The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-06-26

crucified Son. And this procedure Is
called salvation through the atone
ment of Jesus Christ Through the
atoning blood of our Lord. And this
doctrine of the atonement is so i'm
portant, they tell US, that no man can
be saved without believing it. This
is the fountain filled with blood,
drawn from Emanuel's veins" And
no human being will be saved except
plunged beneath that food; for
thereby, and thereby only, he can
close all his guilty stains"
Now let us inquire for the morality
in this kind of an adjustment of fam
lily difficulty. If the father requires
bis children to do right we should
certainly expect him to do right him
self. We should expect him to be
satisfied only with what is right,
nay with what is right and
just and merciful. Well, because
there is trouble among the sinful,
will the Lord, therefore, require the
righteous to be put to deathi If man.
kind were ungodly and rebellious
and lawless, would it be satisfac-
tion to the Father if they proceeded
further and put Jesus to death?
Then what virtue or morality in the
shedding of his blood? Do the
Scriptures anywhere represent that
those were good men who took part
in the crucifixion? Does it appear
from the Bible that it was good
deed to hang an innocent man upon
the cross? Were the parties any the
less than murderers7 But how should
murder please God? Did he not
command, Thou shalt not kill?
Thou shalt do no murder7 In the
killing of Jesus did not his enemies
break one of the great command
ments of the decalogue? How could
that be moral act which breaks the
moral laws And if the crucifixion
was not a moral act, how could it
please Coda How could it satisfy
God? How could that be a substi-
tute for justice, which, of itself, was
the most fragrant injustice7
Moreover, can it be made to ap-
pear that the crucifxioH was mer-
ciful deed? If the Father had to do
with it; if the Father was satisfied
with it, and pleased with it; if it was
so acceptable that by reason of it the
Father condoned the offences of all
other offenders, then how could God
be merciful Coda Do the churches
pretend to tell us that God is angry
with murderers every day, and yet
here was a murder, the killing of
Jesus, which was so sweet in the eyes
of God, that he is willing to forgive
every other murder because bloody
men put his own son to death. What
a CHASTITY monstrosity is this concep-
tion!
AS to its moral effect is any human
being to be made better by believing
thus of the principles and conduct of
the Holy One7 If human bloodshed
and agony of innocent victims make
the Deity SO happy, and change his
countenance from frowns to smiles,
then with what grace shall we re-
buke the Turk and the Spaniard for
delighting in blooda Of all the chill
ing profanity which has issued from
blasphemous mouths of men, know
of none so rank, SO shocking and hid
eous as the doctrine of salvation by
blood-the doctrine of pardoning all
other sins because this greatest of
sins has been committed. Any doc
trine which makes the malicious she'd
ding of human blood pleasing to the
Deity is demoralizing to man. Any
doctrine which assigns virtue to mad
ness and passion, exalteth vice among
the people.
Turn now to the saying of Paul,
that 1--WE have received the atone
ment." In reality the crucifxion is
not moral element in our reconcilia-
tion to the Father. 1t would be
monstrous God who could not be at
peace with his own children, except
the best one he had was put to death
before his eyes. Men were reconciled
to God before Jesus was killed. In
every nation he that feareth God and
worketh righteousness is accepted
with him." The atonement does not
imply the cross. The atonement of
Jesus does not signify the killing OF
Jesus. The atonement of Jesus is
the at-one-ment of Jesus with the
Father. Our atonement is our
at-one-ment with the Fsther. 1t is a
reconciliation and satisfaction with
the Father. This is the atonement in
which Universalist believes.
Now. has this doctrine anv moral