وو

seal of his covenant, lie down together and are covered with the dust. This is one side of the argument; the reason springing from the dignity and resources of the Godhead. But there is another side; the reason springing from the begun immortality of the patriarchs. This is contained in the words "for all," or rather, "for they all live to him." There is something in the very act of living to God, which ensures continued life. Spiritual life in the patriarchs was the germ of immortality. The Saviour does not say, "they lived; but, "they live to him." The distinction of tenses is here of no importance. The life once begun still maintains itself, and shall never cease. Thus the eternal covenant of God, which on his part secured their immortality; on their part also, by their vital assent to, and participation of it, involved the same pledge. It has been well said, that intellectual life involves something like a pledge of its own perpetuity, and that we recoil from the idea of a great mind, like that of Newton, returning to nothing, and mingling with the earth. But there is something in holiness which requires immortality even more than mental greatness. It would be still more strange that a spirit which had known and loved God should sink into nothing, than one which had merely known his works, and ranged, on however grand a scale, through the universe of matter.

Here, then, is the Saviour's twofold argument; the covenant of God, as an outward privilege, secured the immortality of those admitted to it; the consent of the patriarchs to the purpose of that covenant, viz. their living to God, as an inward disposition, was a further guarantee of the same blessing.

Such is a brief exposition of this

* A number of similar comments on the verse made by Jewish tradition have been collected by Lightfoot (Hore Talmudice, on the verse); but a careful consideration

There are

interesting argument. some who have ventured to speak of it as conceived in the subtle spirit of the Jewish rabbis; and as an example of that vicious style of interpretation, which forces out of Scripture what it does not contain. The appeal must be made to candid and pious minds, whether it be not as just as it is moral and grand. "What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord?" It has been argued by Archbishop Whately, that the text in Exodus, on which this comment was offered, was not designed to reveal the doctrine of a future life to the children of Israel-certainly not; nor was any part of the Old Testament designed to reveal it with the same clearness as the New. All that is contended for, is, that it contained it, and was designed to reveal it to the more reflective and considerate of the pious under the ancient economy, though it does not appear that any one anticipated the Saviour in this inference.* While we preserve the great distinction which Scripture itself has made between the two dispensations, in regard to the full disclosure and practical influence of the doctrine of a future life, we must maintain that the Mosaic doctrine, which itself came down in the rudiments from the beginning, had folded up in it the germ of the Christian revelation on this subject; and that the light gradually became more cheering, even under that unpropitious economy, until the day dawned, and the day-star of immortality arose.

The Saviour's comment is at once an example and an encouragement in the work of Scripture interpretation. It is of the same deep and spiritual cast, of which we find specimens in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews; and teaches us that we must profoundly consider the will convince any one, that these are either radically defective in bringing out the idea suggested by the Saviour, or posterior te his age.

moral relations of God to his creatures, as brought out in the history of his dealings with them, if we would penetrate into the hidden meaning of the sacred oracles; and it warrants us to hope that much is yet undiscovered in the written word. The doctrine -drawn by him out of these words, had lain in them unsuspected for 1500 years; and how much is there in the great volume of inspiration which may yet have been missed by all expositors! The Bible is not as yet much better explored than the world; and even where the surface has been run over, there are many -excavations to make under-ground. While we are thankful that all which is of vital importance lies on the surface, let us at the same time search as for hid treasures. Let us set an end to its darkness, and search out all its perfection. But let us withal prosecute the study with humility and prayer, remembering the vast difference between the master and the disciples, and our absolute need of his Spirit to tread in his path of discovery in Scripture exposition.

Above all, let us remember that the doctrine here taught is of as great importance, as the argument is interesting which was employed to prove it. Let us enter into covenant with him, who is ready to say of every one of us

as of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, "I am thy God."* If we desire immortality, let us seek it in union with God. We may have, we must have an immortality as men; but if we have not also an immortality as saints, the other will be a curse, the worst of curses, and not a blessing. Let us begin to live to God, and then our true life shall begin and never end. We read of a pagan hero who was dipped in a sacred river to render him immortal. Here is a pure river of the water of life, which has more than this fabulous virtue. We read of a line of kings, whose body guard was called the immortal band, because the blanks made in it by death were supplied as soon as made. Here is a higher band over which death has no power the band of patriarchs, prophets, and saints of every age, the train and retinue of the great King. Let us join their ranks, and then death shall never separate us from them or from their Head; rather it shall convey us to their immediate society-to the bosom of Abraham and all the faithful; and in the company of the spirits of these just men made perfect, and with them the twelve tribes of the spiritual Israel, we shall instantly serve God day and night, and wait for the full promise of immortality. Berwick.

J. C.

THE most important discussion at the last meeting of the Synod, of the United Presbyterian Church, was that which related to the supplementing of stipends in weak congregations. A report of that discussion was published in a separate form, "with Remarks and Suggestions for the Fu

* Olshausen, in his Commentary, denies that God is the God of all believers in the same sense as of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and endeavours to show, that the title is given only to them as heads of the temporal

It is gratifying to remember, that, in the discussion in the Synod, there was only one opinion on the importance of the subject; and we hope that the same; feeling prevades the church at large, that as Christians, as Presbyterians, as Voluntaries, and as voluntary and presbyterian Christians, at such a time as this, there is a very urgent call for the generous support of the weaker congregations of the denomination in the supplementing of the stipends of their ministers. The discussion was, with very inconsiderable exception, cordial and gene rous. The motion put to the vote did not differ materially on any principle of the case. The division was a close one, the preference for the motion which carried being indicated by the smallest possible majority. In these circumstances, it is hoped there is evident token of a disposition to look at the debateable points, with the single desire of ascertaining how the great end may be most effectually sccured.

1

The overtures presented by the presbytery of Selkirk, and the presbytery of Paisley and Greenock, referred mainly to these two pointsthe extent to which the supplement should be carried, and the party by whom the scheme should be wrought. We confine ourselves at present to the first of these the extent to which the supplement should be carried. Let it be observed, that according to the scheme proposed in the overtures, as well as the scheme now in operation, there may be exceptional cases -cases in which, from peculiar circumstances, congregations may not come within the working of the scheme. We mention this merely for the purpose of remarking, that where both plans admit of exceptions, it is not fair to burden the one more than the other by reference to these. The two schemes differ in two things. The existing scheme does not fix on a uniform stipend, up to which all that come within its working shall be

supplemented, but says it may range, as in fact it does range, between L.80 and L.100. The overtures recommend a uniform stipend—that all who receive supplement should receive it up to the same point. The other point of difference is this, the existing scheme raises no stipend above L.100, including the value of manse where it is possessed; the other scheme proposes L.100 exclusive of a manse, and that where there is no manse the stipend should be L.110. Uniformity and elevation are the characteristic features of the scheme recommended by the

overtures.

Ere we pronounce on the two schemes, we think it proper to say a few words on the nature of the supplement. Do we err in designating the scheme one of the benevolent schemes of the church? in saying that these supplements are the gifts of the church's beneficence? the expression and fruit of brotherly kindness and charity? We are afraid that if the claim be rested on other grounds, we shall not reach the consciences, nor enlist the sympathies, nor draw forth the offerings, of the church.

Let us take the case of a larger congregation succouring a small one, in the way of supplying all that is lacking on their own part for the maintenance of a gospel ministry, and there are cases in which L.30, or L.40, or L.50 are given in this way. Is it not evident that the ground on which their offering is given, is different from the ground on which they contribute for the support of their own ministry? The appeal in the one case is made to justice, in the other to benevolence. The neglect, in the one case, would be thus rebuked, "now walkest thou not equitably;" in the other case, "now walkest thou not charitably." Nor is the case materially altered where, instead of one large congregation succouring a smaller one, the larger congregation cast in their offerings into a common fund, from which the

When we have settled the nature of the supplement, we seem, in some measure, to have prepared the way for settling the principle on which it should be distributed. Shall the fund be so distributed as to make the stipend equal in amount in all cases? On this point our answer is very decided. Deliberately and emphatically we say, "Certainly not." Our reason is, not that the fund may not be so ample as to allow this; for, if the principle were a right one, of course we ought to equalize, as far as the funds would go, whether it received a uniform stipend of L.80, or L.90, or L.100. But it is the principle involved in such equalizing that we reject; the apostle's example seems here to come to our help, in reference to which it is said, "distribution was made to every man according as he nad need." If it were a legal provision for the clergy, it might be otherwise; for the law does not take cognizance of the variety which exists in family circumstances and local situations; and therefore, wherever a stipend falls below the legal minimum, it is supplemented from the consolidated fund, without any inquiry into the circumstances either of the people or the minister. He may be wealthy, and they may be numerous, but these things are nothing accounted of;" if the stipend from the teinds be less than the minimum, the consolidated fund must supply the deficit. But christian benevolence is enlightened and discriminating. It must inquire into the circumstances of those whom it is expected to assist, and distribute its gifts with due respect to the variety which distinguishes them. It cannot be doubted that there are cases in which a minister with L.80 a-year is, to all the purposes of comfort and respectability, as well provided for as another minister in the same circum

66

stances with L.100 a-year. Now, if

must not be disregarded.. But it is disregarded by the principle that would supplement all up to the same amount. Summum jus summa injuria; or, being freely translated, the greatest equality would be the greatest inequality.

We pass now to the other point of difference between the two schemes. The overtures propose elevation as well as uniformity; that all that are supplemented should be raised to L.110, or L.100 and a manse; whereas the existing scheme not only ranges from L.80 upwards, but has in no case exceeded L.100, inclusive of the manse. It is proper, however, to mark the terms under which the scheme is now wrought. "It is most desirable that the stipends of the ministers of weak congregations should be raised to at least L.100; and that as many shall be supplemented to this extent as the circumstances of the congregations, and the funds placed at our disposal, shall warrant." Suppose the fund for this purpose to be kept entirely separate, and that it was so abundantly sustained as that it could afford to raise every small stipend in the denomination up to L.100-our previous statements have shown, that we would not reckon it wise thus to apportion it. We take the diversity of circumstances into account, and with that same fund we would have some raised to L.110, while others might receive only L.90; and, if the fund were enlarged, we think it would be wise that there should be a proportional enlargement of the supplement; so that, if it were sufficient to give a stipend of L.110 to each, we would have some raised above, and others left below that sum; the distribution so ordered, that he who gathered much should have nothing over, and he who gathered little should have no lack." But as to the elevation itself? Would we have such a scale adopted as would make the average of the stipends supplemented L.110? We

delay the answer till we have made distinctions. It is one question, what amount of stipend is it desirable that a minister should have? and another question, up to what point should a stipend be raised, even if it should be by the public funds of the church? If the former of these were the question, and we were to express ourselves on the general subject of the support of ministers, as expressive of the value of their labours, claims of their learning, talents, and usefulness, we would certainly fix on a much higher figure than that which prevails in the United Presbyterian Church. It is altogether disgraceful that in churches of 300 to 400 members, ministers should be paid at the rate of L.100, with or without a manse; and that in churches of 600 members and upwards, there should be stipends of L.150 and under. Nor can we understand why presbyteries should inquire into the question of stipend at all, and yet allow such things to go on unrebuked. We reckon that there are few things more needed, at present, than a faithful and earnest appeal to our churches on this same subject.

But when the question is, up to what point should the stipend be raised out of the public funds of the church? we have to consider not only what we might reckon an appropriate stipend in itself, but what is the state of the treasury, and what are the prospects of enlisting general sympathy, so as to secure its being largely and constantly replenished? According to the working of the present scheme, about L.4000 a-year will be necessary; but, according to the more enlarged scheme, L.6000 would be necessary. And the great question is, will the more generous proposal be so appreciated, as that these additional funds may be expected, in order to realize it? We wish we could anticipate such a result. But looking at it in the light which the average stipend of the church sheds on it, or

in the light which the response given to the claim of the existing scheme sheds on it, we are conducted to a different conclusion. It may be said, indeed, that the existing scheme has failed to enlist general and strong sympathy for lack of generosity; and that a more liberal scheme would secure a more liberal support. But if some have unworthily held back their offerings, because the scheme was not so liberal as their ideas of propriety, is there no reason to fear that, if the more liberal policy were adopted, some would unworthily hold back their offerings, because it exceeded their ideas of propriety? We submit, at least, that we have no such evidence of the prevalence of the liberal spirit as would warrant the undertaking of the additional responsibility,as would expose the church to the humiliation of beginning to build without being able to finish,—and would expose the ministers of our smaller congregations to the distress of having their hopes enkindled only to be quenched.

The generous spirit which the proposed scheme breathes, its cordial regard for brethren labouring with exemplary fidelity on very inadequate support, and the confidence which it reposes in the liberality of our congregations, are all pleasing. We wish the generous spirit were universal; we will do our best to foster and extend it; but, in the mean time, we do not think it would be wise, or safe, to go further than is warranted by the original resolutions of the Synod, and the terms of its last decision.

By that decision, it was remitted to the Missionary Board "to consider by what means the fund for the home objects of the Synod may be increased, so that the operation of the board in reference to these may be vigorously prosecuted;" and, with this remit before us, and the acknowledged importance of the subject, we must be allowed to express our conviction, that