redeemer, who was required by law to repair the injuries of his unfortunate kinsman; or if he were murdered, to avenge his blood. Christ, by assuming our nature became our our kinsman Redeemer, and in this character "gave his life a ransom for many." But though, as the law required of him, after he voluntarily came under it, he was made "a curse for us;" yet the "forgiveness of our sins," is declared to be "according to the riches of his grace." While therefore this method of justification has no tendency to diminish the believer's conviction of personal unworthiness and ill desert, it enables him, when approaching the throne of grace, to offer the plea of mercy and justice harmoniously blended in the cross of Christ.

2. A second point of comparison is their relation to the atonement. Justification and atonement are closely connected, and our views of the former must necessarily modify our views of the latter. If justification "is not a legal transaction," the atonement is not legal, and Christ in dying for us did not suffer the penalty of the law. This is the author's view of the atonement; a view which to our minds, leaves mankind in a hopeless condition. He of course believes it to be otherwise, and he claims, as on the previous point, an advantage over the legal view. Here the advantage claimed is, that the Gospel can be preached and salvation offered to all men. This advantage however is more in appearance than in reality. Though the legal view involves the doctrine of substi tution and definite atonement, it does not involve its insufficiency; but it holds and teaches the inexhaustible "fulness" of Christ for all who will "come to him." And hence no difficulty is felt by those who adopt this view, in inviting all to embrace the Saviour, or in carrying out to the letter his last command, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." Arminians feel the same difficulty in offering salvation to all men, in view of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, which our author holds and defends, as the latter feels in view of the strictly vicarious and legal obedience and sufferings of Christ. We think their objection has no force; and yet, in our opinion, it is as valid in the one case as in the other.

3. Our third point of comparison is their relation to faith in Christ. When a sinner under conviction for sin, feels the necessity of faith in the Redeemer, what causes his anxiety, except the consciousness of guilt and condemnation, as a transgressor of God's law? And when "being justified by faith, he has peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ," what is the source of his peace, except a believing and spiritual perception of the Saviour, as his deliverer from the curse of the law, by his vicarious obedience and death? Can anything less than this satisfy his conscience, or give him comfort and hope? And is it not this, which makes Christ appear so suitable and precious?

The relation of faith to the atonement corresponds also with the Old School doctrine. The believer's faith does not view Christ merely as a Saviour in general, but as his Saviour. In his first efforts to believe, while groaning under the burden of sin, his fear is, not that the Gospel provision is too definite, but too general, to meet his pecessities. The invitations and promises of God's word he perceives are general; but how, he asks, can his faith so appropriate them to himself, as to make them available for his own salvation? Religion is now with him a personal matter, and he anxiously inquires, can Christ's blood avail for me, who am the chief of sinners? Does he love me? and will he receive me? It will doubtless afford him encouragement to be told that the merits of Christ are sufficient for all sinners who come to him. But this general assurance becomes specific and definite in his mind, before he exercises saving faith; i. e. it becomes a transaction between himself and his Saviour of a personal character, an individual concern, and his act of believing an individual act, as much as though he was the only sinner on earth. This was Paul's experience. "The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Mark, "who loved me, and gave himself for me." His faith rested upon this precious truth, and it was the source and support of his spiritual life. Whatever may be our views theoretically, concerning the extent of the atonement, whether we regard it as general or particular, it is always contemplated in the latter aspect, when we are in the act of receiving it by faith.

"The beauty of Scripture," said Luther, "consists in pronouns." Upon which Macfarlane remarks, "O! blessed above compare is the man who can use the 'my' and the 'me' of appropriation in reply to the 'thy' and the 'thee' of the covenant. Is it not a valuable attainment, to feel personally interested in the great salvation? It is, and such is the attainment of every appropriator. His faith takes mercy to itself, and the feeling that it is rich in that mercy is a foretaste of heaven. There is no impropriety in such a selfishness as this; would God every sinner had it!-for then every sinner would himself be saved, and the selfishness of sin would flee away before the rising orb of universal love."

If, therefore, the doctrine of "redemption through Christ's blood," is truly expressed in the experience of the sinner, when he receives Christ as his Saviour, that is the Scriptural view of atonement and justification, which embodies in it as its leading elements, substitution, vicarious sacrifice, and imputation, as those terms have been employed and understood by standard Calvinistic writers for the last three hundred years.

After all, we freely admit that the tract possesses excellences, which we hope, notwithstanding its errors (as we must regard them), will do good. The style is plain, and the illustrations easy to be comprehended. In these respects it is well adapted to popu

lar reading. We think, however, he carries his efforts to make the subject perspicuous too far, by attempting to divest it of all mystery, and conveying the impression that every principle involved in the doctrines of atonement and justification finds analogies among men, not in judicial proceedings, but in the ordinary and daily transactions of life. His illustrations appear to have been selected for the purpose of showing this. While we should endeavour to make the subject as clear as practicable, we should not forget that God himself has caused it to be recorded, that "without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh;" and further, "which things the angels desire to look into;" implying that neither men nor angels can fully comprehend the sublime theme of man's redemption.

WESTMINSTER.

OUTLINE OF AN ARGUMENT FOR THE VALIDITY OF PRESBYTERIAN POLITY.

No. I.

THE question, Where is the true church? or, Which is the true church? presupposes the question, What is the true church? We cannot wisely enter on any search until we have defined the object we seek. Before deciding upon the claims of any particular denomination of Christians to be recognized as a church, or the church, we must have ascertained what the Scriptures describe and require a church, or the church to be.

On this point two rival theories are now contending for the mastery throughout Christendom.

I. The one theory replies to the question, What is the true church? It is an ecclesiastical organization, analogous to the

The Scriptural idea of it is exhausted in the notion of some vast institute, or polity. Romanists and Anglicans are theorists of this class.

II. The other theory replies to the same question-It is a Christian society, which may be conceived of as existing independent of organization, just as natural society may be conceived of, as existing independent of the state. The Scriptural idea of it only includes the notion of institute, or polity, without either beginning, or terminating in that notion. The great body of Evangelical Protestants are theorists of this class.

But as all society tends to organization, and as Christian society requires organization, and, in fact, possesses a very diversified organization, the advocates of this latter theory must determine how we are to decide what shall be its most valid form and structure. In respect to this question, three opinions may be maintained.

1. One opinion is, that ecclesiastical organization is a mere fixture of expediency, like any secular polity which is of human contrivance.

2. Another opinion is, that ecclesiastical organization is a matter of positive enactment, like the Mosaic polity, which was of Divine contrivance.

3. The remaining opinion is, that ecclesiastical organization is and can be exclusively neither, but is rather a Providential growth out of Christian society, embodying Scriptural principles, and apostolic precedents, yet adapting itself to particular ages and conditions of the world.

According to the first opinion, neither the writings nor the acts of the Apostles need be consulted, but only human reason and experience. According to the second opinion, their writings contain an inspired constitution of church polity, minutely prescribed and authoritatively enjoined; and their acts are to be regarded as the infallible inauguration of that constitution. According to the third opinion, their writings afford only the principles upon which an ecclesiastical organization should be constructed, and their practices serve but as precedents to illustrate the application of those principles.

Connecting these three opinions with that maintained by the first class of theorists, we find there are four different criteria proposed by which we are to decide upon the validity of any particular form of church polity.

1. By the degree of legitimacy it can establish in the succession of its officers from the primitive officers.

2. By the degree of its correspondence with a model visible organization, founded by the Apostles, and minutely prescribed in Scripture.

3. By the degree of its expression, through an organized form, of an ideal, invisible society, depicted in Scripture, and more or less completely exemplified by the Apostles.

4. By the degree of its consistency with reason and experience. Now, in view of this statement of the question, there are two methods of arguing the validity of Presbyterian Polity.

One method would be, to fully canvass these several theories; and, adopting that one which could alone be regarded as tenable, to advocate the claims of Presbyterianism on its grounds, and by the help of its principles. This reasoning might have the advantage of being the more logical and thorough of the two; but it would require very nice analysis and extended discussion.

The other method (and the one of which we propose to sketch an outline) is to leave these theories unexamined and unchallenged; and, successively applying their proposed criteria, to show that Presbyterianism satisfies the demands of each of them, not only as well, but better than their own avowed advocates. This reasoning will be perfectly consistent with the other; and may, besides, have

the advantage of being more thoroughly convincing, inasmuch as it will enable us, without surrendering any position of our own, to enter the enemy's territory, and vanquishing him on his own ground and with his own weapons, at length remain masters of the entire field of controversy. C. W. S.

THE PIOUS POOR AND THE GOSPEL MINISTRY.

men.

POVERTY, in the sense of beggary, is scarcely applicable to pious The observation of King David, accords with the general history of the Church in all ages: "I have been young, and now am old, yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread." But though that extreme want implied in the term pauperism, is seldom found except in connection with vice, either directly or by natural consequence, it does not follow that piety is usually associated with wealth. There is a wide difference between absolute penury and overflowing abundance; and though many noble examples of devoted piety and active usefulness are found among the rich, the great body of God's people occupy a position between the two points above indicated. They are able to support their families with comfort and respectability; but are nevertheless comparatively poor; i. e., they possess no overplus beyond the supply of their ordinary wants, and the calls made upon them for the support of the Gospel, the common school, and those several benevolent objects to which all the members of the Church are expected to contribute. They can educate their children in the various branches of an English education, as taught in the common school, and can sometimes send them a few months to an academy or high school; but are unable to incur the expense of giving them a liberal or college education. This is what we mean by pious poor in the caption of this article, and from such families God has seen fit, to a large extent, to call his ministers.

By comparing the Minutes of the General Assembly for 1854, with the Annual Report of the Board of Education for the same year, it will appear that the number of candidates reported to the Assembly by all the Presbyteries, is 390, and that the number reported by the Board is 342; showing that all the candidates in our church, except 48, as far as officially reported, belong to the pious poor. These statistics, however, we believe, do not present the exact state of the case. Many of those candidates, whose parents are able to pay the whole expense of their education, do not place themselves under the care of the Presbytery, until they are prepared to apply for licensure, and hence are not reported to the General Assembly. The number of students in our Theologi