be. Thus the doctrine is no other than that with which we trust we have already sufficiently reconciled the ordinary use of sortilege.

But whichever of these interpretations, or of any others we adopt, one thing is manifest, that an interpretation which would support the inference that we are combating, is altogether inadmissible. If we are to understand from this text, that every issue of every lot is specially disposed by God, and sent forth as a revelation of his will;* not to speak of the subversion of second causes, and the waste of miraculous influence that would thus occur, how can we escape the blasphemous conclusions that the sublime and mysterious will of the Eternal is opened to the gaze of every fanatic, to the extent which his presumption may dictate-that, in repeated trials and cross-examinations, the divine response may be perplexed by the contradictions of accident -nay, that all the infamous lies of pagan, and the still more pitiable and degrading fancies of christian, sortilege, have been true and unerring as the Jewish oracles? If it be said, that it is only the lot as applied to appropriate subjects, and accompanied with due formalities, to which this text refers, we ask, Where is the reason for this limitation in the verse itself? and where is the propriety of referring to this passage as a conclusive settlement of the extent of sortilege, when the conditions by which alone, when thus understood, it can itself be saved from blasphemy, are not only undetermined, but confessedly indeterminable from the light of other parts of scripture. To appeal to this passage as a means of fixing the universal lesson to be taught by scripture examples of the lot, and then to employ these examples, so explained, to help the interpretation of the passage out of difficulties, is a glaring logical circle.

The other passage, "The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth among the mighty," is no more than a statement of the prudential value of the lot, and may be employed as a confirmation of the views already advanced on that head. It is only remarkable in this controversy for an attempt to found upon it a parallel between the Lot and the Oath, of which last divine ordinance, nearly the same language is used in Heb. vi. 16, "An oath for confirmation is an end of all strife." Of this argument, which seeks to infer a universal similarity from a non-essential point of resemblance, it is enough to say that it is too timidly applied by its inventors, and that they ought to rank "a soft answer," and "slowness to anger," and many other preventives of strife, in the same category of sacred ordinances.

*This is expressly asserted in a small treatise, entitled, "Considerations on Lots," reprinted from an American periodical, and recommended by the respectable name of Dr Symington of Glasgow, who ascribes the work to the editor of that periodical, the late Dr Mason of New York. "God," says he, in expounding this passage, "acknowledges the result as a judgment given by himself." How the same author escapes from the conclusion that the superstitious use of the lot, which he earnestly denounces, also involves a true divine judgment, it is not easy to see. The treatise in question, though pious in aim and style, and not more vehement than became the assailant of a great fancied impiety, is hasty and shallow in its general views and reasonings; and is vitiated from first to last by a complete confusion of the distinction between Common and Special Providence in the Lot,-the very turning point of the whole question.

VOL. I. VOL. XI.-JANUARY 1843.

D

To conclude, in the words of the excellent Gataker:-"Take the dross, saith Solomon, "from the silver, and there will be a vessel fit for the finer." So take the ordinary abuse from the ordinary lot, and it will prove an ordinance of no evil use. Neither are the use and the abuse of it so mixed together, that men may not, if they will, sever them the one from the other. Let it therefore be so wisely and warily used, that God be not dishonoured, who hath given us the free use of lots ; nor our brethren offended and wronged, for whose good God hath given us them; nor ourselves hindered in better things, that more nearly concern us, and whereunto these things should be a furtherance unto us."

K.

REMARKS ON THE OVERTURE RESPECTING THE

PROBATIONERS' LIST.

In the last number of your Miscellany, there is a report of the proceedings of the Dunfermline Presbytery at their meeting in October last. Among other matters discussed by them was the overture transmitted by the Synod on the subject of the Probationers' List, from which it would appear that the presbytery were severally of opinion that the proposed plan ought not to be adopted without considerable modifications. As the same matter is likely to come before other presbyteries, and as it materially affects not only the interests of preachers, but also those of the United Secession Church generally, a few remarks, in reference to it, will, we trust, not be altogether at present out of place.

The present age, as has often been remarked, is one of change and improvement. Systems which formerly commanded the respect and veneration of our forefathers have been subjected to the most rigourous and sifting examinations; so that it may be ascertained whether or not they are, in the present state of society, entitled to the same support. Hence that unparalleled impetus which, for good or for evil, has been given to the human mind in the career of innovation. Now, to this we have, and can have, no objection. Man is an improving, and progressively improving, being. It is right that the institutions of a country, and the laws which regulate the church of Christ, so far as these depend on the judgment of man, should keep pace with the advancing morality and intelligence of the human race. Wherever abuse exists, we rejoice to see reformation introduced with an unsparing hand.

Among these changes or fancied improvements, then, may be classed the one now under consideration. After the lapse of more than a hundred years, it has been supposed by some that the present period of probation of the preachers of the Secession Church is defective; that for their own and the congregations' good among whom they labour, it ought to be limited; and that with this view a plan has been proposed to the Synod by a committee of their own number, and sent down to presbyteries for their consideration. To any person, however, accustomed to calm thought and serious reflection, the question will naturally occur, is such a plan calculated to serve the end intended, namely, the good of the probationers themselves, and ultimately to prove beneficial to the church?

With regard to the abstract question, whether or not it is desirable that the period of probation should be limited, a difference of opinion may exist. Much may be said both for and against it. The matter, however, with which we have here to do, is the proposed plan as it affects the present probationers. It cannot be denied, but that they took license on the faith that their probationership was to continue so long as they pleased, unless otherwise disqualified by immorality or notorious unacceptability. Is it then at all fair, just, or right, to deprive them through no fault of theirs, by a de post facto law, of appointments to vacant congregations, and even, in a great ineasure, if not altogether, of the means of subsistence? We are aware, it is said, that the present plan is not to be supposed as implying inelegibility for office, or depriving them of other description of employment. But who does not perceive that if a probationer be prevented from being heard in vacant congregations, he has no chance whatever of being called? Indeed, it will rather create a strong prejudice against him-hold him up to the derision of the church. The people will naturally reason thus, "Who would ever think of calling a minister from among those preachers to whom the Synod consider it inexpedient to allow them a hearing." Refusal of appointments to vacancies will be tantamount to a declaration of inelegibility for office. Besides, the missionary appointments, or those to ministers' pulpits, will be so few, as to be altogether inadequate for temporal support.

We can see nothing wrong in the Synod enacting that the period of the probation of those preachers who shall henceforth be licensed, shall be limited to as short a time as may be deemed proper. In this there would be nothing unjust; for those who then took license would do so with their eyes open, and consequently could have no reason afterwards to complain. But after preachers have spent years in preparing themselves for their holy profession-have struggled with difficulties in procuring their education,-after having become licentiates in a church in which, at the time of their doing so, it was expressly understood that the period of their probation was to be unlimited, unless for the reasons previously stated-while they feel it to be a source of much delight to itinerate throughout the country, distributing amongst the churches the bread and the water of life-is it, we repeat, right to pass a law by which they are to be deprived of opportunities of doing good, of the means of an honourable subsistence, and cast forth on the cold-hearted world as useless and degraded men? And all this for no other reason than that they have not succeeded in procuring a call, or perhaps may have thought fit to decline accepting one. Is such, we would humbly ask, the religion of Jesus, of him who has commanded his followers, "To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with their God?"

There is a subject connected with this, on which we would like to make a remark or two, especially as considerable misconceptions have hitherto prevailed in reference to it. We mean the supposed tendency which a probationer's life has to prevent his own personal improvement. Much has been said as to the frequent change of place dissipating the mind-the want of motive that is held out to prepare new discoursesand the little opportunity presented of acquiring knowledge from the

limited supply of books which a preacher can have with him. That such inconveniences are attendant on the present system, few, we think, will be disposed to deny. Still, wherever the inclination and the will exist, they will be overcome. Past experience has proved that it is not those who have had the most abundance of time and opportunity, and books, that the greatest advances have been made in knowledge and intellectual improvement. As has been said, we should never estimate a man's knowledge from the amount of books he possesses. Let but a thirst for knowledge, and for doing good exist, and with all the inconveniences with which a preacher is surrounded, he will find means of gratifying it,-of cultivating his mind, storing it with useful knowledge, and bringing forth out of his treasure things new and old for the edification of the churches. We are all the creatures of custom, and the mind can be as well trained and habituated to thinking and composing, in itinerating, as in being placed over a congregation. Indeed, a preacher has the means of improving himself in this respect more than a settled minister can have, inasmuch as the same amount of labour is not required of him, and, consequently, he has the opportunity of doing better whatever he requires to do. Too much writing injures style, and prevents the subject treated of from being properly digested, especially when the thing required must be done in a given time. Those ministers who have to compose and commit two, and sometimes three, discourses in a week, cannot be supposed, all other things being equal, to do them so well as those who have plenty of time at their command. For our own part, we have long been of opinion that if a preacher is pleased to submit to what may be termed the inconveniences to which his situation necessarily exposes him, takes a pleasure in his work, is possessed of a thirst for knowledge and improvement, and feels disposed to keep himself free from the entanglements of the world, has, to say the least of it, as much opportunity of doing good to himself, and, if he were ordained, to others, as if he were placed over a congregation. If it be otherwise, the fault lies with the preacher himself, and any law which the Synod may enact will not remove it.

To the above reasonings it may be said that, admitting the truth of them, still it is expedient for the good of congregations that the proposed plan be adopted. To this we reply that whatever is unjust can never be expedient, and ultimately injures the cause that it is intended to benefit. Experience has amply demonstrated, that whenever expediency has been allowed to usurp the place of justice, present good procured by unlawful means, the sacred rights of any party sacrificed to real or doubtful projects of reform, without adequate compensation, the necessary and uniform result has been the injury of the system which such changes have been intended to strengthen and uphold. We have no reason to be surprised at this, as it is just in accordance with the moral laws which regulate the world. The one is just as inevitable a result of the other, as the harvest reaped in autumn is of the seed sown in spring.

Supposing, then, such a plan as the one proposed is adopted, what, it may be asked, will be the effects which it may be expected to have

on the church generally? sagacity to foresee and foretell.

And we think it requires not much

1. That it will introduce amongst probationers and their friends a system of canvassing and other disreputable practices, so as to secure a call ere the period of probation terminates. This is just what may be expected from human nature in its corrupted form. When once it is enacted, that after a given time, a preacher must resign his appointments, every one will just adopt those means which he finds best calculated to gain his end. Though we believe that Christ has committed the choosing of ministers to the people, yet it by no means follows that they will always pitch on the best instructors. The ardent will usually select the most captivating, the careless, the most accommodating. If, then, it be found that, instead of holding forth the words of truth and soberness, the only way of avoiding being struck off the list, is by adopting oneself to the prejudices and tastes of the people, who does not see that good sense, taste,-in short, every thing that can dignify and adorn the character of candidates for the holy ministry, will be sacrificed at the shrine of an ephemeral popularity.

2. As a necessary consequence of the above-men of ability and piety will be deterred from entering the church. Wherever these two things are combined, it may safely be affirmed that the person possessing them will trust to them alone for success in whatever department of life he is placed. It is owing to this we believe, why so many eminent ministers have hitherto occupied the pulpits of the Secession Church. But when it turns out that a system of patronage of the most contemptible kind, and of pandering to the prejudices of the people, brought about by the new circumstances, in which the preachers find themselves placed, is the only certain passport to success; while those, how great soever may be their qualification, who refuse to submit to such practices, are sure to be neglected--is it at all likely that they will be induced to enter such a church? Such men ought not to submit to such humiliations.

3. The injury to the church herself would be incalculable. She depends principally for her prosperity and usefulness on the character of the men who minister at her altars. It is true, a minister, without talents or much learning, yet possessed of piety, may be more useful than one endowed with only the former of these qualifications. Yet where they are all three combined, they render their possessor the ornament and glory of the church. If, then, the proposed plan tend to prevent such men from entering within her pale, how unspeakable the injury which she would ultimately sustain. A temporary good, it is true, may be enjoyed, but in the end it would be found to be dearly purchased. The Secession Church has, under the blessing of her Great Head, owed the high position she now occupies in our land to the character of her clergy. How careful, then, ought she to be of passing a measure, which, however praiseworthy may have been the motives of those who brought it forward, and however much may be the good, which in the meantime may accrue from it, yet in the end is fraught with so injurious and overwhelming consequences.

We submit it then to the candid judginent of our readers, if such be not the influence which the proposed overture, if adopted, is likely