which may be brought to him by his talents, giving the glory to God, and not bearing himself with arrogancy to men; and finally, if he should be sensible of a direction of mind interesting him in whatever extends the kingdom of grace, and fits men for the better kingdom of glory; such an inward character, satisfactorily perceived by those to whom the Church has committed the right of judging of the sufficiency for the undertaking generally, may be counted on as evidence of that moving by the Holy Ghost, which the service holds out as so important.

Under this head, there remains something which seems worthy of consideration. When Christianity was first planted, the apostles ordained the most suitable persons from among their early converts, without a preparatory education under an especial designation to the service, which, in the circumstances then existing, must be evidently seen to have been impossible. In all succeeding ages throughout the Christian church in general, the ministerial offices have been filled by persons designed for them, from early periods of their lives. How far this is consistent with the sanctity of the profession, is the inquiry which is now proposed. For a father to destine his son to the ministry, for some secular object to be accomplished, and the project to be carried into effect without any reference to qualifications, and especially the essential qualifications of love and zeal for the work, and desire of being useful in it, is to bring on them both a heavy load of sin. But if a parent, being himself devout, should give his son an education qualifying for the ministry, so far as education can qualify for such a purpose; if the parent should wish that the effect may be his son's future usefulness in the Church; and if, all along, the inclinations and the fitness of the latter are circumstances without which the former neither endeavours nor desires to carry his plan into effect; he is so far from deserving censure, that his conduct may be pronounced the effect of holy thought and purpose: and, whatever may be the issue, he has deserved well of the Church, by his zeal and by his endeavours in her service.

Nothing remains under this first head, but to express the wish, in regard to every candidate, that his preparation may be such as to stand the test here laid down. Were it possible to read his heart, and there were discerned in it a manifest falling short of the sense of the question which is to be proposed and answered; he should here be cautioned, as he tenders the honour of God, the good of the Church, the salvation of his soul, and not these only, but even his comfort in the present life, not to take on himself an office, which will cover him with crime; which has peculiar trials, bringing with them corresponding consolations to others, yet not to him; and above all, which will subject him to a responsibility hereafter, before the Judge of quick and dead.

Question II. "Do you think that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the canons of this Church, to the ministry of the same?"

There is here a change of language from "do you trust" to

"do you think." In the preceding question, the matter asked after, related entirely to a certain consciousness in the mind; but here the inquiry has partly a reference to external institution. And therefore the question is so framed as to admit of a greater degree of diffidence in the answer.

What confirms the distinction here taken, is the phraseology made use of in the Latin service; for this being of equal authority with the English, in the Church of England, they are mutually interpretative of one another. The expressions used by the Latin service in the first question is, "Num persuasum habetis;" and that in the second question is, "Num in ea estis sententia:" in which two forms, the difference seems to me more pointed than in the English.

There is reason for this difference in the two questions. Although the mind should be made up under the effect of due care, and although a man has to answer for the influence of vicious prejudice over his judgment, yet the Church considers, that opinion should be delivered as such, and not as knowledge.

There are two branches of the opinion to be given: that the call is agreeable to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ; and concurrently with this, to the canons of the Church.

To justify the candidate in believing that he is called according to the will of Christ, he should be convinced, after due inquiry, that the church to which he looks for ordination is a true apostolick church, deriving its authority from that founded by the apostles. For since they did confessedly found a communion, and since it did confessedly transmit its ministries, there seems no possible right to the name of a Christian church at present, but in succession from the originally established body. What then is the result, but that an opinion, formed under due care, is a prerequisite of admission to the ministry?

It is of importance to every candidate, and much more so to the Church, that he should have his principles settled on the present point; since otherwise he will be in continual danger of setting up his own opinion in contrariety to what the Church has decided or ordained. Why not, he will be apt to say, in matters resting on the will of man? Even in this he reasons wrong, since individual right may be limited by compact. But if human will be exercised under an authority delegated by heaven; and if it require nothing absolutely sinful, (for in the latter case the reasoning does not apply,) it is surely a heavy aggravation of individual caprice, that it is the resistance of an authority so high; an authority which the exigencies of the Church make necessary; which must be exercised by fallible men; but which had best not be exercised at all, if every man carries in his own breast the measure of the submission which should be paid to it.

The other particular is the canons of the Church. Although as a branch of the general Church, she has essentially the power of self-government, yet this should be conducted by known laws, which, when made, ought to be respected and obeyed. In this

place the canons are considered more immediately as applying to admission to the ministry. In regard to which, it is proper to remark, that if a minister should be obtruded on the Church, in violation of the canons, it must be in consequence either of some imposition on his part, or of neglect in his ordainer. The question then, by the appeal which it makes to the conscience of the candidate, may prove a counterpoise, not only to excessive facility in the bishop, but also to the shameful looseness of principle often found in social life, inducing men of plausible character in other respects, to put their names to testimonials, exhibiting for facts what is beyond, and even what is in contrariety to the knowledge of the subscribers. If a candidate should know, that there is in his case an attempt to evade, in this or in any other way, the design of the canons of the Church, it concerns him to be aware, that the contrary was intended to be provided for in the question which he is to answer in his ordination.

But there is another evil, which was intended to be guarded against. It is that of a man's entering the Church, not contemplating the being subject to the canons, and conducting his subsequent ministry in defiance of them, and of the authority by which they were ordained. Surely such a man cannot think himself called, agreeably to the canons of the Church. It is possible, however, that he may console himself with the thought that he is called agreeably to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ. But this cannot be when the object is accomplished by imposition. Were the two matters at variance, the divine call would dictate to him to disregard the other. It is to be feared, that if the conduct here noticed could be traced to the spring of it in the human heart, it would be found to originate in the failing, which induces men for the accomplishment of an object supposed good, to make great sacrifices of conscience: the object in the present case being the procuring of admission to opportunities, from which they would otherwise be excluded.

Any candidate before whom this may come, would do well to consider it as a caution against the making so light of the sacred law of truth. He may, perhaps, conceive that his general object is good. Let him remember, that he may misjudge in this, from the imperfection of the human understanding: but there can be no mistake in affirming the unlawfulness of doing evil that good may

come.

Question III. "Do you unfeignedly believe all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?"

This requisition has two points in view: the genuineness of the sacred books, and the evidences on which there should be faith in their contents.

For the unfolding of the first, it should be noticed, as to what is understood by the canonical books of scripture, that it appears from the enumeration of them in the book of the 39 Articles; and as to what is presumed to demonstrate the authenticity of the books, that it may be seen in the part of the 20th article, which

denominates the Church," the Witness, and the Keeper of holy writ." It will therefore be perceived, that their genuineness rests on the testimony of the Church: and the stating of this must be understood to the exclusion of other standards of authenticity, imagined by different descriptions of persons. The Church of Rome supposes herself entitled to declare the catalogue of the sacred books, not in the way of testimony merely, but as of authority: which appears in her including of books, acknowledged by her best authors, not to have been known as canonical in the early Church. There are some who refer, for a criterion, to the consenting testimony of a Christ within. And further, there are some, who think we need no other evidence, than the stamp of divinity, which may be traced in the excellent matter contained: which, by the way, is precisely the argument alleged by the Mussulmans, to prove the divine authority of their Koran. But when we consult any early writer, who has made this his subject, we find the ground taken to be that of human testimony. So far, indeed, were the Fathers from supposing, that there was an unerring standard, either in the will of constituted authority, or in divine monition to the mind; that at first there were rejected a few books which were afterwards received, in consequence of further inquiry and better information.

Ought it to be supposed, of the course marked out by them and trodden in by us, that it is the result of a low estimate of the doctrines and of the morality of the Gospel? By no means: But both they and we act in harmony with the injunction of an apostle, to be "ready to give an answer to every man." That the reason at hand should be such, as ought to satisfy those to whom it is to be offered; according to the established principles, on which, by the law of our nature, we generally act, seems evident. And why our own minds should take up with any species of proof, which we cannot offer to others, with the expectation of its being effective, is a matter for which no reason can be assigned.

If it should still be objected, that this is a resting of the genuineness of the sacred books on a lower species of evidence, than such as their high contents might warrant us to expect; let it be asked, Is the objection against moral evidence, as such, or against the instance of it particularly in question? If the former, the difficulty extends to every branch of what is called natural religion; not excepting the being and the attributes of God. For when St. Paul says, "The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen;" here is nothing which notices the subject spoken of, as being submitted either to the senses or to the mensuration of lines and angles. But if the objection be intended of the instance of evidence applying to the present subject, there can hardly be conceived of any more convincing. It is precisely that, which is relied on above every other, in all the concerns of collective bodies. For look at the histories of states, in all the variety of their forms; and you will find, that it is never contradicted, never questioned. The accounts of their several origins

may be full of fable; which will be received or rejected by indi viduals, according to their respective measures of understanding. There may also be handed down to them the histories of former times; which will be judged of by every man, according to his opinion of the credibility of the writers, and of their sources of information. But that laws and institutions should be attested in any nation, from age to age, as the works of defined periods of time, and that the books recording them should be declared, on the like testimony, to be faithful records of their subjects; and especially when these are such, as have had important effects on manners; and yet, that there should be at last detected an imposition in the original delivery; is an occurrence, of which no history can give an instance. Far from it; the records of such laws and such institutions may be lost, and yet may be presumed to have existed, merely in consequence of the remaining influence of them, over the habits of the social state. The more there is contemplated the actual force of this species of evidence, in innumerable instances over the human mind, the more it will appear, that to sincere and candid persons, no higher was necessary in reference to the canon of holy scripture. At any rate, no higher has been bestowed; and it becomes us gratefully to receive the evidences of our holy religion, as they are; leaving to the deniers of it, arrogantly and according to their custom, to determine what in their opinion, it ought to and might have been.

There is something worthy of remark, in the unanimity of testimony, which the Church, in all the various places of her settlement, has born to the integrity of the scriptures handed down in her. In regard to the Old Testament, indeed, the Roman Catholick church has added to the canon. But this does not affect the principle maintained; because the witness in that department, is the Jewish church and not the Christian. Now among the Jews, until our Saviour's time, there was an acknowledgment of precisely the same books, which protestants receive, and of no others. And even since that time, the only exception is the exclusion of the prophet Daniel; doubtless because of its very clear descriptions of their rejected Messiah; although it has its place in the canon, as this is given by Josephus. In regard to the scriptures of the New Testament, there is no diversity. And that this should be the case, after all the contentions which have taken place in regard to the sense of their contents, would seem ascribable to nothing less than the good providence of God; which has preserved the sacred canon in such integrity, that the contending parties consent in it, however widely they may differ in the interpretation.

There may, further, be a use in remarking incidentally on this branch of the subject, the vast importance resulting from it to the position, that the Church, as a social body, is divinely instituted. There have been some who have avowed the opinion, that, although the scriptures were given by inspiration, yet the means of extending a knowledge of their contents, and of sustaining the correspondent worship, are committed to human discretion merely