1. It is a doctrine of pure naturalism, and one that chimes in with the gross conceptions of the natural man. 2. It involves the idea of two Divine Beings, very different in disposition and character;—one, inflexible and unrelenting, the other, all tenderness and compassion, willing to suffer the extremest agonies for the benefit of his creatures. 3. It is inconsistent with itself. For in cases of natural redemption the price must be paid to him who holds the captive in his power. If (as the doctrine admits) mankind was in bondage to Satan, then the price of redemption was due to him, and not to God the Father as the doctrine teaches. 4. It mars the beauty and perfection of God's character, representing Him as a monster of injustice and cruelty. For what could be more unjust or cruel than to release sinners from the penalty due to their transgressions, and accept the sufferings of a perfectly innocent being as the price of their redemption? 5. And, finally, it involves an utter misconception of the nature of moral or spiritual evil, and the way of escape from it.
No: The Old doctrine of redemption will not stand the test of a rational examination. The closer it is scanned, the more unreasonable and hideous it appears; and the more certain we are that it is a doctrine which men in a low state of mind have invented, or have drawn from the Bible
