regularly introduced by the formula, "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time." And these themes are mostly stated in language taken verbatim, or in substance, from the law of Moses, but perverted to a sense foreign from the true meaning and spirit of the law. This perversion is stated in explicit terms in the instance which yet remains: "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy." Thou shalt love thy neighbor" is the language of the law; but "Thou shalt hate thine enemy is a perverted inference, which those whom the Saviour addressed may often have heard drawn, but which assuredly finds no sanction in the law itself. On the contrary, it expressly enjoins acts of kindness to an enemy-Ex. xxiii: 4, 5: "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him." And that our Lord never designed to sanction such an inference from these words of the law is plain, from the fact, that he himself sums up our duty to men in these same words: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," and that he spake the parable of the good Samaritan expressly to expound who is meant by "neighbor" in this passage of the law.

One word in conclusion. The best solution of the difficulties which are felt, and the true corrective of the errors which are entertained, in respect to the Old Testament, are to be found in the deeper and more thorough study of this portion of the sacred volume. The prevalent neglect of all that belongs to the former dispensation is avenging itself in other ways than in the resulting misconceptions and consequent skeptical objections which threaten to undermine the authority of the Old Testament, and with it that of the New. It likewise reacts more directly and quite as seriously upon the interpretation of the New Testament, and is the fruitful parent of inaccurate or superficial views. If the New Testament contains the key to the Old, the Old Testament is likewise the guide to the New. It is a divine course of pupilage, by which the people of God were trained for the reception and comprehension of the gospel; and it is one which they cannot, even now, afford to do without. It contains the foundations on which the

If the lesson taught in the

scheme of gospel truth is built. Old Testament, of the uncompromising justice of God, had been adequately learned, the divine love could not be so grossly caricatured, as it often is, by those who lose sight of every other attribute, and end by degrading that which it is their professed aim exclusively to exalt. If the sacrificial system were better understood, the atoning death of Christ would not be so often misconceived. The divorce of what God has joined together cannot but be fraught with mischief. If the facts and institutions of the Old Testament, and, not least among these, the very things which are made the ground of flippant or skeptical objection, were more devoutly pondered, more seriously laid to heart, and more faithfully and widely preached, a firmer bulwark would be erected against prevalent and growing errors.

Art. III.-EQUABLE REDUCTION OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY.*

By EDWARD P. WOOD, Princeton, N. J.

[The following article was in the printer's hands before the Report of the Committee appointed by the last Assembly on Representation was published. Without undertaking to discuss it, or expressing assent or dissent with reference to its main position, further than to reiterate our judgment, that the Assembly ought to be reduced, and that some basis ought to be found which will mitigate, or certainly not aggravate, present inequalities in the representation of different parts of the church, we submit a plan which appears to us to meet the essential conditions of the problem. At all events, the careful and extended numerical tables submitted by our correspondent will, we hope, prove an important help in estimating the bearings of every scheme of representa tion that may be proposed.-EDITOS.]

THE refusal of the Presbyteries to adopt either of the overtures on representation sent down by the General Assembly may be explained by the fact, that one of them was extremely radical, and the other greatly magnified the existing inequalities of representation. The mind of the church is unmistakably

* Report of the Committee on Assembly Representation, appointed by the General Assembly of 1876.

expressed against a radical measure, and also against the exaggeration of present evils. The elimination of such elements as have from time to time been rejected in discussing the problem of representation, has left the question in this condition, viz. the Presbyterian Church wishes (1) to retain the right of representation where it is in the presbyteries; (2) to retain such a size for the General Assembly as shall continue its commanding presence; and (3) to make the reduction to such a manageable size, with the continuance of its commanding presence, in some way, as nearly as may be, similar to our present plan of representation.

The following calculations show that this can be done with the same immediate and prospective fairness to every one concerned which has characterized our method from the first adoption of a ratio of representaton in 1786.

The first General Assembly was organized by a representation* of one minister and one elder for each presbytery of six ministers and less; and two ministers and two elders for "each presbytery of more than six ministers, and not more than twelve," "and so, in the same proportion, for every six ministers." In 1819 the ratio was changed, "substituting the word nine for six, and the word eighteen for twelve." In 1826 the ratio was again increased, by "changing nine to twelve, and eighteen to twenty-four." "In 1833 the present ratio was adopted," which changes twelve to twenty-four, and twentyfour to forty-eight.

By scanning these figures, it will be seen that the scale, by which this increased ratio has been reached, is by no means uniform. In the first instance, the ratio was raised by adding three to the lowest number, six, to make it nine; and, instead of adding the same to the higher number, by adding its double, six, to make it eighteen. In the second instance this plan was continued by adding three to nine to make it twelve, and six to eighteen to make twenty-four. But in the third instance this graduation was dropped, and a new plan adopted of doubling the numbers which represented the ratio; thus, twelve and twenty-four became twenty-four and forty-eight, as they remain to-day.

This settles one thing in our policy, that we are at liberty to

* See Baird's Digest, p. 269.

make a new ratio of representation on any practicable and equitable basis whenever the occasion may demand it. Besides, we are not restricted to going forward by additions or multiplications, but we may go backward, by subtractions or divisions, to a starting point below the present one, and rise from it by any satisfactory figure.

Having settled the fact, by experimental figures, that we cannot reduce the General Assembly sufficiently, and at all equalize the conflicting interests of growing inequality, by adopting the last plan of increasing the ratio, by making 24 and 48 read 48 and 96, let us try the plan of falling back from 24 to 20, and from 48 to 40, by returning to the plan originally adopted in the first Constitution of the General Assembly, merely substituting four for three, by which the ratio was raised at one end, and substituting eight for six, by which the ratio was raised at the other end. Observe that these figures of diminution bear the very same relation to each other that the figures of increase bore to each other; eight is twice four, as six is twice three. Here then we have a representation by scores; presbyteries with from 20 ministers downward, from 20 to 40, from 40 to 60, from 60 to 80, from 80 to 100, from 100 to 120, from 120 to 140.

All the attempts at reduction have proved plainly, that there is no possible reduction to the required Assembly on the basis of one minister and one elder to every presbytery. This is the reason why some presbyteries, which have seen the necessity of such a change, are seeking for a number which will be a fair minimum to entitle all presbyteries, which fall within that limit, to one commissioner. Thus, the presbytery of Louisville "adopted a paper, for presbyterial representation, on the basis of thirty-five members of presbytery for one commissioner of General Assembly." But there is no accompanying computation to show that, while this may reduce the Assembly, it will make the reduction equitably. And yet, this growing conviction strengthens the belief, that there is no way out of our present embarrassment, unless by such an exception to the rule, heretofore adhered to, as shall limit the smaller presbyteries to a single commissioner. And while we must bind the home presbyteries to alternate between a minister and an elder, in order that the Assembly shall consist, as

ii),

nearly as possible, "of an equal delegation of bishops and elders from each presbytery" (Form of Government, chap. xii the peculiarities of the position of the foreign presbyteries require in equity that they be left at liberty to send, as they may be able, a minister or an elder.

Accepting this sentiment as generally prevalent, it is found that it is not necessary to bring so many presbyteries into that class as the basis of 35 will require. The following figures show that the representation by scores, suggested above, will largely diminish that class of presbyteries, and, at the same time, be entirely equitable to those presbyteries themselves. It will, also, establish a better equilibrium between the presbyteries in the several classes constituted by this change to scores. And it will reduce the Assembly as much as our numbers, wealth, influence, and work will allow. We shall find that

THIS REPRESENTATION WILL GIVE A PRACTICABLE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

This representation by scores, with one commissioner (one) minister or one elder) for every presbytery of 20 ministers and less; one minister and one elder for every presbytery of more than 20 ministers, and not more than 40; two ministers and two elders for every presbytery of more than 40, and not more than 60; and so in the same proportion for every additional 20 ministers, will give, in the 173 presbyteries, 72 with one commissioner each, and 67 with two commissioners each, and 28 with four commissioners each, and 5 with six commissioners each, and (there being none with between 80 and 100, and none with between 100 and 120 ministers) I presbytery with twelve commissioners.

Putting this in a tabular form, for the convenience of the eye, the commissioners are: