Incessant mental labour, domestic cares and anxieties, sore bereavements, and sharp inward conflicts, subjected him, whilst in Brunswick, to several fits of sickness; the last of these proved a very lingering illness, which threatened a fatal termination. For the recovery of his health he finally deemed his removal from Brunswick absolutely necessary. Various causes, too, had been for some time operating to diminish his income, and such was the political and social state of the country as to preclude the hope of gaining there a permanent subsistence. But whither should he go? His desire to return to his fatherland was indeed strong, but there were formidable obstacles in the way. Negotiations, too, were at this time pending, relative to a professorship in Moscow. Thither he would probably have gone,* had not Providence unexpectedly interposed to effect his return to his native land. In the spring of 1805, an unknown reviewer of his "Miscel lanies" opened a correspondence with him, relative to his return to his beloved country. This generous man found various obstacles placed in his way by those who were unfriendly to Bilderdijk, which made it necessary for him to propose many questions in regard to the history of his past life. To these inquiries the exile returned unambiguous, decisive, and as it proved, satisfactory replies. This noble-minded Hollander, who sympathized with his illustrious countryman in his misfortunes, was no other than Jeronimo de Vries, a man of taste and classic culture, capable of appreciating such a man as Bilderdijk; and who, satisfied with the replies he had received, now made efforts to secure for him a professorship in the department of jurisprudence at Franeker. These generous efforts were, however, frustrated by opposition to Bilderdijk, resulting Corpus Juris Civilis, cujus dum lectione insomnes noctes ipsumque vitae tædium fallerem, non potui non in varia loca incidere quæ dubiis, conjecturis, observationibus, ansam darent." This also informs us what gave rise to the above-mentioned work. *To this he alludes in a letter subsequently written to Louis, king of Holland, from which we make an extract: "Obligé de fuir cette patrie, dont les malheurs et les pertes me touchoient bien plus encore que l'ingratitude dont j'étois la victime, accablé de chagrin et de misère, je succombois à la rigueur de mon sort, et j'allois m'ensevelir dans un climat éloigné, lorsqu'un regard de votre Majesté a changé mon destin." partly from misapprehension of his character and sentiments, and partly from a real diversity or contrariety of political sentiments. Though the wishes of De Vries, in which Bilderdijk participated, were not realized, yet the efforts of the former in this matter, had their influence in determining the latter to return to the land of his nativity. In the spring of 1806, after an absence of eleven years, two of which had been spent in England, and the remaining nine in Germany, Bilderdijk was permitted to set foot once more on the soil of a country in whose welfare he had cherished the liveliest interest, by whose misfortunes he had been most deeply grieved, and to which he still felt most ardently attached, despite the unkind treatment which he had experienced. From a heart overflowing with joy and sorrow, he poured forth the following touching lines as a salutation to his native soil: "'k Heb dan met mijn strammen voet, 'k Heb hem met mijn lijf bedekt; 'k Heb hem met mijn arm omvademd; (To be continued.) ART. V. Are there too many Ministers? UNTIL recently this question would have sounded strangely in the ears of Presbyterians. We have been accustomed to regard increase in the number of ministers as the evidence and index of the favour of God. To ask whether we had too many ministers, was regarded as equivalent to asking whether we had too many converts, too many revivals, too much of a missionary spirit, too much benevolence, too much zeal for Christ's glory, or too much devotion to his service. Were we and our fathers wrong in this view of the matter? Since when has the harvest ceased to be great, and the labourers few? When and how has our Lord recalled his command, "Pray ye the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest"? We hardly know how to enter on the discussion of this subject; and yet we are told that there is an urgent necessity for it. We are assured, that not only among men of the world, not only among those who are habitually disposed to take low views of everything, or who stand aloof from all benevolent efforts, but among many of the best men of the church and the best friends of our Boards, the impression is gaining ground, and often finds utterance, that we have too many ministers-that the supply is greater than the demand. It is very obvious that if this is true-if the supply of ministers is greater than we need-then it is the duty of the church to lessen the supply-to cease all efforts to increase the number of the preachers of the gospel. And it is no less obvious, that just in proportion as this conviction, whether well or illfounded, spreads among the churches, will all effort to increase the number of ministers cease. It is very clear, therefore, that this is a vital subject, affecting the life of the church and her cherished institutions. We have said that the assertion that we have too many ministers, once sounded as strangely as the declaration that we had too many Christians, or too much piety. Whether the state of mind which led to regarding these things as equivalent, was right or scriptural, or whether the present impression which is said to be gaining prevalence in the church, that the number of our ministers is in fact too great, is reasonable and right, depends on the view taken of the nature and office of the church. If the church is a voluntary society in the sense in which the state is, or in which the army or navy within the state are, then the question whether its members or its officers are too many or too few, is a question of fact to be determined by prudential considerations. The citizens of a country may easily increase beyond the limits of comfortable support or profitable employment. The state would then be called upon to take measures to prevent such increase, and by emigration or otherwise, to remedy the evil. Still more frequently does it happen, that applicants for service in the army or navy are more numerous than the exigencies of the country demand. Then it becomes the duty of the authorities to stop all recruiting, and to refuse to make any new appointments. Now if men are disposed to regard the church in the light of a civil institution, it is to be dealt with on the same principles. If its converts become inconveniently numerous, we must stop preaching; or, if too many candidates for the ministry present themselves, we must refuse to receive them. This, however, is not the view which Presbyterians have been in the habit of taking of the church. And it is because the complaint that we have too many ministers, betrays the influence (secret it may be) of this low theory over the minds and feelings of our brethren, that it has given rise to so much painful surprise. In the Scriptures, in our own standards, and in the inmost convictions of God's people, the church is the body of Christ, filled and animated by his Spirit. Every man by his regeneration becomes united to that body as a living member. Every member has its place and its office, determined not by its own will, not by human appointment, but by the Spirit of God. To one he gives one gift, to another another, dividing to each one severally as he wills. "We, being many," says the apostle, "are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophesy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation." If this be the true view of the matter, then the complaint that we have too many ministers, terminates, not on the church, but on the Holy Spirit. The church has nothing to do with it. It is not her office to call men into the ministry. She can only sit in judgment on the question, whether the candidate is really called of God. She puts him upon trial; she examines into his experience, into his qualifications or gifts. If satisfied, she pronounces her judg ment to that effect, and thenceforth, until the contrary is made manifest, those whom the church approves as called by the Spirit, are to be so regarded and treated. Those who complain that we have too many ministers, know not what they do. They can escape the guilt of charging the Spirit with distri buting his gifts unwisely or too profusely, only by denying that there is any divine call to the ministry. But this they cannot do without denying the plain doctrine of God's word, and the faith of our own, and of every other Christian church. The candidate is expressly asked in the ordination service of the Episcopal church, and impliedly in the inducting ceremonies and services of our own and of all other churches, "Do you believe that you are called of God to take upon you this office?" If the candidate believes that he is thus called, if the church is satisfied that he is neither a hypocrite nor a selfdeceiver; if he gives every scriptural evidence of being the subject of this divine call, what shall we do? Shall we refuse to recognise it? Shall we say that we have ministers enough? Shall we decline to aid those thus called in preparing for the work to which God has called them, or in sustaining them in their labours? No one would dare consciously to take this ground. And yet this is the very ground taken by those who complain that we have too many ministers. To divest this complaint of its irreligious character, it must be directed not against the number, but against the character of our ministers. The only rational ground of complaint is, that the church introduces into the ministry men who are not called of God. This may well be; nay, it is impossible but that in some cases it must be; just as it is impossible but that offences must come. The church is not infallible in her judgment, and is not always |