And still, the darker grows the night,
Emits a brighter ray."

III. THAT THE TRIAL OF THE DELAY IS FULLY COMPENSATED IN ITS REALIZATION. "When the desire cometh, it is a tree of life." The longer and more anxiously you wait and toil for a good, the higher the enjoyment when it is grasped. Hence the delight of Simeon, who waited for the consolation of Israel when he clasped the infant Jesus in his arms, and said, "Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace." A realized divine hope is, indeed, "a tree of life," and especially so when realized in the pure heavens of God. Hope in fruition is the Eden of the soul. "Oh! how blest

To look from this dark prison to that shrine,

To inhale one breath of Paradise divine;
And enter into that eternal rest
Which waits the sons of God."

BOWRING.

(No. XCVIII.)

THE WORD.

"Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded."-Prov. xiii. 13.

THE world abounds with words. Every day the air is loaded with oral words; the libraries of the world are crowded with written ones. Some human words are unspeakably more valuable than others. The word that expresses the noblest heart, the strongest intellect, the loftiest genius, the highest intelligence, is the best human word on earth. A human word is at once the mind's mirror, and the mind's weapon. In it the soul of the speaker is seen, and by it the soul of the speaker wins its victories over others. But there is one word on earth incomparably and infinitely above all others. It is emaphatically the word-the word of God. The text teaches us two things concerning this word.

The

I. THIS WORD DESPISED 19 RUIN. "Who despiseth the word shall be destroyed." Who is the despiser of this word? The scorner, the rejector, the unbeliever, the neglector, the trifler. Why is ruin involved in despising this word? First: Because he who despises, rejects the only instrument of soul - salvation. Gospel is the word of salvation. "Unto you is the word of the salvation sent." The only word that can save. It is the only balm for the diseased soul. It is the only quickening power for the dead. Second: Because he who despises it brings on his nature the condemnation of Heaven. Most tremendous guilt is contracted in despising this word. "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh, for if they escaped not," &c. (Heb. xii. 25.)

II. THIS WORD REVERENCED IS BLESSEDNESS. "He that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded." The word is a "commandment," it is an authoritative utterance, and to fear it, in a scriptural sense, is to have a proper practical regard for it. First: Such a man is rewarded in its blessed influences upon his own soul. It enlightens, purifies, cheers, ennobles. Second: Such a man is rewarded with the approbation of Heaven. "Unto that man will I look, who his of a broken heart, and contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." What a wonderful thing is the word! Man's character and destiny are determined by his conduct toward it. How few treat this word as it ought to be treated in this age. In proportion to its aboundings, men seem to despise it. There was a time, in Edward the First's reign, when one volume cost £37, to gain which, a labouring man would have to work fifteen long years.

(No. XCIX.)

THE LAW OF THE GOOD.

"The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death." -Prov. xiii. 14.

I. THE GOOD ARE RULED BY LAW. "The law of the wise." What is law? There are many definitions; many most unphilosophic, some most conflicting. The clearest and most general idea I have of it is-rule of motion. In this sense all things are under law, for all things are in motion. The material universe is in motion, and there is the law that regulates it. The spiritual universe is in motion, and law presides over it. "Of law, says Hooker, there can be no less acknowledged, than that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world. All things do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power; both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy." But what is the law of the goodthat which rules them in all their activities? Supreme love to the supremely good. It is not a written commandment, but an all-pervading, inspiring spirit, called in Scripture, "the royal law," the

"law of liberty," the "law of the Spirit."

II. THE LAW THAT RULES THE GOOD IS BENEFICENT. "The law of the wise is a fountain of life to depart from the snares of death." First: This law delivers from death. The word death here must not be regarded as the separation of body from soul, but as the separation of the soul from God. This is the awfullest death, and supreme love to God is a guarantee against this. Secondly: This law secures an abundance of life. "The law of the wise is a fountain of life;" a fountain gives the idea of activity, plenitude, perennialness. The law of the good is happiness. The happiness of the true soul is not something then and yonder, but it is something in the law that controls him. In the midst of his privations and dangers, John Howard, England's illustrious philanthropist, wrote from Riga these words, "I hope I have sources of enjoyment that depend not on the particular spot I inhabit. A rightly cultivated mind, under the power of religion, and the exercise of beneficent dispositions, affords a ground of satisfaction little affected by heres and theres."

"If solid happiness we prize,
Within our breast this jewel lies;
The world has nothing to bestow,-
From our own selves our joy must flow."

THE GREAT PROPITIATION.

Replicant.-In answer to Querist No. 16, p. 352, Vol. XVII., and continued from p. 237, Vol. XX.

Let us now consider:

III. The atonement of Christ as explained by the theory of substitution.

There is no explanation which is more popular among what are called Evangelical Christians than this; and, in fact, no explanation is supposed to be satisfactory, unless it embraces the idea of substitution.

Let us suppose the existence of an imaginary ideal man, representing the human race; a man in whom every other man finds himself fairly and fully mirrored. As some men are thieves, the ideal man must be a thief; and for a similar reason must he be guilty of every crime and vile deed and purpose of which any member of the human race is guilty.

God, as a just ruler of the universe, must punish every form of transgression, and, therefore, must the eternal wrath come down in showers upon the guilty head of this ideal man. The sword of justice is unsheathed, and God, the righteous King of all, is about to plunge it in the sinner's heart. But just at this point, according to the theory of substitution, Jesus Christ comes forward and offers to enter the sinner's place. God is to regard Him as if He were a sinner, though He is innocent, and to deal to Him the fatal stroke. The ideal, representative man, moves out of

his place, and Christ enters the place of danger, when in a moment God strikes the victim, and the innocent suffers for

the guilty, or instead of the guilty.

As it would be wrong to punish the innocent, it is supposed that, by agreement, Christ is reckoned guilty. This, of course, is not true, as He is innocent, but is mentioned as a legal fiction. How that fiction may act upon God-how He can look at things in any way except as they are, it is difficult to explain, and these theorists seldom care about expla nation. In ninety-nine pulpits out of every hundred, in the Church and among the leading denominations of Dissenters, throughout the British Isles, this is represented as the Gospel.

I heard one of the most popular preachers of the day put the matter thus, in commenting on the words: "He tasted death for every man." He said, "You and I were at the bar of justice, and Justice (i.e., God as a just being) was there to enforce his demands. There we stood with the cup of poison in our hands. Justice (ie., God as a just being) insisted on our drink. ing the last drop. But Jesus then appeared in the room, and He said, 'may I drink it for them?' God consented, and the Saviour took our cups of poison from our hands, and, blessed be his name, He drained them all." The sermon was on the crucifixion, and those scenes were painted up, which made one feel as if he had been to see a public execution at

Newgate. The impression produced by the discourse, as a whole, was, that Jesus Christ was a most kind being, but as for God, He was just like the Jew in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice," heartless and exacting-would have his pound of flesh. Had the sermon been preached to men of mind, or even savages who had not been intellectually blinded by their education, some would have shouted the praise of Christ, and all would have disapproved of God; but these Christians in England seem, at the time, to think of Christ's love alone, so that the unmerciful nature of God, as represented in the discourse, has not the same power of destroying souls by leading them to hate Him. Yet these notions, which make it impossible to love God, because they deprive Him of every loveable quality, are supposed to be the Gospel, which, on the contrary, shows God's love to man.

Many suppose the substitution of Christ to have a reference to the punishment of sin, and yet it is not supposed that the punishment which He endured was the same as that which should have fallen upon the sinner. This is manifestly a fault in the theory.

Some of these theorists are of opinion that our Lord not only was treated as a sinner, but actually that He became a sinner. Luther expresses himself thus:"And this, no doubt, all the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was or could be in the world. If it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest."-Luther on Gal. iii. 13.

Dr. Candlish, in that book of

his, entitled, "The Fatherhood of God,"-in which the most glorious subject within the reach of a creature's thought is made the most meaningless fiction upon which any bewildered imagination has fallen speaks of our Lord's work and character thus:-"He becomes one of us, one with us, as fallen creatures, guilty, corrupt, condemned." (P. 93.)"The incarnation of the Son of God is his entering into our relation to God, as a relation involving guilt to be answered for, and the wrath and curse of God to be endured." (P. 95.)

The theory of substitution involves the following particulars-1. That Christ offered to God to suffer punishment equal to that which man, as a sinner, or all men, as sinners, deserved. 2. That God accepted this offer, though He knew that the innocent, and not the guilty, would suffer; and, 3. That He inflicted on Christ a punishment equal to that which all guilty men deserved. These particulars enter into every conception of the theory of substitution, but in some this also is involved-4. That Christ became a sinner-that by submitting to be treated as a murderer, He became guilty of murder. If this had been possible, then the punishment He endured would be only what He deserved on his own

account.

Let us now examine the ground of this theory. Is there any foundation for this idea in either Scripture or reason? The whole Scriptural argument turns upon the meaning of the word, "for," in such expressions as these, "Christ died for us," "died for the ungodly," &c. These expressions, it is said, denote that Christ died in our place died in the place of the ungodly. And yet there is confessedly no foundation for this, but the ambiguous meaning of the word for-rep. I have fully dis

cussed the meanings of this word before. (See HOMILIST.) Even if it be granted that rep (for), means, in some cases," in the place of," it must be confessed that in many cases it means on account of," and "for the good of," &c. Hence, it is manifest that no stress can be put on the meaning of Tep, for. Thus, the Scriptural argument for the idea of substitution vanishes into thin air.

It fares no better in the province of reason, for then, God and Christ must be different parties, one punishing, and one being punished; and if each be God, you have two Gods, one inflicting pain upon the other. This is the old Pagan Mythology revived.

The Scriptures speak much of the forgiveness of sin. No one can read the words of either prophets or apostles, without being struck with the importance attached by them to this glorious doctrine; but if sin has been punished, no matter how, or when, or where, if sin has been punished according to law, whether in the sinner or in the substitute, it matters not, then it cannot be forgiven. The forgiveness of sin is a mere fiction, and if these theorists are right, the sacred writers must have been lost in hopeless error. For one, I would rather accept the errors of inspired men than the theories of substitutionists.

There is yet another difficulty in relation to this theory, which seems to many thoughtful minds insurmountable-a difficulty involved in this question: Is it right as a matter of mere justice is it right, on any condition, or under any circumstances whatever, to punish the innocent for the guilty? "Oh!" says Bishop Trench, and others, "this world is full of vicarious sufferings." That may be, but the examples given are nothing to the point.

My friend may become a debtor through his own folly, and I may deprive myself of comforts to pay it for him. But this case is no parallel to the work of Christ, for the latter is an arrangement accepted by a government, the former is the isolated act of an individual. If I asked Justice if I might pay the debt, Justice would reply, No. In my act I go beyond justice; but Christ is represented by the theory of substitution, as agreeing with Justice to die instead of man. I might prevent a man from going to prison by paying the fine imposed upon him by the magistrates, but if he be sentenced to go to prison, at the assize, no substitution I can offer will be accepted.

Now, if Justice demands the punishment of sin, does it not equally demand its punishment in the transgressor? Nay, it seems to me that Justice seeks the sinner rather than the sin; the sin is sought only to regulate the measure of the punishment. It must be carefully remembered in all these considerations that there is an essential difference, too, between being punished for crime, and being the victim of misfortune.

Let me take a case-a case exactly in point-which will show the absurdity of the theory of substitution. Dr. Pritchard poisoned his wife and her mother in the most brutal and unmanly way, and for the vilest purpose. He deserved no pity. He had a daughter -his eldest child-who clung to him to the last. Neither his crime, nor his cruelty, nor his degradation, could either break or slacken the cords of affection which bound her heart to his. Now, supposing that previous to his execution, this kind daughter had offered to be executed in his stead, would it have been right on the part of