and also Amos ix. [11], “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 quo