doctrinal principles? We earnestly protest against a catholi cism of this kind, and remind the Eldership of our church to be awake to the danger of countenancing such principles.

The Presbyterian Church has her Boards of Education and Missions, and with the success of these her prosperity is identified. In the various sections of the Church, the Eldership may essentially contribute to their efficiency by their personal influence and exertion; and if they withhold these, they fail in their duty to the church of which they are officers. We appeal to them from a conviction that their agency is important, if not essential to the welfare of these interesting institutions, which, if properly sustained and managed, may send forth streams of spiritual life and health to the remotest limits of our Church.

The other duty which Elders owe to the Presbyterian Church at large, is a PUNCTUAL AND FAITHFUL ATTENDANCE UPON THE HIGHER JUDICATORIES. The regular attendance upon Sessions is not all their duty; their obligation extends to Presbyteries, Synods, and when specially appointed, to General Assemblies. If these Judicatories are really necessary to the good government of the Church, those who are properly the representatives of the people, should not absent themselves. They are established for important purposes, and the interests intrusted to them are not only local but general.

They are courts of appeal and review; the rights of individuals, the rights of particular congregations, as well as general principles relating to doctrine and discipline, are brought before them for adjudication; and in all these cases, the counsel and votes of the laity may be very important to a right decision. In relation to this point, there is a very observable remissness in the Eldership, and that equitable balance of power contemplated by our Constitution, is often affected by it. The lay delegation, to Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies, is always inadequate, and yet Elders are bound, by the requirements of their office, to fulfil this duty, and the people whom they represent have a right to expect it from them. We are well assured, that if this duty was estimated as it ought to be, the usual apologies for neglect would lose their weight, and sacrifices would be encountered, if sacrifices were called for, in its performance.

Such are the qualifications, and such are the duties pertaining to Elders. How important and responsible their station! Let those who occupy it, take heed to themselves and to the flock of which they are overseers; and as they are stewards of God, may they strive to be found faithful.

THE END.

VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, AND PROFESSOR OF THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY AND OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.

PHILADELPHIA:

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION.

WILLIAM S MARTIEN, PUBLISHING AGENT.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1837, by A. W. MITCHELL, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

THE ATONEMENT.

THE Atonement of Jesus Christ is a subject of deep and vital importance. It forms the basis of our holy religion; it lies at the foundation of a sinner's hopes for eternity. It constitutes the grand and distinguishing peculiarity of Christianity. Such a subject deserves our solemn and deliberate consideration. We should approach it with humble and candid minds; desirous of discovering the truth, and fearful of being deluded by error.

Let us, then, in humble reliance on Divine assistance, look at the nature, the extent, and the necessity of the atonement made by our Lord Jesus Christ.

From human reason we may learn something of the necessity of a satisfaction for sin; but from divine revelation alone can we learn the true nature and the real extent of Christ's atonement. Metaphysical speculation and refinement must not approach this sacred subject; they serve only to obscure, darken, and distort this precious doctrine. To be seen in its just proportions and native beauty, it must be viewed in the pure and steady light of inspiration. Inspired prophets and apostles, not proud philosophers, are to be our teachers. We are to bow, not to the dictates of erring human reason, but to the authoritative statements of the word of God. Our anxiety should be to know what the Lord has been pleased to reveal in relation to this subject, so interesting to fallen, ruined man.

That Jesus Christ died and was buried, are facts disputed by none. That he was the Son of God, God over all, blessed forever; that he condescended to become the mediator between heaven and earth; that, having assumed human nature into a personal union with his divine nature, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; that, in this manner, he made atonement for the sins of men; and that being now alive from the dead, he ever lives to intercede for his people; are truths so plainly taught in Holy Scripture, as to be universally admitted and believed, by all who are worthy to be acknow ledged as Christians.

THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.

But, when it is asked, why did Christ die? what is the nature of his atonement for sin? a question is proposed that divides Christians into two distinct classes, who embrace two distinct and very different theories on this momentous subject. The one class contend for an indefinite, the other for a definite atonement. Let us examine both theories, and see which will bear the test of Scripture.

The first class maintain, that Jesus Christ has made atonement for the sins of all mankind, as well for the sins of the damned as for the sins of the saved; and that his atonement consists in making a display of the evil of sin, and in satisfying the rectoral justice of God. Affirming that Christ only suffered for sin, and denying that he was charged with the sins of his people, or bore for them the penalty of the violated law, they contend, that the atonement merely opened the way of salvation for sinners, and that it secures salvation to none.

This scheme is, in our view, at once unscriptural and inconsistent with itself. By this scheme the penalty of God's law is abandoned; its claims remain forever unsatisfied. Jehovah had solemnly threatened that sin should certainly be punished: but, notwithstanding this solemn and positive threatening of infinite truth, sin escapes merited punishment. Neither the sinner saved, nor any one in his place, is punished. The divine law is of course dishonoured; it lies prostrate in the dust.

But our opponents will insist, that in the sufferings of Christ, the evil of sin has been conspicuously displayed, and that God has proclaimed his abhorrence of sin. That they are mistaken in this view of the subject, and that according to their theory, no such results follow, will be shown. But before this is attempted, let us notice a previous question. If the atonement consisted merely in making a display of the evil of sin, what necessity existed for the sufferings of our Redeemer? By the miseries of this fallen world, and the tremendous judgments inflicted upon ungodly sinners, the evil of sin had been exhibited in a fearful manner. It has been shown in the destruction of the old world by the waters of the flood; and in the overwhelming of the cities of the plain with a deluge of fire. It has been written in the blood of slaughtered millions of our race, read in the light of burning cities, and proclaimed in the history of fallen kingdoms and empires. The agonies of dying infants, the ashes of