in such a state of things, any thing to unite, harmonize, and consolidate; but every thing to alienate, disorganize, and break up. If any should imagine that the increased activity of the Christian Church, in the various departments of benevolence, is a compensation for the interruption or weakening of pastoral action, let it be remembered that pastoral action is the proper basis of all Christian action. If it be not preserved pure and efficient, every species of benevolent operation will soon be found to want a basis, and will come to a stand. The Churches, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, will soon become the prey of every specious delusion; they will thwart the efforts of each other; confusion will take the place of order; controversy and contention, scandals and every evil work, will become general; and the Heavenly Dove will depart.

If the evil and the sin of this practice are duly and universally felt, the measures proper to correct it will doubtless be indicated by the providence of God. We do not feel competent to point out all the steps which will be requisite for this purpose; but regard the following suggestions as worthy of attention.

1. No Church ought to be encouraged to call a pastor, who is already placed in charge of a Church. Such calls usually come from a congregation in a city, or large village. They therefore present, to a minister unacquainted with men and things, a temptation, to which a man of large views would not be susceptible. Among those wanting such views, also, they give rise to imputations which are far from being favorable to ministerial character.

It appears, from facts which are familiar to most persons, that the calling of a pastor from one church to another, is often a mere experiment. The station is difficult and laborious; and demands, it is thought a minister of first rate talents. A pastor is called from another church; and the experiment does not succeed. Another is called, and so on, till the experiment does succeed.

If it should be admitted that this course of experimenting is a proper one, as regards the congregation in the case supposed, it would still be a question, whether they have a right to make experiments at the expense of breaking up the pas. toral relation of a church, whose members are dwelling in peace, and growing up in edification and love, under a man of God and of their own choice? And while it is admitted

that different situations require different gifts, the question still arises, whether, in this respect, the difference is so great as to warrant one church in wholly disregarding the wishes, the quiet, and the probable interests of another.

It may be doubted, too, whether the demands of benevolent societies for existing pastors, are really of that imperative character, in a moral point of view, which they have often been considered as possessing. The importance of the objects of some of them, at least, will not be questioned. It is doubtless desirable that the best qualifications should be secured for the prosecution of them. Still it must be remembered that the Church and the pastoral office are of divine institution; while voluntary societies, however good their object, are wholly a human contrivance. It cannot be right to do certain injury to the former, for the sake of benefiting the latter. Still less justifiable is it to introduce unsteadiness into all our ecclesiastical relations, for a mere probability of answering the purpose of some benevolent association. For it is well known that the taking of a pastor from his charge by a benevolent society, is often intended to be a mere experiment; which experiment failing, is repeated again and again.

The presidency of a college, or theological seminary, has ever been considered by many, a post of such importance, as to justify the taking away of the pastor most competent to fill it. But our forefathers never took such a step without great deliberation and care. When the Rev. Timothy Cutler was removed from the parish of Stratford to become President of Yale College, the Trustees of the College purchased "Mr. Cutler's house and home lot," for the sum of 84 pounds sterling, and presented it to his society, as a consideration for the loss of their pastor. On the removal of the Rev. Elisha Williams, from a parish in Wethersfield, for the same object, the Legislature of the Colony, on application of the Trustees, released the parish from their county tax for three years. When the Rev. Thomas Clap was called from the parish of Windham, to the presidency of the same college, the Legislature of the Colony, gave his society 53 pounds sterling, it being half of his original settlement, and he having been their pastor about half as long as pastors usually continue in the ministry. It is within the recollection of many, that the dismission of a pastor, even for such an object, was a very trying event; and there were

ministers of high reputation, who never regarded it as right. We are of opinion that this subject has, of late, received less attention than it deserves, especially since the appointment of a president or professor has become, in a degree, an experiment, like many other removals of pastors.

As the actual dismission of pastors for any of the objects here referred to, breaks up relations of a delicate nature, so the extending of calls to them, produces effects very similar. Though the pastor may not be willing to listen to the invitation, still the fact that it has been given, interferes with the harmony and confidence that had previously existed between him and his people, and often ultimately destroys it. 2. It would have a good effect, if the duty of the people competently to support their pastor, and of the pastor to practise a wise economy, were recognized on both sides.

That a pastor is entitled to a competent support, on the same principle that any laborer is entitled to his just wages, is a doctrine, which may be considered as settled to the satisfaction of every thorough reader of the Bible. But there has not always been a sufficiently practical impression of the obligation of this duty on the minds of those who enjoy the benefit of his labors. In former times, pastors often suffered greatly from the failure of their people to pay a salary which, in its full amount, was never more than adequate to their comfortable support. The effect of this is at least as bad on the welfare of the people, as on the comfort of the pastor. Injustice, in this respect, as in others, will always meet its retribution.

But the obligation lying on the pastor, to make this duty as easy and pleasant as possible to the people, is no less clear. Economy is a virtue in all; and not less a virtue in a minister than in others. It may be carried to an extreme, and become meanness; but without a good share of it, it is impossible for any man to avoid things that are either mean or otherwise derogatory to christian character. And though remarkable genius, or great excellence of character in a pastor, may dispose his people cheerfully to bear the inconvenience, which arises from his want of this quality, still, it would always be better if he possessed it. The want of it in pastors, and of promptness and exactness on the part of the people, in discharging their clear and imperative obligations, has been one cause of the unsteadiness which exists in the pastoral relation; and if a remedy is to be applied it must be felt in this particular.

3. Ecclesiastical bodies, which are called to decide the question of the dismission of a pastor, ought to have weighty reasons presented if they determine on his dismission. It is our opinion, that the simple desire of a pastor to be dismissed, or of his people that he should be, or of both of them united, is not a sufficient reason for dissolving a relation of this nature. When a pastor is settled, he is installed by an ecclesiastical council. He is placed over the people as their Shepherd. He is set apart to this office, and they are committed to his care with all the solemnity that attaches to any transaction. A charge is given to the pastor, and usually one to the church and people. All this is in harmony with the principle that a pastor is an ascension gift; and that the setting of him over the church is the act of God, signified by the solemnities performed by the council. But if he is a mere hirelingcomes without deliberation, and goes without a reason—are these solemnities the proper means of indicating such a relation? On this supposition, is there not something in them of the nature of profaneness? Once, the installation and the dismission of a pastor, were both very solemn transactions. Can either of them be so, if great care is not exercised in regard to them?

It appears to us, that no pastor ought to be dismissed without an imperative reason. The council who dismiss him, ought to take the responsibility of removing from a church, one whom God has set over it; and to show, truly and distinctly, the grounds on which they take such a step. These ought not to be trivial or common grounds. They ought to be of such weight and importance as shall make his dismission, equally with his installation, an act of the Great Shepherd and Bishop of souls.

Like every thing which is subject to the action of depraved human nature, this relation is liable to evils; and a great degree of stability in it may occasionally produce evils and inconveniences on both sides. But the only scriptural and effectual way of remedying them is by patience and prayer, "endeavoring to keep the urity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love." If either pastors or people think that they can remedy or avoid them by other means, they err. For evils extreme and intolerable, the providence of God is, usually, not long in providing a remedy. In the

present state of society, there appears to be no danger that the pastoral relation will fail to be dissolved, in any case, in which, according to the will of its founder, it ought not to continue.

ART. II. THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE OR SELF-DETERMINATION AND CONTINGENCY IN VOLITION.

By S. C. BRACE, New Haven.

THE controversy respecting the leading tenets of that Theology, which, in the last century, was called Arminianism, and which found in JONATHAN EDWARDS, of Northampton, an antagonist, who, at least, immortalized his own name, is but the theological modification of that dispute respecting liberty and necessity, which has so long occupied and perplexed the minds of philosophers. "The question about predestination and free will, (to quote the language of Dugald Stewart,) has furnished in all ages and countries, inexhaustible matter of contention both to philosophers and divines. In the ancient schools of Greece, it is well known how generally and how keenly it was agitated. Among the Mahometans, it constitutes one of the principal points of division between the followers of Omar and those of Ali; and among the ancient Jews it was the subject of endless dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees. It is scarcely necessary for me to add, what violent controversies it has produced, and still continues to produce in the Christian world." (Stewart's Works, Vol. V. p. 571.) Lord Kames has remarked, that "the disputes about liberty and necessity have subsisted through all ages in the inquiring world; since the earliest accounts of philosophy, they have run through all the different sects of philosophers, and have been engrafted into most of the religious systems." Edwards saw that the Arminian theology rested mainly upon a single metaphysical theory respecting liberty; and accordingly in his Inquiry on the Freedom of the Will, he struck at the root of Arminianism. He says, "on the determination of this one leading point, depends the issue of almost all controversies we have with such (Arminian and