willing to send away unsupplied, any who will take it at his hand. But this is not the main object which I now propose to myself; and these remarks are offered simply to justify the appropriation which I purpose to make of the text to a specific subject. You probably anticipate this appropriation, and will readily perceive that I apply the words to the Christian Ministry. Compared with the wants of the world, the ministers of the Gospel are few among the many. I regret that it has not been in my power to procure such statistics as would enable me to present the exact number of evangelical ministers, with the populations of the several fields of labor which they occupy. But it is a fact familiar and undisputed, that ministers are comparatively few in number; so that the language of the text is justly applicable to them, What are they among so many? And it is an inquiry of grave importance, how shall the wants of the world be met? How shall the ranks of the ministry be filled? And constantly are we called upon to pray the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth laborers into his harvest. That, however, all important as it is, is not the theme now before us. The scope of the narrative more naturally leads us to another inquiry, not so often propounded, and yet worthy of careful consideration. It is, How shall we make the most of the ministry we have? How shall we turn them to the best account? How shall we make them go as far as possible? That was the matter that came practically before the mind of Christ in response to the inquiry of the disciples. The problem was to make the five barley loaves and two small fishes supply the wants of the great multitude. He at once solved it in the only way in which it could be solved-by a miracle. Now the point before us is, How can the ministry, as it now is, be made most available in meeting the wants of the world? Of course we do not look for any mirade to be performed; and yet obviously without a miracle, the ministers now holding commission cannot at once accomplish the work of preaching the Gospel to the whole world. The single fact, that of one thousand millions, the population of the globe, only two hundred and seventy-five millions are nominally christianized, and that of them only eighty-five millions are Protestant, is enough to press upon us the solemn consideration that with the present evangelical ministerial force, nothing short of a miracle can accomplish the speedy conversion of the world. And therefore we can never cease our calls on the young men of the church to give themselves, and on parents, to give their children to the Lord; our efforts, not only to keep up a regular supply of the ministry, but also to summon more and more to this work of the Lord. But how can these few do most

among the many? This is our theme. How shall the ministry be used to the best advantage? Before coming directly to the discussion, let me make two or three preliminary remarks.

In all that is to be said on this subject, our absolute dependence on the Holy Spirit, is kept constantly in view. No ministry, however able, faithful, and numerous, can be successful, unless He give the increase. But this dependence, while absolute, must be intelligent. It is the dependence of one working in the line of duty, and looking for no miracle to supply his lack of service.

Again. While we are not to look for a miracle to be performed to secure the proposed end, so neither is any thing miraculous expected of us. Nothing is required of us beyond the bounds of human ability. We find

it no where written that we must be ubiquitous. Nor is the work of the world's evangelization any where prescribed to us as the work of a day, or a year, or a generation. Ministers are men; the world is large. We are to be continually working, praying, hoping, waiting; we are to walk by faith, and to work the work of Him that sent us, while it is day.

Further. Whosoever attempts to comprehend this subject, will find himself met at the outset, by certain difficulties arising out of the present organization and state of the church, the removal of which would greatly enhance the strength of the ministry. There is, for instance, sectarianism, not only interfering with cordial co-operation, and tending to limit the reach of individual usefulness-an evil which might possibly be counterpoised by the benefits of concentration-but also producing a rivalry that not seldom partakes of unholy competition, a spirit quite unfavorable to the spread of godliness. But more than this, it divides the strength of the ministry and of the churches. By the multiplication of agencies and machinery, it expends the resources of the church unwisely. It causes several ministers to be occupied on ground for which one would be allsufficient. Several small churches are often found existing in a village, whose wants might be amply met by one organization, and one house of worship, and one minister. This is an evil not easily remedied. Denominational feeling, which is right under proper guards, and controlled by christian charity, is apt to become very strong, and to verge towards sectarianism. Differences of sentiment will exist, and preferences may be indulged; still, it is a question, whether the cultivation of charity and the exercise of self-denial, might not do much to prevent the evil; to bring together in one assembly those who are divided into two or three, and thus allow the ministers unnecessarily employed, to devote their labors to some other sphere. We may say what we will about the impossibility of persons of different sentiments uniting in one communion for the service of God. Here is an evil: can it not be remedied? No matter now how we feel, the question is, how ought we to feel, and to act?

And the evil, while it is more apparent, becomes also more tangible and more controllable, when you come to those denominations between which there is very little difference as to doctrine, or government, or form of worship. We all know many cases in which one minister could do the work now done by two or three. And is it right when the wants of the church and of the world are so numerous and pressing is it right thus to waste ministerial strength? Is it not evident that one thing that we greatly need to make the ministry go farther towards feeding the hungry millions, is a larger effusion of the almost miraculous power of christian love? Kindred to this, is the mistake sometimes made of multiplying feeble churches of any one denomination, when a little self-denial on the part of the people would give them church accommodations in already established organizations. Of course I shall not be misunderstood as opposing a judicious church extension. No one will more readily advocate the organization of new churches in suitable localities, when either the pressing demands of the present, or the clear judgment of forecasting prudence, call for them. But we have seen churches commenced, and struggling, and dying, because injudiciously begun. The mere organization of a church, and building of a house of worship, is not always an indication of an accession of strength. Ministerial energy and ability

may be thus injudiciously expended. Numbers may thus be concentrated at a given point, not working to the best advantage, and leaving vacant other places that ought to be supplied, and where the talents here unnecessarily expended, could accomplish far more for the general cause.

One more remark. In asking how to make the most out of the present ministry, we are not hastily to think we can solve the problem, by simply giving the ministry more to do. This, in general, I might say, is an impossibility. Idle ministers, who try to live as easily as possible, there may be; but as a body, the evangelical ministers are hard-working and hard-worked men, with their hands full to overflowing; and it were a much more rational plan to think of increasing their usefulness by diminishing their burdens, than by adding to them. Coming now directly to the discussion of the subject, I might readily divide what I propose to say into two parts, one for the people, and the other for the ministers. But I prefer to unite them, and let each make his own appropriation.

I. My first remark, then is: That one way of making the present number of ministers most available, is to employ them entirely in their specific and appropriate work.

Their proper work is the preaching of the Gospel and the care of souls. I lay no stress on the technical meaning of the word preaching, and do not overlook the fact, that in the work given him to do, the minister may make use of various means and instrumentalities. He may legitimately employ the press and the school in the spread and circulation of christian knowledge. Preaching is not confined to oral utterances from the pulpit, nor the cure of souls to pastoral oversight. Still, to explain and enforce the word of God, to proclaim "the unsearchable riches of Christ" to those who can be brought to hear, must be regarded as the appropriate work of him who has been ordained to the ministry of Christ-a work for which nothing else can be a substitute. Yet, as men and citizens, ministers are connected with human society by many ties of interest and association. Their investiture with the office of the ministry does not disrobe them of their privileges and duties as men and citizens. Though their office be a spiritual one, and their affections should be heavenly, they have a part to bear in the secularities of life, and they are especially expected to be interested in all those secularities which belong to the province of morals: in all those departments of social well-being which are most obviously affected by moral and intellectual influences. Naturally, by the very humanizing and elevating spirit of the religion which they preach, they feel themselves drawn towards efforts for the reformation of manners and morals, the spread of virtue, and of sound learning. And society seems by a sort of instinct to look to them to take a vigorous hold of such things, and to be, if not leaders, yet earnest supporters and favorers of such efforts. These seem to fall naturally within their province; and the people, confiding in their ability, and their interest in them, commit these things largely to their charge. And they on their part, feel themselves impelled by their own feelings of interest in them, and their conviction of the serious bearing of all these things on the work of the world's evangelization, and by the calls of the people, to take in some measure the oversight of them.

But it is a question whether too much is not expected of the ministry in these respects; and whether strength is not expended on some of them,

which might be employed to better purpose in the more specific work of studying and preaching the gospel. It is a question whether too much of ministerial strength is not expended in schools and academies, and colleges, and seminaries, and benevolent institutions. Is it absolutely necessary that secretaries and agents of our numerous and excellent religious and benevolent institutions, the professors in our colleges, the teachers in our academies, the editors of our religious newspapers and periodicals, should be clergymen? I cannot see the necessity for this. I can see advantages in such an arrangement. But I can also see advantages in having pious and intelligent laymen occupying these posts. Men acquainted with the practical business of life, moving in various currents of society, having advantages for knowing men and things, which the secluded habits and the professional character of the minister prevent his obtaining. There would be the advantage of drawing out into active service for the cause of religion much power that would otherwise be but imperfectly used. And there would be, I think, the advantage of linking more closely together various departments of social christian life,-of making the members of the church feel more the responsibility and the privileges of membership. It would take away from many of these matters what sometimes seems to be professional, and official; as if falling within the line of ministerial duty, but apart from the duty of private christians who must be busy about their secular affairs. When men see that these offices may be filled with laymen, they will feel that to attend to these things, to work for them, is their work, not simply the work of the ministry.

Facts testify to the practicability and utility of filling many of these positions with laymen. We can all readily point to men in almost all these department, not invested with the ministerial office, laboring in the spirit of Christ with great success. With regard to our theological seminaries we must make some exception to this position. Perhaps the peculiar training and experience of ministerial education and life, are essential qualifications for those who are to educate ministers. But here we may seriously ask whether there is not an unjustifiable waste of ministers as well as of money, by the multiplication of these seminaries on denominational and local grounds? Do we need so many seminaries? Have we a right so to appropriate so many of our best ministers? Grant that ministers in almost all the positions alluded to may do well; that it is very desirable to have them; that in some respects they may do far more than laymen,-still, what if we can employ them to better advantage in their own specific field of labor? Grant that a minister may do far more good in one of these positions, than he could as a pastor. Still, if we can put in the place which he occupies a layman, who would do just as much there as himself, but who otherwise would be doing comparatively little for the cause of Christ, and let him be employed in the specific work of the ministry, has not the ministry and the church been so much the gainer?

I am far from saying that no ministers should be employed in any of the cases under consideration. There are ministers now engaged in some of our religious and benevolent, and educational institutions, who are accomplishing a work of unspeakable importance, and whom we could ill afford to spare to fill any pastoral charge to which they might be called. It is very desirable, perhaps, that in some of the cases alluded to, ministers and laymen should be associated. Still, the exception does not make the rule; and it does not hinder our looking at the subject in its general as

pects. And if we should grant what is by no means apparent,--that ministers would make better presidents of colleges, professors, teachers, secretaries, agents for the collecting of money, for the publishing and distributing of bibles, tracts, and other religious books, editors of religious periodicals, lecturers on temperance, &c., than laymen,-still it is a question deserving a fair consideration, whether it would not be better on the whole (I do not stop to consider the exceptional cases), to put all these at work in the specific duties of the ministry, and fill their places with pious, able, energetic laymen.

It may be said," But would you put all these affairs beyond the supervision and control of the ministry?" I answer, No. But this control should be exercised through the legitimate channel of the pulpit, and the pastoral care; by such an influence as a faithful and able ministry will ever exert over intelligent and pious laymen. The pulpit is to strike the key note for all our church action. The ministry will do most there.

Again, it may be said,-" It is impossible to find laymen to do this work willing to encounter the self-denial and sacrifice necessary." To this we may reply that is the very thing that we want. We want such a spirit of devotion throughout our churches, as will lead men readily to consecrate themselves to God's service. I know very well that we need laymen engaged in secular business who may be accumulating wealth for the support of the gospel and its institutions. But the resources of the church will ever be sufficient to meet her wants, provided there be a right heart in her members. Her workmen, whether lay or clerical, ought to receive remuneration for their work. But there is no reason why pious and intelligent laymen, should not make sacrifices, and voluntarily encounter toil, and live on small salaries, for the sake of Christ, as well as ministers. The call to self-denial, to unreserved self-dedication, does not belong to the ministerial office. It lies farther back. It belongs to the christian. When a man takes upon him the vows of the Lord, then he gives himself up to the Lord. The ministry, to which various considerations of duty direct him, is only one way of fulfilling that vow. Church members, who it may be feared, sometimes feel a sort of superiority and self-satisfaction in the payment of the minister's salary, or in contributing to some cause for which he has been pleading, ought to know that they are just as much bound as he is to give up fair prospects of case, and wealth, and honor, and self-indulgence, when the cause of Christ demands it.

Finally, it may be said, "That what is here proposed is virtually making ministers of laymen, and therefore what is gained?" The answer is, Not so! We do propose that pious laymen should be well educated, and induced to do much of the work that is now given to the ministry to do. But it is on the very position, that they are, and will continue to be laymen. The ministry is a distinct office of divine appointment, with its own allotted and marked work. And it will even stand out as such before the church and the world. There are hundreds of pious educated men, who would shrink from assuming the responsibilities of that office,-who do not feel called of God to do it,-who believe themselves not adapted to be preachers and pastors,-men, who would never by any probability_be ministers. They fully realize the importance of the ministerial work, but do not regard it as their work. Now what we plead for is that they will do that share of service which they can appropriately and advantageously do, and leave to ministers their specific work.

II.-But I must pass to another, though kindred topic. The ministry is to be strengthened by the co-operation of the members of the churches.