contemptible, shows that it is practically disregarded. We may not dissemble-the interests in jeopardy are too precious to admit of temporizing-It is too notorious to be denied the very Christian ministry seem determined to try, upon the largest scale, that most absurd and hopeless experiment, the education of a blockhead for public usefulness! The instances, we believe, are comparatively few in which the powers of a youth are put to any reasonable test in order to ascertain whether, in point of intellect, he is really worth training up for the ministry. College diplomas, considering the dishonourable facility with which they are granted, are but suspicious pledges of either knowledge or talent. Some years ago, a young man who had been originally a maker of brooms, and had "studied divinity," as it is termed, for two or three sessions, was exhibiting a specimen of his improvement before a foreign Presbytery; and acquitted himself so little to their satisfaction, that they judged it necessary to remand him to his first vocation, as more commensurate with his abilities. This decision 'was announced by a venerable old minister, in the following manner:-" Young man: It is the duty of "all men to glorify God. But he calls them to glo

rify him in different ways, according to the gifts he "bestows on them. Some he calls to glorify him by preaching the gospel of his Son; and others, by making besoms, (brooms.) Now, it is the unanimous judgment of this Presbytery, that he has not "called you to the ministry, since he has not qualified (6 you for it; and, therefore, that it is your duty to go "home to your father, and glorify God by decent in"dustry in making besoms."

The mode of the old gentleman was, to be sure, somewhat original; but his spirit ought to pervade the church. Would to God he had dropped his mantle, and that it had been borne on the wings of

the wind across the Atlantic. If every preacher incompetent, from a gross defect of natural capacity, were put to the same trade with the young Scotchman, how great would be the increase of

brooms!

ANECDOTE.

Matthew Mead, an eminent non-conformist, was politely addressed by a nobleman, “I am sorry, Sir, that we have not a person of your abilities with us in the established church: they would be extensively useful there." "You don't, my lord, require persons of great abilities in the establishment." "Why so, Sir; what do you mean?" "When you christen a child, you regenerate it by the Holy Ghost. When you confirm a youth, you assure him of God's favour, and the forgiveness of his sins. When you visit a sick person, you absolve him from all his iniquities: and when you bury the dead, you send them all to heaven. Of what particular service, then, can great abilities be in your communion ?"

SELECT SENTENCE.

Sinful man, saved in Christ, always was, and always will be, a mystery. But where is the mystery of our being saved by an inherent righteousness?

[Adam.

REVIEW.

ART. III.

The excellence of the Church: a Sermon, preached at the consecration of Trinity Church, Newark, New-Jersey, by the Right Reverend Bishop Moore, on Monday May 21, A. D. 1810. By John Henry Hobart, D. D. An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church, New-York. Published by request. New-York, T. & J. Swords, pp. 41. 8vo.

THE "ministry of reconciliation" is the standing

ordinance of heaven, for the edification of the Church'; and its principal work is to preach the everlasting gospel. To this employment, ministers are commissioned by him who hath all power in heaven and on earth, and in this they act as ambassadors for Christ. We must, therefore, dissent from those who endeavour to degrade the services of the pulpit, by representing "reading the liturgy" as of greater importance than delivering the message of the living God. Doctor Hobart has, indeed, a better right than we have, to judge of what is suitable for an Episcopal congregation; and yet we cannot admit, that it is a part of the "excellence of the Church," to raise the reading desk above the pulpit. Of so very little importance does preaching the gospel of God appear to Dr. Hobart, that he declares it to be not only inferior to the liturgy, but a thing, which the Church may, without very great inconvenience, dispense with altogether-which, however corrupted, ought to be no cause of separation from that Church-which is but a secondary part of divine service—and, in fact, no part of the public worship of God. Entertaining

such sentiments respecting the work of preaching, we are surprised that Dr. H. should ever enter the pulpit. He certainly did well to apologize for this sermon. We shall present the reader with the author's own words: "The occasion must be my apology for an apology I deem necessary; deprecating as I do, whatever seems to advance in importance the exercises of the PULPIT over the devotions of the DESK*.--Let them LIVE on the evangelical truths contained in the LITURGY-let them offer through the sober, yet animating, FORMS OF THE LITURGY, their prayers and praises; and according to ITS evangelical offices, commune with their God—and they will be NOURISHED AND STRENGTHENED to everlasting life, though instructions from the pulpit should NEVER greet their earst.-Were the ministers of the church LESS ATTENTIVE TO CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS, than they are known to be, yet if the prayers are purely Christian, the DISCOURSES of its ministers should not impel us to SEPARATION. And the reason is this-Preaching is but a SECONDARY part of divine service. Among those protestant sects particularly, who have no established liturgy, a preference is given to PREACHING above PUBLIC WORSHIP." Dr. Hobart does not say, above the other parts of public worship. This would be an admission, that preaching is a part of that worship. But, in order effectually to degrade the pulpit, he makes a distinction which excludes the preaching of the gospel entirely, from the public worship of God. A distinction, not of a part, from the other parts of the same whole, but of one thing, from another.

† Pages 32, 33.

‡ Page 33.

* Page 30. § Dr. Hobart may hereafter deny the correctness of this interpretation. It is the gentleman's habit to assert, and

We are humbled and pained in reading such sentiments, from the pen of a professed minister of Jesus Christ, who ought to magnify his office. God forbid that they should be ever generally received by our Episcopalian brethren. Such sentiments are

not a necessary part of their own system. Admitting that reading the liturgy is an acceptable mode of prayer, even then, it is not more awful or important than preaching. To deliver the message of God to

then, in some future publication, to explain, to qualify, and half deny his own words. He does this, also, in a style of high dissatisfaction with those who are not candid enough to understand his expressions in a different sense from that, which such words, when employed by others, uniformly convey. We recollect many instances of such management; and we shall mention one of them. Dr. Hobart had asserted, that it would appear from certain reasons which he offered, that the devout participation of the Holy Eucharist is indispensably necessary to our salvation*. He was understood as saying that communion in the sacrament of the Supper was essential to salvation: and that without this none could be saved. But the Doctor was displeased at being so understood. He never believed that participation of the Lord's Supper was a condition of salvation at all, for he readily grants that thousands will be saved without it. And although he wrote, that it is indispensably necessary to our salvation, and proved it too, by a series of reasoning; as he only wrote this for Episcopalians, he is nettled at others, for imagining even that he meant what he both wrote and proved. From the Doctor's style of writing, we should suppose that he uniformly aims at the double entendre. He is never plain or precise. But how does he get over this? Not at all. He never can get over it. But he goes about it, and about it, in a very diffuse apology of thirty-eight octavo pagest; from which we can only gather, that he believes that we can be saved without the sacrament, and yet that he is correct in affirming it to be an indispensable condition of salvation. In short, he says, he meant that Christians are bound in duty to communicate at the Lord's table. But this explanation comes too late. Hundreds will read the text, who will never Hob. Apol. pages 49-86.

* Com. Al. page 182.