that this outward call is from the church. But what church? The English church says one, the Calvinist church says another, the Baptist church says a third, etc. That every church has a right to choose its own ministers, I am not going to dispute; this right is founded in nature. But I ask, Is it not a duty in christians to propagate their religion? I have half a score ignorant and wicked neighbours. I am a christian, and love my neighbours as myself. I could instruct and warn them, and perhaps persuade them to embrace christianity. You will go to hell yourself, says one, if you preach to them that they are in any danger of going there. Why? Why! because you are not episcopally ordained. Will the bishop ordain me? No, not unless you know the languages. Stuff! I am not going to preach to these profligates in either Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, but in plain English. Thus, for want of an outward call, I must not dare to talk to my neighbours about their souls! Where is common

sense?

What church gave the apostles a call? or sent them out to preach? And where do the scriptures say a single word about an outward call? We read in the New Testament, of a man who propagated christianity by working miracles in the name of Christ, and who had received no human appointment to the sacred office. The apostles attempted to silence this man : "We forbad him." And why, gentlemen, did you forbid him? Because he was ignorant, or wicked? No; but for this wonderful reason, 66 Because he followed not us." That is, in modern cant, "Because he would not submit to the constituted authorities. Because he was unauthorised, and unaccredited, an intruder into the sacred office; a self-appointed and dangerous schismatic, who seceded from the most pure and apostolic church in Christendom." The disciples reported their case to their Master, expecting, no doubt, his warmest approbation of their conduct. Now, what did our Saviour do on this occasion? Did he deliver a long harangue on the necessity of unity, the unlawfulness of assuming

the ministerial office, the sin and danger of schism? Did he proceed to curse this first dissenting minister with bell, book and candle, in the name of the holy Trinity? So far from it, the amiable Jesus approved and justified his conduct, and severely censured their rashness and folly. He said, "Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that is not against us, is on our part." (Mark ix. 38-40.)

Frumentius, a layman, introduced christianity into Abyssinia, and baptised the king and his principal courtiers. It is true this apostle was afterwards ordained a bishop, by the orthodox Athanasius; but he ought rather to have been burned as a damnable heretic, if intrusion into the sacred office be a sin of the first magnitude. The gospel was introduced into Georgia, a province of Asia, by a female slave. By the number of her miracles, and the sanctity of her manners, she converted the king and queen, who destroyed their idols and embraced the faith. His majesty, before his baptism, preached to, and converted his subjects, and thus became the apostle of his country before he himself was initiated.* Now, would it have been better for these nations to have remained in idolatry, than thus to be converted by self-appointed teachers? “I have no scruple," affirms a mitred bigot, "in saying that it were better it should, than that a person should be employed, of whose fitness we have no means of judging." Supposing there even were an irregularity in these cases, (though I cannot perceive it,) it were surely better that people should go irregularly to heaven, than decently and in order to hell.

Let us then return again to the point. It is the duty of every man to do all the good he can. If I meet with a man more ignorant than myself, it is my duty, if he be willing to hear me, to give him instruction. Suppose I have several neighbours who are willing to hear me; instead of visiting them from * Mosheim, cent. 4, part i., chap. i., sect. xx. Burnet's Exposit, art. 23.

house to house, which I have not time to do, I desire them to meet me at an appointed time and place, and instead of the trouble of many lectures in private, I deliver one discourse to them all in public; and, O wonderful! without either a bishop's hands, or a priest's gown, I am turned parson! and while presumptuous mortals are exclaiming, disorder! the harmony of heaven is improved by the joy of angels over these converted sinners!

Upon the principle here laid down, a man may have a call to preach to one congregation, and not to another; because the one may be more ignorant, and the other wiser than the teacher. The Methodists act upon this plan. By a judicious distribution of talent, the abilities of all are brought into useful operation. They send preachers of inferior parts into the villages, to teach the ignorant the first rudiments of christianity, for which service they are sufficiently qualified. The congregations of a superior class are served by men distinguished for their learning and pulpit eloquence.

Objection. "This scheme, of permitting every man to preach who fancies himself qualified by his piety and knowledge, would breed endless confusion and schism." It would occasion no confusion. No man can preach to a society of christians without the consent of that society. A person believes himself qualified to preach and makes a tender of his services to a church. The church does not approve of him, and he goes out into the world. If any choose to hear him, they may do so without confusion, and if he cannot get a congregation, he must either preach to empty pews, or sit down and be quiet; but in either case he breeds no disturbance.

The case of schism must be considered more at large. Schism is sometimes a sin, and sometimes a virtue. In John vii. 43, the word is used to denote a difference of opinion among the multitude concerning Christ: "There was a schism among the people because of him." By comparing the preceding verses, it ap

pears that our Lord gained over many of the people by his doctrine. This change in their sentiments produced a schism in his favour. It should seem from the next verse, that these schismatics protected him from the rage of his enemies: "For some of them would have taken him, but no man laid hands on him." By opening the eyes of the blind, our Lord produced another schism. "Therefore," said some of the Pharisees, "this man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath-day. Others said, how can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a schism among them." (John ix. 16.) Now, who were the sinners in this case? Those who held fast their old prejudices against Jesus? or the schismatics, who looked upon him as a good man? In both the above instances, the schismatics deserve praise; in the former, they protected our Saviour from personal injury; and, in the latter, they defended the innocence of his conduct.

The only places in the New Testament where church schisms are mentioned, are the following: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." "When ye come together in the church, I hear that there be schisms among you, and I partly believe it." "That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1 Cor. i. 10; xi. 18; xii. 25.) The schism, in the first text, refers to their foolish partialities and antipathies respecting their preachers. One said, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos, etc, The apostle blames them all equally; and this is not a solitary instance of a whole church being divided into factions in itself, and all the factions being sinful schismatics. In the second passage, the schism took place when they were come together in the church, It is pretty evident, from the following verses, that the Corinthians took a social supper of their own in the

church, previous to the celebration of the eucharist. On these occasions, according to the custom of the Greeks, every one brought his own provisions to the meeting. The rich brethren made a pompous display of their luxuries, while the poor, who were ashamed of their ordinary and scanty fare, divided from them, and retired into a corner to eat their morsel alone. Thus, as the apostle complains, one was drunken, and another hungry. The rich are blamed by the apostle for causing the schism, and the poor who made it are pitied. In the last text the schism guarded against, was a difference of opinion on the value and importance of spiritual gifts. The apostle compares these gifts to the members of the body, and shows, that as each member is necessary to the man, so each gift is necessary to the church; and that, since the feeblest and least honourable parts of the body contribute to the welfare of the whole, and on that account are prized and carefully preserved from injury, so the weakest gifts contribute to the perfection of the church, and are therefore entitled to the attention and esteem of all believers.

The above remarks will serve to correct two mistakes: First. It is generally supposed, that schism is a separation from a church; whereas, in the above instances, it is represented as a division in a church. The christians at Corinth, are not charged with forming several churches or societies in opposition to each other, nor are they cautioned against any such thing; they are merely reproved for, and warned against creating dissension in the church. Secondly. Schism is generally spoken of under the notion of a damnable sin; whereas, in the texts under consideration, it does not appear to be marked by any character of peculiar aggravation. Attend for a moment longer to the three texts: in the first, the sin lay in over-rating the abilities of some preachers, and thinking meanly of the gifts of others. Is this a damnable sin? In the second, the poor were the schismatics, who were not blamed at all. In the third, the evil guarded against is a depreciation of the

S