eChurch Blog

Interesting article from Ekklesia this morning:-

Another article from the Telegraph this morning:-

At least 85 separate sharia “courts” are now openly functioning in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed, a report by Civitas claims.

A study by the thinktank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques.

It led to claims of a “creeping” acceptance of sharia principles in British law, but the Muslim Council of Britain dismissed the report as “scaremongering”.

The study follows the outcry over remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last year that the adoption of aspects of Muslim law in Britain, such as in divorce proceedings, “seems inevitable”.

Lord Phillips, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, attracted controversy by saying that there was “no reason why” sharia principles could not form the basis of mediation in disputes.

Some decisions of Islamic tribunals are already considered legally binding and could theoretically be enforced in civil courts in England and Wales.

Other officially recognised bodies can agree to grant Muslim “divorces” as part of a parallel system of religious law in Britain.

“This whole business is creeping up on us without anyone really noticing,” said Dr David Green, director of Civitas.

The existence of a network of five court-like sharia bodies in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, expanding to other cities under the umbrella of the Muslim Arbitration Tribual (MAT) has already been widely reported.

But Civitas estimates that the real number of Islamic “courts” operating in Britain is at least 85, as a result of scores of unofficial courts sitting in mosques in which imams make judgments on day-to-day disputes.

It argued that they are unlikely to treat women as equals and could even be against human rights law.

The organisation called for a change in the law to stop the decisions of such bodies being legally enforceable.

The MAT, which deals primarily with disputes between business partners or mosques, says that as a legally constituted arbitration body under the 1996 Arbitration Act, its decisions could be enforced in county courts.

That claim has yet to be challenged in a test case but a similar status for Jewish tribunals is already long established.

Another organisation, the Islamic Sharia Council, has a panel of seven judges based in London, dealing largely with divorce and issuing “fatwas” on issues such as how to bring up children.

Mufti Abdul Kadir Barkatulla, one of its judges, said that the organisation had been operating peacefully alongside the civil courts for 25 years without any major problems.

He also confirmed that dozens of informal sharia bodies sit across the country.

“Every imam, if they are qualified can have a hearings and make decisions according to sharia,” he said.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “To term them sharia courts is ridiculous, it’s just scaremongering.”

Qamat Bhatti, a member of the governing body of the MAT, said: “We don’t have a court, it’s an arbitration, we don’t have a judge sitting with a gavel in his hand but that’s the image that this report is creating.”

Article by the Telegraph this morning:-

Doctors and nurses should be able to offer to pray for patients without fear of disciplinary action, a medical conference will hear this week.

Guidance given by the NHS suggests staff could be sanctioned if they offer spiritual help to anyone who does not share their beliefs, according to the sponsors of a motion at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) annual representatives meeting in Liverpool.

The doctors will argue that the rules need clarifying to distinguish between those who try to offer religious support to patients as part of a programme of care and zealots who might target the infirm as potential converts.

The debate, which comes after the case of a nurse, Caroline Petrie, who given a warning earlier this year, will take place on Wednesday.

Mrs Petrie, 45, a baptist from Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, was warned that she could be disciplined after a patient complained that she had offered to pray for her.

The primary care trust later agreed she could continue to offer spiritual support for patients, as long as she asked them about their needs first.

Guidance from the General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, recognises the importance of a patient’s spiritual beliefs in helping them to cope with illness.

But a Department of Health document warns explicitly that disciplinary action could be taken against health staff discussing prayer with patients.

The NHS guidance says: “Members of some religions … are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment, this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.

“To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.”

Joyce Robins, of pressure group Patient Concern, said: “Offering to say a prayer is a kind thought. Most patients will accept it as such. It is no more offensive than being offered a sleeping pill. You can say: ‘Thanks, but that sort of thing isn’t my cup of tea.’?”

Dr Hamish Meldrum, the chairman of BMA council, said: “Certainly, there is no suggestion of imposing your beliefs on patients. If you have a terminally ill patient then it is perfectly acceptable to ask if they would like access to a chaplain or whatever, and out of that a conversation could develop.”

A Department of Health spokesman said the document was to encourage awareness for staff and patients.

Three of Britain’s most senior religious leaders have joined forces in a rare bid to stop a Lords amendment that they fear would pave the way to “legalising euthanasia”.

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury; Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, and Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, have come together for the first time to urge peers to reject proposals that would allow families to help loved ones to die abroad free from the threat of prosecution.

In a joint letter to The Daily Telegraph, they wrote that this legal change “would surely put vulnerable people at serious risk, especially sick people who are anxious about the burden their illness may be placing on others”.

It is the first time since his installation last month that the new Archbishop of Westminster has publicly joined with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Chief Rabbi to intervene in a legislative matter.

Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, made the proposal to drop the threat of prosecution to those accompanying the terminally ill to die abroad, in an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill last month. It could be debated in the Lords as early tomorrow.

In their letter, the clerics also criticised legislators for trying to legalise euthanasia by the back door.

They wrote: “This amendment would mark a shift in British law towards legalising euthanasia. We do not believe that such a fundamental change in the law should be sought by way of an amendment to an already complex Bill. It should be rejected.”

Under British law assisting a suicide carries a sentence of up to 14 years. To date at least 115 Britons have travelled to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, to die at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. Some 800 more are on the clinic’s waiting list.

Decisions on whether to bring charges on assisted suicides matters are taken on a case-by-case basis and so far no Briton who has accompanied a dying friend or relative to Dignitas has been prosecuted.

Those who object to any softening of Britain’s euthanasia laws take this as evidence that the current law works well to deter assisted suicide, with one saying the law had “a stern face and a kind heart”.

But others argue that the law forces terminally ill people to travel abroad to die earlier than is medically necessary, as well as causing “real distress” to their loved-ones.

Dr Peter Saunders, director of the campaign group Care Not Killing, said if the law were changed then vulnerable terminally ill people might feel pressured to ending their own lives for financial or emotional reasons.

“We think that the current law works well, it has a stern face and a kind heart,” he said.
“We see Lord Falconer’s amendment as an attempt to legalise assisted euthanasia by stealth – to get the principle established.”

“The next step would be say ‘We need to change the law here as well now’,” he warned.

He argued: “If we want to change of law on assisted suicide let’s have proper primary legislation, let’s not try to tack it on to an existing bill.”

The Coroners and Justice Bill has been labelled a ‘Christmas tree bill’ as so many people have tried to hang so many things on it.

The bill has become the home of such diverse legislative ambitions as holding some inquests in private, changing the defence of diminished responsibility in murder and manslaughter cases, and making “homophobic hatred” a crime.

However, euthanasia supporters keenly supported Lord Falconer’s amendment.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: “At least 115 Britons have travelled abroad to die, and many more look set to follow them. This is despite a law which threatens anybody who accompanies them with prosecution and imprisonment of up to 14 years.

“This law causes real distress to those contemplating travelling abroad to die and their loved ones, and in reality does very little to protect against abuse.”

She stressed that Lord Falconer’s proposal “introduces upfront safeguards which state that immunity from prosecution only applies to those that accompany a terminally ill adult, who is competent to make the decision and has set out their wishes in a declaration witnessed by an independent person.”

Debbie Purdy, 46, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who has been seeking to clarify the law to enable her husband Omar Puente to take her to Switzerland without the threat of prosecution, said the current law protected neither the terminally ill nor their families.

“My right to control my own life is surely something the Lords should be defending,” she argued. “What Lord Falconer is trying to do is to bring reality to the law.”

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “The UK’s religious leaders continue heartlessly to seek to impose their dogma by law against the majority.”

That nobody had been prosecuted was “evidence that their motives have been compassionate,” he said.

Lord Falconer defended his proposal, and attacked the three signatories as having “no idea” about the current legal situation.

“I’m genuinely surprised by their unthoughtout opposition,” he said. “The amendment does not enable people who wish to commit suicide to go abroad to do so; they can do that already.”

He argued that what the amendment did was “to make the law reflect current practice”.

“It brings into law the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, except it builds in safeguards [to protect the person intending to commit suicide] that are not there already.”

If the archbishops and Chief Rabbi were arguing that the amendment amounted to the thin end of the wedge, “then they should have said so, rather than their own rather complicated explanation of their opposition”, he said.

He doubted that as “humane” people they wanted to see prosecuted the friends and relatives of those who accompanied the terminally ill abroad to die.

Lord Falconer added: “I agree with the signatories that if we want a fundamental change in the law regarding assisted suicide in the UK, then it should be done by a bill and a bill alone. But that’s not the effect of the amendment.

Prof Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist, has helped set up an atheist summer camp where children will be taught rational scepticism and sing John Lennon’s Imagine alongside the more traditional activities of canoeing and swimming.

The evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, who stepped down from his post at Oxford University last year, has subsidised the five-day camp in Somerset.

Camp-goers will be given lessons in rational scepticism, as well as sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology.

There will be more familiar camp activities such as trekking, tug-of-war, canoeing and swimming but children will also be taught to disprove phenomena such as crop circles and telepathy.

The retreat is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups. It will teach that religious belief and doctrines can prevent ethical and moral behaviour.

The camp is part of a campaign, backed by Dawkins and Professor AC Grayling, the philosopher and writer, designed to challenge Christian societies, collective worship and religious education.

Prof Dawkins said it was designed to “encourage children to think for themselves, sceptically and rationally”. All 24 places at the camp, which runs from July 27-31, have been taken.

Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, is hoping the experience will enrich his two children.

“I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds,” he said. “I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think.”

The emphasis on critical thinking is epitomised by a test called the Invisible Unicorn Challenge. Children will be told by camp leaders that the area around their tents is inhabited by two unicorns.

The activities of these creatures, of which there will be no physical evidence, will be regularly discussed by organisers, yet the children will be asked to prove that the unicorns do not exist.

Anyone who manages to prove this will win a £10 note – which features an image of Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory – signed by Dawkins, a former professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University.

“The unicorns are not necessarily a metaphor for God, they are to show kids that you can’t prove a negative,” said Samantha Stein, who is leading next month’s camp at the Mill on the Brue outdoor activity centre close to Bruton, Somerset.

“We are not trying to bash religion, but it encourages people to believe in a lot of things for which there is no evidence.”

A spokesman for the Church of England questioned Dawkins’ decision to stage a summer camp for atheists.

“We would defend the right for anyone to set up an event like this, as long as the young people are happy to attend,” he said.

“But in his imitation of the type of youth events that religious groups have been running for years, Dawkins makes atheism look even more like the thing he is rallying against.”

This news has just been released by Christian Today…are we witnessing the long awaited split in the Anglican church following the pattern of what has just taken place in the USA?

Five English bishops are set to join the launch of a new fellowship for orthodox Anglicans who say they want to stay true to Scripture and get on with the Great Commission of sharing the Gospel with the world.

The Fellow of Confessing Anglicans will be launched in Westminster on July 6 in the presence of the Bishops of Fulham, Lewes, Chichester and Rochester. The Bishop of Chester has sent greetings.

The gathering will also hear video and personal greetings from international guests including Nigerian Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Archbishop Henri Orombi from Uganda.

Event spokesman and London vicar, the Rev Paul Perkin, said: “Some are staying in the Church, but failing to stand for Christian truth and practice; others are standing firm for Christian truth and practice, but are not staying. We are standing, and we are staying.”

The FCA is being launched just weeks after US and Canadian orthodox Anglicans held the inaugural assembly of the Anglican Church in North America in Bedford, Texas.

The ACNA is formed of around 700 orthodox Anglican congregations that broke away from The Episcopal Church in the US over its embrace of homosexuality and the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The ACNA is headed by Bishop Bob Duncan, who told the assembly that much of mainline Protestantism was “finding itself adrift from its moorings” but that there was also a great Reformation underway in the Christian church that North American Anglicans were “very much in the midst of”.

Keith Ackerman, President of Forward in Faith in the US, was at the ACNA assembly and will join the FCA launch, where he will lead a main session on why he believes the FCA is a catalyst for united mission, ministry and focus for both orthodox Anglicans, both evangelical and Anglo Catholic.

He said: “One of the reasons I am really looking forward to being with my friends in England is so that I might be able to share with them the anointing of the Holy Spirit that has occurred at this gathering here in Texas.

“The time is right for us right now not to lose sight of what he is calling his entire Church to. The entire Anglican Communion is being called to stand up and be faithful at this very time.

“Luke-warmness has gone and we are now ready to talk about the light of the world, Jesus Christ who is ready to ignite the work he has placed before us at this time. I cannot wait to see everyone.”

A second article from the Telegraph:-

If recent trends are any guide, many Church of England parishes will have been cheered by higher attendances at Easter services. The last published statistics for 2006/7 show rises of 7 and 5 per cent in church going at Christmas and Easter.

But these figures are just about the only signs of hope for the church and certainly not the first green shoots of a revival. Other statistics make for gloomy reading.

Annual decline in Sunday attendance is running at around 1 per cent. At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility.

In the short term we are likely to see more closures of buildings as the church battles to meet a big pension bill, pay clergy, and maintain a large bureaucracy.

To its credit, the church has been successful at getting members to give, but larger donations cannot offset the fall in numbers. At present the church is struggling to maintain 16,200 buildings, many of them old and listed with 4,200 listed Grade I.

If decline continues, Christian Research has estimated that in five years’ time church closures will accelerate from their present rate of 30 a year to 200 a year as dwindling congregations find the cost of keeping them open too great.

Perhaps the most worrying set of statistics for the Church of England is the decline in baptisms. Out of every 1,000 live births in England in 2006/7 only 128 were baptised as Anglicans.

The figure rises by a small amount if adult baptism and thanksgiving services are included but it is hard to see the Church of England being able to justify its position as the established church on the basis of these numbers.

By way of contrast, out of every 1,000 live births in England in 1900, 609 were baptised in the Church of England. Figures for church marriages show an equally catastrophic decline.

The church is being hit by a double whammy: on the one hand it confronts the challenge of institutional decline but on the other hand it has to face the rise of cultural and religious pluralism in Britain.

How it responds to the second challenge will be crucial in determining whether it will be able to survive as a viable organisation and make a contribution to national life.

At present church leaders show little signs of understanding the situation. They don’t understand the culture we now live in.

Many bishops prefer to turn their heads, to carry on as if nothing has changed, rather than face the reality that Britain is no longer a Christian nation.

Many of them think that we are still living in the 1950s – a period described by historians as representing a hey day for the established church.

The coronation brought church and nation together in a way which will never be repeated. School assemblies had a definite Christian tone and children still sang familiar hymns.

The church could function as chaplain to a nation that was nominally Christian and Anglican, even if many actually only attended for baptisms, weddings and funerals. That world has gone for good.

Gordon Brown’s unilateral decision to take no part in nominating bishops to the Queen (a matter he did not discuss with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, in breach of constitutional protocol) makes it less likely that bishops will retain their place in a reformed House of Lords.

Rather than try to cling on to their places in the House of Lords, they should take the initiative by withdrawing, which would show that they appreciate Christian Britain is dead.

The church can try to fight the forces of change or it can see the crisis as an opportunity to give itself a clearer sense of identity.

One reason for increased attendance at Christmas and Easter may be that people are looking for a way of affirming identity in a pluralist society.

So far its leaders are choosing to resist but doing so in a very Anglican way: making concessions when necessary and hoping by small, strategic retreats to buy time and preserve the status quo.

The reason offered for upholding establishment is usually that it gives the church a sense of responsibility to the whole nation. In practice it often looks as if the church is really trying to keep its special privileges on false pretences.

For a time other faith communities may welcome the special position of the established church as a bulwark against secularism.

The Chief Rabbi is a forceful defender of the valuable role the Church of England can play in bringing faith communities together and fostering understanding across creedal barriers.

But the church would be a more effective bulwark against secularism if it was stronger and the role the Chief Rabbi has mapped out is likely to disappear as different faith communities get used to dealing with each other directly.

Disestablishment will actually pose major problems for society. Every country needs shared rituals and celebrations to foster a sense of community and provide a backdrop to major national occasions.

We are going to have to invent a new civil religion. Already the process has begun with the observance of Holocaust Day and increasing focus on Human Rights as providing a shared basis for morality.

If Anglicans could acquire a stronger sense of who they are and what they believe they might slow the rate of decline and possibly even stabilise their numbers.

They would still be a minority but they could be a creative minority. The trick will be to reach this situation without falling into a fundamentalist trap or cutting off links with the wider world.

Other organisations, particularly Roman Catholics with their three-hundred year history of persecution and minority status, can be a guide, showing both the dangers to avoid and the opportunities to seize.

The Rt Rev Paul Richardson is the assistant Bishop of Newcastle.

Interesting article from the Telegraph I thought:-

Britain is no longer a Christian nation and the Church of England could die out within a generation, an Anglican bishop has warned.

The Rt Rev Paul Richardson said declining church attendance and the rise in multiculturalism meant that “Christian Britain is dead”.

He criticised his fellow bishops for failing to appreciate the scale of the crisis and warned that their inaction could seal the Church’s fate.

As one of the Church’s longest-serving bishops, the comments by the assistant Bishop of Newcastle are set to fuel the debate over its future.

The General Synod, the Church’s parliament, will next month consider proposals to cut the number of bishops and senior clergy amid fears over the Church’s finances.

Writing for The Sunday Telegraph, Bishop Richardson said: “Many bishops prefer to turn their heads, to carry on as if nothing has changed, rather than face the reality that Britain is no longer a Christian nation.

“Many of them think that we are still living in the 1950s – a period described by historians as representing a hey day for the established church.”

He said that the Church had lost more than one in ten of its regular worshippers between 1996 and 2006, with a fall from more than one million to 880,000.

“At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility,” said Bishop Richardson.

Nearly half of the population in England regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England, while seven in ten described themselves as Christian in the last census.

However, the Bishop said that the fall in church marriages and baptisms revealed that Britain was no longer a Christian nation.

The number of babies being baptised has fallen from 609 in every 1,000 at the turn of the twentieth century to only 128 in 2006/7 and church marriages have also dropped.

Bishop Richardson said: “The church is being hit by a double whammy: on the one hand it confronts the challenge of institutional decline but on the other hand it has to face the rise of cultural and religious pluralism in Britain.”

He says that the way the Church responds to this will be “crucial in determining whether it will be able to survive as a viable organisation and make a contribution to national life”.

“At present church leaders show little signs of understanding the situation. They don’t understand the culture we now live in.”

The bishop believed it is inevitable that disestablishment will happen and suggests that the Church should take a lead on the issue rather than being dictated to by Parliament.

“Rather than try to cling on to their places in the House of Lords, they should take the initiative by withdrawing, which shows that they appreciate Christian Britain is dead.”

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury has also delivered a bleak assessment of the future of Christianity in this country, claiming previously that Britain’s Churches are in such serious decline that if they were shops they would have been declared bankrupt long ago.

Attendance figures on Christmas Day and Christmas Eve have provided encouragement for the Church of England, showing that three million people attend services on these days and as many as 39 per cent go to some sort of Christmas service.

The Rt Rev David James, Bishop of Bradford, said that church leaders were aware of the challenge they face, but suggested that there are signs of hope.

“The Church is always one generation from extinction. That’s true of any organisation,” he said. “Many of our bishops and congregations are awake to the need to reach out and have been doing so succesfully.”

Bishop James added that many young people are now attending alternative forms of church worship and also pointed to a rise in adult baptisms.

I have been reading the latest news from Tony Blair’s so called ‘faith foundation’ and was interested in this first paragraph:-

On Monday June 22nd,Tony Blair took part in The Business of Giving Series at 92 Y in New York. This series is hosted by Matthew Bishop, New York Bureau Chief of The Economist and author of Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World and features leading philanthropists talking about their efforts to try and make the world a better place.

‘How the rich can save the world’, mmm, I’m sorry but wasn’t it the rich that were ruining the world, in terms of the environment, oppression of the poor etc? But why should we stop them having a self congratulatory back slap while they inform us (and themselves) about their efforts to make the world a better place and ease their stricken conscience?

I tell you what, I am so glad that I am relying on Jesus to save the world, because if I had to rely on Tony Blair, his wealthy cronies (religious or otherwise) and the ‘faith foundation’ I would be rather depressed frankly.

The crux of the problem of course, is that his ‘faith foundation’ doesn’t actually seem to be anything to do with the God of any ‘faith’, but more about man and what man can achieve. Sorry…didn’t man cause all of the problems anyway…then why should we trust man to fix them all? Man cannot rule himself aside from God, just turn on your news channel to witness that fact.

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is setting out to achieve greater interfaith understanding through practical programmes: by encouraging different faiths to work together to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, with an initial focus on malaria; to increase religious literacy by connecting classrooms across the world; and by nurturing a deeper intellectual understanding of the dynamics of faith and globalization.

Doesn’t it all sound wonderful, but beware the man. He is hijacking emotive and sad issues like Malaria to promote an insidious and dangerous anti-faith ideology…don’t be conned by him and his smooth words, he is looking for a ‘global religion’ which can be manipulated for political purposes:-

Please see previous posts on the subject of Tony Blair to gain further insight:-

Tony Blair and Barack Obama, angels or demons

Tony Blair is not someone worthy to trust on religious matters

Cardinal will not join Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Perhaps a more appropriate title for his charity could be ‘Faith in rich and powerful men foundation’?

“For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for
necessity is laid upon me; yea woe is unto me, if I preach not the
gospel” 1 Corinthians, 9:16

THE greatest man of Apostolic times was the apostle Paul. He was always
great in everything. If you consider him as a sinner, he was exceeding
sinful; if you regard him as a persecutor, he was exceeding mad against the
Christians, and persecuted them even unto strange cities, if you take him as
a convert, his conversion was the most notable one of which we read,
worked by miraculous power, and by the direct voice of Jesus speaking
from heaven-”Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”-If we take him simply
as a Christian, he was an extraordinary one, loving his Master more than
others, and seeking more than others to exemplify the grace of God in his
life. But if you take him as an apostle, and as a preacher of the Word, he
stands out pre-eminent as the prince of preachers, and a preacher to kings -
for he preached before Agrippa, he preached before Nero Caesar-he stood
before emperors and kings for Christ’s name’s sake. It was the
characteristic of Paul, that whatever he did, he did with all his heart. He
was one of the men who could not allow one half of his frame to be
exercised, while the other half was indolent but, when he set to work, the
whole of his energies-every nerve, every sinew-were strained in the work
to be done, be it bad work or be it good. Paul, therefore, could speak from
experience concerning his ministry; because he was the chief of ministers.
There is no nonsense in what he speaks; it is all from the depth of his soul.
And we may be sure that when he wrote this, he wrote it with a strong
unpalsied hand-”Though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of,
for necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is me if I preach not the gospel.”
Now, these words of Paul, I trust, are applicable to many ministers in the
present day; to all those who are especially called, who are directed by the
inward impulse of the Holy Spirit to occupy the position of gospel
ministers. In trying to consider this verse, we shall have three inquiries this
morning:-First, What is it to preach the gospel? Secondly, Why is it that a
minister has nothing to glorify of; And thirdly, What is that necessity and
that woe, of which it is written, “Necessity is laid upon me, yea, woe is
unto me, if I preach not the gospel?”

I. The first enquiry is, WHAT IS IT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL? There are a
variety of opinions concerning this question, and possibly amongst my own
audience -though I believe we are very uniform in our doctrinal sentimentsthere
might be found two or three very ready answers to this question:
What is it to preach the gospel? I shall therefore attempt to answer it
myself according to my own judgment, if God will help me; and if it does
not happen to be the correct answer, you are at liberty to supply a better to
yourselves at home.

1. The first answer I shall give to the question is this: To preach the gospel
is to state every doctrine contained in God’s Word, and to give every truth
its proper prominence. Men may preach a part of the gospel; they may
only preach one single doctrine of it; and I would not say that a man did
not preach the gospel at all if he did but maintain the doctrine of
justification by faith-”By grace are ye saved through faith.” I should put
him down for a gospel minister, but not for one who preached the whole
gospel. No man can be said to preach the whole gospel of God if he leaves
it out, knowingly and intentionally, one single truth of the blessed God.
This remark of mine must be a very cutting one, and ought to strike into
the consciences of many who make it almost a matter of principle to keen
back certain truths from the people, because they are afraid of them. In
conversation, a week or two ago, with an eminent professor, he said to me,
“Sir, we know that we ought not to preach the doctrine of election,
because it is not calculated to convert sinners.” “But,” said I to him, “who
is the men that dares to find fault with the truth of God? You admit, with
me, that it is a truth, and yet you say it must not be preached. I dare not
have said that thing. I should reckon it supreme arrogance to have ventured
to say that a doctrine ought not to be preached when the all-wise God has
seen fit to reveal it. Besides, is the whole gospel intended to convert
sinners? There are some truths which God blesses to the conversion of
sinners; but are there not other portions which were intended for the
comfort of the saint? and ought not these to be a subject of gospel ministry
as well as the others? And shall I look at one and disregard the other? No:
if God says, ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people’ if election comforts
God’s people, then must I preach it.” But I am not quite so sure, that after
all, that doctrine is not calculated to convert sinners. For the great
Jonathan Edwardes tells us, that in the greatest excitement of one of his
revivals, he preached the sovereignty of God in the salvation or
condemnation of man, and showed that God was infinitely just if he sent
men to hell! that he was infinitely merciful if he saved any; and that it was
all of his own free grace, and he said, “I found no doctrine caused more
thought nothing entered more deeply into the heart than the proclamation
of that truth.” The same might be said of other doctrines. There are certain
truths in God’s word which are condemned to silence; they, forsooth, are
not to be uttered, because, according to the theories of certain persons,
looking at these doctrines, they are not calculated to promote certain ends.
But is it for me to judge God’s truth? Am I to put his words in the scale,
and say, “This is good, and that is evil?’ Am I to take God’s Bible, and
sever it and say, “this is husk, and this is wheat?” Am I to cast away any
one truth, and say, “I dare not preach it?” No: God forbid. Whatsoever is
written in God’s Word is written for our instruction: and the whole of it is
profitable, either for reproof, or for consolation, or for edification in
righteousness. No truth of God’s Word ought to be withheld, but every
portion of it preached in its own proper order.

Some men purposely confine themselves to four or five topics continually.
Should you step into their chapel, you would naturally expect to hear them
preaching, either from this, “Not of the will of the flesh, but of the will of
God,” or else, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.”
You know that the moment you step in you are sure to hear nothing but
election and high doctrine that day. Such men err also, quite as much as
others, if they give too great prominence to one truth to the neglect of the
others. Whatsoever is here to be preached, “all it whatever name you
please, write it high, write it low-the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing
but the Bible, is the standard of the true Christian. Alas! alas! many make
an iron ring of their doctrines, and he who dares to step beyond that
narrow circle, is not reckoned orthodox. God bless heretics, then! God
send us more of them! Many make theology into a kind of treadwheel,
consisting of five doctrines, which are everlastingly rotated; for they never
go on to anything else. There ought to be every truth preached. And if God
has written in his word that “he that believeth not is condemned already,”
that is as much to be preached as the truth that “there is no condemnation
to them that are in Jesus Christ.” If I find it written, “O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself,” that man’s condemnation is his own fault, I am to
preach that as well as the next clause, “In me is thy help found.” We ought,
each of us who are entrusted with the ministry, to seek to preach all truth. I
know it may be impossible to tell you all of it. That high hill of truth hath
mists upon its summit. No mortal eye can see its pinnacle; nor hath the foot
of man ever trodden it. But yet let us paint the mist, if we cannot paint the
summit. Let us depict the difficulty itself if we cannot unravel it. Let us not
hide anything, but if the mountain of truth be cloudy at the top, let us say,
“Clouds and darkness are around him,” Let us not deny it; and let us not
think of cutting down the mountain to our own standard, because we
cannot see its summit or cannot reach its pinnacle. He who would preach
the gospel must preach all the gospel. He who would have it said he is a
faithful minister, must not keep back any part of revelation.

2. Again, am I asked what it is to preach the gospel? I answer to preach
the gospel is to exalt Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is the best answer that I
could give. I am very sorry to see very often how little the gospel is
understood even by some of the best Christians. Some time ago there was
a young woman under great distress of soul; she came to a very pious
Christian man, who said “My dear girl, you must go home and pray.” Well
I thought within myself, that is not the Bible way at all. It never says, “Go
home and pray.” The poor girl went home; she did pray, and she still
continued in distress. Said he, “You must wait, you must read the
Scriptures and study them.” That is not the Bible way; that is not exalting
Christ; find a great many preachers are preaching that kind of doctrine.
They tell a poor convinced sinner, “You must go home and pray, and read
the Scriptures; you must attend the ministry;” and so on. Works, works,
works-instead of “By grace are ye saved through faith,” If a penitent
should come and ask me, “What must I do to be saved?” I would say,
“Christ must save you-believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” I
would neither direct to prayer, nor reading of the Scriptures nor attending
God’s house; but simply direct to faith, naked faith on God’s gospel. Not
that I despise prayer-that must come after faith. Not that I speak a word
against the searching of the Scriptures-that is an infallible mark of God’s
children. Not that I find fault with attendance on God’s word-God forbid! I
love to see people there. But none of those things are the way of salvation.
It is nowhere written-”He that attendeth chapel shall be saved,” or, “He
that readeth the Bible shall be saved.” Nor do I read- “He that prayeth and
is baptised shall be saved;” but, “He that believeth,”-he that has a naked
faith on the “Man Christ Jesus,”-on his Godhead, on his manhood, is
delivered from sin. To preach that faith alone saves, is to preach God’s
truth. Nor will I for one moment concede to any man the name of a gospel
minister, if he preaches anything as the plan of salvation except faith in
Jesus Christ, faith, faith, nothing but faith in his name. But we are, most of
us, very much muddled in our ideas. We get so much work stored into our
brain, such an idea of merit and of doing, wrought into our hearts, that it is
almost impossible for us to preach justification by faith clearly and fully;
and when we do, our people won’t receive it. We tell them, “Believe on
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” But they have
a notion that faith is something so wonderful, so mysterious, that it is quite
impossible that without doing something else they can ever get it. Now,
that faith which unites to the Lamb is an instantaneous gift of God, and he
who believes on the Lord Jesus is that moment saved, without anything
else whatsoever. Ah! my friends, do we not want more exalting Christ in
our preaching, and more exalting Christ in our living? Poor Mary said,
“They have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid
him,” And she might say so now-a-days if she could rise from the grave.
Oh! to have a Christ-exalting ministry! Oh! to have preaching that
magnifies Christ in his person, that extols his divinity, that loves his
humanity; to have preaching that shows him as prophet, priest, and king to
his people! to have preaching whereby the spirit manifests the Son of God
unto his children: to have preaching that says, “Look unto him and be ye
saved all the ends of the earth,”-Calvary preaching, Calvary theology,
Calvary books, Calvary sermons! These are the things we want, and in
proportion as we have Calvary exalted and Christ magnified, the gospel is
preached in our midst.

3. The third answer to the question is: to preach the gospel is to give every
class of character his due. “You are only to preach to God’s dear people,
if you go into that pulpit,” said a deacon once to a minister. Said the
minister, “Have you marked them all on the back, that I may know them?”
What is the good of this large chapel if I am only to preach to God’s dear
people? They are few enough. God’s dear people might be held in the
vestry. We have many more here besides God’s dear people, and how am I
to be sure, if I am told to preach only to God’s dear people, that somebody
else wont take it to himself? At another time some one might say, “Now,
be sure you preach to sinners. If you do not preach to sinners this morning,
you won’t preach the gospel. We shall only hear you once; and we shall be
sure you are not right if you do not happen to preach to sinner this
particular morning, in this particular sermon.” What nonsense, my friends!
There are times when the children must be fed, and there are times when
the sinner must be warned. There are different times for different objects. If
a man is preaching to God’s saints if it so happen that little is said to
sinners, is he to be blamed for it, provided that at another time when he is
not comforting the saints, he directs his attention specially to the ungodly?
I heard a good remark from an intelligent friend of mine the other day. A
person was finding fault with “Dr. Hawker’s Morning and Evening
Portions” because they were not calculated to convert sinners. He said to
the gentleman, “Did you ever read; ‘Grote’s History of Greece?’” “Yes.”
Well, that is a shocking book, is it not? for it is not calculated to convert
sinners. “Yes, but,” said the other, “‘Grote’s History of Greece’ was never
meant to convert sinners.” “No,” said my friend, “and if you had read the
preface to ‘Dr. Hawker’s Morning and Evening Portion,’ you would see
that it was never meant to convert sinners, but to feed God’s people, and if
it answers its end the man has been wise, though he has not aimed at some
other end.” Every class of person is to have his due. He who preaches
solely to saints at all times does not preach the gospel; he who preaches
solely and only to the sinner; and never to the saint, does not preach the
whole of the gospel. We have amalgamation here. We have the saint who is
full of assurance and strong; we have the saint who is weak and low in
faith; we have the young convert; we have the man halting between two
opinions; we have the moral man; we have the sinner; we have the
reprobate; we have the outcast. Let each have a word. Let each have a
portion of meat in due season; not at every season, but in due season. He
who omits one class of character does not know how to preach the entire
gospel. What! Am I to be put into the pulpit and to be told that I am to
confine myself to certain truths only, to comfort God’s saints? I will not
have it so. God gives men hearts to love their fellow-creatures, and are
they to have no development for that heart? If I love the ungodly am I to
have no means of speaking to them? May I not tell them of judgment to
come, of righteousness, and of their sin? God forbid I should so stultify my
nature and so brutalize myself, as to have a tearless eye when I consider the
loss of my fellow creatures, and to stand and say “Ye are dead, I have
nothing to say to you!” and to preach in effect if not in words that most
damnable heresy, that if men are to be bayed they will be saved-that if they
are not to be saved they will not be saved; that necessarily, they must sit
still and do nothing whatever; and that it matters not whether they live in
sin or in righteousness-some strong fate has bound them down with
adamantine chains; and their destiny is so certain that they may live on in
sin. I believe their destiny is certain-that as elect, they will be saved, and if
not elect they are damned for ever. But I do not believe the heresy that
follows as an inference that therefore men are irresponsible and may sit
still. That is a heresy against which I have ever protested, as being a
doctrine of the devil and not of God at all. We believe in destiny; we
believe in predestination; we believe in election and non-election: but,
notwithstanding that, we believe that we must preach to men, He Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and ye shall be saved,” but believe not on him and
ye are damned.

4. I had thought of giving one more answer to this question, but time fails
me. The answer would have been somewhat like this-that to preach the
gospel is not to preach certain truths about the gospel, not to preach about
the people, but to preach to the people. To preach the gospel is not to talk
about what the gospel is, but to preach it into the heart, not by your own
might, but by the influence of the Holy Ghost-not to stand and talk as if we
were speaking to the angel Gabriel, and telling him certain things, but to
speak as man to man and pour our heart in to our fellow’s heart. This I
take it, is to preach the gospel, and not to mumble some dry manuscript
over on Sunday morning or Sunday evening. To preach the gospel is not to
send a curate to do your duty for you; it is not to put on your fine gown
and then stand and give out some lofty speculation. To preach the gospel is
not, with the hands of a bishop, to turn over some beautiful specimen of
prayer, and then to go down again and leave it to some humbler person to
speak. Nay; to preach the gospel is to proclaim with trumpet tongue and
flaming zeal the unsearchable riches of Christ Jesus, so that men may hear,
and understanding, may turn to God with full purpose of heart. This is to
preach the gospel.

II. The second question is-How IS IT THAT MINISTERS ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO GLORY? “For though I preach the gospel I have nothing to
glorify it.” There are some weeds that will grow anywhere; and one of
them is Pride. Pride will grow on a rock as well as in a garden. Pride will
grow in the heart of a shoe-black as well as in the heart of an alderman.
Pride will grow in the heart of a servant girl and equally as well in the heart
of her mistress. And pride will grow in the pulpit. It is a weed that is
dreadfully rampant. It wants cutting down every week, or else we should
stand up to our knees in it. This pulpit is a shocking bad soil for pride. It
grows terribly; and I scarcely know whether you ever find a preacher of the
gospel who will not confess that he has the greatest temptation to pride. I
suppose that even those ministers of whom nothing is said, but that they
are very good people, and who have a City church, with some six people
attending it, have a temptation to pride. But whether that is so or not, I am
quite sure wherever there is a large assembly, and wherever a great deal of
noise and stir is made concerning any man there is a great danger of pride.
And, mark you, the more proud a man is the greater will be his fall at last.
If people will hold a minister up in their hands and do not keep hold of him,
but let him go, what a fall he will have, poor fellow, when it is all over. It
has been so with many. Many men have been held up by the arms of men,
they have been held up by the arms of praise, and not of prayer; these arms
have become weak, and down they have fallen. I say there is temptation to
pride in the pulpit; but there is no ground for it in the pulpit; there is no soil
for pride to grow on; but it will grow without any. “I have nothing to
glorify of.” But, notwithstanding, there often comes in some reason why
we should glory, not real, but apparent to our ownselves.

1. Now, how is it that a true minister feels he has “nothing to glorify of.”
First, because he is very conscious of his own imperfections. I think no
man will ever form a more just opinion of himself than he who is called
constantly and incessantly to preach. Some man once thought he could
preach, and on being allowed to enter the pulpit, he found his words did
not come quite so freely as he expected, and in the utmost trepidation and
fear, he leaned over the front of the pulpit and said “My friends, if you
would come up here, it would take the conceit out of you all, I verily
believe it would out of a great many, could they once try themselves
whether they could preach. It would take their critical conceit out of them,
and make them think that after all it was not such easy work. He who
preaches best feels that he preaches worst. He who has set up some lofty
model in his own mind of what eloquence should be, and what earnest
appeal ought to be, will know how much he falls below it. He, best of all,
can reprove himself when he knows his own deficiency. I do not believe
when a man does a thing well, that therefore he will glory in it. On the
other hand, I think that he will be the best judge of his own imperfections,
and will see them most clearly. He knows what he ought to be: other men
do not. They stare, and gaze, and think it is wonderful, when he thinks it is
wonderfully absurd and retires wondering that he has not done better.

Every true minister will feel that he is deficient. He will compare himself
with such men as Whitfield, with such preachers as those of puritanical
times, and he will say, “What am I? Like a dwarf beside a giant, an ant-hill
by the side of the mountain.” When he retires to rest on Sabbath-night, he
will toss from side to side on his bed, because he feels that he has missed
the mark, that he has not had that earnestness, that solemnity, that deathlike
intenseness of purpose which became his position. He will accuse
himself of not having dwelt enough on this point, or for having shunned the
other, or not having been explicit enough on some certain subject, or
expanded another too much. He will see his own faults, for God always
chastises his own children at night-time when they have done something
wrong. We need not others to reprove us; God himself takes us in hand,
The most highly honored before God will often feel himself dishonored in
his own esteem.

2. Again, another means of causing us to cease from all glory is the fact
that God reminds us that all our gifts are borrowed. And strikingly have I
this morning been reminded of that great truth-that all our gifts are
borrowed, by reading in a newspaper to the following effect:-
“Last week, the quiet neighborhood of New Town was much disturbed by
an occurrence which has thrown a gloom over the entire neighborhood. A
gentleman of considerable attainment, who has won an honorable degree at
the university has for some months been deranged. He had kept an
academy for young gentlemen, but his insanity had obliged him to desist
from his occupation, and he has for some time lived alone in a house in the
neighborhood. The landlord obtained a warrant of ejectment; and it being
found necessary to handcuff him, he was, by sad mismanagement,
compelled to remain on the steps, exposed to the gaze of a great crowd,
until at last a vehicle arrived, which conveyed him to the asylum. One of his
pupils (says the paper) is Mr. Spurgeon.”

The man from whom I learned whatever of human learning I have, has now
become a raving lunatic in the Asylum! When I saw that, I felt I could bend
my knee with humble gratitude and thank my God that not yet had my
reason reeled, not yet had those powers departed. Oh! how thankful we
ought to be that our talents are preserved to us, and that our mind is not
gone! Nothing came nearer and closer to me than that. There was one who
had taken all pains with me-a man of genius and of ability; and yet there he
is! how fallen! how fallen! How speedily does human nature come from its
high estate and sink below the level of the brutes? Bless God my friends,
for your talents! thank him for your reason! thank him for your intellect!
Simple as it may be, it is enough for you, and if you lost it you would soon
mark the difference. Take heed to yourself lest in aught you say. “This is
Babylon that I have builded;” for, remember, both trowel and mortar must
come from him. The life, the voice, the talent, the imagination, the
eloquence-all are the gift of God; and he who has the greatest gifts must
feel that unto God belong the shield of the mighty, for he has given might
to his people, and strength unto his servants.

3. One more answer to this question. Another means whereby God
preserves his ministers from glorying is this: He makes them feel their
constant dependance upon the Holy Ghost. Some do not feel it, I confess.
Some will venture to preach without the Spirit of God, or without
entreating it. But I think that no man, who is really commissioned from on
high, will ever venture to do so, but he will feel that he needs the Spirit.
Once, while preaching in Scotland, the Spirit of God was pleased to desert
me, I could not speak as usually I have done. I was obliged to tell the
people that the chariot wheels were taken off; and that the chariot dragged
very heavily along. I have felt the benefit of that ever since. It humbled me
bitterly, for I could have crept into a nut-shell, and I would have hidden
myself in any obscure corner of the earth. I felt as if I should speak no
more in the name of the Lord, and then the thought came “Oh! thou art an
ungrateful creature: hath not God spoken by thee hundreds of times? And
this once, when he would not do so wilt thou upbraid him for it? Nay,
rather thank him, that a hundred times he hath stood by thee; and, if once
he hath forsaken thee, admire his goodness, that thus he would keep thee
humble.” Some may imagine that want of study brought me into that
condition, but I can honestly affirm, that it was not so. I think that I am
bound to give myself unto reading, and not tempt the Spirit by unthoughtof
effusions. Usually, I deem it a duty to seek a sermon of my Master and
implore him to impress it on my mind, but on that occasion, I think I had
even prepared more carefully then than I ordinarily do, so that
unpreparedness was not the reason. The simple fact was this- “The wind
bloweth where it listeth;” and winds do not always blow hurricanes.
Sometimes the winds themselves are still. And, therefore, if I rest on the
Spirit, I cannot expect I should always feel its power alike. What could I
do without the celestial influence, for to that I owe everything. By this
thought God humbles his servants. God will teach us how much we want
it. He will not let us think we are doing anything ourselves. “Nay, says he,
“thou shalt have none of the glory. I will take thee down. Art thou thinking
‘I am doing this?’ I will show thee what thou art without me “Out goes
Samson. He attacks the Philistines. He fancies he can slay them; but they
are on him. His eyes are out. His glory is gone, because he trusted not in
his God, but rested in himself. Every minister will be made to feel his
dependence upon the Spirit; and then will he, with emphasis, say, as Paul
did, “If I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glorify of.”

III. Now comes the third question, with which we are to finish WHAT IS
THAT NECESSITY WHICH IS LAID UPON US TO PREACH THY GOSPEL?

1. First, a very great part of that necessity springs from the call itself: If a
man be truly called of God to the ministry, I will defy him to withhold
himself from it. A man-who has really within him the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost calling him to preach cannot help it. He must preach. As fire
within the bones, so will that influence be until it blazes forth Friends may
check him, foes criticise him, despisers sneer at him, the man is
indomitable; he must preach if he has the call of heaven. All earth might
forsake him; but he would preach to the barren mountain-tops. If he has
the call of heaven, if he has no congregation, he would preach to the
rippling waterfalls, and let the brooks hear his voice. He could not be
silent. He would become a voice crying in the wilderness, “Prepare ye the
way of the Lord.” I no more believe it possible to stop ministers, than to
stop the stars of heaven. I think it no more possible to make a man cease
from preaching, if he is really called, than to stop some mighty cataract, by
seeking, with an infant’s cup, to drink its waters. The man has been moved
of heaven, who shall stop him? He has been touched of God, who shall
impede him? With an eagle’s wing he must fly; who shall chain him to the
earth? With seraph’s voice he must speak, who shall stop his lips? Is not
his word like a fire within me? Must I not speak if God has placed it there?
And when a man does speak as the Spirit gives him utterance, he will feel a
holy joy akin to heaven; and when it is over he wishes to be at his work
again, and longs to be once more preaching. I do not think young men are
called of God to any great work who preach once a week, and think they
have done their duty. I think if God has called a man, he will impel him to
be more or less constantly at it, and he will feel that he must preach among
the nations the unsearchable riches of Christ.

2. But another thing will make us preach: we shall feel that woe is unto us
if we preach not the gospel; and that is the sad destitution of this poor
fallen world. Oh, minister of the gospel! stand for one moment and bethink
thyself of thy poor fellow creatures! See them like a stream, rushing to
eternity-ten thousand to their endless home each solemn moment fly! See
the termination of that stream, that tremendous cataract which dashes
streams of souls into the pit! Oh, minister, bethink thyself that men are
being damned each hour by thousands, and that each time thy pulse beats
another soul lifts up its eyes in hell, being in torments; bethink thyself how
men are speeding on their way to destruction, how “the love of many
waxeth cold” and “iniquity doth abound.” I say, is there not a necessity laid
upon thee? Is it not woe unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel? Take
thy walk one evening through the streets of London when the dusk has
gathered, and darkness veils the people. Mark you not yon profligate
hurrying on to her accursed work? See you not thousands and tens of
thousands annually ruined? Up from the hospital and the asylum there
comes a voice, “Woe is unto you if ye preach not the gospel.” Go to that
huge place built around with massive walls, enter the dungeons, and see the
thieves who have for years spent their lives in sin. Wend your way
sometimes to that sad square of Newgate, and see the murderer hanged. A
voice shall come from each house of correction, from each prison, from
each gallows, saying, “Woe is unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel.”
Go thou to the thousand death-beds, and mark how men are perishing in
ignorance, not knowing the ways of God. See their terror as they approach
their Judge, never having known what it was to be saved, not even
knowing the way; and as you see them quivering before their Maker, hear a
voice, “Minister, woe is unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel.” Or
take another course. Travel round this great metropolis, and stop at the
door of some place where there is heard the tinkling of bells, chanting and
music, but where the whore of Babylon hath her sway, and lies are
preached for truth; and when thou comest home and thinkest of Popery
and Puseyism, let a voice come to thee, “Minister woe is unto thee if thou
preachest not the gospel.” Or step into the hall of the infidel where he
blasphemes thy Maker’s name; or sit in the theater where plays, libidinous
and loose are acted, and from all these haunts of vice there comes the voice
“Minister, woe is unto thee if thou preachest not the gospel.” And take thy
last solemn walk down to the chambers of the lost; let the abyss of hell be
visited, and stand thou and hear

“The sullen groans, the hollow moans,
And shrieks of tortured ghosts.”

Put thine ear at hell’s gate, and for a little while list to the commingled
screams and shrieks of agony and fell despair that shall lend thine ear; and
as thou comest from that sad place with that doleful music still affrighting
thee, thou wilt hear the voice, “Minister! minister! woe is unto thee if thou
preaches not the gospel.” Only let us have these things before our eyes, and
we must preach. Stop preaching! Stop preaching! Let the sun stop shining,
and we will preach in darkness. Let the waves stop their ebb and flow, and
still our voice shall preach the gospel, let the world stop its revolutions, let
the planets stay their motion; we will still preach the gospel. Until the fiery
center of this earth shall burst through the thick ribs of her brazen
mountains, we shall still preach the gospel; till the universal conflagration
shall dissolve the earth, and matter shall be swept away, these lips, or the
lips of some others called of God, shall still thunder forth the voice of
Jehovah. We cannot help it. “Necessity is laid upon us, yea woe is unto us
if we preach not the gospel.

Now, my dear hearers, one word with you. There are some persons in this
audience who are verily guilty in the sight of God because they do not
preach the gospel. I cannot think out of the fifteen hundred or two
thousand persons now present, within the reach of my voice, there are
none who are qualified to preach the gospel besides myself. I have not so
bad an opinion of you as to conceive myself to be superior in intellect to
one half of you, or even in the power of preaching God’s Word: and even
supposing I should be, I cannot believe that I have such a congregation that
there are not among you many who have gifts and talents that qualify you
to preach the Word. Among the Scotch Baptists it is the custom to call
upon all the brethren to exhort on the Sabbath morning; they have no
regular minister to preach on that occasion, but every man preaches who
likes to get up and speak. That is all very well, only, I fear, many
unqualified brethren would be the greatest speakers, since it is a known
fact, that men who have little to say will often keep on the longest; and if I
were chairman, I should say, “Brother, it is written, ‘Speak to edification.’
I am sure you would not edify yourself and your wife, you had better go
and try that first, and if you cannot succeed, don’t waste our precious
time.”

But still I say, I cannot conceive but what there are some here this morning
who are flowers “wasting their sweetness in the desert air, “gems of purest
ray serene,” lying in the dark caverns of ocean’s oblivion. This is a very
serious question. If there be any talent in the Church at Park Street, let it
be developed. If there be any preachers in my congregation let them
preach. Many ministers make it a point to check young men in this respect.
There is my hand, such as it is, to help any one of you if you think you can
tell to sinners round what a dear Savior you have found. I would like to
find scores of preachers among you; would to God that all the Lord’s
servants were prophets. There are some here who ought to be prophets,
only they are half afraid-well, we must devise some scheme of getting rid
of their bashfulness. I cannot bear to think that while the devil sets all his
servants to work there should be one servant of Jesus Christ asleep. Young
man, go home and examine thyself, see what thy abilities are, and if thou
findest that thou hast ability, then try in some poor humble room to tell to a
dozen poor people what they must do to be saved. You need not aspire to
become absolutely and solely dependent upon the ministry, but if it should
please God, even desire it. He that desireth a bishopric desireth a good
thing. At any rate seek in some way to be preaching the gospel of God. I
have preached this sermon especially, because I want to commence a
movement from this place which shall reach others. I want to find some in
my church, if it be possible, who will preach the gospel. And mark you, if
you have talent and power, woe is unto you if you preach not the gospel.
But oh! my friends, if it is woe unto us if we preach not the gospel, what is
the woe unto you if ye hear and receive not the gospel? May God give us
both to escape from that woe! May the gospel of God be unto us the savor
of life unto life, and not of death unto death.