represented processes actually contemporaneous as having taken place in succession. In short, he claims, by virtue of his ideal apprehension of the Hexaëmeron, to have precisely the same freedom as those reconcilers who conceive of the days as extended periods; and particularly, by reason of his hypothesis of a mainly contemporaneous progress of the different creative acts, to be free from all embarrassment "in reference to such points also as the contemporaneousness of the rock formations, the vegetable and animal creations, demonstrated by geology." Page 330.

We see from the above that Dr. Schultz, in point of fact, occupies the same standpoint, and proceeds according to the same principles, as most modern advocates of the theory of Literal Agreement, particularly Delitzsch, Keerl, Reusch, Böhner; only that in his estimate of the rhetorical character and theological significance of the Mosaic record of creation, he proceeds in a somewhat more refined manner than these, and understands better than they, by means of a more careful discrimination between the biblical narration and the geological account of the process of creation, to preserve the peculiarly delicate and poetic aroma with which this oldest record of divine revelation is surrounded. That he rejects the interpretation of the days in the sense of periods, as decidedly unjustifiable in an exegetical point of view, and in general pronounces a somewhat harsh judgment upon the hypothesis. of Literal Agreement, with which after all his own stands in such close relationship, we can only regard as inconsistent and insufficiently sustained. For, in truth, he also regards the six days as periods of unequal and indeterminable duration, and that the general biblical usus loquendi in reference to the word affords a certain exegetical right to this tropical conception of the term, he certainly cannot earnestly think of questioning, much less regard as refuted by that advanced on pages 316 and 317 against Delitzsch. We are of the opinion, however, that Dr. Schultz will be inclined to acknowledge the relationship of his method of procedure with that of the partisans of the Literal Agreement theory, and to approach the latter still more nearly just in proportion as the progress of geological science, by sifting, reconstructing, and better establishing the now current theories of geogony, shall cause both

the candid representatives of natural science and theologians acquainted with this realm of knowledge to generally adopt riper and better supported views respecting the actual process of the formation of the earth, and thus prepare the way for the removal of so many real or apparent difficulties now existing in this department of Christian apology. For, in one point, Keil, Bosizio, and the other adherents of the aboveconsidered Diluvian hypothesis, are, after all, unquestionably right, and that is in maintaining that the so-called "results" of geological and palæontological science consist as yet to a great extent in empty fancies and fruitless hypotheses, and that it is therefore the prime duty of the defender of the Bible to quietly wait until that transformation of these hypotheses into tenable opinions, which we are certainly justified in expecting, shall have been successfully accomplished.

ART. III.-OUR ITINERANCY.

[ARTICLE SECOND.]

1. OUR system secures to each Church a pastor at all times. We do not wish to deal in unneighborly comparisons, yet we point to the fact that there are in our own land large and influential bodies of Christians who leave the congregations and the ministers individually to manage for themselves; who agree that a "settled pastorate" is better than any itinerant system, and yet their annual reports show that from year to year nearly one half of their Churches are without settled pastors, and dependent on temporary supplies. For this state of things there must be a cause; and what is it? Is it because they find it so difficult to make permanent arrangements? Or is it because there is little desire for permanence? One, or both, of these reasons must lie at the foundation of the evil. The fatal fact cited is itself sufficient to offset all the defects of the itinerancy.

Our Churches, on the other hand, all have pastors. The weakest society is provided for as certainly as the strongest. And all have pastors all the while. There are no exceptions, save under circumstances for which no system can provide, as in the case of the death of the pastor. When a minister is

assigned to a Church, he remains its pastor till the appointed officer rises at the close of the session of conference and announces a new distribution of labor; and then the same hour that ends his pastorate installs his successor.

2. The itinerancy secures for the pastor a fair degree of independence, enabling him to "speak boldly, as he ought to speak."

Entire independence on either side is not good. This is one of the evils of State Churches. Where the government seeks to control the Church, the object sought is not the good of the Church. It is rather a politic move on the part of the "powers that be," who seek to prop their thrones by enlisting the religion of the country in their favor. The religious leaders even of idolaters are recognized as wielding great influence among the people. Tyrants and timid rulers, apprehensive of revolt and revolution, aim to fortify themselves by making the ministry creatures of their own, bound to the throne by the principle that "the ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib." Consequently, the conditions on which the state pastors hold their places refer to the head of the state, rather than the Great Head of the Church, and loyalty is of more importance to them than piety and correct doctrine. Having a legal claim on the people for their salary, and at the same time not amenable to the people for the manner in which they do their duty, there is a dangerous tendency to ease and worldliness, and to be satisfied with a cold performance of the services prescribed by the law. The pastor is not only sufficiently independent of his people to preach the whole truth boldly if he will, but to tempt him to be indifferent whether he preaches it at all.

Turning to the congregational plan of Church government, we find that the pastor is too much in the power of the people. If indeed he is a man of uncommon acceptability, he may feel at his ease. But take an average man. Suppose that he is well pleased with his position, and hopes to retain it, determines to retain it as long as possible. We will also imagine him a little past his prime, and beginning to suspect that the younger portions of his flock regard him as an old man. There is an influential man in his Church who has a large circle of relatives and friends, and around whom a strong party can easily

be gathered; this man is pursuing a course detrimental to religion and will not be reproved. Half a score of worldly pew-holders take offense at the pastor's plain-dealing sermons, and threaten to secede if he will not cease from his rebukes, and content himself with "preaching the Gospel." The pastor may be poor, and have a dependent family, and a loss of his present position will be well-nigh fatal to him. His years, his moderate abilities, will render it a hard thing for him to find a new charge; and so he is in a strait between duty to souls and duty to those dependent upon him; and there is danger that in the conflict, conscience will suffer. If he already knows that his hold upon the affections of a part of his people is slender, the temptation is stronger, and the peril to conscience greater.

On the itinerant plan things are more equal. To be removed at the end of one year is not of necessity embarrassing to the pastor. In the process of disciplining the unruly, he may provoke an opposition which will render his longer stay unpleasant to him; but if he has done his work wisely and well, he goes his way unharmed, and leaves a clear field for his successor. If those who are provoked by his faithfulness hold the purse, and cut off his supplies, the temporary lack may be made up by future abundance. Thus the unfair and unsafe dependence of the congregational plan is avoided, as well as the equally unsafe independence of the State Church system. Tested by practical results, in outspoken boldness of reproof of popular sins and vices, as slavery and the use of intoxicating drinks, we are not ashamed to compare the itinerants of the Methodist Episcopal Church with the ministry of any other denomination in the land. And if it is evident that in these things we have excelled others, it may be candid as well as modest in us to say that the difference is more due to our better system of ministerial labor than to clearer reason and deeper piety. Entire independence of the people, and entire dependence upon them, are both evils. The itinerant system is free from both extremes, and therefore works to the advantage of the pastor, who is bound to declare all the counsel of God, and of the people, who need all that counsel.

3. The itinerancy furnishes the means of securing a change of pastors without inflicting dishonor or injustice.

From a want of adaptation, or from circumstances which neither the pastor nor people can control, it may be expedient that he should leave his present field of labor. Where the congregational plan obtains, it is difficult to effect the change. To canvass the Church, inquiring who would like to have the minister resign, is an ungracious business, very apt to damage those engaged in it. To oust the pastor often destroys the unity of the Church, and "separates chief friends." Even where there is a clear and strong conviction among the people that a change is demanded for the good of the cause, there is often a resolute minority who resist to the last, and make the process disastrous. A quarrel over the removal of the old pastor is a sure precursor of numberless others in securing a new one. For these reasons, and more, the considerate members of the Church seek a change only when it becomes evident, not only that their best exertions put forth steadily, year after year, have failed to achieve success under the present arrangement, but also that present evils are so great as to warrant incurring the risks involved in the attempt to secure a change.

If the pastor is a popular man, and he seeks the change, people are prone to talk it over, and try to learn his motives. They wonder whether he is becoming mercenary, and is aiming at a higher salary elsewhere; or whether he is justified in leaving his people by some lack of cordiality, harmony, or liberality on their part. If the people seek the change, it can hardly fail to be construed as a reflection on the minister, his talents, his piety, his fitness, or something else.

The process may be conducted with all delicacy and kindness of speech. They may declare that they respect the good brother, and will always continue to do so; that they hope and fervently pray that he may be very useful and happy in some new field. Nevertheless, after all these soft words, there remains the palpable fact, that for some reason, good or bad, through some fault or some misfortune, he has failed to secure the affections of his people, and to render his ministrations generally acceptable. Consequently he goes forth to the ecclesiastical market-place with a suspicious mark upon him. When the congregation of a Church seeking a pastor see in the pulpit a candidate who has evidently been some time in the ministry, they instinctively ask, "Who is he? Where has