deals out damnation upon the people to be like his God; and the people follow in his foot steps, and exercise cruel and revengeful feelings toward each other. It seems astonishing that such an immoral and blasphemous doctrine should have been so long and so extensively tolerated in professedly enlightened countries, as it is evident it must have had a bad effect; and past experience proves it has had a demoralizing effect upon the people where the doctrine has been preached. It furnishes an illustration of the omnipotent power of custom. CHAPTER XLI.--ATONEMENT FOR SIN, AN IMMORAL DOCTRINE. Having appropriated a portion of two chapters in "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" to an exposition of the doctrine of the atonement, we shall treat the subject but briefly in this work. 1. It is shown in the work above mentioned, that the doctrine of the atonement is of heathen origin, and that it is predicated upon the assumption that no sin can be fully expiated without the shedding of blood. In the language of Paul, "Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission for sin." A barbarous and bloody doctrine truly! But this doctrine was almost universally prevalent amongst the Orientals long before Paul's time. 2. Christians predicate the dogma of atonement for sin upon the assumption that Christ's death and sufferings were a substitute for Adam's death, incurred by the fall. But as Adam's sentence was death, and he suffered that penalty, this assumption can not be true. 3. If the penalty for sin was death, as taught in Gen. iii., and Christ suffered that penalty for man, then man should not die; but, as he does, it makes the doctrine preposterous. It could not have meant spiritual death, as some argue, because a part of the penalty was that of being doomed to return to dust (Gen. r. 19). 4. If crucifixion was indispensably necessary as a penalty, then the punishment should have been inflicted either upon the instigator or perpetrator of the deed: either the serpent or Adam should have been nailed to the cross. 5. We are told in reply, that, as an infinite sin was committed, it required an infinite sacrifice. But Adam, being a finite being, could not commit an infinite sin; and Christ's sacrifice and sufferings could not be infinite, unless he had continued to suffer to all eternity. Therefore the assumption is false. 6. An all-wise God would not let things get into such a condition as to require the murder of his only son from any consideration whatever. 7. And no father, cherishing a proper regard and love for his son, could have required him to be, or consented to have him, put to death in a cruel manner; for the claims of mercy and paternal affection are as imperative as justice.