the utter incapacity of many whom ecclesiastical patronage has placed in the pulpit, or whom their parents have trained for the ministry, merely as a profession, in order to the enjoyment of an income. The extent of this evil, especially in England, and even in Scotland, can hardly be conceived. A pulpit despised for incapacity is the forerunner of infidelity. Had this writer confined himself to the exposure of this admitted grievance, or had he endeavoured to trace its origin, and point out a remedy, his pen might have been well employed; but when he presents this as an argument for discarding the sermon altogether, it only proves his utter incapacity for dealing with such a subject. There are not a few men who, in early life, are given up by their parents to be lawyers, merchants, medical practitioners, teachers, &c. &c., who have no capacity for their respective professions. Are law, and merchandise, and the healing art, and education, to be abandoned because some want head, or hands, or character, for their prosecution? The man who answers in the affirmative would be justly regarded as a fool; and not less evident is the mental and moral imbecility, or worse, of the man who would calmly argue that, because some men have thrust themselves into the pulpit without grace or capacity, therefore all preaching must be abandoned. If the general run of English preachers are such as he describes, the community over which they are set are indeed in a deplorable condition. But the extinction of the sermon is not the remedy. The divine remedy is that set before us by the Redeemer, when He scourged the buyers and sellers out of the temple, and commissioned His servants to preach His gospel.

The apostle Paul faithfully warned the primitive Church against the evil here alluded to, when he said to Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man;" and when he enjoins him, in regard to the gospel, "The same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Indeed, one of the leading characteristics of a bishop or presbyter is, that he is "apt to teach." The Bible recognizes no such ministers as this writer describes, except in the way of condemnation. They have come as wolves in sheep's clothing, not in by the door of the fold, but have climbed up by means of patronage, and are nothing more than the Master describes them, as "thieves and robbers" among the flock. But would any sane man venture to cast out all the shepherds because such had obtruded themselves upon the flock? The remedy is clear. Remove the intruders, and give full scope to the genuine shepherds. The flocks are too like these inefficient shepherds, otherwise they would neither countenance nor submit to this usurpation of places for which such are utterly incapable.

We cannot, however, admit the impossibility, under a scriptural administration of the laws of Christ's house, of obtaining ministers qualified for, and "apt to teach." When the Lord of the harvest saw the fields already white, while the reapers were few, He did not propose to shut the mouths of those already preaching; but He commanded them, saying, "Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth labourers into the harvest." The reflection of incapacity, and of the impossibility of finding men capable of teaching or preaching, falls upon the Head of the Church, while

the cause is simply that, through patronage, and the influence of a worldly hierarchy, those worthy are excluded, and those unworthy admitted to the pastoral office. It is the worldly element of secular influence that has filled the English, and not a few of the Scottish pulpits, with men who are "novices," "greedy of filthy lucre," "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God."

If, as this writer admits, "there can be little doubt that sermons, in themselves, when they are genuine utterances coming from the heart and mind of a man who has anything to say, are, in reality, the most interesting of all human productions-the most interesting, and often the most influential," why should he circumscribe the opportunity of hearing such utterances. Consistency demands that, even on this lower ground of human benefit, every attempt should be made by the Church to increase the number of such preachers until every congregation shall be pervaded by their influence.

But the secret of all this enmity to sermons comes plainly out in the subsequent remarks of the writer. He has the Popish idea of a priesthood to conduct the devotional rites, and the higher dignitaries at times to astonish and delight intellectual audiences by special orations.

"The institution [that is, preaching: we scarcely expected the admission that it is an institution] was reasonable enough in a time of revolution, of new beginning, of suddenly stimulated and eager life; but affairs have long settled into composure, and we have long grown familiar with all the ordinary stock of sermons put forth by men who have no instruction to bestow. Is there any reason why we should be compelled to go on listening to them to infinitude?—or might we not try once more to re-distinguish the old offices-to accept our ministering priest,-without asking him to be a perennial preacher-and to receive our preacher when he comes with gratitude, as the holder of a special office."

We admit that it is time, and more than time, that the scriptural distinction between the ministering priest and the preacher should be re-asserted; but the re-assertion would be of no avail to this ordinary sermon despiser. It would only leave the entire priesthood to the ages prior to the Christian era, and the preachers to the whole period of the Christian dispensation. There is no such office as priest either authorised or admissible under the New Testament dispensation. The ministry of Christ is in no sense a priesthood: Christ himself is the only and the all-sufficient priest of the Christian Church. The term spus, rendered "priest," means one who offers sacrifices; but the great atoning sacrifice having been offered by Christ, there can be no official "sacrifices" under the present dispensation. Priests are not among those office-bearers which the ascending. Saviour received for the Church: they can have no place in the Church. Through Popery alone has the idea of a priesthood been revived and retained; and where it is admitted in any Protestant Church, it is on Popish, and not on scriptural grounds, that it finds a place. Hence the attempt to revive a ministering priesthood, either north or south of the Tweed, by this writer, is simply a scheme of Popish policy worthy of a Jesuit.

We are not surprised that this censurer of the pulpit should have let out his spiritual tastes by eulogising the sermons of Robertson of

C

Brighton, though we are rather disappointed to hear a commendation of the discourses of Dr Hanna. The discrepancy may be easily accounted for. The admirer of both has been caught by the corruscations of intellect, while neither has been viewed in relation to the truth of God, or adaptation to the human heart. Had the critic been in the least acquainted with theology, he would have known, that, amidst the pure eloquence of Robertson, there is no definite scriptural atonement, more than in that of the curate whom he represents as candidly telling his audience "that it was impossible to say what the atonement was for;" while, in the discourses of Dr Hanna, the nature and design of the atonement are specially presented.

It is not a little comforting, though rather provoking, to discover the depths of this writer's theological knowledge, while aiming his shafts at God's own ordinance of preaching. We humbly submit, that, if he could bring his mind to the frame of a willing hearer of the word of life, it might not be very difficult, in any ordinary locality, to find a preacher capable of giving him necessary instruction in the central doctrines of the gospel, and in the nature of the means of grace, as divinely appointed.

Though the illustrations are chiefly drawn from England, their application to the Church of Scotland towards the close-the approbation expressed both with the writer in Macphail's Ecclesiastical Journal, and the introduction of kindred subjects by Dr Bisset, the Moderator of the last General Assembly,-seem to indicate that the article is designed to exert its influence north of the Tweed. Space forbids any farther reference to the subject at present. We hope, in next number, to complete our remarks upon the remaining topics suggested to give a few words in passing to "Macphail," and to deduce a few lessons in regard to the pulpit, specially necessary in modern times.

MODERN DESTITUTION OF CONSCIENCE.

We do not mean to indicate that there are persons at any time constituted without a conscience, but simply, that did we not know the fact, the conduct of multitudes would tend to cast grave doubt over its existence. But the Bible explains current conduct with the ex"In the latter times some shall depart from istence of conscience. the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits; speaking lies in hypocrisy; The description having their conscience seared as, with a hot iron." here given is lamentably applicable both to the world and the church in our own day.

How frequently has society of late been shocked by fraudulence in How banking, in assurance companies, benevolent societies, &c.! many cases of forgery, embezzlement, and breach of trust, have recently come to light! Fraudulent bankruptcy is so common, that the odium attaching to persons implicated is nothing thought of. The current expression, that such an one has been "embarrassed," or has

been in "difficulties," tells how lightly the crime of commercial robbery is esteemed. And, what is worst of all, many of the foregoing classes of respectable swindlers have made a high profession of religion, and even contributed handsomely to benevolent objects. Need we condescend upon the current violations of the law of God, common to the transactions of every-day life. Though not universal, their name is legion. Ask one man why he sells adulterated goods? He will probably answer, "Such practices are common to the trade." Ask another why the sample exhibited is better than the stock? He will probably reply, "Such is the practice in every line of business." Ask a third how, as a professing Christian, he can deal out for gain that liquor to drunkards, which is destroying soul and body-emptying churches, and desolating homes-filling poor-houses, prisons, and graves, with hopeless victims? The answer will likely be, "It is my trade, and I must live by it." Ask a fourth how he can overcharge the bereaved, as an undertaker, while death is staring him in the face? He may speak of the "usual charges;" but the answer ought to be, "It is a rare time to make money when persons are too deeply grieved to strike formal bargains." Go through the whole round of secular callings and professions, and the same destitution of conscience meets you from day to day. We do not by any means design to indicate that there are not many men of integrity and candour adorning the various trades and professions, but simply, that "tricks in trade," and deceptions, are not uncommon even among professors of religionproving that, with not a few, conscience is seared and deadened.

But what is still worse, the same destitution of conscience is common in modern times within the Church. The subscription of a creed or confession is no guarantee that it is believed or received with integrity. How many in the Church of England have signed the "Thirty-nine Articles," who are, at the same time, at heart, either Papists or infidels, and whose energies are all directed to promote the ascendancy of the Papacy or the subversion of Christianity? Neither is this destitution of conscience confined to the ranks of the Prelatical establishment. It is visible, in various degrees, in all the churches. It may be seen in the avowal of doctrine, and the adoption of practices, utterly at variance with the formula accepted by ministers and elders at ordination. So common is this practice, that one begins to wonder whether the pledges of an ordination are not esteemed by many as a farce, or at best a form, without imposing any obligation.

The same thing is lamentably common among church members. Vows are pledged at admission to fellowship, and endorsed in the reception of baptism and the Lord's Supper, which never seem to have reached the conscience. Though solemnly pledged in all matters of duty, the ordinances of grace are attended or neglected as convenience or humour may dictate. The Sabbath is outwardly observed or profaned according to the character of those with whom church members may be associated. The discharge of family duties, indicated in the vows of baptism, are neglected without the slightest apparent compunction. Obligations to the Church, arising out of the bonds of ecclesiastical fellowship, are with many never so much as realized.

But there is one special aspect of modern destitution of conscience which outrivals all others-viz., the formation and dissolution of the bonds of church fellowship. Here, alas! the utter bankruptcy of conscience is peculiarly visible. Many change their ecclesiastical relations as easily, and with as little consideration, as they would change their clothier or baker. Not a few are utterly unable to assign any reason for so doing but that they have willed it. The grounds of change have never been seriously examined. We do not of course mean to indicate that all such changes are culpable, or that every church member is bound to abide where the first ecclesiastical relationship has been formed. There are sufficient grounds for leaving one section of the Church and joining another. The spread of error in a church, the corruption of her fellowship and ordinances, and the want of a constitution affording scope for the faithful discharge of ecclesiastical or Christian duty, furnish clear and sufficient grounds for seeking a change of fellowship; but every such change ought to be guided by the standard of divine truth, and with the approval of an enlightened conscience. It is the duty of every one to examine, and to ascertain where the truth of God is most fully embodied, and where full scope may be afforded for the discharge of all duties to the King and Head, and, having made that choice, to abide by it at all hazards. A person may thus rise from the lower platform of indifference to truth and worldly expediency, to the higher platform of an explicit profession and defence of the truth. A person may legitimately forsake the church whose constitution is defective, or whose practices are unwarranted, in order to join the fellowship of one whose profession is more comprehensive and practice more scriptural. But what we complain of is, persons pledging themselves to definite, distinctive principles, and then casting aside their profession at the dictate of expediency or convenience. Questions of popularity, wealth, numbers, ecclesiastical or political influence, have no place in the motives which ought to determine our church fellowship; neither can they have any weight in determining where the truth of God is maintained and defended. It is by the standard of God's word, and not by the opinion of men, that the position of a church must be tested. In this, as in all other matters of duty, the appeal lies to "the law and to the testimony"-the responsibility is not to man, but to God-the accountability not to the Church, but to the Church's living Head.

Perhaps there is nothing more discouraging to a gospel minister than the ease with which persons can renounce the most explicit profession, with or without a patent reason. It has two aspects, and it is difficult to say which is the more grievous to be borne. The first is that which arises out of the call, upon the basis of which the pastoral relationship is formed. In this case, a number of church members unite and subscribe, before God and men, a gospel call, which, among us, runs in the following terms:

"We, the undersigned elders and other members of the United Original Secession congregation, at present in a state of secession from the corrupt judicatories of the Church of Scotland, and in connection with the United Original Secession Synod and Presbyteries thereof-which we deem are endeavouring to maintain and defend