shall be nearer to God, the Eternal Truth, in feeling sorrows and miseries that are personal and real, than in feeling comforts that are not so I begin already to find that all my grievances centre in one point there is always at the bottom one great loss or defect, which is not the want of friends or gold, of health or philosophy. And the abiding sense of this may possibly become a prayer in the ears of the Most High: a prayer not resulting from a set of speculative notions, but from the real, undissembled state of all that is within me; nor indeed so explicit a prayer as to describe the thing I want; but, considering how strange a want mine is, as explicit a one as I can make. Since then suffering opens me a door of hope, I will not put it from me as long as I live: it helps me to a true discovery of one period of my existence, though it is a low one; and bids fairer for having some connection with a more glorious period that may follow, than the arts of indulgence, the amusements of pride and sloth, and all the dark policy of this world, which wage war with the whole truth, that man must know and feel, before he can look towards God. It may be, while I continue on the cross, I shall, like my Saviour, put off "principalities and powers;" recover myself more and more from the subjection I am indeed in (which he only seemed to be) to those wicked rulers, and to "triumph over them in it." At least, it shall appear, in the day when God shall visit, that my heart, though grown unworthy of his residence, was too big to be comforted by any of his creatures; and was kept for him, as a place originally sacred, though for the present unclean.

But supposing that our state does require of us, to "die daily;" to sacrifice all that this present life can boast of, or is delighted with, before we give up life itself; supposing also, that in the hour we do somewhat of this kind, we receive light and strength from God, to grow superior to our infirmities, and are carried smoothly towards him in the joy of the Holy Ghost; yet how can a man have such frequent opportunities of suffering? Indeed, martyrdoms do not happen in every age, and some days of our lives may pass without reproaches from men; we may be in health, and not want food to eat and raiment to put on; (though health itself and nutrition itself, oblige us to the pain of a constant correction of them ;) yet still, the love of God and heavenly hope will not want something to oppress them in this world.

Let a man descend calmly into his heart, and see if there be no root of bitterness springing up; whether at least his thoughts, which are ever in motion, do not sometimes sally out into projects suggested by pride, or sink into indolent trifling, or be entangled in mean anxiety? Does not he find a motion of anger, or of gaiety, leavening him in an instant throughout; depriving him of the meekness, and steady dis cernment, he laboured after? Or, let him but conceive at any time that unfeigned obedience, and watchful zeal, and dignity of behaviour, which is suitable, I do not say to an angel, but to a sinner that has "a good hope through grace," and endeavour to work himself up to it and if he find no sort of obstacle to this within him, he has indeed then no opportunity of suffering. In short, if he is such an abject sort of creature, as will, unless grace should do him a perpetual violence, relapse frequently into a course of thinking and acting entirely without God; then he can never want occasions of suffering, but will find his own nature to be the same Burden to him, as that "faithless and per

verse generation" was to our Saviour, of whom he said, "How long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?"

I will conclude all with that excellent collect of our church :-" Oh God, who in all ages hast taught the hearts of thy faithful people, by sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit; grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort, through the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour; who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one GOD, world without end. Amen."

SERMON CXXXIX.-The Ministerial Office.*

"No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," Hebrews v, 4.

1. THERE are exceeding few texts of Holy Scripture which have been more frequently urged than this against laymen that are neither priests nor deacons, and yet take upon them to preach. Many have asked, "How dare any 'take this honour to himself, unless he be called of God, as was Aaron?" And a pious and sensible clergyman some years ago published a sermon on these words, wherein he endeavours to show that it is not enough to be inwardly called of God to preach, as many imagine themselves to be, unless they are outwardly called by men sent of God for that purpose, as Aaron was called of God by Moses.

2. But there is one grievous flaw in this argument, as often as it has been urged. "Called of God as was Aaron!" But Aaron did not preach at all: he was not called to it either by God or man. Aaron was called to minister in holy things;-to offer up prayers and sacrifices; to execute the office of a priest. But he was never called to be a preacher.

3. In ancient times the office of a priest and that of a preacher were known to be entirely distinct. And so every one will be convinced that

Respecting this Sermon the following information is given by Mr. Moore, in his "Life of Mr. Wesley," vol. i, p.200 :-"I was with Mr. Wesley in London when he published that Sermon. He had encouraged me to be a man of one book; and he had repeatedly invited me to speak fully whatever objection I had to any thing which he spoke or published. I thought that some things in that discourse were not to be found in THE BOOK; and I resolved to tell him so the first opportunity. It soon occurred. I respectfully observed that I agreed with him, that the Lord had always sent by whom he would send, instruction, reproof, and correction in righteousness, to mankind; and that there was a real distinction between the prophetic and priestly office in the Old Testament, and the prophetic and pastoral office in the New; (where no priesthood is mentioned but that of our Lord;) but I could not think that what he had said concerning the evangelists and the pastors, or bishops, was agreeable to what we read there; viz. that the latter had a right to administer the sacraments, which the former did not possess. I observed, 'Sir, you know that the evangelists Timothy and Titus were ordered by the Apostle to ordain bishops in every place; and surely they could not impart to them an authority which they did not themselves possess.' He looked earnestly at me for some time, but not with displea sure. He made no reply, and soon introduced another subject. I said no more. Tue man of one book could not dispute against it. I believe, he saw, his love to the Church, from which he never deviated unnecessarily, had, in this instance, led him a little too far."-EDIT.

From Adam to

But

impartially traces the matter from the beginning. Noah, it is allowed by all that the first-born in every family was of course the priest in that family, by virtue of his primogeniture. this gave him no right to be a preacher, or (in the scriptural language) a prophet. This office not unfrequently belonged to the youngest branch of the family. For in this respect God always asserted his right to send by whom he would send.

4. From the time of Noah to that of Moses, the same observation may be made. The eldest of the family was the priest, but any other might be the prophet. This, the office of priest, we find Esau inherited by virtue of his birth-right, till he profanely sold it to Jacob for a mess of pottage. And this it was which he could never recover, "though he sought it carefully with tears."

5. Indeed, in the time of Moses, a very considerable change was made with regard to the priesthood. God then appointed that, instead of the first-born in every house, a whole tribe should be dedicated to him; and that all that afterward ministered unto him as priests should be of that tribe. Thus Aaron was of the tribe of Levi. And so likewise was Moses. But he was not a priest, though he was the greatest prophet that ever lived, before God brought his First-begotten into the world. Meantime, not many of the Levites were prophets. And if any were, it was a mere accidental thing. They were not such, as being of that tribe. Many, if not most, of the prophets (as we are informed by the ancient Jewish writers) were of the tribe of Simeon. And some were of the tribe of Benjamin or Judah, and probably of other tribes also.

6. But we have reason to believe there were, in every age, two sorts of prophets. The extraordinary, such as Nathan, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many others, on whom the Holy Ghost came in an extraordinary manner. Such was Amos in particular, who saith of himself, vii, 14, 15, "I was no prophet, neither a prophet's son. But I was a herdman, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." The ordinary were those who were educated in "the schools of the prophets," one of which was at Ramah, over which Samuel presided, 1 Sam. xix, 18. These were trained up to instruct the people, and were the ordinary preachers in their synagogues. In the New Testament they are usually termed Scribes, or vouxo, "expounders of the law." But few, if any of them were priests. These were all along a different order.

7. Many learned men have shown at large that our Lord himself, and all his Apostles, built the Christian Church as nearly as possible on the plan of the Jewish So the great High Priest of our profession sent Apostles and Evangelists to proclaim glad tidings to all the world; and then pastors, preachers, and teachers, to build up in the faith the congregations that should be founded. But I do not find that ever the office of an Evangelist was the same with that of a pastor, frequently called a bishop. He presided over the flock, and administered the sacraments: the former assisted him, and preached the word, either in one or more congregations. I cannot prove from any part of the New Testament, or from any author of the three first centuries, that the office of an evangelist gave any man a right to act as a pastor or bishop.

I believe these offices were considered as quite distinct from each other till the time of Constantine.

8. Indeed, in that evil hour, when Constantine the Great called himself a Christian, and poured in honour and wealth upon the Christians, the case was widely altered. It soon grew common, for one man to take the whole charge of a congregation in order to engross the whole pay. Hence the same person acted as priest and prophet, as pastor and evangelist. And this gradually spread more and more throughout the whole Christian Church. Yet even at this day, although the same person usually discharges both those offices, yet the office of an evangelist or teacher does not imply that of a pastor, to whom peculiarly belongs the administration of the sacraments; neither among the Presbyterians, nor in the Church of England, nor even among the Roman Catholics. All Presbyterian churches, it is well known, that of Scotland in particular, license men to preach before they are ordained, throughout that whole kingdom; and it is never understood that this appointment to preach gives them any right to administer the sacraments. Likewise in our own Church, persons may be authorized to preach, yea, may be Doctors of Divinity, (as was Dr. Alwood at Oxford, when I resided there,) who are not ordained at all, and consequently have no right to administer the Lord's Supper. Yea, even in the Church of Rome itself, if a lay-brother believes he is called to go a mission as it is termed, he is sent out, though neither priest nor deacon, to execute that office, and not the other.

9. But may it not be thought, that the case now before us is different from all these? Undoubtedly in many respects it is. Such a phenomenon has now appeared, as has not appeared in the Christian world before, at least, not for many ages. Two young men sowed the word of God, not only in the churches, but likewise literally "by the high way side;" and indeed in every place where they saw an open door, where sinners nad ears to hear. They were members of the Church of England, and had no design of separating from it. And they advised all that were of it to continue therein, although they joined the Methodist society; for this did not imply leaving their former congregation, but only leaving their sins. The Churchmen might go to church still; the Presbyterian Anabaptist, Quaker, might still retain their own opinions, and attend their own congregations. The having a real desire to flee from the wrath to come was the only condition required of them. Whosoever, therefore, "feared God and worked righteousness” was qualified for this society.

10. Not long after, a young man, Thomas Maxfield, offered himself to serve them as a son in the Gospel. And then another, Thomas Richards, and a little after a third, Thomas Westell. Let it be well observed on what terms we received these, viz. as prophets, not as priests. We received them wholly and solely to preach, not to administer sacraments. And those who imagine these offices to be inseparably joined are totally ignorant of the constitution of the whole Jewish as well as Christian Church. Neither the Romish, nor the English, nor the Presbyterian Churches ever accounted them so. Otherwise we should never have accepted the service, either of Mr. Maxfield, Richards, or Westell.

11. In 1744, all the Methodist preachers had their first conference. But none of them dreamed, that the being called to preach gave them any right to administer sacraments. And when that question was proposed, "In what light are we to consider ourselves ?" it was answered, "As extraordinary messengers, raised up to provoke the ordinary ones to jealousy." In order hereto, one of our first rules was, given to each preacher, "You are to do that part of the work which we appoint.” But what work was this? Did we ever appoint you to administer sacraments; to exercise the priestly office? Such a design never entered into our mind; it was the farthest from our thoughts: and if any preacher had taken such a step, we should have looked upon it as a palpable breach of this rule, and consequently as a recantation of our connection.

12. For, supposing (what I utterly deny) that the receiving you as a preacher, at the same time gave an authority to administer the sacraments; yet it gave you no other authority than to do it, or any thing else, where I appoint. But where did I appoint you to do this? No where at all. Therefore, by this very rule you are excluded from doing it. And in doing it, you renounce the first principle of Methodism, which was wholly and solely to preach the Gospel.

13. It was several years after our society was formed, before any attempt of this kind was made. The first was, I apprehend, at Norwich. One of our preachers there yielded to the importunity of a few of the people, and baptized their children. But as soon as it was known, he was informed it must not be, unless he designed to leave our connection. He promised to do it no more; and I suppose he kept his promise.

14. Now, as long as the Methodists keep to this plan, they cannot separate from the Church. And this is our peculiar glory. It is new upon the earth. Revolve all the histories of the Church, from the earliest ages, and you will find, whenever there was a great work of God in any particular city or nation, the subjects of that work soon said to their neighbours, "Stand by yourselves, for we are holier than you!" As soon as ever they separated themselves, either they retired into Ceserts, or they built religious houses; or at least formed parties, into which none was admitted but such as subscribed both to their judgment and practice. But with the Methodists it is quite otherwise: they are not a sect or party; they do not separate from the religious community to which they at first belonged; they are still members of the Church; -such they desire to live and to die. And I believe, one reason why God is pleased to continue my life so long is, to confirm them in their present purpose, not to separate from the Church.

15. But, notwithstanding this, many warm men say, "Nay, but you do separate from the Church." Others are equally warm, because they say I do not. I will nakedly declare the thing as it is.

I hold all the doctrines of the Church of England. I love her liturgy. I approve her plan of discipline, and only wish it could be put in execution. I do not knowingly vary from any rule of the Church, unless in those few instances, where I judge, and as far as I judge, there is an absolute necessity.

For instance, (1.) As few clergymen open their churches to me I m under the necessity of preaching abroad.