And where we are not presented with this sort of vacuity of belief, we still meet with nothing more than some thin theory of a _possible_ ministration, whereby a straining ingenuity attempts to harmonize its own opinions with the facts and statements of Scripture; as if we were set to inquire—what _may_ be, or _might be_ a system of religious teaching? and not rather, what was from the beginning? One theory of a Christian ministry maintained, with more or less of distinctness, by very many, is, that none are rightly “sent,” or commissioned to teach CHRIST’S religion, unless they have what is termed an “inward call.” Now, if they mean by this, that every minister of CHRIST ought to be inwardly impressed with the importance of his calling, no one will question it: but they must mean more than this, or their meaning amounts to nothing. Their idea seems to be, that no man has a right to become a “minister,” who has not some overpowering personal conviction of his spiritual destination to the ministerial office, and that this is a sufficient evidence of a true “call” to the office; and in conformity with this notion they explain every text. Now if any one imagines that he has such evidence of a call within him, it is useless to reason with him. He is clearly beyond that. If he can so persuade himself, he may also persuade himself that all Scripture is on his side; or any thing else. Few, indeed, will be disposed to envy the venturous self-confidence of one who could thus stand forth (with eternity before him) and on his own sole authority profess, “I am an embassador for CHRIST!”—“I am a ‘savour of eternal life and death!’” Not to dwell, too, on the opening thus given to fanaticism of every kind, it is certain also that a man’s personal conviction can be no evidence to others; and yet others are interested in the matter. How far his apparent religious success may be so, is another question, which had better be separately examined, and which we shall hereafter consider. But, it is plain, as we have said, and again insist, that a man’s personal conviction alone is no sufficient proof for _others_ that he is “sent” to preach Christianity. The Apostolic Epistles, every where, imply as St. Paul does in his question to the Roman Church, that the being “sent” was a matter which other men could judge of. It is certain, too, that the Apostles had something _more_ at least than an “inward call.” They were, according to the Scriptures, _outwardly_ called, from the very first, by CHRIST Himself. And St. Paul, the only one who was not so, was outwardly called, afterwards, by an express miracle. So that the Bible, and Apostolic example, are alike against the notion of the sufficiency of an inward call. And here it may be collaterally remarked, that, least of all men, can the members of our Church admit this, at the best inadequate, doctrine; for the 23rd Article is emphatically against it.