Good and bad omens, lucky and unlucky days, and particular hours of the day and night for commencing a journey and returning home, are carefully observed by the Sikhs, and by all other classes in the Punjab, whether engaged in the most momentous enterprises, or in the common concerns of life. Prior to the field being taken with an army, a visit of ceremony being paid to a distant friend, or a pilgrimage being made, the Muhoorut, or auspicious moment for departure and return, must be predicted by a pundit, and the pundit, on his part, is guided by the jogme or spirits, which pervade every quarter of the compass. To avert the pernicious consequences likely to ensue from unfavourable prognostics or dreams, charity is recommended, and in general given very freely on such occasions, by natives of rank and wealth. These, and many hundred other absurd prejudices and superstitious notions, are carried into the most solemn affairs of state. It is no uncommon practice of Runjeet Singh, when he contemplates any serious undertaking, to direct two slips of paper to be placed on the Grunth Sohil, or Sacred Volume of the Sikhs. On the one is written his wish, and on the other the reverse. A little boy is then brought in, and told to bring one of the slips, and whichever it may happen to be, his highness is as satisfied as if it were a voice from heaven. A knowledge of these whims and prepossessions is useful and necessary. They obtain under varied shapes and in diversified shades, throughout the Eastern world, warping the opinions, and directing the public and private affairs, of all ranks in society, from the despot to the peasant, from the soldier in the battle-field to the criminal at the tree of execution. It must be a pleasing duty to every public servant to endeavour to gain the confidence, and win the affection of the chiefs and people of a conquered country, by the impression of his acquaintance with, and seeming regard to, their peculiarities and propensities, and in the superintendence and management of their concerns to know the bents by which he may seize and work upon them. To touch upon such feelings, without giving offence, demands, on all occasions, the exercise of discretion, temper, and judgment; but, when successfully done, it is easy, by a kindly manner and persuasive address, to lead the misguided and ignorant from error and antiquated usages, to appreciate the advantages attendant on intellectual improvement, and the benefits resulting from science and moral feeling. In the Sikh States, the administration of civil and criminal justice is yested in the sirdar, or chief. Crimes and trespasses, as in the Middle Ages, are atoned for by money; the fines are unlimited by any rule, and generally levied arbitrarily according to the means of the offender, whose property is attached, and his family placed under restraint to enforce payment. These amerciaments form a branch of revenue to the chief, and a fruitful source of pecula tion to his officers, who too frequently have recourse to the most harsh and cruel means to elicit confessions, and extort money for real or imaginary offences. He who gains his point pays his Shookurana, or present of grati tude, and he who is cast pays his Jureemana, or penalty. The wealthy may secure justice, but the indigent are likely to obtain something less. The larger the bribe the more chance of success. A case where the right is clear and undeniable is often allowed to lie over, that the present may be augmented. All officers under the chief, and employed by him in districts and departments, follow his example; but are ultimately thrown into a bora, or dungeon, and required to refund, and, when they have satisfied the cupidity of their superior, they are generally permitted to resume their functions, honoured with the shawl, as a mark of favour. Capital punishment is very seldom inflicted. The most incorrigible culprits are punished with the loss of either one or both hands, and deprivation of nose or ears; but mutilation is rare, for whoever has the means to pay, or can procure a respectable security to pay for him, within a given time, may expiate the most heinous transgressions. On the commission of a daka, or burglary, a quzzakee, or highway robbery, the chief, within whose jurisdiction the act had been perpetrated, was called upon to make restitution; and, should he decline, the chief whose subject has suffered, resorts to the lex talionis, and drives off several hundred heads of cattle, or retaliates in some way or other. This summary method of obtaining indemnification for all robberies attended with aggravating circumstances, is a measure of absolute necessity, as many of the petty chiefs, their officers and zumeendars, harbour thieves, and participate in their guilty practices. When a petty theft is substantiated, either through the medium of a Muhur-khaee, or the production of a Mooddo or Numoona (the confession of one of the thieves, or a part of the stolen property), the sufferer has generally, as a preliminary, to pay the Chuharum, or fourth, as a perquisite to the chief, or his thanadar, ere he can recover the amount of his losses. Independent of this, the Muhur-khaee, or approver, generally stipulates for a full pardon, and that no demand shall be made on the confessing delinquent for his Kundee, viz., any, or such, portion of the property as may have accrued to him as his dividend of the spoil. This share of the spoil becomes chargeable to the other thieves, and, on settling the accounts, it is distributed equally amongst them. In all cases of stolen cattle, it is an established rule, when the SooraghKhoj, or trace of the footsteps, is carried to the gate, or into the fields of any village, the zumeendars of that village must either show the track beyond their own boundary, and allow the village to be searched, or pay the value of the cattle. The rules of succession to landed property in the Sikh States are arbitrary, and are variously modified in accordance to the usages, the interests, and prejudices of different families, nor is it practicable to reduce the anomalous system to a fixed and leading principle. A distinction obtains in the canons of inheritance, between the Munjhee and Malwo Sihks, or Singhs; the former are so termed from the tract situated between the Ravee and Beeah rivers, from which they originally sprung, migrating thence and extending their conquests through the Punjab, and into the Sirhind province, where, being of a military and predatory character, they soon conquered for themselves a permanent possession. The Malwa chiefs are the Puteeala, Jheend, and Nabarajahıs, and the Bhaee of Khytul. The three first named are descendants of a common ancestor, named Phool, who was choudhuree of a village near Balenda, and are from him often collectively styled the Phoolkeean. The progenitor of the Bhaee of Khytul, having rendered some service to one of the Sikh Gooroos, the appellation of Bhace, or brother, was conferred upon him as a mark of distinguished approbation: and the persons of all the Bhaces are consequently held in a degree of respect above their fellows. The practice of succession to property, both real and personal, amongst the Manjhee Singh, is by Bhaec-bund and Choonda-bund; the first being au equal distribution of all lands, forts, tenements, and moveables, among sons, with, an extra or double share to the eldest, termed " Khurch-Sirdaree," assimilating to the double share in the law of Moses. Choonda-bund is an equal division among mothers for their respective male issue. When a Manjhee Singh dies, leaving no male offspring, his brothers, or his nephews of the full blood, assume the right of succession, to which the widow or widows become competitors. According to the Shasters (if they may be considered applicable to public property and chiefships), the prior title of the widows is held; but the Sikhs, with a view to avoid an open and direct violation of a known law, have a custom termed Kurawa or Chadurdula, which obtains in every family, with exception to those of the Bhaees. The eldest surviving brother of the deceased places a white robe over, and the neeth, or ring, in the nose of the widow, which ceremony constitutes her his wife. This practice accords with the Hindoo and Mosaic laws, and acts as a counteractive to the many evils attendant on female rule. If the free-will of the widow were consulted, it is scarcely to be doubted, she would prefer the possession of power, and the charms of liberty, to the alternative of sacrificing her claims to her brother-in-law, and taking her station amongst his rival wives. Judging from the masculine disposition,-want of modesty, and of delicate feeling, which form the characteristic feature of Sikh females, necessity, and not choice, must have led them to yield to the adoption of an usage, which must often be repugnant to their natures, and disgusting to their thoughts. (To be continued.) NEWMAN STREET FREE CHURCH SUNDAY LECTURES. BY P. W. PERFITT, PH. D. THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT. CONSIDERING the immense importance attached to the Christian doctrine of Atonement, in the popular theory of salvation, it will not be thought either out of place or wonderful that so many bulky and learned treatises have been composed by learned divines, with intent to unravel and expound its mysteries: but it is surprising that even now its peculiarities are not definitely agreed upon. The Christian world professes to believe, but not to understand it. It endorses, but does not explain. Neither has it positively settled in what sense it is to be understood. Every Church has its own method of exposition; its own theories of Repentance, Regeneration, and Justifying Faith. In ordinary conversation it is the practice to speak of it as being so simple that even a little child can comprehend it, but in discussion, and especially when they are engaged as disputants who have carefully studied the subject, it is not only readily confessed, but is urged as a defensive argument, that even the most powerful intellect is incapable of understanding it; so that instead of attempting, or even desiring, to comprehend, we are called upon to accept it in faith, and to bow, as believers, in all humility of spirit. It would be as much out of place as it would be useless were we now to inquire how these contradictory notions are to be harmonised; so that, instead, of pursuing a profitless course, I shall turn from them to discuss three more important questions-Whence came the theory of an Atonement? What are the prevalent Atonement theories? Why are we constrained to reject them? And in answering these it will be possible, if not to exhaust the theme, at least to present its peculiarities in a light sufficiently clear for enabling all persons who may desire it to pursue the study into its minuter details. The first question, "Whence came the theory of an Atonement ?" has been answered in various ways, according to the foregone conclusions and dogmatic notions of the speakers; one party maintaining that, "as it could not have been con"ceived in the human mind it is to be traced to a Divine revelation;"* another maintains that it has no heavenly but a purely human origin, and, consequently, is to be traced to its root by the light of history. The former writer (and he is supposed to be a great authority upon the subject) quotes from Delaney, to the effect that whatever practice has obtained universally in the world must have obtained * Magee on the Atonement, ? lvii. + Dobson on the Church,p. 78. its authority from some dictate of reason, or some demand of nature, or some principle of interest, or from some powerful influence or injunction of some Being of universal authority. Now, the practice of animal sacrifice did not obtain from reason; for no reasonable notions of God could teach men that He could delight in blood, or in the fat of slain beasts. Nor will any man say that we have any natural instinct to gratify in spilling the blood of an innocent creature. Nor could there be any temptation from appetite to do this in those ages, when the whole sacrifice was consumed by fire; or when, if it was not, yet men wholly abstained from flesh; and, consequently, this practice did not owe its origin to any principle of interest. Nay, so far from anything of this, that the destruction of innocent and useful creatures is evidently against nature, against reason, and against interest; and therefore must be founded in an authority, whose influence was as powerful as the practice was universal; and that could be none but the authority of God, the Sovereign of the world; or of Adam, the founder of the human race. If it be said of Adam, the question still remains, what motive determined him to the practice? It could not be nature, reason, or interest, as has been already shown; it must, therefore, have been the authority of his Sovereign; and had Adam enjoined it to his posterity, it is not to be imagined that they would have obeyed him in so extraordinary and expensive a rite, from any other motive than the command of God. If it be urged that superstitions prevail unaccountably in the world, it may be answered that all superstition has its origin in true religion, all superstition is an abuse, and all abuse supposes a right and proper use. And if this be the case in superstitious practices that are of lesser moment and extent, what shall be said of a practice existing through all ages, and pervading every nation? It is quite amusing to notice how adroitly the learned author omits to notice all those features which unveil its true origin, and assumes all the data upon which he bases his own mistaken theory. It is quite true that no “reasonable notions of God could teach men that He could delight in blood, or in the fat of slain beasts;" but does it not still remain to be proved that He does delight in them, or that He ever did so? The notion is unreasonable; but does the Church acknowledge the invalidity of unreasonable principles? If so, then what becomes of the Atonement ? And can we imagine that all the ideas formed of God by the early races were perfectly consistent with those of our more cultivated reason? The truth appears to be that man did not begin with sacrifice, but with burnt offerings-with gifts prompted by gratitude; and it was only after the lapse of many ages that the complete theory of expiation through sacrifice came into vogue, and this was not the child of any supernatural forces. It was the natural child of experience and habit. The earliest men, who looked out of themselves into the profound and mysterious all of things, and the wonders of life and space, were incapable of conceiving either the earth, or the stars, or man, as we conceive them. They were limited in vision through being deficient in knowledge, and it was only when they had risen out of the lower spheres of animal existence, and had accumulated knowledge, that it became possible for them to conceive of God as a Being existing apart from and superior to themselves. But even then, when ages had elapsed, and various forms of faith had been submerged beneath the rising tides of truer perceptions, they thought of God only as a bigger and more powerful man; all the passions of humanity were ascribed unto Him, and it was but natural for men to believe that as they did unto one another so also must they do unto Him. And in what other way did they deal with each other to compensate for wrong actions than to pay a penalty-to give of their flocks or goods, and thus procure pardon for their sin? Not only did they make restitution, but they gave also of their wealth, and when the idea arose in their minds that in their actions they frequently sinned against God, the same rule was applied, and sacrifice became the means of compensation-the source of forgiveness. From the admitted premises the conclusion was logically worked out; so that although reason may not have taught them to believe in sacrifice, it is quite certain that they believed themselves to be perfectly in accordance with sound conclusions. * Magée on the Atonement. Illustration, No, lv. Here, however, it will be well to recall to mind the facts which prove the universality of the sacrificial ideas. It appears clear enough in various passages in the Old Testament, that the people of Canaan sacrificed their sons and daughters to Moloch,* and to Baal. They also sacrificed to Dagon, but the victims are not particularized. Their other gods are named Chemosh, Chiun, Milcom, and Ashtaroth, with the still more comprehensive appellation, the Host of Heaven. But there is no sacrifice connected with their names; we merely learn that the Israelites were but too ready to join in the idolatries and pollutions of their neighbours: "they served their idols, which were "a snare unto them; yea, they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils, and "shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood."§ So it was in the classic worship of Greece and Italy. A white bull was offered to Jupiter, a black to Pluto, and the horse to Neptune; the same valued animal to Mars; bullocks and lambs to Apollo; oxen, goats, and sheep, indiscriminately, to various of the gods; ewe-lambs and calves, and pregnant sows, to others. Sometimes, however they added victims on which they could have set no value, except so far as they contributed to their amusement in the chase. The wolf and the hawk were sacrificed to Apollo and Mars; and the latter sometimes enjoyed the addition of magpies and vultures, dogs and asses. The altars of Venus were seldom stained with blood, but those of Diana frequently reeked even with the blood of man. The Lacedemonians offered her human victims; but, as they advanced in civilization, they, spared the lives of their children, and merely flogged them until her altars were sprinkled with their blood. The people of Taurica set no value on the sacrifices they offered her; they were merely the strangers who were shipwrecked on their shores. But, probably, they conceived that in her eyes they were of value. Menelaus, with an equal consideration for his own feelings, and disregard for thosc of others, no doubt, held a similar opinion with respect to the predilections of THE WINDS. They were for a time unfavourable, and he could not depart from Egypt. Herodotus tells us that he seized two children of Egyptian parents, and offered them in sacrifice to those adverse gods. It may be presumed that they breathed on him more auspiciously, otherwise the historian might have had to record that the Egyptians had returned the favour he had conferred on them by sacrificing himself to Isis or Osiris, Apis or Anubis. Agamemnon, however, did not spare his own daughter at Aulis, to obtain a favourable breeze to waft his armies to Troy. Apis also rejoiced in valuable sacrifices. A white bull was slain at his altar, and the head of the victim was cut off and cast into the river, accompanied by the following execration; "May all the evils impending over Egypt, but particularly over those who devote this sacrifice to thee, be averted on this head."|| This latter form involves the whole theory of the Atonement; the bull was to bear pain and calamity in place of human beings bearing it, and, to all intents and purposes, that is identical in thought with the Christian theory. The form differs, but not the fundamental idea. True, indeed, that, according to some writers, this is to be understood as referring, not to sins which had been committed, but to those accidental evils, such as sickness and losses, which overtake us in our careers; but, even if this were so, the argument is not changed, because the idea was that such evils were but punishments for sins previously committed. But to answer that class of theologians who contend that the sacrifices of the Pagan world had nothing in them to justify us in speaking of them, as offered in the character of an atonement for sin, it is necessary to refer to the atonements offered by the Greeks and Romans. In the opening of the Illiad we have a description of the praying of Apollo's priest for vengeance upon the Grecian army, because its chiefs will not restore his daughter, whom they had taken prisoner. Apollo, faithful to the earnest seeker, answered his prayer: * Leviticus xviii. 21; xx. 2-5; Jeremiah xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii. 10.– |