three or six months with some set tled pastor; but it no more follows that he supposes his assumed degeneracy of the ministry is to be traced entirely to the defects of those institutions, than entirely to non-compliance with this proposed arrangement. The suggestion of one or two causes of the supposed state of a given profession, is not to be taken as the assertion that they are the sole causes, unless all others are explicitly denied. And not only does Dr. Spring not deny other causes, but he admits in behalf of his entire presbytery as well as himself, that they have licensed not a few young men from seminaries to preach the gospel, whom, but for their having spent three years at these institutions, and but for the recommendation of their professors, they would have refused to license; —a statement, which either shows the high confidence that he and his co-presbyters have in the seminaries and their professors, or else admits the mortifying and disgraceful fact, that a presbytery so respectable as the one alluded to, has been afraid to act up to its convictions, in refusing the licenses in question. No one, probably, would understand Dr. S. as intending to confess the gross unfaithfulness and dereliction of duty implied in this last alternative; and if not, then there is the admission of an estimate of theological seminaries, so high, as to render ut terly absurd the idea that the degeneracy of the ministry is entirely owing to these institutions.

It is true Dr. Spring says, "Let the teachers of those who are being educated for the ministry, be men of no inconsiderable experience in the pastoral office;" and that he presses this thought with all the earnestness of one who has pondered a point till both his judgment and feelings are deeply enlisted in its favor. But he urges this, not as the universal and exclusive, but only as the general rule, which he thinks "ought rarely,

66

if ever, to be dispensed with." And again, he says, the safety and excellence of the seminaries of the Presbyterian church, is found, thus far, in this combined influence. Like the original apostolic college, so wisely established by the Savior, age with youth, pastoral experience, with scholastic learning, &c.," "have, under God, made our seminaries what they are."

Now all this language seems to us definite and clear; and it is the key to the whole chapter. It is not the language of one asserting that the degeneracy of the ministry is owing to theological seminaries, and that their degenerating influence comes from the practice of making men professors who have had no pastoral experience: for it not only admits exceptions to the proposed rule, but it commends the seminaries of the Presbyterian church as "thus far" conducted; and "thus far" they have had some professors who have, and others who have not been pastors. And then, again, as if to avoid all possible misapprehension, it speaks of a "combined influence," "age with youth❞—not both surely in the same personand "pastoral experience, with scholastic learning"-the parallelism requiring the sense, that the "pastoral experience" may be the attribute of one professor, and the "scholastic learning" of another. The whole argument seems to us that of a man contemplating two entirely different systems, the "pastoral" and "scholastic;" two entirely different kinds of seminaries, the professors in one of which, shall, as the general rule, be men of pastoral experience, and in the other, mere literary men, strangers to the pastoral office, and of course to the varied and valuable experience arising from it. And of the two systems, he decidedly prefers the former--of the two kinds of seminaries, that in which the pastoral professorships and influence shall predominate. It is not a course

of special or indirect pleading against any existing professors, honored and beloved by all who know them, and who will ever be remembered with the warmest interest and affection by all who have enjoyed their instructions; but a decided and strong advocacy of the position, that, other things being equal, the professor ships in our theological seminaries should, as the general rule, be filled with those who have had some experience in the pastoral work. And in this ground, we believe Dr. Spring will be universally sustained, even by those professors who have not been pastors; for it is hardly conceivable that they, or any one could regard the experience of a pastor, a disadvantage to a professor of any department whatever. Every one must feel, that only a pastor is qualified to profess and teach pastoral theology; that the experience of a pastor has the most important bearings on sermonizing, and didactic theology; and that even in the more "scholastic" departments of church history and the sacred classics, the practical and experimental aspects of a doctrine, may have much to do with interpretation, and acquaintance with the church now, with the construction to be put on her past phases, and her modes of thought and action in the future. Other qualifications may be such as to sus tain, and more than sustain the choice of an individual professor, who has never been a pastor; but, other things being equal, the fact that a man has successfully discharged the duties of the pastoral office is sufficient to turn the scale. We hope Dr. Spring may be mista ken-entirely mistaken in saying: "the fact may no longer be dissembled, that the tendency, if not the design of our theological seminaries themselves, is, to fill the most important chairs with purely literary men ; men who neither have, nor expect to have any relation to the pastoral office, men ordained not to the work

of the ministry, but to a professorship." If he is not, it is high time for the churches and ministry to see to it, that a tendency so full of danger is checked and destroyed. But if he is, as we can not but think he is, then if the chapter before us were modified as to some of its expressions, we believe it would be received with almost universal approbation.

The remaining chapters of the work, addressed not so much to "ministers," as to "those that hear them," are full of important consid. erations to the churches, and their individual members. The "pecuniary support of ministers," the "consideration due to the ministry," and "prayer for ministers," are topics inwoven with every interest of the church and of religion. Would that over the entrance of every sanc tuary, and above every pulpit, could be inscribed in letters of gold: "Let the thought sink deep into the heart of every church, THAT THEIR MINISTER WILL BE VERY MUCH SUCH

A MINISTER AS THEIR PRAYERS MAY

MAKE HIM;"-and again: "Noth ing gives a people so much interest in their minister, and interest of the best kind, as to PRAY for him. They love him more, and respect him more, and attend more cheerfully and prof itably on his ministrations, the more they commend him to God in their prayers;" and again: "Let the ministers of the gospel have an HABITUAL remembrance at the fam• ily altar.”

The last chapter, on the "respon sibility of hearing the gospel," is one that should be read and ponder ed by every one who attends, or might attend the sanctuary, or im prove the Sabbath. It is full of weighty and affecting considerations -pressing home to the conscience the fearful truth, that the gospel must be a savor of life, or a savor of death to all that hear it; connecting the pulpit with the richer salva tion, or the deeper damnation of

every soul! Oh, that all could read, and be made by the Holy Spirit to feel it! Every Sabbath and sermon would then be improved, and the gospel be the wisdom and power of God to salvation, to many, who from now misimproving it, will but sink to death under an aggravated doom! The pulpit-every pulpit, will be remembered with joy or with remorse and anguish, in the world of light or the abodes of despair!

We cordially welcome every effort made by Dr. Spring, through the press, to serve his generation. We should rejoice if more of our

fathers in the ministry would imitate his laudable example in this respect. From their varied and rich experience they might leave many a lesson to do good, long after they have gone to their reward. And even if they tell us, that as a profession we are degenerating, we will hear it with the meekness of humility, though with the incredulity of unbelief, and still endeavor so to profit by their counsels of wisdom, that all beholders, as they see us, shall say, "The spirit of Elijah DOTH rest upon Elisha !”

TRUE religion consists in the love and service of the true God. By the angels who have not sinned, the true God may be approached di rectly, without the intervention of a Mediator. But it is not so with men. Our entire race have revolted from God, and become the objects of his just displeasure; and we can have audience and acceptance with him, and come into a situation to receive his blessing, only on the ground of the Gospel.

To us, therefore, the true religion is the religion of the Gospel. And as this is the only religion for man, so it is the only source of virtue and happiness. Without the religion of the Gospel, founded in the blood of Christ and applied by the influence of the Holy Spirit, man, in no situation, under no circumstances, neither in this world nor in any other, can rise to his proper dignity and glory, and be truly and permanently happy.

As much as this God has told us, often, in his word; and we should have reason to believe him, even if we had no other evidence. For does not God know? And would he knowingly deceive us, in a conVOL. VI.

65

cern of so much importance? In this instance, however, God has not shut up his people to his simple. word; but in the entire history of the world, for almost six thousand years, has been illustrating before their eyes the sole sufficiency of Christ and his Gospel, as a ground of happiness for man. All history, indeed, whether ecclesiastical or civil, sacred or profane, is but a continued practical illustration of this great truth.

To make the illustration the more perfect, so as to cut men off from every other dependence, and lead them to trust in Christ alone, God has been pleased to try-or rather to permit a great variety of experiments, and such experiments as, to sinful men, might seem the most hopeful,-just to show them the worthlessness of such experiments, and convince them that, if they would be happy, they must come to Christ and receive the Gospel.

One of the first of these experiments was that of a long probation. It might have been said, if the experiment had not been tried and failed, that nothing more was ne

cessary, in order to the improvement and happiness of men, than that they should live a long time in the world. Only give them a sufficient probation, a long space for repentance, time enough in which to grow wise and good, and the great object of life will certainly be secured. They must, at length, be weary of sin, and weaned from it, and become universally holy and happy. But this pretence, however plausible it may have appeared once, can not be offered now. The experiment has been tried, and has signally failed. In the first ages of the world, God favored mankind with a long probation. He protracted their lives to the period of almost a thousand years. He gave them time enough, in all reason, in which to become happy here, and prepare for happiness hereafter. And what was the consequence of this long probation? Did men become universally wise and good? Was the earth filled with holiness and happiness? Or has not the pen of inspiration, which has recorded little else respecting those early times, faithfully recorded this; that "the wickedness of man was then great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil, and that continually ?" "The earth," we are told, "was corrupt before God;" it "was filled with violence ;" and nothing remained but that, in awful judgment, it must be destroyed. The floods of the Almighty must be rolled over it, to purge it of its heaven-daring impiety, and wash out the traces of its pollution.

Another experiment of those early times was that of separating men one from another, and scattering them abroad on the face of the earth. Perhaps it was thought by some of the early descendants of Noah, (as it has been by some of his later descendants,) that there was no inhe rent corruption in men; that their wickedness was the result of bad in

fluences and example; and that if they were only separated, the virtu ous from the vicious, the precious from the vile, a portion of them, at least, would escape contamination, and be able to preserve themselves pure. And so God was pleased to put this opinion to the test. He did early separate his wayward and rebellious creatures. He confounded their language, and scattered them abroad on the face of the earth. Some settled in India, some in Egypt, some in Canaan, some in the wild regions of the north, and some in the Grecian isles; and from these primeval nurseries of men, the race rapidly diffused itself, till it is found in every corner of the earth. There is not a sea or ocean which restless man has not traversed. There is not a continent or island, mountain or plain, which he has not visited, and where his habitations are not seen. Surely, if scattering mankind was likely to reform them, they ought long ago to have been thor oughly reformed. They ought ere this to have become universally wise and good. What then have they become? What has been the re sult of this general diffusion? Where is the colony or tribe that has so elevated itself, as to disprove its descent from a fallen father, or as to contradict the asseveration of heav en, that we are all "by nature chil dren of wrath ?" The experiment has been a long one, and the issue of it is plain and unanswerable. Wherever on the face of the earth man is found, he is found corrupt. Wherever he exists, he is naturally the same sordid, selfish being. To whatever quarter of the earth the eye of the Omniscient may be di rected, he must say of men now, as he did in ancient times, "They are all gone aside; they are together be come filthy; there is none that doeth good, no not one." They all alike need the Gospel; need it now as much as ever; and must be elevated, sanc tified, and saved by it, or not at all.

A third experiment which God has permitted to be tried, is that of other and idolatrous religions. But for this experiment, it might have been said, that to shut men up to a single religion, a single method of worshiping God and securing his favor, would be exclusive and illiberal. The religious principle in man must be allowed to develope itself more freely. The invisible God is too spiritual, too intangible, to be made the object of universal worship. The creatures of sense, we need something palpable to the senses. The great lights of heaven, the sun, the moon, and stars,images of curious workmanship, the symbols, the representatives of an indwelling divinity-let these be the objects of worship, at least to uncultivated minds, and they will undoubtedly be more devout, more religious, and proportionally more happy.

Thus reasoned the original advocates of idol worship; and thus might we have reasoned, had not the experiment been fairly tried. But it has been tried. It has been tried on a large scale, and for a long time. Men have worshiped the sun, moon, and stars. They have worshiped idols which their own hands have made. They have worshiped birds, beasts, and creeping things. But instead of becoming more religious and happy, they have been uniformly and dreadfully degraded by such worship. They have been depraved and corrupted under its influence. They have sunk down from one degree of debasement to another, till they have lost, in great measure, the attributes of humanity, and become almost like the brutes themselves. We may not pretend to fathom all the designs of heaven, in permitting the long and terrible reign of idolatry in the earth. But this, undoubtedly, was among these designs; to convince men, by actual experiment, as to the nature and tendency of all

such impious inventions, and the folly of trusting to them as a ground of peace.

Still another experiment which has been tried, in the fruitless search after happiness, is that of learning, philosophy, and the arts. It might have been said, but for this experiment, that it is only necessary to our highest welfare to improve the understanding and the taste. Let the mind be cultivated and enlightened. Let its thoughts be elevated and enlarged. Let it be enriched with oriental wisdom, and liberalized and refined by literary pursuits. Let the secrets of nature be investigated, and the arts be carried to the highest perfection. By such means, surely, the heart will be softened, the character improved, and a foundation of virtue and happiness will be laid. Thus reasoned the votaries of mere learning thousands of years ago; and thus they reason now. And far be it from us to say that there is nothing plausible in such reasonings. To inform and improve the understanding, to refine and cultivate the taste, to advance in all useful knowledge, is certainly a dignified and praiseworthy employment. But does it, of itself, and of necessity, improve the character? Does it raise the thoughts and the heart to God? Does it subdue the power and secure the pardon of sin, and thus open a fountain of holy, spiritual, and enduring enjoyment? The experiment has been often tried, tried in different ages, and under various circumstances; and we hesitate not to say that it has always failed. Some of the most learned men in the ancient world were some of the basest men. And the times when the lamp of learning shone brightest in Greece and Rome, were times of the greatest corruption and wickedness. In the days of Eschines and Demosthenes, the Grecian states had become so corrupt, that they were no longer