terpretation, and a begging of the question. I shall state a case in point, for the purpose of showing that it is So. Suppose that all the Presbyterians in the city of Glasgow, or all the Independents, were required to meet in their respective places of worship, to have a proposal submitted to them concerning a matter affecting the general interests of the association, such as the institution of a new class of office-bearers; suppose that the proposal received the unanimous approbation of those who were thus assembled; would not the historian, when recording this transaction, say with perfect truth and propriety, that the proposal "pleased the whole multitude of Presbyterians-or "the whole multitude of Independents (as the case might be) in the city of Glasgow? And were any person, when commenting on the language in which the transaction was recorded, confidently to affirm that the phraseology employed was a proof that all the Presbyterians, or all the Independents, in that large city, constituted only one congregation, and had assembled, on the occasion referred to, in one place; I am not sure but that Dr Wardlaw, grave though he be, would be among the very first to smile at the simplicity of the individual who would give such an interpretation. I submit then, with all due deference to my learned and ingenious brother, that his interpretation is equally at fault, when he adduces the phraseology employed in the beginning of the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles as an evidence, that all the professed believers in Jerusalem constituted only one congregation, and were accustomed to assemble in one place.

Dr Wardlaw refers, further, to certain expressions that occur in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, in confirmation of the point which he is so desirous to establish. It is there stated, in the account given of the meeting of the apostles and elders,

that "all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul;" and that "it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." From such expressions as these, Dr Wardlaw wishes us to draw the inference that all the members of the church in Jerusalem, both men and women, were present at the meeting held on the occasion referred to; for his avowed object, in making such quotations, is to prove that all the members of the church did meet in one assembly. In wishing us to draw such an inference from the expressions now quoted, he makes by far too large a demand upon our credulity. When it is affirmed that "all the multitude kept silence," it is certainly implied that there was a multitude present; and it is stated that they all kept silence. But it is not mentioned what was the size of the multitude, or who the persons were that composed it; and if Dr Wardlaw shall affirm that it must, as a matter of course, have included in it all the members of the church in Jerusalem, both men and women, it is a mere gratuitous assertion which he makes. When he adduces such a statement as this to show, that the church, though consisting of many thousands of members, was not too large to assemble in one place, it is utterly worthless as a proof of the point at issue. Again, when it is affirmed that "it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch," there is nothing connected with this statement that warrants us in believing, that the whole church was present when the resolution that is recorded was adopted. The plain and literal meaning of the statement is, that the resolution which the apostles and elders adopted was agreeable to the whole church,-it was one in which they concurred; but in what way this con

currence was expressed is not stated. Should it be alleged that the whole church must have been present on this occasion, because the brethren are mentioned, along with the apostles and elders, in the letters that were sent to the churches of the Gentiles; I observe, in reference to this allegation, that there is no intimation given that these brethren (whoever they were) all belonged to the church in Jerusalem; and much less is it intimated that they included all the members of that church. For I apprehend that even Dr Wardlaw himself will not contend, that the term brethren can with propriety be employed to designate the female portion of the members; and if this portion of the membership (which is generally the largest in most congregations) be excluded, how can it with truth be affirmed, that the whole church was convened on that occasion? My friend, therefore, is not warranted in quoting these expressions, on which I have now been commenting, as proofs that the church in Jerusalem, however numerous its membership, is always mentioned as assembling in one place; and must, of necessity, have constituted only one congregation.

There is another instance still which Dr Wardlaw adduces to prove the same point, and which requires to be noticed. The instance referred to is that contained in Acts xxi. 2022, where James and the elders, after stating to Paul that there were "many myriads" of the Jews who believed, added, that "the multitude must needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come." Dr Wardlaw obviously considers, that the "multitude" who were expected to assemble on this occasion, was to include in it the many tens of thousands of believers who were in Jerusalem; and if such a large assemblage as this could meet in one place, to hear the apostle give an account of his labours, this shows that the church

of Jerusalem, consisting as it did of tens of thousands, could and did meet in one assembly, for the ordinary purposes of religious worship. This is his argument. But he falls into the same error here into which he has fallen in the instances already noticed. He takes it for granted that the "multitude" was to consist of the "many myriads" who believed. This is where his argument fails him. For my friend must know, that, in reference to the population of a city, or the members of a large society, it is common and well understood language to speak of the multitude coming together, though not one-tenth or one-twentieth of those who are connected with the association should assemble. Is it not a case of frequent occurrence, that a public meeting of the inhabitants of Edinburgh or Glasgow is called to consider some questions in which they have a common interest? "The multitude must needs come together" to consider the matter. A multitude, and a very large one too, does meet; though, it may be, not one-twentieth part of the population has assembled on the occasion. Would it be fair to bring forward the phraseology, employed in describing this meeting, as a proof that the many myriads of inhabitants in these cities actually did assemble, or could assemble, in one place? Let me state another case that is probably still more in point. An intimation is frequently made in the Presbyterian and Independent Churches of these cities, stating that a public meeting will be held, to hear some distinguished missionary give an account of the success of his labours in some foreign land, from which he has just returned; and all are invited to attend. "The multitude must needs come together," to hear the glad tidings which this servant of Christ is expected to communicate. The meeting is held; the multitude does come together. But probably not one-tenth of the Presbyterians or of the Inde

pendents have been present on the occasion. Were any person to state the circumstance of such an intimation being given, and of such a meeting being held, as a proof that all the Presbyterians or all the Independents, in either of these cities-consisting, it may be, of many myriads -could assemble in one place for religious worship, and constituted only one congrégation, would he be regarded as drawing a legitimate conclusion from the language employed? Assuredly not. Yet this is the conclusion which Dr Wardlaw draws from premises exactly similar.

As it is affirmed, then, by the writer of the sacred narrative, that there were many thousands, yea, myriads, of believers connected with the church at Jerusalem and as it is nowhere affirmed that these myriads either did or could meet in one place for observing the ordinances of the Christian religionthe difficulty connected with the Independent hypothesis on this subject remains in all its force, notwithstand ing the efforts which Dr Wardlaw has made to remove it. The hypothesis is, that the many myriads of believers in Jerusalem constituted only one congregation; and the difficulty which lies in the way of this hypothesis being received, is the impracticability of such a vast multitude meeting in one place, for the purpose of observing the ordinances which Christ has appointed.

Dr

Wardlaw endeavours to cut the knot, by telling us that the inspired historian says they did meet. This is, no doubt, my friend's interpretation of the language employed by the in

spired historian; but I have endeavoured to show (I trust successfully) that his interpretation is not correct. He draws inferences, and makes statements, on these subjects, which the language of the inspired historian does not warrant. Finding the difficulty now referred to insuperable, we are shut up to the conclusion that the church in Jerusalem consisted of more congregations than one; and that those congregations were associated under a common eldership, of whom repeated mention is made in the sacred record. These elders are represented as meeting and performing acts of presbyterial government affecting the general interests of the association.

The object of the remarks which I have made on this part of the subject, is to show that the term church, as it occurs in the New Testament, is occasionally employed to denote, not a single congregation, but more congregations than one, associated under a common eldership; as appears to have been the case with the churches of Ephesus and Jerusalem. And though I do not consider the circumstance of congregations being thus associated as indispensable to their being regarded as Presbyterian churches-for it is sufficient to their being regarded as such, that they be under the superintendence of teaching and ruling elders—yet there is a sufficient warrant, in the apostolical precedents now mentioned, for their associating under a presbytery or common eldership, should they regard it for edification, or consider it a strengthening of their hands to do

So.

In a former article we have adverted to the general principles on which the scheme for the Supplementing of Stipends should be conducted. We now propose to direct

attention to the question, To whom should the working of the scheme be committed? the Synod's Mission Board? or, the various Presbyteries of the Church? The scheme pro

posed in the "Overtures does not dispense altogether with the service of the Board, but would take advantage of their counsel and co-operation; just as the existing scheme does not altogether dispense with the services of the Presbyteries, but would take advantage of their counsel and cooperation. The decision, however, in the one case is left to the Board, and in the other case to the Presbytery; -in either case of course subject to the review of the Synod. The question therefore really is, The Presbytery or the Board? The question is a most important one; indeed, we think the success of the scheme depends very much upon the answer; and in comparing the plan according to which it has been wrought hitherto, with that which is proposed in its room, we do not desire the new; we think "the old is better."

I. Our preference is dictated by a desire for the efficient working of the scheme. It is intimately connected with our views of the nature of the scheme to be wrought. If we could approve of a uniform stipend, irrespective of the circumstances of the minister and the congregation and the locality, it would be a less important matter in whose hand was placed the distribution of the benefit. The simplest of all plans would be, that which merely instituted inquiry as to the extent to which stipends fall below the mark, and forthwith transmitted the deficit in the form of a bank order. But the simplicity of such a plan would be its only recommendation. The "Income Tax" of this country is regarded as iniquitous, in confounding things that differ, and pressing equally on income from professional industry and income from property. The government apology, of the greater simplicity of the plan, is far from satisfactory, however true;

nor

can we doubt that the growing dissatisfaction will compel a change. To be equitable, the tax must be discriminating. This may

require nicer calculation, and more thorough investigation, a process more intricate and complex ; but still substantial justice demands that so it must be. We have formerly endeavoured to show, that the Supplementing Scheme must also discriminate. This will involve the necessity for thorough investigation, and even for delicate inquiry. And in the view of these, we press the question, shall they be left to the Presbyteries of the Church, or committed to brethren appointed by the Synod, to "wait on this very thing?" We cast no reflection on the ministers and elders of the Church generally, when we say, that they are not all equally qualified for the transaction of such matters; nor do we think we venture on a very bold statement, when we say, that the Synod may be able to select for such business, a committee so distinguished for wisdom, generosity, zeal, fidelity, and business habits, as would give greater promise of efficient management than any Presbytery in the denomination. May we not appeal to experience on this point? We know how much has been done-and how well done-by the Debt Liquidating Board! Is there any one who believes that the results would have been equally great and gratifying, if the working of that scheme had been assigned to the various Presbyteries of the Church? If we would have like success to attend this kindred labour of love, let us 66 go and do likewise."

It must be obvious that we are more likely to secure uniformity of operation, if the whole business is managed by one committee than if it were managed by the different Presbyteries. In the latter case there might be such "differences of administration," as would engender jealousy and discontent at once among those who furnished, and those who received the gift. We do not say that there may not arise such feelings even under the management of the Board; but surely it will be granted, that supposing