one Sacrament may be administered by the laity, it is really difficult to see why the other may not, and as to the question of a man's administering a Sacrament to himself, it is done every time the priest consecrates, for he always administers the bread and wine. to himself first. A little plain speaking on these questions, in some Church of England pulpits, would do a great deal of good. The Ritualists say plainly enough what they mean by the Sacraments, and it is a great pity, for the sake of a bewildered laity, that the liberal clergy do not speak out as clearly on their side of the question. Few of the clergy, except the Ritualists, give their congregations a chance of either agreeing or disagreeing with their views on the Sacraments, for it is quite impossible, from their ordinary sermons, to understand what the clergy mean, or whether they mean anything. VII.-Infidelity and the Devil. Mr. Beecher is what Mr. Spurgeon would probably call "weak" on the devil. He says, "the devil is distributive in our dayssome of him is in governments, some of him is in judges," &c.; in other places he seems to hold to one devil, or prince of devils, but evidently believes in many other devils or evil powers, invisible personalities ranged against man. He observes, no doubt, that there are plenty of devils in the body about, and if there is any spiritual world, the obvious inference is that there are plenty more devils out of the body about. We do not know that he is very far from sound doctrine here, but on the question of Infidelity he will probably be weighed in the balance with orthodoxy and found wanting. We shall not venture to do more than give his definition of Infidelity, and leave him to his worst enemies, observing only that he is careful to condemn "the roystering infidelity of vulgar and ignorant men,' and also "the cold indifference of educated materialism." "Unbelief," he says such unbelief as abounds amongst the intelligent young men of our days-"unbelief is the drifting of sensitive natures, famished and hungering and searching for something that shall feed them" (ii. 324). And now we can promise our readers that if they have followed Mr. Beecher with any interest in his views and opinions on "RELIGIOUS TRUTH," they will find him quite as interesting and vigorous in his treatment of those various social and political subjects which will range themselves in Part II., under the heading of " SECULAR TRUTH,” and which have contributed more than anything else to spread his fame as an orator far beyond the limits of the American public. H. R. HAWEIS. RATIONALISM AND RITUALISM IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT ECCLESIASTICAL DECISIONS. The Sling and the Stone. Sermons by the Rev. CHARLES Voysey. Appeal to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council. Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case T used to be urged as a reproach against the Church of England that it was without law. It had often been compared to a ship without a mast or a rudder, driven to and fro by every wind; or to a kingdom without a ruler, where every man did what was right in his own eyes. The diversity of doctrines was indeed great, and notwithstanding all Acts of Uniformity, the modes of worship were many and widely varied. The idea of a comprehensive Church had been realised till the existence of the Church itself seemed to many to be in danger by the very extent of its comprehensiveness. The cords were distended till they were about to break. It had become evident to most people that however wide the boundaries might be made, it was imperative for self-preservation that the line of demarcation be drawn somewhere. This as a general principle must be admitted by all, even by those who are condemned by the Judgments. Mr. Voysey, for instance, would exclude a clergyman who taught atheism; and Mr. Purchas, we suppose, would not extend the shelter of the Church to Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, or any other Roman dogma which is still ahead of English Ritualists. In their own particular cases they will think the judgments arbitrary. They can both quote men who have taught the same doctrines, or nearly the same, as they teach, and yet have remained in the Church without being molested. It does seem unjust that the law should fall upon one, while another has escaped. It does seem arbitrary that the law should speak at certain times and be silent at other times, or, as it may happen, at some future time pronounce a different judgment from what it has pronounced at present. We may regret these things, but they are among the conditions of life. If the Church had any different government from that of the world, we might look for a fixed infallible judgment, but existence has to be accepted as it is, with its anomalies and imperfections. We do not start with perfection. It is rather the goal to be reached at the end of the ages of progress. If Mr. Voysey had remembered this, he would not merely not have complained of the judgment passed on him, but he would never have provoked it. Pierre Leroux, speaking of the old religions of the world, says that we have had many to show us the falsehood of these old beliefs, but we now want some one to show us their truth. Mr. Voysey steps over the old theologies of saints and prophets like a giant stepping over the mud huts that are the dwellings of a feeble people. With the vehemence of a prophet of destruction, he has told us of the falsehood and superstition of the popular beliefs. We should have been more thankful if he had told us how much truth was in them. The charges against Mr. Voysey concerned the atonement, original sin, justification, the incarnation, and the Holy Scriptures. On all these subjects he maintained that in substance he agreed with the Articles of Religion. But the popular or traditional theology may fairly claim kindred with the Articles. It is simply impossible to deny the one and yet hold by the other. It happens that on the first subject, that of the atonement, one of the Articles says expressly that Christ died to reconcile his Father to us. Another says that he was the propitiation for all the sins of the world, both original and actual. In the popular doctrine of the atonement, there is nothing really stronger than the words of these Articles. Mr. Voysey quotes from the Homilies to show that the "horrible doctrines" in them, which are the counterpart of popular theology, are not in agreement with the Articles. But as the Homilies and the Articles had the same men for the most part as their authors, we should have reasoned that the one was the proper interpreter of the other. It is not, we confess, without very considerable effort that we have been able to make out Mr. Voysey's position. So long as he was denouncing what he calls the popular theology, or commonly received opinions, we thought he might only have before him some extreme form of Calvinism. We can understand a man defending the Articles of Religion, and at the same time opposing doctrines which are mere glosses on the Articles. But the denial both of reconciliation, and the necessity of reconciliation, is contrary to all that we ever understood to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Moreover, we believe it to be impossible to deny, as Mr. Voysey expressly does, the "Pauline doctrines" of atonement and reconciliation, and yet not contradict the Articles of Religion. The theology of the Reformation was essentially Pauline, so that whatever interpretation be put on St. Paul, the same is applicable to the Articles of Religion. Mr. Voysey's object, we imagine, was simply to avoid direct contradiction of the Church's formularies, expecting that so long as he did this he would have liberty to preach against everything that the Church believed. The doctrine of the atonement is confessedly a doctrine encompassed with difficulties. When we stand on the ground of simple Theism, it seems unnecessary. In the last century it became the final test of Deism. A man like Mr. Voysey, who believed atonement unnecessary, however much he might have professed belief in Christianity, was regarded as a Deist. And the ground of this was, that the atonement not being a doctrine within the discovery of reason, was purely derived from revelation, and so a matter of mere faith. The Deists, as they were called, rejected it because reason, they said, was against it. The ignorant pagans offered sacrifices to appease their terrible deities, but the philosophers who believed in one God maintained that the only conditions of forgiveness were repentance and amendment of life. The Deists, therefore, rejected the atonement as allied to paganism, and only acknowledged Christianity so far as it was a republication of the religion of nature. The men of that day were clear reasoners, but they were not profound. In the present time, whether a man believes or does not believe, what we shall call the Pauline doctrine of the atonement, he cannot say that it is contrary to reason. It will be objected that we merely put it in a rational form. Our answer is, that if it is capable of a rational form, it should not be denounced as "horrible" and "hideous." We do not admit that reason is altogether on Mr. Voysey's side. A doctrine which has taken such universal hold on the religious mind, must have some reason in it. That it has been connected with fearful superstitions it is not necessary to deny. All that we contend for is, that the abstract idea of atonement is in conformity with reason. The highest philosophical conception which we can have of Deity, is that of absolute impersonal Justice. He is that Everlasting Order which opposes all disorder. If we look only to the course of this world, we cannot deny that one man suffers for the sins of another. The Divine law is broken, and like every violated law in nature, the consequent suffering falls on all who come within its reach. With this conception of God, we can understand the necessity of what we call an atonement. In Kant's philosophy there was a place found for satisfaction because of the absolute justice of Deity. On this ground, one school of his disciples were strenuous defenders of the orthodox faith. If we had capacities to form a theology in conformity with our conceptions of the Absolute, many of our present difficulties on subjects that refer to God and his attributes would disappear. But the question of the atonement is usually discussed in that lower sphere where we think of God as a Being with "parts and passions." The objections to the atonement are all anthropomorphic. They ignore the transcendental Unity in which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. They make God a person as if He were a man, and take all "passions" that are ascribed to Him as if they were ascribed literally. When the orthodox say that we are children of wrath, or that Christ has delivered us from wrath, those who object to the atonement think it awful. But is there really anything meant more than that being in antagonism with everlasting Order, we were liable to destruction till Christ delivered us? The "wrath" is a mere figure, which comes and goes with our conception of God as a person. as a The Pauline theology speaks of something which Christ did for man's redemption. This is put in so many forms that it is really impossible to take any of them literally. The cautious John Locke, after a careful study of St. Paul's Epistles, described the atonement transaction" between God and our Saviour, beyond our ken or guess. We may dislike the word "transaction." It is quite as objectionable as price, substitute, or satisfaction. But if we really believe that Christ did something to deliver men from evil, we may easily find a guide to the true meaning of the forms in which it has been clothed by the language of Pauline or popular theology. Perhaps the best form of expressing the atonement is that in John's Gospel, where Jesus says that He lays down his life for the sheep; or, again, where He speaks of his death as that of one dying for his friends. The same is well expressed by a modern writer, who says that Christ went among "the wheels of the disordered creation." We are quite justified in interpreting the language of the apostolic epistles as different modes of representing or illustrating the simple fact, that Christ in some way delivered men. The writers being Jews, and mostly writing for Jews, it is not surprising that they should take their language and their illustrations from the Temple service. It would doubtless be well if preachers would avoid language |