Christ, as involving a departure from the requirement of justice that the Almighty should treat each one according to his own merits; while they admit the goodness of God, and also the statements in Genesis iii., that, according to His arrangement, temporal death and condemnation came upon mankind in consequence of Adam's sin. Now, if the apostle had shown that God's justifying men through Christ was just a parallel case, in point of the alleged departure from the principles of justice, with that recorded in Genesis iii., it would have been amply sufficient to silence all such objections of his opposers. It would be like an advocate, in a case where there is no express law to direct, bringing as a precedent the decision of the highest court in the land, and showing that his client's cause is precisely similar to the one which had been thus decided. When this is shown, any judge or jury would say it is enough. But the apostle does more than this. He not only shows that the two cases which he examines are parallel, but appealing to the best feelings which his opponents cherished respecting the goodness of God, he shows them that as these were true, they must acknowledge that the cases were not only parallel, but the case of God's justifying men through Christ has vastly more to recommend it to their acceptance than the other; (verses 15, 16, 17). He shows them with all possible clearness that in the same degree that God loves to do good to his creatures rather than evil; in the same degree that he desires occasion to forgive them rather than to condemn them; in this same degree is his doctrine of justification less liable to objection than the doctrine which they admitted. Where, now, are these Jewish objectors? They must be forever silent, or abandon their own creed.

In conclusion, we are very far from claiming entire freedom from error for the foregoing interpretation; but the claim it would modestly put forth is that of a hope that it has substantially fulfilled the important conditions of a true interpretation of this passage. These are, that of being congruous to the context; requiring no meaning which is doubtful or is not well established by usage, to be given to any word; not requiring any questionable modification of the established meaning of

any word; showing the appositeness of the common meaning of those words which have been considered most difficult to interpret; and that of not being justly charged with obscurity; conditions which, we fear, have not been entirely fulfilled by other interpretations.

ARTICLE VI.

1. Records and Minutes of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1704-1837.

2. The Presbyterian Magazine. Articles on the History of the Presbyterian Church in America.

3. A History of the Division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. BY A COMMITTEE OF THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

4. The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review. October, 1834. ARTICLE VI. The Act and Testimony.

"TRUTH IS THE CHILD OF TIME."-John Calvin.

We do not know that we have a new theory of the division of the Presbyterian Church, but we certainly think that we have a vantage-ground for its consideration that no man can have who has not given his days and nights to the Records of our Church, and to all the minute as well as more general aspects of its entire history. All the analyses we have seen, on both sides, seem to us imperfect, and mainly for the reason mentioned, that the sketchers did not stand at the point from which they could take in the whole landscape. Very many things have been well said concerning the division, but in our judgment the central principle has not been reached.

We have observed, for example, a tendency to mistake our view of the first schism of 1741, as though we had laid the main stress upon the question of the degree of strict

ness in subscription to the Confession of Faith. So mistaken. is this, and yet so strong is the tendency towards it, that we must attribute it to a preconceived view of the case, with which our's seems to conflict. The reader will see what our theory really is, by thoughtfully considering our title, The Spirit of American Presbyterianism. The essence of our view does not lie in the fact that there was difference of action between the two divisions in one particular, as for example, subscription, but that there is a difference in their spirit, running through the entire series of their acts, visible everywhere. Not that it is an irreconcileable difference, but a real one, that needs compromise, arrangement, charity. Whenever a fine, clear, manly, comprehensive, affectionate disposition prevailed, the Church moved on harmoniously together. When difficulty arose and party-spirit narrowed everything, the two divisions. fell back upon the ever-existing diversity and schism was the

consequence.

We will illustrate this point, which is of vital consequence, from the schism of 1741. There were three exponents of the difficulty. They were: 1. The revival, new measures, intrusion into parishes, animal excitement, harsh language towards those who opposed the work, &c. 2. Learning. The old side insisted upon the strictest view as to education, and, as was alleged, were not so careful about evangelical piety in the candidates. The new side placed piety first, and education second. 3. Doctrinal views, and the subscription by system or by ipsissima verba.

We dwelt so much upon the last of these particulars, because it was disputed, whilst the others were not. We think every one must be satisfied that we have made out our case on this point. Running now through the whole of these three occasions of quarrel, the reader will observe that there is this one idea. One division looked to safety of doctrine, preservation of the statu quo, the preventing of innovation, and evinced a determined spirit to resist all attempts to promote religion different from those to which they had been accustomed; in other words they were rigid. The other division did not disregard doctrine and order, but they looked at the perishing souls of men, they

felt that the Church had a work to do, large and mighty, and that to accomplish it demanded progression as well as conservatism; in a word, they were liberal.

When a historian, therefore, says that the schism of 1741 was caused by the revival under Whitefield, we reply, that that was the occasion of bringing into strong relief the essential characteristics of the parties, causing them to look more at the things about which they differed than at those concerning which they agreed. So when learning is assigned as the key-note to the difference, we say that the thoughts of the parties found excitement and expression touching learning; and so in relation to doctrine and subscription, the rigidness of one, making much of the form, and the liberality of the other, making much of the essence, found scope in this.

The case seems to us very plain. If one present a mass of facts to a man and a woman, they will hardly look at them alike, and it will be so throughout their whole life; the difference is organic. It will be so if he present them to an Asiatic and an Anglo-Saxon American; the difference is of race. Try a German and a Frenchman; the diversity will appear not in one thing, but in the entire character. Every philosopher is in essence either Platonic or Aristotelian; every man is by nature mainly progressive or conservative. It is superficial, we think, to look for one occasion, or one of the unfoldings of development to account for the schisms in the Presbyterian Church; the cause is to be found in two varying organisms. This we have indicated through our entire discussion, in various forms. We now propose to apply the principle to the schism of 1837.

Various causes have been, with great confidence, assigned for the division. We will analyze the more prominent of them, to show that they mistake symptom for disease.

It has been asserted recently, with great energy and positiveness, as the main cause of the division, that one party wished to carry on benevolent operations through ecclesiastical boards, and the other through voluntary associations. We have been a good deal surprised that even some clear thinkers should have urged this idea. Is it not perfectly evident that these institutions are mere machinery? that

they look to something ulterior? that a scaffolding is not a house? The Church, following the orders of her divine Master, desires to preach the gospel to every creature. But what religion shall it plant? Shall it be the evangelical faith generally, or the peculiarities of its own denomination? Here is scope for great diversity of view. The Church of Christ ought to be one, but unhappily it is not. Taking a Presbyterian position, let us see with whom we might co-operate, and in what things. Where the object is general, of which the most signal example is the Bible Society, there is no difficulty among those who agree on a common version of the Scriptures. So, to a great extent, in regard to the objects of the Tract Society, the Sunday-School Union, and other institutions whose aim is not ecclesiastical. The main difficulty arises when we approach the proper church sphere. The ministry ordained and the Church planted at home or abroad, must be, unlike the Bible or Book or Tract, or even the Sabbath School in many instances, of some one denomination. The root of the difficulty, of course, is the division of the Church into sects; the question is whether it is possible for one or more denominations to work honestly and kindly together, not in general Christian work, but in that which directly influences and controls ecclesiastical results. Certain Secretaries or Executive Committees are able to use the benefactions of the Church, given with an entirely unsectarian feeling, to plant a Church in Illinois, or in India, of a special denominational character. They can do it because they control its incipiency. It is quite disingenuous to deny the power of doing this. The question is whether it is in human nature to do it honestly and impartially.

Now we have no doubt that in the ten years, we will say, from 1835 to 1845, these two sets of opinions were honestly held. On the one hand, it was believed that Presbyterians and Congregationalists could work kindly, honestly and impartially together in the Christian field, although the fruit to be garnered was ecclesiastical. It was believed that such was the growth of Christian feeling and of enlightened public sentiment, such the confidence produced by extensive acquaintance and constant sympathy, and such the agreement in all that was of very much