whom would the friends of such a project naturally consult in Rhode Island? If not with Dr. Stiles himself, certainly with those who felt an interest in the subject, and these had received their impulse from Dr. Stiles. It is a fair inference that one inducement to establish such an institution in Rhode Island was that an interest in the subject was already excited there. Whether these probabilities entitle Dr. Stiles to any participation in the credit of establishing Brown University, others may decide. Professor Kingsley did not assert it, and it is not necessary for his defense that we should claim it.

The main point on which all the rest depends, in truth the only statement of Professor Kingsley on which President Sears makes a direct issue, is this, were Dr. Stiles and Mr. Ellery members of the committee to draft a charter? This Professor Kingsley stated to be the fact. President Sears denies it, and with that freedom from prejudice which so eminently characterizes him in this account of the origin of the University, allows only that Dr. Stiles was employed as a clerk by the committee. He, the most learned man of his day, employed to perform the task of a mere scrivener, on a subject to which he had devoted much time and thought, and in which he had interested the leading minds in the colony! What is the evidence? President Stiles states in his diary that Mr. Ellery and himself were members of this committee. Dr. Manning nowhere says that they were not, but states that at a meeting of a large number of Baptist gentlemen, a committee of two was appointed to draw a charter; "but these gentlemen, pleading unskillfulness touching an affair of the kind, requested that their trusty friend, Rev. Ezra (now Dr.) Stiles might be solicited to assist them. This was opposed by me," he says, "as unwilling to give the Doctor trouble about an affair of other people. But they urged that his love of learning and catholicism would induce him readily to give his assistance. Accordingly their proposal was consented to, and his assistance obtained."

We think it must be evident to every unprejudiced reader that at this meeting, which Dr. Manning describes, a committee was appointed to draw a charter, and that Dr. Stiles was

one of the committee. Dr. Manning says, the gentlemen first appointed requested that Dr. Stiles might be solicited to assist them. Of whom did they make this request, if not of the meeting by which they were themselves appointed? Dr. Manning "opposed." Before whom did he urge his opposition, but before the same meeting? "Their proposal was consented to." Who gave their consent? Surely the meeting, and no other body. This discussion could not have arisen upon the question of employing Dr. Stiles merely as a clerk, for any such committee would employ a clerk of their own motion, and what have the "love of learning and catholicism” to do with "clerical service;" nor simply as an adviser of the committee, for there could be no objection to the two gentlemen first appointed consulting their friend and neighbor, Dr. Stiles, simply as a friend, if they saw fit. This discussion could have arisen on no other question than that of adding to the committee, and this construction does no violence to President Manning's language, but is entirely consistent with it, while it is sustained by the positive testimony of Dr. Stiles. It is clear, then, from Dr. Manning's own narrative, quoted by President Sears, that Dr. Stiles' statement, that he was one of this committee, is true. Who, then, is falsifying history? But President Stiles says that Mr. William Ellery was also one of the committee. Is this denied? Where is the evidence that he was not one of the committee? President Stiles, a man of learning and integrity, himself an active member of the committee, whose whole number appears to have been only four, a competent witness, says that he was. Nobody says he was not. President Manning is silent on the subject. The evidence is all one way, but President Sears decides against the evidence, and pronounces Dr. Stiles “loose, inaccurate, and prejudiced in his judgment." What must be the constitution of a mind which denies the positive statement of an unimpeachable witness as to a certain fact, on no stronger proof than the omission of another person to record that fact! Why did President Sears, while referring to the endorsement made by Dr. Stiles upon the back of the original draught of

the charter, fail to give it in full? Might it not have thrown too much light on the point at issue?

President Sears thinks that Dr. Stiles' investigations and conversations on the subject of a collegiate institution at Rhode Island had no relevancy to the foundation of Brown University. We think their relevancy appears in this, that when the ardent, young sectarian came to Newport with the project of a college, his zeal and eloquence were not sufficient to exclude from the counsels of the founders of Brown University the man, among all others in the colony, known to be an ardent and earnest friend of such a project, and whose piety, learning, and catholic spirit were stronger with his friends and neighbors than their denominational ties. It appears in this, that the charter, drawn by Dr. Stiles, and accepted by the friends of the college in Rhode Island, and presented to the legislature of that colony, embraced Dr. Stiles' idea of a union of the non-episcopal denominations; and the charter, as finally granted, retained the same principle, although on a different basis. We submit, then, that Professor Kingsley is not impeached, but confirmed, by President Manning and the admitted facts.

ARTICLE X.-IMPORTANCE OF THE PASTORAL OFFICE.

Ar the annual meeting of the General Association of Connecticut, in June of the present year, at New Britain, a Report was presented by a Committee, who had been appointed for that purpose at the meeting in 1864, "upon the Importance of the Pastoral Office, and the desirableness that the duties appropriate to it should be prosecuted with greater efficiency in our Churches." This Committee consisted of Rev. Prof. Noah Porter, D. D., Rev. B. L. Swan, and Rev. W. W. Davenport. It has seemed so desirable that the suggestions made in that Report should be brought to the attention of Pastors and people throughout the whole country, that we have requested permission to place it in full upon our pages.

The Committee to whom was referred the consideration of "the importance of the Pastoral office," and "the duties appropriate to it," present the following Report:

We have abundant evidence that the ministers of this State discharge their professional duties with eminent ability, zeal, and fidelity, and that they are animated with a self-denying and Christian spirit in the labors and trials which their sacred calling involves. We do not believe that any portion of the Christian church is favored with a body of clergy more distinguished for knowledge of the scriptures, for ability to expound and defend its doctrines, or for zeal in the enforcement of its principles upon the hearts and lives of their hearers, than are the Congregational churches of our beloved Commonwealth.

We cannot, however, resist the conviction that "the impor tance of the Pastoral office" is by no means so highly appreciated, either by the ministry or the churches, as it deserves to be, and as it was formerly, and that "the duties appropriate to it" are in some cases not prosecuted so earnestly as is desir

able and necessary for the highest efficiency of the ministerial work, and for the greatest prosperity of religion. We omit the consideration of those influences which operate at all times, and in all branches of the Christian church, to prevent the full development of the capacities of the pastoral office, and ask your attention to the circumstances which at the present time, in our denomination and our own State, seem specially to hinder the abundant and successful discharge of the duties appropriate to the Pastor's work. It will be understood that we intend the work of the Pastor as contrasted with that of the Preacher. The points which we think deserve special attention are the following:

1. Pastors often enter upon their work in connection with a particular parish, with the expectation that it will probably be of short duration. The uncertainties of the times, the quarrelsome disposition previously manifested in the parish, the readiness of one or more weak and perverse men in church or parish to stir up strife, the chronic habit of becoming dissatisfied on frivolous pretexts or slight occasions, the presence of some root of bitterness never thoroughly eradicated, the want of adequate support, all furnish good ground for the inference that the tenure of the ministry in many parishes will probably be short, even though the Pastor himself may desire that it should be long. In many cases, however, the Pastor enters upon his work with the distinct expectation, it may be with the earnest wish, that another more inviting or promising field may at no very remote period present itself. The parish at present occupied is regarded as a desirable place for the quiet study of theology or literature, as an arena for one's first essays in public speaking, as a place in which to elaborate some superior sermons, as a sphere from which to earn and to gain influence and notoriety among the churches, or as a field of mere experiment, in which to try and prove one's undeveloped powers.

Whatever may be the grounds of this expectation, whether they are reasonable or unreasonable, or whether if faulty, the fault is with minister or people, it is obvious, that when the expectation exists, and is consciously cherished, or even uncon