Who knows, my friends, but that our present impatience at delay will soon be rebuked and swallowed up by astonishment at success ? For great is the Truth, and it must prevail. J. WAYLEN. CORRESPONDENCE. THE ATONEMENT. DEAR SIR,-May I be allowed to criticise briefly "The True Theory of the Atonement," by Mr. J. Kirkman ?-some of which statements are, in my judgment, very unscriptural, and the theory itself exceedingly repugnant to my feelings at least, and should not I think, go forth to the world without some comment. No one can study the Scriptures without perceiving that God has been pleased to develop a theory of the atonement; the most systematic presentation of it is contained in the writing of the Apostle Paul, and the difficulty, it seems to me, is not so much to comprehend God's system of redemption, as to make our own notions of what is right and desirable to square with the Bible representation of it. The sacrificial character of the death of Christ is a doctrine repugnant to the philosophical mind, and very determined efforts are being made in various quarters to get rid of it; the more reason therefore that we should jealously guard so fundamental a truth. Mr. Kirkman in his Pamphlet (page 6 line 8) states, "The whole secret and principle of the atonement consists in the fact that our sins are the victim (the italics are Mr. Kirkman's). "Our sins the victim." What a shocking statement! There is no requirement of the Levitical law so stringent as that the victim offered in sacrifice must be clean, spotless, without blemish (see Leviticus xxii. 20, 25). And yet, according to Mr. Kirkman's theory, God is asked to accept sin, with all its defilement and hideousness, as a sacrifice from the hands of men and as an offering of a sweet-smelling savour. Again, another characteristic of the law of sacrifice is that the altar constitutes the Lord's table, and the sacrifice a basis of reconciliation and mutual fellowship; the Lord's portion was consumed by fire on the altar-the priest's portion was eaten (see Leviticus vii. 1-6). Paul, commenting upon this fact (1 Cor. X. 15-22), says, "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of dæmons." "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ?" If then a victim, blind, broken, or maimed was an abomination unto the Lord, how could the victim sin, which Mr. Kirkman regards as a concrete reality (see page 7 line 20), constitute a sacrifice in which God could delight and upon which both God and man could feed and have fellowship? the idea is most horrible! Beside this, the theory that sin is the victim is in direct contradiction to the words of Holy Scripture. "Christ hath put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. ix. 26)," for this He did once when He offered up Himself" (Heb. vii. 27), "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. x. 10). The victim, therefore, was Christ Himself, and not sin. Mr. Kirk man further quotes Canon Farrar as saying. "Now is it anywhere said that Christ saved us from the penalty of our sins." There must surely be some misapprehension here. What is the penalty of sin? Death! "The wages of sin is death." Does not Paul (2 Timothy i. 10) say, "Christ hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel"? To deliver a believer from death (not from dying, but the state or condition of death), is not this to save him from the penalty of sin? Again we are told that Canon Farrar declares, "There is no warrant for the notion that He (Christ) was punished in our stead." What then means Paul's statement (Galatians iii. 13), "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Deut. xxi. 23)? or, again, the statement of Peter (1 Epistle ii. 24), "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree"? How in the face of these Scriptures any one can doubt that Christ "saves from the penalty of sin" or "that He was punished in our stead," passeth my comprehension! The fundamental basis of the atonement consists in the necessity, firstly and pre-eminently, of satisfying the claims of Divine justice. The reasoning of the Apostle Paul (Rom. iii. 19-31) is conclusive on this point, and leaves nothing to be desired. "Just, and yet the justifier of the ungodly." If these two apparently conflicting elements could not have been harmonized, there would have been no salvation for men. It is vastly more important that God's holiness and righteousness should be maintained unsullied than that man should be delivered from the consequences of his own disobedience. Hence the extraordinary spectacle of God the Father sacrificing His only beloved Son for human. redemption. The Conditionalists have done good service to the Church and the world in exhibiting the great truth of Life only in Christ: I should be sorry to see this testimony marred by a departure from the Scriptural doctrine of Christ's vicarious sacrifice or the imputation of the Saviour's righteousness to the believer; which is denied in some quarters. I am, Dear Mr. Editor, RESPECTING RESURRECTION. DEAR SIR, I felt quite pleased on opening this month's RAINBOW to see a letter by Mr. Maude "Respecting Resurrection," and in perusing it was none the less gratified at its friendly tone, but, having often admired both the ingeniousness and ingenuousness of his literary productions, I felt rather disappointed on finishing the reading of his present epistle, at its reduced argumentative power as compared with the author's previous polemical products; and in trying to account for the reduced results, one has not far to seek for the cause, as Mr. Maude closes by informing us that he was arguing "from the standpoint of Conditional Immortality, which he did not now believe in." This certainly looks like choosing an erratic course in pursuit of truth, when by following on a straighter line, he might sooner have reached a more satisfactory goal. I hope that he will now give us Scriptural authority respecting resurrection, from his own standpoint. It will be interesting and may be highly instruc tive; at any rate, it will be more ventilation of a deeply important question, viz., do the Scriptures instruct us that all the dead will be raised? On that question I selected four clear proofs from the New Testament in the affirmative, but Mr. Maude has just touched upon one of them. Can the other three be set aside by doubts about their genuineness, or by the supposed certainty of Greek idioms? if so, then the arguments would need to be less indefinite than those brought forward to prove that Jesus of Nazareth had not any brother, as the construction of Greek left it arguable that the term brother might only mean cousin or other near relative. Now, if such is the case, it appears to me to prove one of two things, either that the Greek language is so barren in words that it fails to discriminate between the meaning of the term brother, and that of cousin, or that the knowledge of its professors is extremely limited; and as we cannot believe in the ignorance of the latter, we need no longer regret our entire want of education in the former, unless we wish to act upon the hint that an old Scotchwoman gave to her very argumentative son": Jock, my man, ye ken it will be a grand thing for you to be a minister and a Greek scholar, for you will then be able to prove everything that ye like best, and maist suited to your circumstances." Meanwhile, we can only recognise apparent deficiencies in Greek construction, or differences of opinion regarding its proper interpretation, and the broad hints of an old Scotch woman, as side issues apart from the main question, brought forward for 1riendly discussion by those who are anxious to find out what the mere "THE LORD'S DAY." DEAR SIR,-With regard to the above questioned designation of the First Day of the Week, I beg leave to draw the attention of your correspondent to the following facts. While in Old Testament Scripture there is, from the syntactical nature of the Hebrew, no difference between the rendered phrases—— "The Lord's Day," and "The Day of the Lord," there is a marked difference between the said phrases as they appear respectively in the New Testament. And the Translators have rightly indicated the distinction by rendering V TĨ Kupιakй wεpa—the Lord's Day, and ἐν τῇ ἡωερα τοῦ Κυριου-the Day of the Lord. The former, which occurs but once, is of itself a sufficient indication that the Lord's Resurrection Day is meant thereby (John xx. 19-23, Acts xx. 7-12). The latter expression, which is of frequent occurrence, has properly reference to the Day (i.e., period) of the Lord Jesus in connection with His Second Advent. The Jews never raise any objection as to the designation of the First Day of the Week, any more than they do about their own Sabbath being called Saturday (a heathenish name); but about the appropriation of the Lord's Resurrection Day by Christians as a Day of Rest. This objection, however, has been answered in a former number of the RAINBOW. Faithfully yours, PAUL WARSCHAWSKI. NOTICES. REMARKABLE CONFESSION.-From Dr. Andrew Clarke, who had been unable to come to the Church Congress and speak on this subject "The Harmony of Science and Faith," as he had intended, there came in his letter of apology the following contribution to the discussion: "I take advantage of this note to express the hope that in dealing with the relation of science to religion some one will point out what I have not myself seen pointed out-First, that there is nothing absolute in the whole objective world, no absolute standard of mass, quality, or duration; that the knowledge of an absolute primitive weight of atoms is impossible; and that what we call the ordinary weight of a body is not a thing of itself alone, but a product of the body by which it is attracted, the distance between them and the disturbance occasioned by other invisible but active forces; secondly, that the assumption constituting the fundamental axiom of modern physics, that all true explanations of natural phenomena are mechanical, is incompatible with demonstrable facts; thirdly, the progress of chemistry is becoming more and more irreconcileable with the theory of the atomic constitution of matter; fourthly, that there is no law of physics, not even the law of gravitation, without great and growing exceptions, and no theory of physical phenomena, not even the undulatory theory of light, which is not becoming more and more inadequate to explain the facts discovered within its area of comprehension; fifthly, that therefore the boasted accuracy and permanency of so-called physical laws and theories is unfounded, that very probably the greater part of the so-called axioms of modern physics will be swept away as untenable, that the theories of natural phenomena apparently the most comprehensive and conclusive are merely provisional, that at present finality in this region is neither visibly attainable nor clearly conceivable, and that after all there may be methods of spiritual verification which within their condition, scope, and use may compare not unfavourably with the method so confidently depended upon in physical research." "I. C." writes: "I send the enclosed (5s.) to assist you in the blessed work of showing Christians that their Father in heaven is not the dreedful Being He is so commonly declared to be by those who ought to know better." "J. B." says: "Our heart-breathed prayer is that the Lord of life and glory will abundantly reward and bless you, and sustain you under your laborious work in bearing witness for Him, by the RAINBOW, and in many other ways." "J. D. remarks: "To be emancipated from the baptized paganism of modern Christianity is a mighty deliverance! How sweet and precious is the glorious Gospel of the blessed God as revealed in His Word, and what a gracious privilege to trust one's self entirely to the guidance of His Holy Spirit!" "The Design of the Incarnation." We are very thankful for the words of welcome given to our Salisbury sermon by many readers. We have now the pleasure to intimate that friends who wish to circulate it, may have it at the very small price of one shilling per doz. or five shillings per 100, direct from the publisher, Mr. Cyrus E. Brooks, Malvern Link, Worcestershire. THE RAINBOW: 3 Magazine of Christian Literature, with Special Reference to the Revealed Future of the Church and the World. DECEMBER, 1882. MARCHING SUNWARD. THE last month of another year! So flies Time! We do well to take note of it, and to lay upon its swift wing some proof that we are not afraid to see the arrival of its successor-Eternity. Fidelity in stewardship, whatever be the nature of the trust, is clearly the condition of the MASTER'S "Well done!" when He comes to commence the golden age of inspired poetry and Christian hope. Let us judge ourselves, each for himself, in this matter, and the verdict, if humbling, will be healthful, by the grace of God. With deep gratitude to all our subscribers and friends who have, in any way, helped to keep this Magazine alive, we are glad to say that, under the Divine blessing, the year's labours have not been in vain. Notwithstanding difficulties, with which we shall not trouble our friends, the testimony has gained ground; and notwithstanding the hostility of bitter uncharitableness, ever prodigal in invective and misrepresentation, the truth continues to make progress. The cry of the ancient sage, wearied by the wretched paganism that surrounded him, was-"Light! light, more light!" Our object during nineteen years' work in the pages of this publication -not to mention many volumes and pamphlets in previous years— has been to show that we have light, divinely precious, from Him who is "Light," but that it has been put under the bushels or beds of tradition, paganism, and corrupt theology, so as, to a great extent, to deprive men of its lustre and guidance. "All things that pertain to life and godliness" have been freely given to us; but the source and nature of that life-wn, the perfect antithesis L L |