longs to the two cases which the apostle is here considering, of Adam with his posterity, and Christ with those who have been or may be justified. The answer must be the divine procedure, or the divine arrangement; and this being supplied together with the verb to be, affords the following translation.

Αρα οὖν ὡς δι' ἑνὸς παραπτώματος, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα· οὕτω καὶ δι ̓ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. Therefore as through one offence the divine arrangement was for all men unto condemnation, so also through one instance of righteousness it was for all men unto justification of life. The sense would be equally good, if we should supply the ellipsis by an impersonal it turned out, the matter so issued.

It will be observed that we have translated is before лávτas årsprous by for. We need scarcely remark that in numerous instances this preposition must be thus translated when joined with personal words. See as examples Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 6. Before xarázpua and dixaiwow, it denotes δικαίωσιν, the result, as it does in passages too numerous to mention in this epistle, and must be translated in all these cases by unto.

We see that in this verse the apostle brings especially to view that divine arrangement, according to which all men stand in a peculiar relation to Adam, as it respects condemnation; and also the one, according to which all men stand in a peculiar relation to Christ, as it respects justification. In verses 15, 16, 17, not these arrangements themselves, but their results are particularly considered; for in the fifteenth, it is said that "the many died," and "the gift had abounded to the many;" in the sixteenth, "condemnation" and "justification" are brought to view; and in the seventeenth, we are reminded that "death had reigned," and told that "those who receive abundance of grace shall reign in life;" all of which expressions set forth the results of these arrangements. And if we look forward to the nineteenth verse, we see that in that also these results are brought to view, and not the arrangements. themselves; so that this eighteenth verse is distinguished from these four other verses by its bringing to view the two arrangements, and not their results. Consequently, the apostle's argument in this verse confutes the objection in question, by showing that it cannot be against God's arrangement for justi

fying men through Christ. Here, then, is the reason, and a sufficient one it is, why he uses cartes arpwwo in this verse, and not of wooi, as in verses 15, 19; for here his argument leads him to speak of those for whom the arrangement had been made. It was not his chief design to say anything on the extent of the plan of justification, and its adaptedness to the spiritual wants of all our race; but when led by the nature of his argument here to touch on this subject in mentioning for whom the arrangement was made, he chose a no less comprehensive expression than πάντες άνθρωποι.

Λικαίωμα being here placed in antithesis with παράπτωμα must have a different meaning from what it has in verse 16, for the opposite of capazτwua, offence, is upright conduct, righteousness, and this is its proper meaning.

Verse 19. Ωσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοί κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ· οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τῶν ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί. For as by the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one the many shall be made righteous.

rap here relates to the whole statement of the preceding verse, and confirms it. The course of thought in the two verses may be thus exemplified: God's arrangement for justifying men bears a resemblance to the one by which they come under condemnation; for (yap) as by the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one the many shall be made righteous. The apostle, in this argument with the Jew, feels that it is perfectly unanswerable, and he seems unwilling to stop repeating to his opponent, with some variety of thought, the comparison of the divine procedure in the two cases under consideration; and, therefore, connecting this verse with the preceding by yàp in the way of confirming his statement in it, he again places the two parties concerned together side by side before the objector, varying somewhat the form of his argument, but still presenting the same generic ideas.

'Aμaptwho means actual sinners, who are regarded and treated by God as sinners, because they are transgressors of his law. It will hardly be denied that this is the common meaning of this word in the New Testament, and hence we cannot admit

the meaning here to be merely, one considered or treated as a sinner. Sound rules of interpretation do not admit the mean-. ing of words to be settled by arguments drawn from a theological system; nothing but their established meaning, or the exigency of the passage, can be allowed as valid argument. We cannot feel the force of such an exigency of the passage as arises either from the scope which those who favor this meaning of the word give it, or from an interpretation which requires dià touto in verse 12, to be referred to "the whole of the previous part of the epistle" for an antecedent.

Aizaio here has its common meaning when applied to believers, righteous, pious; and the whole phrase δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται, shall be made righteous, corresponds in the form of thought with δι τὴν περισσείαν τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες in verse 17. It is plain that these two clauses, to be made righteous and to receive abundance of the gift of righteousness, in the language of the apostle when treating of gratuitous justification, must have one and the same general meaning, to be justified; so that the assertion of Paul here is, that those who should afterwards belong to Christ, viewed as a body, would be justified through the obedience of Christ.

Though the apostle here teaches that men became sinners through Adam, he only intimates obscurely the way in which this took place. All he says on this point is, that (a.) it was by Adam's transgression; and that (b.) it was in a way resembling that in which men are justified by Christ. Now when we recollect that this comparison is made for the purpose of confuting an objection made by a Jew to the true doctrine of justification, because he believed that men were justified through their own personal agency alone, may we not suppose that the resemblance here taught has respect, among other things, to the personal agency of men concerned in the two cases; so that there is a similarity, as it respects the personal agency concerned, in being justified through Christ, and in being made sinners through Adam?

At the close of our examination of this argument of the apostle, we cannot help observing that it is one of uncommon strength. His opponents object to justification by faith in VOL. III.-30

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