and the Church as a whole? Our object is to show that the obligation rests upon the Church as a whole. To prevent misapprehension, however, it is proper to state, that nothing so visionary as that every minister in every part of the country should receive the same salary is contemplated."

His line of argument in support of this view we regard as unanswerable, and may be judged of from the following passages, which form the body of the paper, and which our readers will find well worth perusal :

"The first argument in support of the position here assumed, is drawn from the nature of the Church. If, according to the fundamental doctrine of the Independents, believers are the materials of a Church, but a covenant its form; if a number ef Christians become a Church by covenanting to meet together for worship and discipline; if a Church owes its existence to this mutual covenant just as a city owes its existence to its charter, so that we may as well talk of an universal city as of a Church catholic, then there is no room for the discussion of this question. . . But such is not the scriptural,

it is not the Presbyterian idea of the Church. It is not the idea which has been living and active in the minds of all Christians from the beginning.

"It is universally admitted that those who are united in the same visible Church owe certain duties to each other. In other words, there are certain duties which rest upon them as a Church. It is also admitted that the support of the ministry is one of those duties. If, therefore, the Church is nothing and can be nothing beyond a single congregation, then that duty, and all others of a like kind which rest upon the Church as such, are limited to the bounds of the congregation. The obligation of obedience does not extend beyond the list of their fellow-worshippers in the same house. The obligation to support the ministry is confined to their own immediate pastor. But if the Church consists of all believers, then the whole body of believers stand in the relationship of Churchmembership, and the duties of obedience and mutual aid in the discharge of all ecclesiastical obligations rest on the whole gnited body; that is, on all who recognise each other as members of the same Church. It follows, therefore, from the scriptural doctrine of the Church, that the obligation to provide the means of grace for the whole Church, rests on the Church as a whole, and not merely or exclusively on each separate congregation for itself.

"The second argument in support of this doctrine is derived from the commission given to the Church. Christ said to his disciples: Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. The prerogative and duty here enjoined, is to teach all nations. For the discharge of this duty the ministry was appointed. Christ, in the first instance personally, and afterwards by his Spirit, calls and qualifies certain men to be organs and agents of the Church in the great work of teaching the nations. To whom, then, was this commission given? On whom does the obligation of discharging the duty it enjoins rest? Not on the apostles alone-not on the ministry alone-but on the whole Church. This is indeed a very important point, much debated between Romanists and Protestants. It must here be taken for granted, that neither prelates nor presbyters are the Church, but that God's people are the Church, and that to the Church as such, to the Church as a whole, to the Church as one, was this great commission given. It was originally addressed to a promiscuous assembly of believers. The power and the promise which it conveyed were connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit was the source at once of the power here conferred, and of the qualifications necessary for the discharge of the duty here enjoined. And as the Spirit was not given to the apostles, prelates, or presbyters as a distinct class, and to the exclusion of others, so neither was the commission which was founded on the gift of the Spirit confined to them. The power, the duty, and the promise of the Spirit all go together. Unless, therefore, we adopt the Romish doctrine that the Spirit was given to the apostles as a distinct and selfperpetuating order in the Church, to flow mechanically through the channel of that succession, a living stream through a dead body, we must admit that the commission in question was given to the whole Church.

"The application of the Protestant doctrine just stated, to the subject before us, is obvious and direct. If to the Church as such and as a whole, the duty of teaching all nations has

been committed, then upon the Church as a whole rests the obligation to sustain those who are divinely commissioned in her name and as her organs for the immediate discharge of that duty. On what other ground do we appeal to all our members, young and old, male and female, to send forth and sustain our missionaries, foreign and domestic? We do not merely say to them that this is a duty of benevolence or of Christian charity, but we tell them it is a command of Christ, a command addressed to them, which binds their conscience, which they cannot neglect without renouncing the authority of Christ, and thereby proving that they are destitute of his Spirit, and are none of his. In doing this, we certainly do right; but we obviously take for granted that since the commission to teach all nations has been given to the whole Church, the duty of supporting those sent forth as teachers rests upon the whole Church as a common burden. The com mand, therefore, which binds us to support the gospel in New Jersey binds us to sustain it in Wisconsin. All the reasons of the obligation apply to the one case as well as to the other. And we miserably fail of obedience to Christ if we content ourselves with supporting our own pastor, and let others provide for themselves or perish, as they see fit.

"A third consideration which leads to the conclusion for which we are now contending is, that the ministry pertains to the whole Church, and not primarily and characteristically to each particular congregation. When a man is ordained, the office into which he is inducted has relation to the Church as a whole. All the prerogatives and obligations of that office are conveyed, though he has no separate congregation confided to his care. A call to a particular Church does not convey the ministerial office, it only gives authority to exercise that office over a particular people, and within a given sphere. The office itself has far wider relations. If it were true that the ministerial office has relation primarily and essentially to a particular congregation, so that a man can no more be a minister without a congregation, than a husband without a wife (the favourite illustration of those who adopt this view of the matter), then it would follow that no man is a minister except to his own congregation, nor can he perform any ministerial acts out of his own charge; that he ceases to be a minister as soon as he ceases to be a pastor; and that the Church has no right to ordain men as missionaries. These are not only the logical conclusions from this doctrine, they were all admitted and contended for by the early and consistent Independents. This view is obviously unscriptural. The apostle, after teaching that the Church is one-one body having one Spirit, one faith, one Lord, one baptism-adds, that to this one Church the ascended Saviour gave gifts, viz., apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the body of Christ. The apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers were not given to particular congregations, but to the Church generally...

"A fourth argument on this subject is, that all the reasons which are given in the Sacred Scriptures to show that the ministry ought to be supported, bear on the Church as one body. Our Saviour says the labourer is worthy of his hire. But in whose service does the minister labour? Who gave him his commission? In whose name does he act? Whose work is he doing? To whom is he responsible? Is it not the Church as a whole, and not this or that particular congregation? Again, to whose benefit do the fruits of his labour redound? When souls are converted, saints edified, children educated in the fear of God, is this a local benefit? Are we not one body? Has the hand no interest in the soundness of the foot, or the ear in the well-being of the eye?

"In the fifth place, this matter may be argued from the common principles of justice. Our present system is unjust, first, to the people. Here are a handful of Christians surrounded by an increasing mass of the ignorant, the erroneous, and the wicked. No one will deny that it is of the last importance that the gospel should be regularly administered among them. This is demanded not only for the benefit of those few Christians, but for the instruction and conversion of the surrounding population. Now, is it just that the burden of supporting the ministry, under these circumstances, should be thrown exclusively on that small and feeble company of believers? Are they alone interested in the support and extension of the kingdom of Christ among them and those around them? It is obvious that, on all scriptural principles, and on all principles of justice, this is a burden to be borne by the whole Church-by all on whom the duty rests to uphold and propagate the gospel of Christ. Our present system is unjust, in the second

place, towards our ministers. It is not just that one man should be supported in affluence, and another, equally devoted to the service of the Church, left to struggle for the necessaries of life. As before stated, we do not contend for anything so chimerical as equal salaries to all ministers. Even if all received from the Church as a whole the same sum, the people would claim and exercise the right to give in addition what they pleased to their own pastor. We can no more make salaries equal, than we can make church edifices of the same size and cost. But while this equality is neither desirable nor practicable, it is obviously unjust that the present inordinate inequality should be allowed to continue. The hardship falls precisely on the most devoted men-on those who strive to get along without resorting to any secular employment. Those who resort to teaching, farming, or speculating in land, in many cases soon render themselves independent. The way to keep ministers poor, is to give them enough to live upon. Observation in all parts of the country shows that it is the men with inadequate salaries who become rich, or at least lay up money. It is not, therefore, because we think that the ministry as a body would have more of this world's goods, if adequately supported by the Church, that we urge this plea of just compensation. It is because those who do devote themselves to their ministerial work are left to contend with all the harassing evils of poverty, while others of their brethren have enough and to spare. This we regard as contrary to justice, contrary to the Spirit of Christ, and the express commands of his Word..

"Sixthly, the advantages which would be secured by this plan, are a strong argument in its favour. It would secure a great increase in the amount of time and labour devoted to ministerial work. We have no means of ascertaining with accuracy what proportion of our ministers unite with their sacred office some secular employment, nor what proportion of their time is thus diverted from their appropriate duties. It may be that one-third or one-half of the time of the ministry of our Church, taken as a whole, is devoted to secular business. If this estimate is any approximation to the truth, and it has been made by those who have had the best opportunity of forming a correct judgment, then the efficiency of the ministry might be well-nigh doubled if this time could be redeemed from the world, and devoted to study, to pastoral duties, and the education of the young.

"Again, it would exert a most beneficial influence on the character of the ministry. How many men, who from necessity engage in some secular work, gradually become worldlyminded, lose their interest in the spiritual concerns of the Church, and come to regard their ministerial duties as of secondary importance! It is a law of the human mind that it becomes assimilated to the objects to which its attention is principally directed. It is almost impossible for a minister, whose time is mainly devoted to worldly business, to avoid becoming more or less a worldly man. A very respectable clergyman, advanced in life, who had felt this difficulty, recently said, there was nothing about which he was more determined than that, if he had his life to live over again, he would never settle in a congregation that did not support him. It is very hard to draw the line between gaining a support and making money. It is difficult to discriminate in practice between what is proper, because necessary, and what all admit to be derogatory to the ministerial character. How often does it happen that the desire of wealth insinuates itself into the heart, under the guise of the desire for an adequate support! Without the slightest impeachment of any class of our brethren, in comparison with others, but simply assuming that they are like other men and other ministers, it is obvious that the necessity of devoting a large part of their time to secular employment, is injurious both to their own spiritual interests and to their usefulness. Everything, indeed, depends upon the motive with which this is done. If done as a matter of self-denial, in order to make the gospel of Christ without charge, its influence will be salutary; but, if done from any worldly motive, it must, from the nature of the case, bring leanness into the soul. It can hardly, therefore, be doubted that few things, under God, would more directly tend to exalt the standard of ministerial character and activity in our Church, than a provision of an adequate support for every pastor devoted to his work. How many of our most deserving brethren would the execution of this plan relieve from anxiety and want! Many of them are now without the ordinary comforts of life, harassed by family cares, oppressed with difficulty as to the means of supporting and educating their chil

dren. It would shed an unwonted light into many a household, to hear it announced that the Presbyterian Church had resolved to obey the ordinance of Christ, that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. Such a resolution would kindle the incense in a thousand hearts, and would be abundant through the thanksgiving of many to the glory of God.

66

Again, this plan would secure stability, and consequent power, to the institutions of religion in a multitude of places, where everything is now occasional, uncertain, and changing. Our Church would be thus enabled to present a firm and steadily advancing front. Congregations too feeble to-day to support the gospel at all, would soon become, under the steady culture thus afforded to them, able to aid in sustaining others. A new spirit of alacrity and confidence would be infused into the ministry. They would not advance with a hesitating step, doubtful whether those behind will uphold their hands. When a missionary leaves our shores for heathen lands, he goes without any misgivings as to this point. He has no fear of being forgot, and allowed to struggle for his daily bread, while endeavouring to bring the heathen to the obedience of Christ. He knows that the whole Church is pledged for his support, and he devotes himself to his work without distraetion or anxiety. How different is the case with multitudes of our missionaries at home! They go to places where much is to be done, where constant ministerial labour is demanded, but they go with no assurance of support. The people whom they serve may greatly need the gospel; it ought to be carried to them, and urged upon them, but they care little about it, and are unwilling to sustain the messenger of God. The Church does not charge itself with his support. It is true he is labouring in her service and in the service of her Lord; but he is left to provide for himself, and live or starve as the case may be. This is not the way in which a Church can be vigorously advanced. It is not the way in which Antichrist advances his kingdom. No Romish priest plants a hesitating foot on any unoccupied ground. He knows he represents a Church-a body which recognises its unity, and feels its life in all its members. Is it right that we should place the cause of Christ under such disadvantage; that we should adopt a plan of ministerial support, which of necessity makes the Church most feeble at the extremities, where it ought to have most alacrity and strength? Truly the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light."

Reviews.

THE BASS ROCK: Its Civil and Ecclesiastic History, Geology, Martyrology, Zoology, and Botany.*

We know not where the story is told; but they say that Linnæus was trying to enlist as a student of nature a friend who objected the scanty domain of the science," Sweden did not afford a field sufficient for research;" and that, placing his hand on the turf where they sat, the sage replied, "Beneath that palm there is labour for a life-time." Besides earth and chips of stone, they found in that little inch half a dozen species of plants, and a still greater variety of insects. And now that knowledge has increased, we are falling rapidly back on the principle which Linnæus then hinted. In order to be original, or interesting, or inventive, we must take for the text a leaf, a pebble, or a worm, and show the great wonders which Infinite Wisdom has locked up in things little and despised.

Solomon was the first of philosophers; and one way in which he showed his sympathy with the great Creator was, that he had an eye for the feeble and minute. He spoke of the hyssop as well as the cedar; and the readers of Proverbs remember how kindly and knowingly he talked of the ant and the coney. And nothing shows more strikingly the march of recent science than the multiplication of monographs, and the number devoted to objects inconspicuous or obscure. Most people are acquainted

⚫ Edinburgh, 1848.

tish Worthies. Many are the solemn and affecting thoughts which this portion suggests, and many a time will it be re-opened by those who take pleasure in beholding the achievements of faith, and the loving-kindness of the Lord.

TRUTH AS REVEALED; or, Voluntaryism and Free Churchism opposed to the Word of God. With an Answer to the Protest left on the Table of the General Assembly in May 1843. By the Rev. GEORGE SMITH, Minister of Birse. * THIS is, in many respects, an extraordinary book. It is extraordinary in its authorship. It is seldom that a volume finds its way to the press from the uplands of Aberdeenshire, and Mr. Smith was scarcely the man who might have been expected to break through the dull uniformity which had so long prevailed. A quiet, dull, unexcitable man, who has got very much assimilated to the barren roughness of the region with which he is surrounded, his vocation seemed to be rather to follow the plough than to wield the pen. A man once rather addicted to evangelism, and the cause of Christian liberty, it might have been expected that, could he have been roused at all, it would have been to defend the principles he has sought to assail. We really supposed that one grand reason why he did not attach himself to the Free Church, was just the impossibility of awakening him to vigorous thought or decided action on any subject whatever. And it certainly serves to show how universally and powerfully the Free Church has pervaded and moved the whole mass of society, that it should have been able to startle Mr. Smith in his peaceful retreat, and arouse him to the terrible exertion which this book must have cost. We can imagine the painful labour with which its successive paragraphs have been elaborated; the feverish restlessness, and peccant humours which for so many months disturbed the quiescence of the manse; the horrible indigestion, and still more horrible dreams, which accompanied its production; the blush of conscious demerit, mingling with the smile of gratified vanity, mantling upon the author's countenance, as the sheets assumed the forms of a book, by the Rev. George Smith, minister of Birse-a name to be henceforth hallowed in ecclesiastical literature, and to go down to posterity with the celebrated Protest, which it so easily and triumphantly answers. This, if we mistake not, is Mr. Smith's maiden production, at least we would scarcely except this same book published as a pamphlet; for Mr. Smith, like our greatest ecclesiastics, has elaborated this masterpiece by slow degrees. Luther's Commentary on the Galatians was a small affair as it first appeared, and grew into its present magnitude and perfection through successive editions. Calvin's Institutes was at first a very brief summary of principles, and assumed its more enlarged and perfect form only by careful revision and elaboration. Mr. Smith's Truth as Revealed, was originally a sixpenny pamphlet; it has grown to an octavo volume. It may fairly be regarded as his first production. We earnestly hope it will be his last; for it would be painful to think that any more of the same kind of stuff should be voided upon the public. We do not say this so much for the sake of the public, who, we presume, do not trouble themselves very much about the matter, as for our own, and that of other conscientious critics • Edinburgh: Myles Macphail. 1847.

and judges, who read a book before they condemu or praise it, and to whom it would be quite terrible to contemplate even the possibility of being obliged again to undertake such a task. We do hope that Mr. Smith will sit quietly down, and sleep as he was wont to do, satisfying himself with the greatness he has achieved.

This book is remarkable for its boldness-a boldness arising from evident ignorance and stupidity. Mr. Smith finds no difficulty; his path is smooth and easy; his references of the most sweeping character; his assertions of his peculiar principles uncompromising, so far as he able to state them intelligibly. We do not think it possible to produce a more undisguised vindication of thorough Erastianism, which goes the length of denying all personal Christian liberty, and all Church freedom, and subjects every thing sacred, with the most unmoved complacency, to the judgments of civil tribunals. We do not believe his principles are so very bad as he says they areso utterly eversive of all religion. He really does not know what he has been speaking about-mani festly does not perceive the breadth and bearing of his own conclusions. He seems at times, indeed, to have a painful consciousness, that his peculiar modes of reasoning land him in conclusions different from those of all other men. At other times, however, he soars sublimely and independently above the influence of all example and precedent, and imagines that he differs from others solely in being more clear-sighted than they. From this lofty elevation he can afford to speak thus of the men who drew up, and subscribed, and adhered to the Protest: "Men whose thoughts on the subject of this great controversy have been more superficial than they might have been, may deem it to be unanswerable; men whose mental powers and cultivation do not enable them to follow those close processes of reasoning by which the distinction between truth and error is perceived, may be frightened at it, as, in former days, similar minds were frightened at Papal thunder; but those who have employed close reflection in aid of their inquiries after truth, will only disregard it. Such persons know, that when brought to the severe scrutiny of strict investigation, all the charges of the Protest are visionary, and rest on no better authority than the assertion of the parties who prefer them." The above may be taken as a specimen of our author. In the above sentences, there are at least three classes of men who are characterized as, from their mental powers and cultivation, unable to follow close processes of reasoning. First, then, are those who were concerned in drawing up and signing the Protest, and who, doubtless, thought it unanswerable, including such men as Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Welsh, Dr. Gordon, Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Candlish, Sir D. Brewster, Mr. Dunlop, &c. But this is nothing, and might be excusable in a juvenile author shaking off and trampling upon his opponents. Mr. Smith does not rest here; he brings the same accusation against the assembled wisdom of the Establishment. They did take up the Protest--appointed a committee to answer it-received several answers-found all answers unsatisfactory-virtually confessed it to be unanswerable—were so frightened at it, as never to ask for the report of their own committee, and Mr. Smith infers that, by so acting, their mental powers and cultivation do not enable them to follow close processes of reasoning. And, worst of all, Mr. Smith brings an equally heavy charge against him