tion, if any regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ's claiming to be the Son of God, was "making himself" not inferior, but as God, or 66 equal with God.”

Once more.-Sonship, it is said, implies posterity, or that Christ, as a Son, could not have existed till after the Father: to attribute no other divinity to him, therefore, than what is devoted to sonship, is attributing none to him, as nothing can be divine which is not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in duration, in which God was without thought, purpose, or design. For it is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son. But if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine; but in the order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval: it never existed a single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time or duration, he never existed without his purpose; for a God without thought or purpose were no God. And thus in order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son; but in that of duration, he never existed without the Son. The Father and the Son, therefore, are properly eternal.

THE PRESBYTERIAN.

No. V.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN. SIR, IN a late communication I directed the attention of your readers to some of the excellencies by which our ecclesiastical system is distinguished. I shall now proceed to notice another feature in our church government, which should commend it to the political economists of the age.

Presbyterianism provides equitably for the remuneration of its Ministers. In reference to a future retribution, the New Testament invariably teaches, that every man shall be rewarded according to his works. (See Matt.

xvi. 27.) When the Apostle Paul is speaking of the preachers of the Gospel, he expressly declares that their eternal recompense shall be determined by their ministerial faithfulness. 66 Every man," says he, (1 Cor. iii. 8,) “shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." We have a right to insist that the same regard to justice and impartiality should pervade our ecclesiastical arrangements. This life, indeed, is merely a scene of temporary discipline; but inasmuch as the church on earth is a type of the church in heaven, it is to be expected that its government should be conducted upon those righteous principles which shall be fully and gloriously realized under a higher economy. We might quote many scriptural passages in corroboration of this sentiment. When the apostle is writing to the Thessalonians, he directs, that "if any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thess. iii. 10.) When our blessed Lord teaches that the Ministers of the Gospel are entitled to a temporal maintenance, he shows, by the language in which his statement is embodied, the reason why he advocates their claims. "The labourer," says he, "is worthy of his hire." (Luke x. 7.) In accordance with the spirit of this declaration, we find Paul saying to Timothy, (1 Tim. v. 17,) "let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." I need not remind you that the word in the original, which is here translated "honour," may with equal propriety be rendered "pay" or "reward." That such is its meaning in this passage will, I think, appear obvious to any one who attentively examines the context. The succeeding verse clearly proves, that by "honour" the sacred writer means something more substantial than outward respect. He inculcates that hearers should take knowledge of the zeal and ability of Ministers, and that they whose labours are most valuable, should be most liberally remunerated.

You may thus see, Sir, an evil in the nature of episcopal church government, as it is ordered in this country. According to this system, the bishop, whose duties are by no means arduous, must receive a larger stipend than the curate who labours in the word and doctrine. Whilst the prelate, whose office is little better than a sinecure, lives in a palace and fares as a prince, the clergyman who studies most intensely and who preaches most assiduously, must often rest content with the accommodation of some confined and uncomfortable lodging. I need not tell you, Sir, that the dispensation of the word is the most important and the most difficult department of the ministerial vocation. I need

not tell you that the pastor who officiates every Sabbath to the same people requires a far higher degree of talent and of knowledge than his diocesan. It appears to me that prudence, and piety, and a moderate share of theological research, are all that is requisite in a good prelate. Possessed of these qualifications, he is competent to examine candidates for the sacred office, and he may be entrusted with the power of ordination and government. Any Minister of moderate attainments could readily exercise these functions. Endowments of a superior order are required for the efficient discharge of his other duties. Every clergyman in his own congregation is a professor of theology. He must expound the Scriptures, he must illustrate the prac tical tendency of the truth, and he must defend the faith against all gainsayers. That he may continue to instruct and to edify his people, he must possess a large and varied store of biblical information. That he may be enabled to silence scepticism and to contend successfully against heresy, he must be intimately acquainted with controversial divinity. That his public services may be interesting and impressive, he must be "apt to teach"-he must be capable of explaining his views with perspicuity and energy-he must be gifted with the power of commanding the attention, and of imparting a tone to the feelings of his congregation, by the solidity and the fervour of his discourses. Preaching, in fact, presents an opportunity for the developement of the highest class of mental accomplishments. The glorious Gospel of the blessed God is a theme worthy the mightiest efforts of the loftiest genius. It challenges the investigation of the most vigorousintellect, and it supplies topics sufficient to call forth the exercises of the purest and noblest eloquence. We do not intend to say that every preacher must possess these qualifications, for we would thus condemn many excellent and profitable Ministers-we merely allege that the most exalted talents may find ample scope for their exertion upon the field of pastoral duty. We wish to show that the office of a preacher is superior to the office of a prelate that he who breaks the bread of life unto the people requires greater ability and learning than he who sits upon the throne of episcopal oversight.

And now, Mr. Editor, I would solicit the special attention' of your readers to the inference which I would deduce from these premises. It is simply this-if we act upon the just and the scriptural principle, that the office-bearers in the church should be remunerated according to their services, episcopacy,

in its present arrangements, must cease. We hear much in the present day respecting an equitable division of ecclesiastical property. We are told that the funds of the establishment are improperly apportioned-that the bishops receive too much, and that the curates receive too little. But in what way are our legislators to promote the work of reformation ? We hesitate not to assert, that the framework of the establishment must be altered, and its Ministers be ranged in Presbyterian parity, before we can expect any approximation to justice in the distribution of the property of the church. So long as the present arrangement is preserved, the members of the royal cabinet attempt to solve an impossible problem, when they purpose to make a fair appropriation of the ecclesiastical revenues. Let them organize the national church upon a Presbyterian platform, and then the working clergy will be recompensed, whilst they who will not submit to the drudgery of the pastoral care, will be deprived of the rewards of pastoral exertion. Thus the character of Protestantism will be vindicated, and the dictates of equity will be recognized. Then our ecclesiastical establishment will be no longer an incommodious and clumsy fabricbut in the simplicity and the beauty of its arrangements, it will appear "as a city compactly built together." Based upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and cemented by the spirit of all grace, and reared up in Presbyterian symmetry, its friends might exultingly say, as they contemplated the goodly structure, "Let mount Zion rejoice, let the daughters of Judah be glad, because of thy judgments. Walk about Zion, and go round about her tell the towers thereof-mark ye well her bulwarks-consider her palaces-that ye may tell it to the generation following; for this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.”—Ps. xlviii.

Many who seem to be convinced that the direct duties of the episcopal office are not such as to require the establishment of a distinct order of ecclesiastical functionaries, are nevertheless disposed, upon a different principle, to plead for the existence of these supernumeraries. They argue that the varied avocations of the parochial Minister afford him very little time for the labours of authorship, and that therefore the extinction of the superior clergy would be highly injurious to the interests of theological literature. How often may we have been told that the Church of England and Ireland is the great bulwark of Protestantism, and that her dignitaries have produced our best publications in the defence and the illustration of Christianity? Far be it from me to detract from their merit.

Far be it from me to withhold my tribute of sincerest admiration from Leighton, and Horne, and Usher, and Beveridge. The works of such men speak for themselves, and will hand down their hallowed memory to posterity of the latest generations. But, Sir, have not the parochial clergy of the establishment published at least as extensively as the upper ranks of her hierarchy? Has she not been greatly indebted for her fair name to Hervey, and Scott, and Newton, and Bickersteth, and Bridges? After all, however, we cannot avoid thinking that the advantages conferred upon sacred science by the writers of the English Church have been vastly overrated. It would not, I think, be difficult to demonstrate, that the men who have shed the brightest glory upon Protestantism by their biblical knowledge and their uncompromising Orthodoxy, have been nurtured under the shadow of Presbyterianism. It is, I believe, generally admitted, that Calvin, the venerable restorer of our system of church government, was the most learned of all the reformers. Turretine, one of his successors in the chair of theology at Geneva, composed a body of divinity which many competent judges have pronounced to be the best extant. And need I tell you, Sir, of Witsius, and Vitringa, and Witherspoon, and Halyburton, and Matthew Henry, and Jonathan Edwards? In the present day have the prelates of the English Church given to the world more ample fruits of their literary industry than the Ministers of Scotland? Can episcopacy point to the works of any of her mitred guardians, and indulge the hope, that they can enter the lists of successful competition with the splendid eloquence of Chalmers, or the exact and varied erudition of M'Crie? I feel, however, that I am entering on a theme which may to some appear invidious, and I shall therefore dismiss the subject by observing, that we have no security for the interests of theology in the existence of an order of spiritual dignitaries. If our legislators wish to foster the cultivation of sacred literature, they may do so much more cheaply and efficiently. They can multiply our colleges, they can endow theological professorships, and they can encourage talent and piety in candidates for ordination, by permitting the people to choose their pastors.

Let it not be inferred from these observations that we are opposed to the national establishment of religion. No. We believe that episcopacy is an unscriptural form of ecclesiastical government, but we are equally persuaded that it is the duty of rulers to defend and to patronize the Gospel. We cannot