With the above explanation, which provides against the licentiousness of the pulpit, it may safely and confidently be affirmed, that he who understands christianity has a right, and is bound in duty, to teach it. Let a christian man then preach the same truths to others, which, through the blessing of God, enlightened his own mind and reformed his life; he will soon witness their efficacy in the conversion of sinners, and this success of his labours will be sufficient proof that God has called him to the sacred work. The apostle Paul proved to the Corinthians, and to all men, from the success of his ministry solely, without any written credentials, that he had authority from Christ to preach the gospel: "Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." (2 Cor. iii. 1-3.) This reasoning will be equally conclusive in favour of any minister who can give proofs of usefulness; but if any man convert sinners without the approbation and co-operation of God, the apostle's argument is good for nothing. In comparison of these living epistles, the apostle despised the written recommendation or orders, on which, it seems, the false teacher at Corinth set a high value. How many modern divines make a parade of holy orders, written with pen and ink, who can show no living epistles, written with the Spirit of the living God. The various denominations of dissenting ministers have reformed tens of thousands of profligates; and these evidences of their success must carry conviction to every ingenuous mind, that their ministry is of God. Those who traduce their character, and depreciate their labours, cannot stand a comparison with them in point of either morals or usefulness.

can

It is supposed by many people, that all are not au

thorised to preach by the great head of the church, who are sufficiently qualified for the work by their piety and abilities. A select number, it is said, are specially designated to the holy employment by the Almighty, and solemnly set apart to it by the church; these alone have, what is termed, a call to the ministry. All the rest are supposed to be excluded; and therefore, should any of them, no matter how well qualified in other respects, presume to assume the sacred office, they are to be considered as sacrilegious intruders, who must answer for their temerity at the peril of their souls. As this is an error of considerable magnitude, it will be proper to take some pains to explode it.

A call to preach is variously explained by the different sects. A churchman who is a candidate for deacons' orders, professes to feel inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost. What the clergy mean by this declaration, it is difficult to say; as they, almost to a man, denounce all feelings and impulses of the Holy Ghost as enthusiasm and fanaticism. How they can feel without feeling, and be moved without an impulse, will require some little ingenuity to explain. Till this be done, they can only evade the charge of enthusiasm and fanaticism at the expense of their honesty. Nelson has a remark similar to the well known one

of Burnet upon this subject: "When a priest," says

he, "enters into orders, only to entitle himself to a benefice, without any inward call from the Holy Ghost, if this is the case, (as I am afraid it too frequently happens,) then he speaks false in the presence of God, even upon the most solemn occasion, and this must be a sham dedication of himself to his service, and it is very improbable, that the God of truth should give any blessing to the services or ministry of such a person, who leaped into the church by a wilful and premeditated lie."*

Every pious man is under a divine influence; but no one has any reason to expect any other motion to the

* Rights of the Clergy, page 408.

office of the ministry than to any other christian duty. It is the duty of every man to do all the good in his power. It is a good work to instruct the ignorant; it is my duty, therefore, if I understand religion, to instruct those who do not. The obligation to teach, in this case, does not arise from the state of my feelings, but from my qualifications: suppose my feelings, instead of prompting me to the employment, were ever so much opposed to it, it is still my duty to mount the rostrum; and the sense of duty ought to prompt me to action. It is the sense of duty which must give the impulse, and not the impulse the sense of duty, otherwise, by making our feelings the rule of our duty, we renounce the authority of the written word, and are lost in the wilds of fanaticism or the gloom of infidelity, perhaps both.

What shocking work this doctrine of motions, being a rule of action, would produce, if it were applied to morals. An object of distress solicits my charity: I have plenty of money, but I am covetous; I therefore feel no motion to part with it, and am, consequently, under no obligation to relieve the indigent. Again: because I love money, it is ten to one but I feel an impulse to take a few pounds out of my neighbour's desk; my motion makes it a duty, and I should feel a guilty conscience were I to withhold my hand.

You will perhaps object, and say, "But these things are sinful, and therefore you ought not to regard your impulses." I deny it. Impulse is my rule of action, and my impulse does not say that these things are sinful. "True," you will reply, "but the word of God does." Certainly. "By the law," not impulse, "is the knowledge of sin," as well as duty. Here then we have got to the point. If the word of God informs me what I am to avoid, and what I am to do, an impulse, or the absence of it, can neither add to my obligation nor diminish from it. It is my duty to relieve the poor, and if my feelings are against it, I must be charitable in spite of them. It is my duty to be honest, and I must suppress my feel

:

ings if they would make me a rogue. So, in preaching if I am qualified to instruct the ignorant, it is my duty to do it; and if my feelings are opposed to it, I must silence them with the awful consideration, "Woe be unto me if I preach not the gospel."

66

But you will say, "It is not all impulses which are to be followed, but those only which are excited by the Holy Ghost." Very well: but how shall I know that a particular motion is excited by the Holy Ghost? If you say, When the Holy Ghost prompts a man to preach, he accompanies the motion with an inward and distinct consciousness of his agency." I answer, If this be true, by making the Spirit's influence the rule of action, you render the word of God of no use, for one infallible director is as good as a thousand; and we have again arrived at fanaticism and infidelity. If revelation is to be our guide, the sense of duty must give the impulse to action.

A man who understands religion, and perceives it to be his duty to teach it, may have his conviction of duty powerfully impressed upon his mind by the Holy Spirit; just the same as by a divine influence he is persuaded to practise the duties of honesty and charity. The scriptures teach that "it is God who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure;" and in perfect unison with these sentiments is the declaration of the church of England, that all holy desires, and all just works proceed from our heavenly Father. But it is not the impression of the Spirit of God which confers the right, or creates the duty to preach any more than it confers the right or creates the duty to be just and merciful; the authority and obligation must, in the nature of things, be antecedent to the impression.

What has led to so much nonsense about a call to the ministry, has been the generally received opinion, that priests are a distinct order of men, specially designated by Heaven to their holy employment, and solemnly set apart to it by a junta of the sacred profession, with a number of pompous rites and ceremo

nies.* Now suppose a layman to be ever so well qualified to give religious instruction, -to be even wiser and better than the parish priest,- it is taken for granted that he cannot have the inward call; if he pretends to have received it, he is called an enthusiast; and if he presumes to hold forth, he is denounced as unauthorised, and unaccredited;-a usurper of the sacred office, whose ministrations must be accompanied with a curse rather than a blessing. Were the right and duty to teach christianity founded upon a man's ability for the work, which is the only proper basis, a corporation of priests could no longer claim an exclusive privilege to make ministers and to preach the gospel.

According to church logic, there is not an individual receives the inward call or motion besides those who actually receive ordination; nor a single ordained person who has not received the inward call. For if more were designated to the office by the Almighty, than are actually put into it by the bishops, these supernumeraries would have a right to preach independent of episcopal authority, (and this would spoil all,) unless their lordships conceive they possess a power to annul the appointments of the supreme Being; and this would be to suppose their authority superior to his. And were they to ordain one whom God has not called to the work, the people could derive no benefit from his ministrations, and would, of course, be justified in looking out for help from some other quarter. This, then, is the conclusion we must come to, that God has subjected himself in this business to the will of bishops; if they appoint any or none to the ministry, and if those they may appoint be good, bad, or indifferent, he is perfectly satisfied, at least, no doubt they believe so; but who else can ?

It is a favourite sentiment with many, that God does not give an inward call without an outward call, and

*We cannot justify our author in speaking so contemptuously of an opinion which has been pleaded for by so many pious, wise, and learned men, even if its truth were questionable. - EDIT.