NEWMAN STREET FREE CHURCH SUNDAY LECTURES. BY P. W. PERFITT, PH. D. THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT, (Continued from p. 332.) It is impossible to look upon this in any other light than as a sacrifice made by way of Atonement, and those who are familiar with the classic histories will remember. numerous other instances of a similar character. So that, unless we close our eyes to the most obvious facts, it is impossible to deny that the Atonement theory was well understood by nations which had no intercourse with the Hebrew people. But, and returning to those theologians who admit this fact, we have to consider whether, as Magee argues, the Atonement theory originated in heaven, and, by means of revelation, was communicated to mankind-thus whether the idea, as conceived by the classic nations, was not handed down from the earliest times, rather than born among them as the child of their own reasoning and vain imaginations. They who maintain the former, should, at least, be prepared with some arguments to justify their position; for it is evidently illogical to create data upon which to rest conclusions which are intended to justify theological theories, when the theories, conclusions, and data, are, as in this instance, utterly at variance with all sound reasoning, and the entire phenomena of Nature. When was the revelation given? Unto whom was it addressed? To such questions there is no answer, saving this, wherein the fact to be proved is quietly assumed, as being beyond the sphere of doubt, namely, that the theory could not have arisen without some such assistance. But what if that theory be false? What if God never required that men should sacrifice bulls and goats? If we are to believe the prophets, then it is undoubtedly true that He did not-they say that He did not demand it even from the Hebrew nation. The language of all the greater prophets leaves no room for doubt upon this point. It is needless to quote the numerous striking passages from Isaiah wherein sacrifice is repudiated, for they are so well I select three passages from other writers. Amos, in his poem, represents Jehovah as saying, known: "I hate, yea, verily, I despise your feasts, And upon the peace offering of your fatlings I will not look. Take ye away from me the noise of your songs, And the melodies of your psalteries let me not hear, Let Justice roll on as roll the waters, And Righteousness as a mighty stream. Did ye offer to Me sacrifices and offerings During forty years in the wilderness, O, house of Israel? " That closing question is very pointed, and more than intimates that Amos did not believe the system of sacrifice was maintained in the wilderness—it is equal to saying that the wanderers did not offer such sacrifices. And Micah was in the same state of conviction. He says, Oh, man, He has made known to thee what is good; And walk humbly before thy God?" Nothing can be more clear than this writer had risen far above the sacrificial theory; and felt that a good life is the noblest offering, and a pure heart is the best recommendation to the favour of heaven. But the theory that God gave His command to the Jewish people to offer up bulls and goats is distinctly repudiated by Jeremiah. He says, "Thus saith Jehovah, God of Hosts, God of Israel, Put your burnt offerings with your sacrifice, and cut the flesh ; Nor commanded them, in the day when I brought them out of Egypt, But this did I command them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be And ye shall by my your God, people." If this be true, then the entire history of Israel, as set forth in the Pentateuch, is not to be relied upon; for in that it is most distinctly set forth that Jehovah had, not only issued His orders, which involved sacrifice, but had, also, entered into the most minute details with regard to the form in which they were to be offered. The Mosaic books are little more than the embodiments of that very system which Jeremiah repudiates; but, to the intelligent mind, there can be no difficulty in deciding that the mournful prophet had seized upon a much higher truth than his predecessor had done. It would not be difficult to shew, that, so far, at least, as the Hebrew nation is concerned, sacrifice, as a complete system, came late in the day. Doubtless they shared the common religious ideas of the East, and this for ages without having any written system. Then a number of poets rose among them, who taught, in opposition to the priests, that sacrifices were not required; that, in truth, the whole priestly system was rotten to its core. One after another taught thus, until the priests and the temple were neglected, and then it was that the chiefs "found the book in the days of Josiah," containing the sacrificial system so clearly set down, that no doubt could be entertained about its object. This was the answer made by the priests to the prophets-there is the book,' but we, in modern times, are no more bound than the prophets to believe its contents. To my mind, it is as clear as possible-as clear as it was to the early prophets-that God never commanded any sacrifice, but that men believed He had done so is equally clear. As in other matters, so in this, they believed that to be the truth of God which was but the child of their own fancy; and if we are freer from this weakness than they were, the fact is only to be accounted for by the value of their example. Here, however, we must turn away from the ancient to modern ideas, to learn what are the prevalent theories of the Atonement, what is supposed to be the nature of the offering, with its fruits. I say the "theories," because there is no unity of believing as to its nature, or its effect; some men maintaining that it means the very reverse of what is taught by others. A distinguished modern writer upon this subject, describes the theories under four heads, and says of the first, that it is a scheme by which it is represented that the interference and suffering of Christ, in itself, unconditionally saved all souls and emptied hell for ever. This theory arose in the minds of those who had received it as the natural and the only consistent completion of the view they held concerning the nature and consequences of the fall of Adam, the cause and extent of the lost state of man. Adam as the head of humanity, represented and acted for his whole race; the responsibility of his decision rested, the consequences of his conduct would legitimately descend, it was thought, upon all mankind. If he had kept himself obedient through that easy yet tremendous probation in Eden, he and all his children would have lived on * Chap. vii. 21-23. earth eternally in perfect bliss. But, violating the direct commandment of God, the dire burden of sin, with its terrible penalty, fell on him and his whole posterity for ever. Every human being was henceforth to be alien from the love of goodness and from the favour of God, hopelessly condemned to death and the everlasting pains of hell. The sin of Adam, it was believed, thoroughly corrupted the nature of man and incapacitated him from all successful efforts to save his soul from its awful doom. The infinite majesty of God's will, the law of the universe, had been insulted and broken by sin. The only just retribution was the suffering of an endless death. The adamantine sanctities, the fatal necessities of God's government, made forgiveness impossible. Thus all men were lost, to be the prey of blackness and fire, and the undying worm, through the remediless ages of eternity. "But then God had pity on the souls He had made, and Himself came to the rescue. In the person of Christ He came into the world as a man, and freely took upon Himself the infinite debt of man's sins; by his death upon the cross expiated all offences, satisfied the claims of offended justice, vindicated the inexpressible sacredness of the law, and, at the same time, opened a way by which a full and free reconciliation was extended to all. When the blood of Jesus flowed over the cross it purchased the ransom of every sinner: as Jerome says, 'it quenched the flaming sword at the entrance of Paradise.' The weary multitude of captives rose from their fiery beds of torture, shook off the fetters and stains of the pit, and made the cope of heaven snowy with their white-winged ascent. That prison-house of the devil and his angels should be used no more to confine the guilty souls of men. Their guilt was all washed away in the blood of the Lamb. Their spirits, without exception, should follow to the right hand of the Father, in the way marked out by the ascending Redeemer." This is the first form of Universalism, the form in which it was held by several of the Fathers, in the earlier ages of the Church, and by the pioneers of that doctrine in modern times. St. Cyril says,Christ went into the under world alone, but came out with a huge host, leaving the devil there utterly alone.' It is a necessary result of a consistent development of the creed of the Orthodox Church, so called. By the sin of one, even Adam, through the working of absolute justice, hell became the portion of all, irrespective of any virtue or fault of theirs; so, by the voluntary sacrifice, the infinite atonement of one, even Christ, through the unspeakable mercy of God, salvation was effected for all, irrespective of any virtue or fault of theirs. One member of the scheme is the exact counterpoise of the other: one doctrine cries out for and necessitates the other. Those who accept the commonly-received dogmas of original sin, total depravity, and universal condemnation entailed upon all men in lineal descent from Adam, and the dogmas of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Vicarious Atonement, are bound, by all the constructions of logic, and all the claims of consistency also, to accept the scheme of salvation just set forth; namely, that the death of Christ secured the deliverance of all, unconditionally.* It is not, however, the custom of theologians to study the claims of consistency, or to pursue their doctrines to a logical issue; and those who are consistent and logical in their acceptance and application of the theories of the Churches, are usually denounced as the worst of heretics and unbelievers. Of course no attempt is ever made to show why or wherein those who diverge from what is called orthodoxy in this matter are wrong and even orthodoxy itself is at war with itself upon many points connected with the doctrine of the Atonement. So that in regard to this "most vital part of the system of salvation,' an enquirer is left by the very men who pretend to guide him in the difficulty that he knows not which guide to follow. (To be continued.) * Prospective Review, No. xxxviii. pp. 2, 3. LONDON: PUBLISHED BY M. PATTIE, 31, PATERNOSTER ROW, AND GEORGE GLAISHER, 470, NEW OXFORD STREET. Printed by W. Ostell, Hart-street, Bloomsbury. THE PATHFINDER, A JOURNAL OF PURE THEISM AND RELIGIOUS FREETHOUGHT, THE ORGAN OF INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS REFORM, THERE cannot be a doubt in any mind regarding our choice of the subject for our 66 Topic of the Week:" there is but one which will command attention, and, indeed, the natural feelings of indignation which have risen in all minds, render it impossible to speak upon other than of the dastardly conduct of those who commanded the American ship of war, when laying in wait for, and making their descent upon the British Mail steamer-The Trent. Englishmen have been deeply moved by the news, but it is not merely an English question. Every European, especially those who have studied the modern history of civilisation, feels indignant with the government of the United States for issuing instructions broad enough, even colorably, to justify their officers in pursuing such a course of outrage and insult. They know that if such proceedings are commended by a legitimate government there will be nothing left but for the bully and the coward, first to make and then to administer international laws. It is felt that the outrage is directed against the polity of Europe, and must be thus resented. It may be that the cousins of the Bulls' Run racers, intended only to slap us upon the cheek, but, as when a drunken brawler goes at midnight to pour forth the torrent of his abuse at the door of some one with whom he is offended, he annoys and breaks the rest of all the neighbours, so the ginsling heroes of the San Jacinto could not employ force against the Trent without offering a gross insult to, and positively assaulting, the whole community of European nations. Strictly speaking, the act of the American captain was piratical. It finds no justification in the laws of nations, and if it is to be admitted as tolerable, then good by to the security of commerce and the honour of a national flag. This is perceived by all the European statesmen. They may not care about our honour, but they cannot avoid caring for the principle which has been assailed; hence the emotion in Paris and elsewhere. So that if any war arises out of the event it is pretty certain that the leading nations of Europe will stand staunchly by our side. But if Frenchmen and Spaniards, if Germans and Russians feel it, what must we feel who are the descendants of Drake and Blake, of Harry the Fifth, Cromwell, and a whole host of valiant men, who gave time, wealth, and life itself, as the purchase price of our national honour and VOL, VI. NEW SERIES. VOL. II. 2 B freedom? Language altogether fails to convey any true idea of the depth and nature of our emotions. It is to be read on mens' faces, but cannot be expressed. The pain, too, is rendered more acute by the fact that it was Americans who offered us the insult. Had they been Africans or Mexicans, had they been Chinese or Russians, we should not have felt it so acutely, because we do not expect such good behaviour from the untaught, as from those who are annually enriched by all our treasures of thought and culture. That our children-our petted and instructed descendants-should misbehave is the sore point. Moreover, it is all the more painful when we remember that the men were but coming over to speak for themselves, in relation to the great struggle and its prospects. Why should the Court of Washington fear their speaking? They were sent upon a mission which all honest men must respect, and if the Northerns had felt perfectly secure of their own cause they would rather have lent them a ship, in which to cross the Atlantic, than have seized them from our steamer. And the cowardly nature of the action galls us. Had the Trent been armed the American captain would have carefully given her a wide berth. They who make their descents upon unarmed villages are the first to protest against advancing against a well defended city. We hope that at some future time one of our gun boats may be fortunate enough to come to close quarters with this braggart captain and his frigate, for we cannot doubt that they who could fire round shot and shell upon a mail steamer would speedily surrender if attacked by a smaller vessel, decently armed and manned. Some of our contemporaries are busy discussing the question, Why do the Northern States desire to drag us into the quarrel-to fasten a war upon us ? It needs not much discussion. The fact is, that they are even more galled by our looking at them in their failures than they are by the failures themselves. When there is a quarrel going on in a house, they who are engaged most are far more annoyed by one neighbour looking in at the window than by fifty strangers doing the same. Men do not like to cut a poor figure in the presence of those who know them. This causes the Northern States to feel to hate us, because we are the witnesses of their shame. They cannot conquer the Southern States, so they turn round to insult us. It is as when two boys have been fighting without either gaining the victory, and then one of them turns to kick a man who stands by-he will do something "plucky" in order to save his reputation. And it may be that the Northerners would be glad to have a brush with England, because in that case there would be a show of reason for consenting to let the Southern States go. They could then plead that had it not been for the treachery of England the Union would have been restored. But if we are to be involved in the struggle it must be for some better purpose than to serve as the cats' paw for the heroes of Bulls' Run-to be used merely in order to drag them out of a difficulty. But, curiously enough, some of our papers have contained articles in which the question is asked, if there be not some law upon the subject to justify the course which has been pursued. There is no such law, no such justification. The government at Washington has positively repudiated the only theory which would have furnished even the shadow of an argument in favour of the outrage. The exercise of what is called the right of search presupposes that two nations are at war. With all their ingenuity and effrontery not even the Americans would argue for their right to overhaul vessels in a |