accessible to all who read the language. This, it is true, does not compensate for the want of the impression made by oral delivery, or of the information gained by private intercourse. But these are not the usual attractions to our students, and apart from these, the German schools may act almost as powerfully at a distance as at hand. A striking proof and illustration is afforded by the fact that some of those American scholars, who appear to have derived most from the German sources, have never been abroad. In one or the other of these ways, we think it highly desirable that some of our younger theologians, who possess the prerequisites, both native and acquired, should make themselves familiar with the German erudition and the German methods of instruction. This necessity arises partly from the undeniable pre-eminence of Germany in certain walks of learning, which renders it impossible to keep up with the progress of the age and yet prohibit all intellectual communion with her. It arises also from the very evils which this intercourse has generated, and which must be remedied, not by blind denunciation, but by thorough and discriminating knowledge.

It is evident, however, that this method of importing German wisdom, even if it should become far more extensive than it is, would operate rather upon individuals than on the institutions of this country. It is still a question, therefore, whether these admit of any material improvement by the introduction of the German system, as we have considered it. The sheer substitution of that system for our own is out of the question. Were it ever so easy, it would be wholly undesirable. Though some of the evils which attend its operation in its native land might be corrected by our political and social institutions, there are others which would still exist, and some which would be aggravated, if not developed for the first time, by the action of the self-same causes. It would indeed be a sufficient objection to the system, as a whole, that it is foreign, that it did not germinate and ripen here, but in another soil and under other skies. Such institutions may materially influence the state of society, but they do not produce it. They only react upon that to which they owe their own existence. And the same considerations which thus show the revolution to be inexpedient, show it also to be utterly impracticable. The German education could no more be forced

upon this country than the German language. But it does not follow that our own institutions can derive no benefit whatever from these foreign methods. There are several ways in which a salutary use of them might be made, although not perhaps at present. One which has been suggested is the institution of a university on the German principle at some central point, not with a view to supersede existing institutions or even to compete with them, but for the purpose of supplying what is really our grand desideratum, some contrivance to encourage and facilitate the further prosecution of the studies now begun at college. The proper seat of such a school would be one of our great cities, and the best plan the old German one, in its naked simplicity, and with its Jachin and Boaz, liberty of teaching and learning. It would even be desirable to try the old way of dispensing with costly buildings and unnecessary forms. The teachers might be embodied first by voluntary association, and then perpetuated in the German way, and with the usual gradations. Such an institution, if it could be brought into existence, would probably do much for the advancement as well as the diffusion of knowledge. The grand difficulty would be to find hearers. Many might be willing to resort to such a school instead of the existing colleges; but few would probably resort to it as something in addition to them. The characteristic hurry of society and life among us, and the early call to active employment, leave but few, who have completed the accustomed course of study, willing to commence a new one. At the same time, it would be extremely difficult at present to supply such an establishment with teachers, at least in sufficient numbers to maintain the real German emulation. It would indeed be scarcely possible without a weakening draught upon the other institutions of the country, unless by some arrangement which should make it possible to employ the same talent in both ways. The very statement of these difficulties may perhaps suffice to show that the country is not ripe for any such experiment, even if it should be thought desirable. And yet the day may not be distant when such an addition to our existing means of intellectual improvement will be found not only possible but indispensable.

In the mean time, there is another way, in which the least objectionable features of the German plan might be transferred to some of our existing institutions, without any change what

ever in their form or government, by superadding to the regu lar prescribed course of education, some provision for subjects not included in it, or for the further prosecution of others. These, forming no part of the curriculum required for graduation, would admit of being taught with all the freedom of the German method, both with respect to learners and teachers, both being left unshackled as to subjects. Even the principle of competition among teachers, which is so essential to the German system, might be recognised, as far as would be salutary either to the individuals concerned or to the progress of learning. The lecturers on this plan might be either the regular professors only, or these with the addition of such qualified coadjutors as might offer themselves and be approved by the competent authorities. By some such arrangement at a few of our oldest institutions, a great impulse might be given to the march of science, and provision made for supplying the deplorable defect of able teachers and professors. At the same time the literary standard of our educated youth would be raised, and many induced to tread the higher walks of learning, who, for want of such inducements, now waste their time and talents in doing nothing or worse than nothing.

With these crude suggestions we conclude a notice of the foreign universities which cannot but appear unsatisfactory and meager to those who are already familiar with the subject, but may possibly afford some interesting information to a larger class of readers, whose ideas, in relation to these matters, have been vague or founded on erroneous statements.

ART. III.-An Earnest Appeal to the Free Church of Scotland, on the subject of Economics. By Thomas Chalmers, D.D. First American from the Second Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1847. pp. 64.

THIS suggestive and teeming pamphlet has now been several months before the churches, and we presume in the hands of almost all our ministers. We cannot suffer ourselves to think that so much practical wisdom, enforced by the earnest eloquence of

Chalmers, can fail to influence for good a multitude of minds. We may not immediately see its effects, but the principles here suggested, the plans proposed, and the motives urged must commend themselves to the judgment and conscience of the readers, and must induce them to act, or at least prepare them to act with greater intelligence and zeal, in the prosecution of the various enterprises in which as a church we are engaged.

We propose to select from the numerous topics here discussed the support of the clergy, as a subject of a few remarks. That it is the duty of the church to sustain those who are engaged in preaching the gospel is not a disputed point. The apostle rests this obligation on the following grounds. 1. The general principle that labour is entitled to a reward, or, as our Saviour expresses it, the labourer is worthy of his hire. This principle the apostle reminds us, is recognized in all the departments of human life, and has the sanction of the law of God in its application even to brutes, for it is written: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. 2. It is a simple matter of commutative justice. If we have sown unto spiritual things, is it a great matter that we should reap your carnal things? If we do you a great good, is it unreasonable to expect you to do us a less? 3. In all countries and under all forms of religions, true or false-those who minister at the altar are partakers with the altar. 4. It is an express ordinance of Christ that they which preach the gospel should live by the gospel.

It is not however every one who preaches the gospel, who is entitled to the benefit of this ordinance. In many cases men, who by profession are lawyers, merchants, or mechanics, are at the same time preachers. Preaching, however, is not their vocation; it is not the work to which their time and talents are devoted. It is a service in which they occasionally engage as opportunity offers without interrupting their ordinary engagements. It is evident that such men, however laudable their motives, or however useful their labours, are not entitled by the ordinance of Christ to live by the gospel. Others, who by profession are preachers, who have been educated and ordained in reference to the sacred office, are at the same time something else, teachers, farmers, or planters. They unite with their vocation as preachers some lucrative secular employment. Sometimes this is a matter of choice; more frequently, perhaps, of

necessity; sometimes, as in the case of Paul, of disinterested self-denial, that they may make the gospel of Christ without charge. No one can doubt that there may be excellent and adequate reasons why a preacher should be a teacher or a farmer. Nor can it be questioned that every one has a right to judge of those reasons for himself, and to determine whether he will support himself, or throw himself on the ordinance of Christ. But he cannot do both. He cannot support himself and claim the right to be supported by the church. He throws himself out of the scope of the ordinance in question by devoting his time and talents to the work of self support. The plain scriptural principle is that those who devote themselves to the service of the church, have a right to be supported by the church; that those who consecrate themselves to preaching the gospel are entitled to live by the gospel. As this is a truth so plainly taught in the sacred scriptures, and so generally conceded, it need not be discussed.

A much more difficult question is: What is the best method of sustaining the ministers of religion? In attempting to answer this question, we propose first to state historically and very briefly the different methods which have been adopted for that purpose, and secondly to show that the duty in question is a duty common to the whole church.

As to the former of the two points proposed for consideration, it may be remarked that under the Mosaic dispensation, the Levites being set apart for the service of the sanctuary, had thirty-five cities with a circle of land of a thousand cubits around the walls assigned to them, and a tithe of all the produce of the ground, of the flocks, and of the herds. The priests were supported by a tithe of the portion paid the Levites; by the first fruits which, according to the Talmudists, were in no case to be less than the sixtieth of the whole harvest; by a certain portion of the sacrifices offered on the altar; by the price paid for the redemption of the first-born among men, and of those animals which were not allowed to be offered in sacrifice. They were moreover exempt from taxation and military duty. Such was the abundant provision which God ordained for the support of the ministers of religion.

Under the new dispensation, our Lord while explicitly enjoining the duty, left his people free as to the mode in which it