IN forming general concluſions from particular inſtances, eſpecially when our experience of theſe inſtances has not been uniform, great caution is neceſſary, on every ſub⯑ject, to preſerve us from miſtakes. But a peculiar degree of caution is neceſſary in forming general maxims concerning characters; becauſe the circumſtances on which characters de⯑pend, are both more complicated, and more uncertain in their operation, than the cauſes of natural effects. On this account, obſervations muſt be made on a very great number of indivi⯑duals, before we can judge with accuracy concerning the cha⯑racter of the nation or the profeſſion, to which theſe individu⯑als belong: and even after we have made the moſt extenſive obſervations, we ought ſtill to remember, that the maxim, which we form, far from being an univerſal truth, will neceſ⯑ſarily be liable to numberleſs exceptions.

IT is however undeniable, that there are few ſubjects, on which men judge, either more raſhly, or more dogmatically, than on the characters both of nations and of particular profeſ⯑ſions. They impute the faults, which they have obſerved in a few individuals, to a whole nation or order. They often alſo embrace the groundleſs prejudice ſo cloſely, that, when they afterwards diſcover many other individuals, who appear to be [2] free from the blemiſh, which they had expected to find in them, they ſuppoſe them to be tainted with it notwithſtand⯑ing, and take it for granted, that it would become obvious in proper circumſtances.

IN no inſtance has this ſhameful prejudice been indulged more freely, than in forming a diſadvantageous idea of the clergy in general, on account of the vices of ſome, who have been members of that ſociety. And, becauſe miniſters are the public teachers of chriſtianity, the vices imputed to them in a body, without evidence, have been conſidered as throwing a reflexion on the truth or the efficacy of the religion which it is their buſineſs to publiſh. The charge has been commonly en⯑forced by looſe and popular declamation, fit to make an im⯑preſſion on the imagination of the thoughtleſs, and, by conſe⯑quence, to gain their paſſions to the party; but abſolutely in⯑ſufficient to convince the impartial and inquiſitive. If there be any difficulty in confuting the accuſations, that are com⯑monly brought againſt our order, and againſt the goſpel on our account, it ariſes, not from the ſtrength of the arguments, by which they are ſupported, but from the total want of argu⯑ment.

THE moſt natural and direct method of proving, that the clergy deſerve the diſagreeable character, which is ſometimes aſcribed to them, would doubtleſs be, to examine the temper and conduct of the ſeveral individuals, and to ſhew, from an intimate knowledge of them, that the majority are really guil⯑ty of the vices imputed to the order. A candid enquirer would likewiſe chooſe, before he pronounced ſentence concern⯑ing their character on the whole, to compare them with the individuals of other profeſſions, and to ſee what proportion the virtues and the vices of the clergy bear to thoſe of the laity. It will ſcarce be pretended, that this ſpecies of proof has been attempted by thoſe, who are ſo liberal in their declamations a⯑gainſt the vices of the miniſters of the goſpel.—But tho' they could produce this proof in it's greateſt ſtrength, it would [3] ſtill be difficult to ſhew, that the faults of miniſters can be juſt⯑ly charged on the chriſtian religion, to the rules of which, it is manifeſt, theſe faults are abſolutely contrary. The moral tendency of the doctrines of the goſpel, and the purity and ſu⯑blimity of its precepts ought always to preſerve it free from blame, on account of the vices of any, who profeſs to believe it. Before theſe vices be imputed to the goſpel, it ſhould cer⯑tainly be ſhown, that there is ſome doctrine, or precept, or ex⯑ample, recommended in ſcripture, which gives countenance to them.

BUT tho' the method of proof, which we have mentioned, be the moſt natural and direct, upon a ſubject of this kind, it muſt be acknowledged, that another ſpecies of reaſoning may be likewiſe uſed. All arguments concerning matter of fact are ultimately founded on experience; but it is not neceſſary to have recourſe in every argument to experience of inſtances preciſely ſimilar to that which we infer. It is often ſufficient, that the preſent argument be ſupported by ſome general max⯑ims, which are clearly deducible from experience. We may conclude that a man, who is intruſted with abſolute power, will probably abuſe it, not only from inſtances of tyrants, who have abuſed it, but alſo from the more general obſervation of examples which occur of corruption and inſolence in private life. In like manner could it be fairly proved, that there are circumſtances eſſential to the miniſterial office, which, accord⯑ing to our general obſervation of human nature, have a direct and primary tendency to produce certain vices in thoſe, who exerciſe that office; and ſhould it be inferred from this, that theſe vices will be characteriſtical of the order, and that the religion, which inſtitutes the office, is the occaſion of them; we could not juſtly refuſe to admit the inference. This me⯑thod of proof has been attempted by a late author, in an Eſſay on national characters. ^a Declining the direct proof of the [4] vices, commonly imputed to the clergy, from immediate ex⯑perience, [5] he has drawn a character for them (tho' he admits of [6] very many exceptions in individuals) which is by no means a⯑miable, a character, which includes many of the blackeſt vices in human nature; and he has endeavoured to prove, that this character naturally reſults from the very genius of the miniſte⯑rial calling.

THAT candour, which the goſpel recommends, and which ought always to prevail in the heart of a miniſter of the go⯑ſpel, forbids me to attempt detracting from the real merit or abilities of this author. He is poſſeſſed of a very conſiderable ſhare of genius and penetration. This will gain him attenti⯑on from the inquiſitive; and will render his reaſonings on e⯑very ſubject, more ſpecious than thoſe of many others, and on that account more dangerous, when, at any time, he happens to miſtake. Is is not, then, worth while, my reverend fathers [7] and brethren, to enquire, whether his charge be juſt? Will it be unſuitable to the preſent occaſion, to examine fairly and impartially, what is the natural influence of the miniſterial of⯑fice upon the characters of thoſe, who exerciſe it?

THE ungainly portrait, that has been drawn for the mini⯑ſters of the goſpel, ſuggeſted this inveſtigation to my thoughts. When I found myſelf obliged, by the authority of my ſuperi⯑ors, to appear in this place, on the preſent occaſion, I willing⯑ly choſe this ſubject. It affords me an opportunity of conſi⯑dering the miniſterial character and office, in a point of view, in which they have not been frequently regarded. It frees me from the neceſſity of even ſeeming to give directions to thoſe, from whom it becomes me rather to receive inſtruction; for the very nature of the deſign confines me to enquiry. At the ſame time, it will appear, that the enquiry is far from being merely ſpeculative, or unimproving, and that it has, on the contrary, the moſt intimate connexion with practice. I enter on it, with a ſincere deſire to vindicate our ſacred function from reproach; and will conduct it with an eye eſpecially to that author, to whom I have referred already. Prieſts of the temper which he deſcribes, would unite in the bittereſt invec⯑tives againſt an antagoniſt, who has attacked the whole bo⯑dy of the clergy, in a manner ſo unreſerved. But that is not the temper of the miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt. I know well, that my reverend hearers would not excuſe me, if I made the leaſt approach to rancour, or unbecoming warmth againſt him, if I oppoſed him in any other ſpirit, than the ſpirit of meekneſs, ^b or if I conſidered my ſubject in any other manner, than with that impartiality, which will be obſerved by thoſe, who ſeek only to diſcover truth.

THE apoſtle Paul ſays in my text, A biſhop muſt be blame⯑leſs, as the ſteward of God. It will be evident that theſe words lead naturally to the propoſed enquiry, if we attend to the [8] manner, in which they are introduced, eſpecially if we conſi⯑der, at the ſame time, the import of the words themſelves in the original. The apoſtle reminds Titus, ver. 5. that he had left him in Crete for this purpoſe, that he might ordain elders or preſbyters in every city; men blameleſs, free not only from groſs and ſcandalous wickedneſs, but from every ſpecies of vice; for the word here uſed has a reſpect to the judgment of God, and not merely to the ſentiments of men.^c In my text, he ſhows that, when he required preſbyters to be blame⯑leſs, he enjoined only what the very nature of their office de⯑mands. A preſbyter i, by his office, a biſhop, that is, an over⯑ſeer; and, according to the language of the new teſtament, as appears from the only place, where the term is uſed in ſuch a way, that its meaning can be preciſely determined, ^d an o⯑verſeer of all the flock, of the church of God. On this account, he muſt be blameleſs: ſteddy and univerſal virtue, as far as it can be attained by human nature, is a qualification, abſolutely neceſſary for the exerciſe of his office. To render the neceſſity of this character ſtill more evident, the apoſtle adds, as the ſteward of God. He repreſents the chriſtian church as the fa⯑mily of God, and informs us, that miniſters are appointed to diſpenſe, to the ſeveral members of it, that ſpiritual food, by which they may be nouriſhed to eternal life. As he elſewhere characterizes them more explicitely, they are ſtewards of the myſteries of God, ^e teachers, not of their own opinions, but of the doctrines of the chriſtian revelation. The import of the text is, therefore, plainly this; ‘the moſt exalted and blame⯑leſs virtue is requiſite, from the very nature of their office, in thoſe, whoſe buſineſs it is to teach religion, and to over⯑ſee the morals of the people.’ Does not this aſſertion of the apoſtle imply, that the miniſterial office has a tendency upon the whole to form a good and virtuous character? Could his maxim be true, if that very office had an unalterable tendency to inflame many of the baſeſt vices of human nature, and to produce a character which every good man muſt regard with [9] indignation? May not we, then, with ſufficient propriety, take occaſion from this text to enquire, what is that temper, which our employment, as miniſters of the goſpel, tends to cultivate in our ſouls?

IN proſecuting this ſubject, I will, firſt, enquire how far a tendency in the miniſterial office, to form a character in ſome reſpects diſagreeable, or even a character expoſed to the dan⯑ger of becoming vicious, could reaſonably affect either the cre⯑dit of that office, or the excellence of the chriſtian religion, in which the office is founded.

Secondly, I WILL enquire, whether that character, which the miniſterial office tends to form, be virtuous or vicious on the whole.

Thirdly, I WILL enquire, how far this office has really, a tendency to produce, or to inflame thoſe particular vices, which ſome have repreſented as characteriſtical of our order.

I. Firſt, I WILL enquire, how far a tendency in the mi⯑niſterial office, to form a character in ſome reſpects diſagreea⯑ble, or a character expoſed to the danger of becoming vicious, could reaſonably affect either the credit of that office, or the excellence of the chriſtian religion.

IT is not unuſual to draw, from an argument, a concluſion totally different from that, which it really proves; and, by means of the ambiguity of words, or the confuſion of men's i⯑deas, the fallacy often eſcapes detection, and it is taken for granted that a propoſition is proved, for which, in fact, there has not been a ſingle argument propoſed. Attempts have been ſometimes made to ſhew that the occupation of miniſters tends to pre ent their acquiring that artificial poliſh, which adds gracefulneſs to the behaviour of the higher ranks of man⯑kind: and when plauſible evidence for this trivial charge has been produced, men have triumphed, as if they had demon⯑ſtrated [10] a very different propoſition, that the character of our profeſſion is poſitively diſagreeable, contemptible or ridiculous. In like manner, when men have produced ſuch arguments as ſeem to make it probable, that the turn of character and man⯑ners, which is promoted by the genius of the miniſterial of⯑fice, will be unfit to engage the liking of the generality, or will be diſagreeable in ſome ſituations, they have taken it for granted, that theſe arguments prove with equal force, that this turn of character and manners is likewiſe poſitively vicious, and unfit to gain the inward eſteem, or the moral approbation of men.

A MODERATE degree of underſtanding might preſerve a perſon from being deceived by ſophiſms ſo palpable. But perſons of good underſtanding are often not ſo ready to exert a very ſmall degree of reflection, as to receive every thing, without examination, which can gratify their own pride, or afford them mirth, by repreſenting others as proper objects of contempt or ridicule. For this reaſon theſe arguments, or o⯑thers equally inconcluſive, have in fact occaſioned a great part of the contempt, which has been poured out upon the clergy. It will not, therefore, be unneceſſary to remark, tho' the re⯑mark be extremely obvious, that a character not only may be agreeable, when many agreeable qualities are wanting in it, becauſe the mere abſence of them gives no poſitive diſguſt; but alſo may be really diſagreeable, or unfit to engage a gene⯑ral liking, and yet be ſo far from vicious, that it ſhall, on the contrary, command the moral approbation, and force the good opinion, and even the veneration of mankind.

AS characters and actions may be conſidered in various lights, they may gratify a ſpectator, by ſentiments totally di⯑ſtinct and different. Theſe ſentiments are very apt to be con⯑founded, becauſe they are all agreeable; but every man, who deſires to think with accuracy, muſt be at pains to preſerve them ſeparate. A liking to a character, is very different from [11] the approbation or eſteem of it. The former ſentiment is excit⯑ed chiefly by the more trivial accompliſhments of the man; the latter, only by ſuch as are important. The qualities, which moſt effectually engage the liking of the generality, are of too low an order to be regarded as being even a-kin to the moral virtues: nay there are ſome vices, which, becauſe they diffuſe a certain eaſe, and gaiety, and ſprightlineſs over the temper and behaviour, are very apt to obtain the liking even of thoſe, in whom a moment of reflection produces abhorrence of their baſeneſs. But it is only ſolid virtue, rooted deep in the temper, and exerted regularly in the conduct, that can ei⯑ther gain or preſerve the real, inward approbation and eſteem of mankind. It likewiſe deſerves to be remarked, that a man's own turn of character has great influence in determining the objects of his liking, who will be thoſe chiefly, whoſe manners reſemble his own; and therefore this ſentiment will be varia⯑ble and precarious. Approbation is more permanent and uni⯑verſal, and leſs dependent on the peculiarities of temper; it is often beſtowed unwillingly by men, on thoſe, to whom their own conſciences tell them, to their anguiſh, that themſelves bear no ſimilitude.

SUPPOSE now, my fathers and brethren, that ſome per⯑ſon ſhould aſſert, in writing or in converſation, that our of⯑fice deprives us of opportunities for acquiring that exterior poliſh of manners, which is very acceptable to the generality, and indeed graceful in itſelf. This is really the whole amount of ſome of thoſe ſuperficial reflexion, which are often thrown out againſt us. The author, whom we have principally in our eye, does not expreſsly urge this inſignificant accuſation; yet he ſeems to inſinuate, not only that we are obnoxious to it, but alſo that it doth detract from the credit of our office: for he mentions good breeding and openneſs of behaviour, as one of the amiable qualities, which enter into the character of a ſoldier, and are naturally derived from his way of life; and he tells us that the character of a clergyman, as well as his way of life, is, in moſt points, oppoſite to that of a ſoldier.— [12] Need we be much concerned to enquire, whether the charge be true or falſe? If we ſhould acknowlege it, do you think, that either the importance of our office, or the excellence of our religion, would ſuffer by the acknowlegement? Nay might not the miniſterial character be, nevertheleſs, agreeable, and fit to procure even the liking of the generality? For might not it contain thoſe amiable inward qualities, of which external politeneſs is only either the expreſſion, or the mimick⯑ry, and from which openneſs and eaſe of behaviour deriveth all its merit?

SUPPOSE again, that it ſhould be aſſerted, that the cha⯑racter, which naturally reſults from our office, is very gene⯑rally diſagreeable; muſt we take it for granted immediately, that this character is vicious? May not we reaſonably aſk, before we admit this concluſion, to whom, and in what parti⯑cular manner, it is diſagreeable? It is aſſerted by others, and it is not diſſembled by ourſelves, that our office tends to form us to a grave and ſerious temper, that it diſcourages the gaiety of pleaſure, and unthinking levity of behaviour, that it con⯑fines us to ſtrict rules of decency, that it leads us to ſet a guard over our looks and words and actions, and reſtrains us from giving ſcope to our natural movements and ſentiments, when⯑ever they are either ſinful or unbecoming.—I do not know but there are ſome particular ſeaſons, at which the generality would diſlike a man of this character, and ſhun his company. But it would be only when they were diſpoſed to exceed the limits of right and innocence. And could it inferred, from his being diſagreeable to them in this ſituation, that his cha⯑racter is vicious, or even that they, who diſlike him, do not really approve and eſteem him notwithſtanding? I doubt not but a perſon of the character, which we have deſcribed, will be, in all ſituations, diſagreeable to many. He bears no reſem⯑blance, in his manners, to the gay, the diſſipated, and the vo⯑luptuous; and his preſence would lay them under an uneaſy reſtraint. They will always diſlike him: but is it certain, [13] that even they will always diſapprove him? Or if they ſhould, would it be of mighty conſequence? For could he be more agreeable to them, without becoming leſs virtuous? Admit, then, that our office naturally produces a turn of character, which is diſagreeable in ſome reſpects: will either the credit of that office, or the excellence of our religion ſuffer by this charge, if we be able to vindicate our calling from a tendency to form a temper, that is really vicious, or morally evil?

FARTHER, brethren, is it abſolutely certain, that every ſort of tendency in the miniſterial function, to produce ſome real vices in thoſe who exerciſe it, will neceſſarily detract from its credit, or be inconſiſtent with the perfect purity of the goſ⯑pel? An aſſertion or inſinuation of this nature is plauſible in⯑deed: yet it may be proved, that it ought not to be admitted, but under ſeveral limitations.—Were it the direct, and pri⯑mary tendency of our profeſſion, to form a vicious character, or to inflame ſome heinous vices, this would certainly reflect diſhonour on it. This would render ours an unlawful calling, becauſe we could not exerciſe it, without doing what is wrong. Were there, for inſtance, any eſſential part of our office, which we could not execute, without impoſing cunningly deviſed fa⯑bles ^f on the credulity of mankind, or foſtering a ſpirit of ſuperſtition among them, or offering violence to their conſci⯑ences, our employment would be ſo far abſolutely immoral. This would alſo reflect diſhonour on our religion; for that re⯑ligion could not be true, or holy, or divine, which it were im⯑poſſible to teach, without committing ſin. Let it be clearly proved, that ſomething unlawful muſt neceſſarily be practiſed, in teaching the doctrines, or inculcating the duties of genuine, uncorrupted chriſtianity:—by this, indeed, but by nothing leſs than this, our office and our religion will be expoſed to cenſure.

IF any perſon ſhould diſcover that, tho' our office tend pri⯑marily to form and improve a virtuous character, it has a remote [14] and ſecondary tendency to produce vicious diſpoſitions, in thoſe who reſiſt its original impulſe; we may give him liberty to a⯑vail himſelf of the diſcovery, as much as he can with reaſon. The amount of the diſcovery is only this, that the beſt things may be abuſed, that what is naturally calculated for the wor⯑thieſt purpoſe may be perverted, and, after it is perverted, ren⯑dered ſubſervient to an unworthy and contrary end. This is, indeed, an univerſal truth. Reaſon is a noble faculty, implan⯑ted in our nature, on purpoſe to enable us to diſtinguiſh truth from falſehood: but a ſuperior degree of reaſon has been of⯑ten employed to diſguiſe plain truths, and to render errors plauſible. Natural affection is an amiable inſtinct, deſigned to prompt the parent to provide for the helpleſs infant, and to ſubmit to all the fatigues, which may be neceſſary for inſtilling knowledge and virtue into the opening mind: yet it frequent⯑ly degenerates into a vicious fondneſs, which occaſions the death or prevents the education of the child. The primary end of ingenuous ſhame and regard to reputation plainly is the prevention of infamous vices: but does not this very princi⯑ple often lead men to commit one act of wickedneſs in order to conceal another, which they have already perpetrated in ſe⯑cret? In a word, nothing can have ſo ſtrong a tendency to pro⯑mote a good end, but it may be perverted to ſerve a bad, or even a contrary purpoſe. Are we, then, to judge of things, by their primary and eſſential tendency, or by that accidental direction, which they acquire when they have been abuſed? By the former, certainly. If it is not ſufficient, that the pri⯑mary tendency of a thing be good, if it is neceſſary likewiſe, that it be incapable of perverſion or abuſe; there will be nothing good or wiſe in art or nature; there will be no ſi⯑tuation or employment in the world ſafe or lawful, for there is none, from which men may not take occaſion to fall into vicious conduct. And is it fair or reaſonable to inſiſt, that more is requiſite for the vindication of the paſtoral office, than of any thing beſides? Are thoſe vices to be charged on the of⯑fice, [15] which ſpring only from the abuſe of it? Are they not ra⯑ther to be imputed ſolely to the fault of individuals?

WHEN therefore any perſon aſſerts, that there are circum⯑ſtances in the paſtoral office, which tend to inflame any parti⯑cular vice, it is incumbent on him to diſtinguiſh carefully be⯑tween the primary and the accidental tendency of theſe cir⯑cumſtances. If the tendency be but accidental, to urge it to the diſadvantage of the office, is, either inadvertently or art⯑fully, to confound things totally diſtinct, and thus to render a falſehood plauſible, or to give a harmleſs truth an unfavourable aſpect: it is like hurting a man's reputation by an inſinuation, which will very probably be miſunderſtood, and which could do no hurt, except it were miſunderſtood.

IT has been ſaid, that there are certain vices, of which mi⯑niſters are often guilty, and into which they are led by their profeſſion. Suppoſe it were alleged, as an inſtance of this, that when miniſters are conſcious of their wanting ſome virtue, which the decorum of their character requires, they are apt to affect the outward appearance of that virtue. Such miniſters are, no doubt guilty of hypocriſy. It may be affirmed too, in ſome ſenſe, that their profeſſion is the occaſion of this hypocri⯑ſy; becauſe their being conſcious that their profeſſion requires the virtue, which they affect, is their motive in making falſe pretences to it. But is it not plain that, in this caſe, the ſpi⯑rit of the office leads them naturally, not to affect the virtue, but really to cultivate it? It can be ſaid to lead to hypocriſy, only by accident, by being perverted from its original and proper aim: And its being thus perverted, far from implying that it has an immoral tendency, ſets the ſtrength of its ten⯑dency to virtue in the cleareſt light; for it ſhows, that the mi⯑niſterial office prompts men ſo powerfully to the culture of vir⯑tue, that even they who reſiſt its impulſe, and over whom it has the leaſt power, muſt palliate their want of real virtue, to themſelves and others, by an hypocritical ſhow of goodneſs.

[16] THERE are ſome vices, which bear a general reſemblance to certain virtues: ſuperſtition, for inſtance, mimics piety; ran⯑cour calls itſelf zeal; moroſeneſs would paſs for a ſerious tem⯑per. Men of all profeſſions often indulge the vice, while they flatter themſelves that they are cultivating the virtue, for which it is miſtaken. We impute it to their weakneſs, and pity their want of true moral diſcernment. Suppoſe that a clergyman ſhould in like manner, ſubſtitute ſome ſpecious vice in the place of a particular virtue, which eminently ſuits the genius of his profeſſion: ought we to impute this vice to the pro⯑feſſion? Muſt not we, on the contrary, impute it wholly to the infirmity of the individual, and to the general deceitfulneſs of ſin? If this can account for ſimilar inſtances among other ranks of men, with what colour of reaſon can we urge the vice, as a proof of an immoral tendency in the miniſterial calling?

THERE are certain ends naturally deſirable to mankind, in whatever ſtation they be placed. Every ſtation furniſhes a man with lawful means of promoting theſe ends; but in every ſtation, a man has it likewiſe in his power to purſue them by unlawful means.—Beſides thoſe ends, which we may innocently aim at, there are others, which it is wrong to pur⯑ſue, but which the corrupt affections of mankind will often lead them to purſue; and different wrong ends will be moſt likely to attract different claſſes of men.—In the pre⯑ſent degenerate ſtate of mankind, many will purſue unlawful ends, or ſeek to promote ſuch ends as are lawful in themſelves, by unjuſtifiable means. They have the vicious bent, which occaſions this, independent of their particular profeſſion; but it determines the form, which the vice aſſumes. It is in this way that every ſtation and profeſſion has it peculiar temptati⯑ons, and expoſes thoſe, who occupy it, to peculiar dangers.—Now ſuppoſe that the ſtation, in which miniſters are placed, has, in like manner, its peculiar temptations; that miniſters may find in their employment unlawful means of attaining a lawful end, or that they may render their ſacred functions ſub⯑ſervient [17] to a wrong end: is this any more than happens in o⯑ther profeſſions? If this can expoſe the miniſtry to cenſure, muſt it not equally expoſe every other occupation? Can it, then, be fairly urged to the diſadvantage of this one office, in compariſon with others? If this tendency to vice be but ſe⯑condary and accidental in other callings, muſt it not be eſteem⯑ed ſuch alſo in our vocation? If, in other employments, the fault be chargeable only on the individuals, who are guilty, pray, why ſhould not individual clergymen likewiſe be alone anſwerable for yielding to the temptations, which ariſe from their peculiar buſineſs?—The office of a clergyman is found⯑ed in the goſpel: but can the goſpel be blamed, becauſe this office has its peculiar temptations? Before you determine that it can, ſtop for a moment, and obſerve the conſequences. O⯑ther ſtations are appointed in the courſe of ordinary provi⯑dence; and their peculiar temptations would reflect the ſame diſhonour upon it. If the common temptations of life be not ſufficient to overturn the belief of a God and a providence, thoſe, which are peculiar to the paſtoral office, cannot affect the truth or the excellence of the goſpel. Let none therefore throw blame on the chriſtian miniſtry, on account of its ſup⯑plying ſome temptations to vice, or on the goſpel, becauſe it has eſtabliſhed an office, which is liable to abuſe, but thoſe who have already embraced atheiſm, and denied the conſtitu⯑tion of the world to be wiſe and good.—Mankind are at pre⯑ſent, by the univerſal appointment of God, in a ſtate of trial and exerciſe. There is no circumſtance in life, but gives us opportunities of acting either virtuouſly or viciouſly. It is on⯑ly by putting it in our power to act viciouſly, if we chooſe, that any ſituation can exerciſe or improve our virtuous affecti⯑ons. Exerciſe is afforded to our temper, not only by the ge⯑neral circumſtances of life, common to all men, but likewiſe by the peculiar circumſtances of particular profeſſions. There are peculiar circumſtances in the miniſterial office, as well as in every other, which may give exerciſe to our virtues, and im⯑prove them, but may likewiſe, as is indeed a neceſſary conſe⯑quence, prove occaſions of vice. To aſſert this is only to ſay, [18] that miniſters of the goſpel are in a ſtate of probation and diſ⯑cipline, in the ſame ſenſe as other men, that their employment, as well as other employments, contains circumſtances fit to draw out virtuous principles, and to give them exerciſe: and this ſurely can derogate nothing from the excellence of their office.

BUT ſuppoſe that the vices of a wicked miniſter riſe high⯑er, in particular inſtances, and become more atrocious than thoſe of others: this is ſo far from neceſſarily implying an im⯑moral tendency in his office, that, on the contrary, it may re⯑ally proceed from the ſtrength of its virtuous tendency; for the greater the advantage, which this office affords for virtu⯑ous practice, the greater will be the depravity neceſſary for a⯑buſing them, and the more heinous and inveterate the corrup⯑tion, which will ſpring from the abuſe.—As the ſame vicious principle may aſſume different forms, and be exerted in diffe⯑rent ways, ſome forms and exertions of it are often more de⯑teſtible and pernicious than others. If, then, ſome vicious principle ſhould aſſume its blackeſt form, in the practice of a clergyman, who foſters it; and if it ſhould appear to be deter⯑mined to that form, by the circumſtances of his occupation; can we arraign the ſpirit of his office on this account? This were to judge of that office only by the abuſe of it. But do not all men admit it for a maxim, that thoſe things are gene⯑rally the beſt in themſelves, the corruption of which is the worſt?

SUPPOSE again, that the employment of a miniſter con⯑tains circumſtances, which will lead to vicious conduct, if the greateſt caution be not exerciſed: this would not neceſſarily prove even that vice will be more common among miniſters than among other ranks of men; much leſs would it prove, that the ſpirit of the office is, on the whole, friendly to vice; for it may contain other circumſtances, which prompt ſtrongly [19] to exert the neceſſary caution, to reſiſt the importunities of vice, and to cultivate every virtue. The miniſterial office may, from its being abuſed and perverted, by the weakneſs or cor⯑ruption of thoſe who exerciſe it, or from various circumſtances in this ſtate of probation, in which it is to be executed, ſup⯑ply temptations, which have a direct and powerful tendency to excite a paſſion or inclination, whoſe indulgence will lead the negligent into vicious conduct. If this could throw a re⯑flexion on the ſpirit of that office, or on the chriſtian religion, which has inſtituted it, how could we vindicate the ordinary ſituations, in which God places us, or the general plan of his. providence towards us in the preſent world? Many objects in nature excite paſſions, which crave gratification often when it is vicious to gratify them. Were man formed for following thoughtleſsly the preſent inclination, theſe objects would infal⯑libly lead him into vice. But we muſt take the whole of hu⯑man nature into the account; man is endued with a moral principle, a principle of reflection, whoſe proper buſineſs it is, to reſtrain inclination, whenever it cannot be indulged lawful⯑ly. His ſtate is ſuited to his whole nature. The temptati⯑ons of life are deſigned to give him opportunities of exerting reflection, of acting with moral attention to his conduct, and are fit to ſtrengthen, by this means, the principle of reflection, and improve a habit of ſelf-government, which is the great ſecurity of virtue. They who will not exerciſe reflection, and employ care, in controuling their inclinations, fall before temptations, thro' their own fault, are hardened in vice by means of them, and thus render them ſubſervient to a con⯑trary end, from that which God has deſigned and fitted them to anſwer. This is the general conſtitution of the world, yet the Creator is wiſe, and good, and perfect. The office of a chriſtian miniſter, in like manner, ſupplies temptations, with which many comply, and which it requires a great de⯑gree of care and attention to reſiſt; yet that office may be deſigned for the virtuous improvement of thoſe who occupy it, its ſpirit may tend ſtrongly to promote that improvement; [20] and the religion, which inſtitutes that office, may be holy and divine, for it is indeed analogous to the whole plan of providence.

I WILL make one ſuppoſition more, and that as favou⯑rable to our adverſaries as they can reaſonably deſire. I will ſuppoſe that the office of a chriſtian miniſter expoſes him to greater danger of acting viciouſly than other men. Even this ſuppoſition will not avail them much. In this caſe our ſtation would indeed be hazardous to ourſelves: as a few ſoldiers are ſometimes forced to defend a deſperate poſt, in order to preſerve a whole army from deſtruction, ſo we ſhould be expo⯑ſed to an imminent danger of loſing our own ſouls, in promot⯑ing the ſalvation of others. But even this would not prove, that our office has an immoral tendency, in any ſenſe, which could affect the credit of our religion. It would be only ana⯑logous to what happens in the courſe of nature, that ſome ſi⯑tuations ſupply ſtronger and more numerous temptations than others; and therefore it could never prove, that the goſpel is not derived from the author of nature.

THESE obſervations appeared to be neceſſary for remov⯑ing the confuſion, in which the charge againſt the ſpirit of our profeſſion has been commonly involved, and for enabling us to detect ſome of the artifices, by which it has been rendered plauſible, and ſeemingly important. The ſum is this. If the enemies of our order only prove, that our office tends to form a character, in which ſome agreeable qualities are wanting, or even a character poſitively diſagreeable in ſome reſpects; or if they prove, that ſome circumſtances in it may be perverted into occaſions of vice, or that it preſents peculiar temptations, which it will require great caution to avoid complying with, they allege nothing, which can juſtly affect either the ſpirit of our office, or the religion, by which it is eſtabliſhed. If they can prove no more, they attack us with inſufficient weapons; we may expoſe our boſoms to their pointleſs arrows, without receiving the ſlighteſt hurt. They ſhow their inclination to an⯑noy [21] us; and the undiſcerning and the prejudiced may take it for granted, that they have given a mortal wound to religion and its miniſters. But the candid and the conſiderate will ſoon perceive that, in order to accompliſh their deſign, they muſt evince, that the original and prevailing tendency of our office is immoral, that ſomething vicious is neceſſary in order to pro⯑mote its genuine end, and to diſcharge its real duties. To diſ⯑cover whether this has ever been evinced, or can indeed be e⯑vinced, is the intention of the ſequel.

II. WITH this view we propoſed, ſecondly, to enquire, whether that character, which the miniſterial office tends to form, be virtuous or vicious on the whole.

OUR office is charged expreſsly, only with ſome particu⯑lar vices: but theſe are ſo heinous and ſo numerous, and ſof⯑tened by the mixture of ſo few virtues, that, were the charge ſupported with ſufficient evidence, it would imply, that the na⯑tural character of a clergyman is, upon the whole vicious and deteſtible. I doubt not however but it will appear, by every kind of evidence, of which the ſubject can be ſuppoſed capa⯑ble, that a character, in all reſpects virtuous, is the natural re⯑ſult of our profeſſion.

MAY it not be aſſerted, in the firſt place, with conſidera⯑ble evidence, that the clergy in general are, in fact, equal, nay, ſuperior to other claſſes of men, in whatever deſerves the name of moral virtue? And if this be true, will it not form an argument in favour of the genius of our calling? For if it real⯑ly led to vice, it could ſcarce fail to corrupt the greater num⯑ber. It is not eaſy to prove beyond diſpute, what depends upon ſo many inſtances, what requires the obſervation of many ages and nations; nor is it poſſible, on this occaſion, to enter on a long detail from hiſtory, to ſupport the aſſertion: but let a⯑ny perſon examine with impartiality, and he will find that, in every ſtate of things, miniſters of the goſpel have had their full proportion of the virtue of the times. In the beſt and the moſt [22] virtuous ages, there have been more of this order eminent for virtue, in proportion to the number of thoſe who belong to it, than of any other. In the moſt degenerate times, in times when religion has been moſt perverted from its true deſign, the morals of the clergy have been higher than on a level with thoſe of the laity. If there be any period, in which it has been otherwiſe, let our adverſaries point it out.—We own they have great advantages on their ſide.—The miniſterial of⯑fice leads to privacy and retreat; the abuſes of it often carry a man into public life. On this account, the vices of thoſe clergymen, who have departed from the genius of their office, are conſpicuous, and liable to be expoſed by the torch of hiſ⯑tory: but they, who have been ſteddily actuated by its genu⯑ine ſpirit, have paſſed thro life in virtuous obſcurity, revered by thoſe who knew them, their memory honoured for a gene⯑ration or two, but totally unregarded by hiſtory, which con⯑fines itſelf to the actions of the higher ranks of men, or to thoſe actions, which had an influence on the revolutions of go⯑vernment, or on the general ſtate of civil affairs.—It will like⯑wiſe deſerve attention, that in ſome eſtabliſhments of religion, many clergymen have not been confined to the proper functi⯑ons of their office, but have devoted themſelves chiefly to ſe⯑cular affairs, perfectly foreign to it. It is not in theſe, that we can expect to find the genuine character of the order; for the paſtoral office cannot poſſibly exert its influence on a man, who is ſcarce at all employed in the duties of it. The temper of ſuch a perſon muſt neceſſarily be formed, principally by thoſe ſecular occupations, in which he is moſt converſant. Yet it is from clergymen in this ſituation, that perſons are readieſt to take their idea of the whole body; becauſe they are moſt ex⯑poſed to obſervation.—Our adverſaries derive another ad⯑vantage from the unequal manner, in which the comparative importance of different virtues and vices is ordinarily eſtimat⯑ed. Temperance, piety, and the other virtues, which will na⯑turally predominate in the character of a clergyman, are depreſ⯑ſed far below their genuine dignity; and at the ſame time ma⯑ny vices, frequent among the other ranks of men, but rarely to [23] be found among the clergy, are regarded with a more favour⯑able eye than their real deformity deſerves. This perverſion of moral ſentiment, if it be not guarded againſt, will neceſſarily diminiſh the merit of the clergyman, and raiſe that of the man of the world, and thus diſguiſe their true proportion to each other.—But let our adverſaries take no more advantage from theſe or other circumſtances, than themſelves can approve as fair; let them examine what has been the real character of the clergy, not by ſelecting a few inſtances on one ſide only, but by making a complete and impartial induction; let them make the ſame allowance in this caſe, that they would reckon reaſon⯑able in other caſes; let them form their judgment chiefly from thoſe clergymen, who have been employed only in the proper duties of their calling; at leaſt let them diſtinguiſh, in others, between the vices, which belong to them as clergymen, and thoſe, which have ſprung from their adventitious occupations; let the ſeveral virtues, and their oppoſite vices be valued, I will not ſay, according to the chriſtian ſtandard, but accord⯑ing to that ſtandard, which the unperverted ſentiments of man⯑kind have fixed, and the beſt heathen moraliſts have acknow⯑leged; let them tell us honeſtly the reſult of their enquiry. If they ſhould find, that miniſters of the goſpel have been, up⯑on the whole, more blameleſs, more virtuous than the reſt of mankind, that they have for the moſt part, fallen in lateſt with a prevailing corruption of manners, that they have often op⯑poſed its progreſs, and been leaſt infected with it, that ſome⯑times the majority of them have totally eſcaped the contagion of vice, which raged among other ranks; they cannot deny that the miniſterial office has a ſtrong tendency to promote the practice of univerſal virtue.

THAT the reſult of their enquiry will be what we have ſuppoſed, I pronounce with the greater confidence, becauſe it ſeems to be really acknowleged by all mankind. It is an un⯑deniable matter of fact, that the general ſenſe of mankind pro⯑claims vice to be peculiarly ſcandalous, and virtue to be pecu⯑liarly [24] requiſite in a clergyman. They, who pay little regard to the laws of morality in their own conduct, demand the moſt ſpotleſs virtue in the teachers of religion. Every deviation from ſtrict virtue, every inſtance of vice in men of this profeſſion, has always excited greater and more general indignation, than ſimilar faults in others. Whence does this univerſal ſentiment ariſe? It can ariſe from no cauſe, which is not obvious to the very ſenſes of mankind; for circumſtances, which cannot be diſcovered without cloſe attention and deep penetration, will never affect the generality: their ſentiments and judgments are produced only by plain matters of fact. And from what cauſe can their ſentiment on this ſubject ariſe, but actual experience of the ſuperior virtue of chriſtian miniſters? Familiar objects never ſtrike us ſtrongly. Vices, which we are accuſtomed to witneſs, we ſoon learn to behold without a great degree of horror. Were a vicious miniſter very common, men muſt have long ago regarded him with as little indignation as other vi⯑cious men. They are peculiarly ſhocked with vice in a cler⯑gyman, for this reaſon, becauſe they do not find it ſo frequent⯑ly in men of this character as in others.

BUT this ſentiment of the peculiar unſuitableneſs of vice to the profeſſion of a clergyman deſerves to be conſidered far⯑ther; for not only do mankind, by means of it, give teſtimo⯑ny that virtue is more general among miniſters than among o⯑thers, but it likewiſe contains a direct proof, that the genius of our calling is eminently favourable to virtue. It ſuppoſes that all the world is ſenſible, that miniſters of the goſpel have, from the very nature of their office, peculiar advantages for being virtuous. If this were not taken for granted, men could never deem vice peculiarly atrocious in a clergyman, they could never exact uniform virtue more rigorouſly from him than from any other perſon. When the ſituation, in which a man is pla⯑ced, lays him under ſtrong temptations to vice, we make al⯑lowance for it, in our cenſure of him. We excuſe, in ſome meaſure, the ſallies of youth, becauſe the paſſions are violent at that time of life. We give ſome indulgence to the peeviſh⯑neſs [25] of old age, becauſe the infirmities incident to that period are powerful temptations to ill humour. We pity, rather than blame a wretch, who, overcome by torture, betrays his friend. The judgment is natural, neceſſary, and well founded. The vices, on which we are diſpoſed to paſs a heavy cenſure, are thoſe, which a man commits without any inducement from his ſituation, thoſe, which he is under a ſtrong obligation to avoid, and has great advantages for avoiding. When all men, there⯑fore, perceive vice to be incongruous to the character of a cler⯑gyman, is not this a confeſſion, that his ſacred function has a pe⯑culiar fitneſs for forming him to virtue? Believers and infidels agree in the ſentiments, on which our argument is founded, and therefore muſt equally perceive its force. The natural ſentiments even of thoſe, who are moſt forward to cenſure the ſpirit of our office, pronounce vice peculiarly odious, and vir⯑tue peculiarly neceſſary in a clergyman; and theſe ſentiments; ariſing ſpontaneouſly and irreſiſtibly in their hearts, are a much ſtronger proof of their being conſcious of the moral tendency of the chriſtian miniſtry, than any refined arguments, formed at leiſure, can be of the contrary. Let them either acknow⯑ledge, that our office urges us powerfully to all virtue, of let them regard thoſe vices, which they charge upon it, as more venial and excuſable, as leſs worthy of diſapprobation in a clergyman, than in another.

BEFORE I leave this topic, allow me to make one obſer⯑vation, which ſeems to be of importance in eſtimating the re⯑al character of a clergyman. It is the judgment of human na⯑ture, that every vice has a ſingular atrocity in him; this judg⯑ment could not be formed, except vice were comparatively rare in that profeſſion, and likewiſe abſolutely repugnant to its genuine ſpirit; yet this very judgment has contributed not a little to beſtow plauſibility on the aſſertion, that the ſpirit of our profeſſion is immoral, an aſſertion, to which it is altogether contradictory. The conſequence of this judgment has been that, while very high degrees of vice are overlooked in other men, or, at moſt, are ſlightly blamed, the leaſt appearance of e⯑very [26] vice in a clergyman is immediately remarked and ſevere⯑ly condemned. By this means, a few ſmall vices in him appear both greater and more numerous, than many atrocious vices in another, becauſe they are more certainly obſerved and more heavily cenſured. A perſon is highly diſapproved, when he bears the character of a clergyman, who would have been noways cenſured, if he had belonged to any other order. Thus the very tendency of the miniſterial office to promote virtue has led men, firſt to think miniſters more vicious, in compari⯑ſon with others, than they really are, and next, in conſequence of this, to charge the office itſelf with a tendency to vice. We own, that mankind do us no injuſtice in reckoning vice more heinous in us, than in others; but the judgment ſuppoſes the ſpirit of our office to be eminently favourable to virtue; and therefore a perſon cannot fairly avail himſelf of it, who denies this, and is examining the real characters of clergymen, in or⯑der to determine, whether the ſpirit of their office be moral or immoral; he ought to eſtimate their actions only by that ſtan⯑dard, which he applies to the actions of others.

FARTHER, it is worth while to obſerve, that they who cenſure the ſpirit of our profeſſion moſt ſeverely, acknowlege its tendency to be moral in one reſpect. There is one virtue, ſtrict decency and temperance, which they own that we natu⯑rally derive from our employment. They inſinuate, indeed, that it is the only one. But if it be evident, that this one vir⯑tue neceſſarily promotes other virtues, and gives us advanta⯑ges for cultivating them, it cannot be denied that our calling, by its immediate influence on this one, will indirectly, but re⯑ally tend to form the other parts of a virtuous temper.—Decency and temperance implies, at leaſt, ſtrict abſtinence from all the exceſſes of pleaſure, from the diſſipation of gay and thoughtleſs mirth, and from all thoſe expreſſions of any of our paſſions, which are unbecoming. In conſequence of this abſtinence, the ſenſual appetites and infer or paſſions, which are always vicious, when they become exceſſive, and which in others are apt to become exceſſive, by being indulg⯑ed [27] without controul, will, almoſt unavoidably, be preſerved weak and moderate in a clergyman. This is one important ingredient in a virtuous character.—But this is not all. They, who are diſpoſed to regard intemperance and levity with the moſt favourable eye, can ſcarce deny, that they often prove occaſions of leading men into vices much more heinous. There is no crime ſo atrocious, but a man brutified by exceſs, or diſ⯑ſipated by giddineſs may occaſionally perpetrate. The baſeſt courſes have been taken, in order to procure gratification to pampered appetites. The frequent returns of levity and in⯑temperance may produce repeated acts of any vice, and theſe repeated acts will, by degrees, render the worſt diſpoſitions habitual. Our office, therefore, by confining us to ſtrict rules of decency, preſerves us from a ſituation, which would put us in imminent hazard of committing many acts of vice, and of contracting many evil habits. By this means, it has a peculi⯑ar tendency to produce a general purity of heart, which un⯑doubtedly confers very conſiderable worth upon the character.—A ſtrict regard to decency will likewiſe influence our temper in another way. It implies a conſtant reſtraint of vicious prin⯑ciples, concern that our conduct be right and unblameable, and regard to the authority and dictates of the moral faculty. Now there is a natural aſſociation among our principles of ac⯑tion, by means of which any one of them prepares the mind for receiving any other, that has the ſame direction. On this account, a regard to decency muſt have a tendency to intro⯑duce into the ſoul, juſtice, veracity, humility, meekneſs, pati⯑ence, forbearance, and, in a word, all the virtues, which, like itſelf, hold of controul, and are included in the idea of ſelf-go⯑vernment. The direct principle of all theſe is the ſame with that of decency, a ſenſe of duty, a ſubmiſſion to the law of con⯑ſcience. As every principle is ſtrengthened by being habitu⯑ally exerted, the authority of conſcience will be confirmed by our regard to decency; it will be enabled to controul every wrong affection with greater eaſe; and, by being accuſtomed to ſubmit to its government in one inſtance, we ſhall be better [28] diſpoſed to ſubmit to it in all. Indeed men are often ſurpriſing⯑ly abſurd and inconſiſtent in their conduct; one paſſion may be perfectly ungoverned, while another is reſtrained. On this account, we cannot affirm, that a regard to decency will neceſ⯑ſarily produce all the virtues of ſelf-government: but it cer⯑tainly tends to have a favourable influence upon them: and our office, by almoſt certainly producing that, will probably pro⯑mote theſe others.—The principal obſtruction to the preva⯑lence of good affections ariſes from the ſtrength of ſome vici⯑ous paſſions, which oppoſe their exerciſe. A regard to decen⯑cy, by contributing directly to weaken theſe vicious paſſions, will lay the mind open to the influence of worthy affections, and will thus give us great advantages for acquiring all thoſe amiable virtues, which conſiſt in the exerciſe of them.—If, therefore, ſtrict decency and temperance reſult naturally from our profeſſion, it muſt have, at leaſt, an indirect tendency to promote all other virtues. The conceſſions of our adverſaries, however ſmall they may appear, imply that our profeſſion has a real tendency to promote univerſal virtue.

THESE general arguments, drawn from the real charac⯑ters of the generality of clergymen; from the natural judg⯑ment of mankind, that virtue is peculiarly incumbent on them; and from the influence of that partial virtue, which is allowed by all to reſult naturally from our profeſſion, appeared too im⯑portant to be wholly omitted, becauſe they not only are con⯑cluſive in themſelves, but alſo throw conſiderable light on the whole of this ſubject.—But the moſt direct proof of the tendency of our office, to form us to a temper of univerſal vir⯑tue, ſtill remains. It ariſes from the nature of that office.

As moral cauſes have doubtleſs a very great influence on the characters of men, ſo all profeſſions, it is allowed, contain fixt moral principles, which tend to produce a correſpondent character, and have often force enough to alter the diſpoſition, that was received from nature. Now we may learn with cer⯑tainty, the tendency of the moral principles, eſſential to any [29] profeſſion, by examining the nature of that profeſſion, its end, and the proper means of promoting that end. If we ſurvey the miniſterial office in this manner, we ſhall find, that it has an eſſential tendency to promote a virtuous temper.

THE buſineſs of a miniſter of the goſpel is, in brief, to teach religion. The tendency of his office will, therefore, be altogether determined by the nature of the religion, which he teaches. Chriſtianity includes all the principles of natural re⯑ligion, and ſuperadds the revelation of a ſtupendous diſpenſa⯑tion of providence, for the redemption and reformation of an apoſtate world, by Jeſus Chriſt. The truths of natural theo⯑logy, eſpecially as they are illuſtrated and refined in ſcripture, center in this, that to fear God, and keep his commandments is the whole of man ^g. The peculiar doctrines of revelation teach us, that denying ungodlineſs and worldly luſts, we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly ^h. Both are propoſed in the ſcrip⯑tures, the only rule of our teaching, with an expreſs deſign to form us to the love of God and of man, to make us perfect, thoroughly furniſhed unto all good works ⁱ. Religious princi⯑ples are conſtantly repreſented as arguments for all virtue, and addreſſed to our hopes, to our fears, to our gratitude, to our honour, to our propenſity to imitation, to every affection of the human heart, that can have any influence on conduct. At the ſame time, in the ſcriptures, all the parts of virtue, all the duties of life are illuſtrated in the juſteſt, and the moſt practi⯑cal manner. Our employment is, to promote the belief and the practice of this religion; to recommend goodneſs, by pu⯑bliſhing truth; to explain virtue, and enforce it by all poſſible motives. Can ſuch employment tend to form us to any other temper, than that virtue, which we inculcate upon others?

IT is certainly firſt of all requiſite in a teacher, that he un⯑derſtand the ſubject of his teaching, and that, for this purpoſe, he ſtudy it with care. Our profeſſion will, therefore, naturally [30] lead us to the diligent and conſtant ſtudy of all the doctrines and duties of religion; it will urge us to know the holy ſcriptures ^k, to meditate upon them, to give ourſelves wholly to them ^l, that we may be able to teach others ^m. If, then, religious or moral conſiderations, if precepts, or arguments, if maxims, or ſentiments, examples, or rules of virtue have really any force, they muſt exert it moſt in purifying, refining, and exalting the tempers of thoſe, whoſe whole buſineſs it is, to attend to them. Since miniſters muſt often think on all theſe, that they may un⯑derſtand them, and that they may inculcate them upon others; the conſequence will be, that, if they are, like other men, ſub⯑ject to the law of habit, incitements to virtue will occur to their thoughts more eaſily and frequently, than to the thoughts of others, and urge them more powerfully to a ſuitable behavi⯑our.

A GREAT part of the vice, with which other men are infected, ariſes from the temptations, to which they are expoſ⯑ed in the courſe of their worldly buſineſs. Each of them has a temporal vocation, the direct end of which does not coin⯑cide with that of their ſpiritual calling, and which therefore ſometimes leads them off from the duties of the latter. But miniſters of the goſpel have no worldly buſineſs: the nature of their office, as well as the authority of ſcripture, to which they are indiſpenſibly obliged to ſubmit, forbids them to entan⯑gle themſelves with the affairs of this life ⁿ; and, by conſe⯑quence, preſerves them, while they continue in their proper province, from thoſe temptations, which produce the greateſt part of the wickedneſs of the world. Our occupation is, to en⯑force a ſenſe of virtue and religion upon others; and every attempt of this kind is an act of virtue, which tends directly to our own improvement. Every effort, which we make in our particular vocation, promotes the end of our general calling.

[31] OUR office leads us to obſerve our fellow-creatures in all thoſe ſituations, in which either virtuous principles, or the ſenſe of vice produce the moſt conſpicuous effects, and tend moſt ſtrongly to alarm a ſpectator, and to force him to attend to the oppoſite natures of good and evil. It introduces us, for example, into the houſe of mourning ^o, it conducts us to the bed of death. There we obſerve virtue ſupporting thoſe, who have been ſteddy in the practice of it, under all the agonies of pain, and enabling them to triumph in the proſpect of their diſſolution, as a ſecond birth, a glorious birth into the world of pure light and immortality. There we ſee vice taking faſt hold of thoſe, in the hour of perplexity, who have formerly eluded its painful graſp; we behold the horrors of remorſe, and the ghaſtly fears of guilt; we perceive the wicked, in his lateſt moments, inheriting the unforſaken ſins of his youth; he looks eagerly for comfort to every ſide, but he can find no comfort; the flattering temptations, which have ſeduced him, already appear to be deluſions; he feels already, that all which this world contains, is a vain ſhadow, that eternity alone is re⯑al; and he feels the pains of hell begun already in himſelf; if his faultering tongue ſhould attempt to diſſemble the anguiſh of his ſoul, his trembling joints, his beating heart, his agoniz⯑ed and deſpairing look proclaim it in more ſtriking language. Is there nothing in all this, by which the heart may be made better? ^p Others may have ſome opportunities of this kind; but our opportunities are ſo frequent, that the impreſſion made by one inſtance can ſcarce decay, till it be revived and ſtrength⯑ened by another. Muſt not that man be deſtitute of all prin⯑ciples of reformation, who is not formed to virtue by theſe means?

IT is our buſineſs to inſtruct ^q, to convince, to exhort ^r, to charge ^s, to intreat ^t, to reprove and to rebuke ^u others. [32] Can a vicious man be thus employed, without ſome ſecret miſ⯑givings, without ſome inward checks, without ſometimes feel⯑ing the agonies of remorſe? And have theſe no tendency to excite a man to that genuine virtue, which alone can keep his own heart from condemning him? Can miniſters allow them⯑ſelves in any open and known vice, and yet urge abſtinence from every vice on others, in public, and in private, in the ſo⯑lemn aſſemblies, and from houſe to houſe ^x? Will it not re⯑quire a degree of impudence and effrontery, which is ſeldom to be found, even in the moſt degenerate?

MANKIND are extremely averſe from labouring in vain. Let an end be of ever ſo little importance in itſelf, yet a per⯑ſon, who is actually engaged in the purſuit of it, becomes an⯑xious to attain it, and cannot, without uneaſineſs, bear the thought of diſappointment. The end of our office is of the greateſt importance in itſelf; it is to form mankind to virtue. We cannot promote it, without being highly virtuous our⯑ſelves. An example of vice, exhibited by us, will render the beſt inſtructions ineffectual, and will lead men into vice, with much greater force, than all our exhortations have to urge them to virtue. When this is the certain conſequence of wickedneſs in miniſters, muſt not we acknowlege, either that they alone of all mankind have no concern for ſucceſs, and are in love with diſappointment, or that they have, from their office, a pe⯑culiar and powerful motive to be exemplarily virtuous, to ſhew themſelves in all things patterns of good works ^y?

THE opinion of the world has very great, often too great in⯑fluence on all men. Can it be ſuppoſed that it will not likewiſe have ſome influence on miniſters of the goſpel? It ſometimes leads other men aſtray into vice; but it invariably urges mi⯑niſters to the ſtricteſt virtue; for every vice, in them, appears ſcandalous to all mankind, and neceſſarily renders them con⯑temptible and baſe before all the people ^z. Is it not a conſider⯑able [33] advantage, that a motive, ſo powerful as the ſenſe of cha⯑racter, is conſtantly applied to us on the ſide of virtue?

WILL not it alſo have ſome influence on miniſters of the goſpel, that, in the opinion of the world, the vices of each in⯑dividual reflect diſhonour on the whole order, and bring the office itſelf into contempt? Can a man conſider with perfect indifference, that he renders himſelf an object of juſt indigna⯑tion to thouſands of worthy men of his own profeſſion, whom his vices expoſe to undeſerved ignominy? When the meaneſt artificer is ſollicitous to repreſent his own occupation in a fa⯑vourable light, can we imagine miniſters ſo totally deſtitute of the moſt ordinary principles of human nature, as to have no concern to be virtuous, when that alone can prevent the mini⯑ſtry from being blamed? ^a—Nay the vices of miniſters have ſtill worſe effects. Men impute them to religion itſelf, and cenſure and diſregard it on account of them. Our vices make men to abhor the offering of the Lord ^b; they cauſe many to ſtumble at the law ^c; they cauſe the name of God and his doctrine to be blaſphemed; they induce great numbers to make ſhipwreck of their faith, to harden themſelves in their ſins, and to deſtroy their own ſouls. Can this conſideration fail to operate powerfully on every man, who is not loſt to all good principles?

TO enumerate all the peculiar inducements, which the mi⯑niſters of Jeſus have to pure and exalted virtue, were indeed to explain all the circumſtances of the paſtoral office. From the few obſervations, which we have made already, it appears evident, that that office tends to promote virtue, in thoſe who exerciſe it, by many moral cauſes eſſential to it, and fit to work on the moſt univerſal and unqueſtionable principles of human nature.

BUT tho' our office has plainly an eſſential and unalterable tendency to purify and refine the heart, yet we will acknow⯑lege,— [34] we reckon ourſelves noways concerned to diſſemble it,—it highly imports us to conſider it very often,—that our pro⯑feſſion will not form us infallibly to virtue; nay that, if we al⯑low it to fail of producing this its primary and moſt natural ef⯑fect, the very circumſtances, which give us ſo many advanta⯑ges for virtue, will render us more deeply and more obſtinate⯑ly wicked than the reſt of mankind.—By the original con⯑ſtitution of our nature, habit, which ſtrengthens our active prin⯑ciples, weakens all paſſive impreſſions. The more frequently that we conſider or feel motives to virtue, without being really excited to the practice of virtue, the feebler will be their influ⯑ence upon us, the greater our inſenſibility, the more imminent our danger of never yielding to their force. This is an alarm⯑ing truth to all human creatures, but to miniſters of the goſpel more alarming than to others. We muſt revolve and preach the truths and duties of religion ſo frequently, that if they do not influence us early to ſincere and ſtedfaſt virtue, they muſt quickly become familiar and loſe their power. Moral and divine conſiderations muſt paſs ſo continually tnro' our minds, that in a very ſhort time they will make no impreſſion on us. A per⯑ſon whom our profeſſion does not render virtuous, will become more ſuddenly and more deſperately obdurate in wickedneſs, than any other man.—Nothing contributes more to ſtrength⯑en any principle, than an oppoſition, which doth not effectu⯑ally reſtrain it. Our profeſſion contains the moſt powerful in⯑ducements to virtue; theſe will, at leaſt, make a vigorous op⯑poſition to all vicious principles of action; but if the oppoſi⯑tion do not ſubdue them, they will collect all their force in or⯑der to ſurmount it, and they will be ſtrengthened and confirm⯑ed by the violent effort. As a ſluice, which cannot ſtem a tor⯑rent altogether, only renders the inundation greater, and greater ſtill the longer it keeps it back; juſt ſo vicious paſſions, which are too violent to be wholly reſtrained by the fen es, which our profeſſion raiſes againſt them, will produce the moſt dreadful deluge of wickedneſs, whenever their fury can b eak down theſe ſences. If a paſtor be really vicious, he will, almoſt ne⯑ceſſarily [35] be ſingularly vicious. Nothing leſs than a total de⯑pravation of ſoul can be the effect of a man's reſiſting the ſtrict obligations to virtue, and abuſing the ſignal advantages for cultivating it, which the paſtoral office affords.—In theſe and, perhaps, in ſome other ways, our office may heighten vice in thoſe, who refuſe to be actuated by its genuine ſpirit. But this conceſſion will avail our antagoniſts nothing. Were this a ſufficient proof, that our office tends naturally to vice, it would likewiſe be a proof, that all conſideration of our du⯑ty, or of arguments for the practice of it has a natural tendency to render us vicious; for it is certain, that the oftener any man reflects on his duty, and the ſtronger his ſenſe of its ob⯑ligation is, if he be not really excited to the practice of it, the leſs chance there is of his ever practiſing it, the more harden⯑ed in vice he will become in time, and the more impetuouſly ungoverned paſſions will rage within him.

BOTH from the former arguments, and from the ſurvey that we have taken of the nature of our office, it is plain, that it tends primarily and moſt naturally to virtue. It promotes, not one virtue, but a temper, which diſpoſes the mind to the culture of every virtue. It is the abuſe of it that leads to vice; and the abuſe leads ſo ſtrongly to vice, only becauſe the office itſelf has a powerful influence on virtue. If this general examination of the genius of our calling be not neceſſary for vindicating it from the aſperſions of our adverſaries, it is not⯑withſtanding highly proper for producing in ourſelves, my re⯑verend fathers and brethren, a ſenſe of the ſtrength of thoſe obligations to virtue which we ly under.

III. WE will now enquire, thirdly, how far our office has really a tendency to produce or to inflame thoſe particular vices, which ſome have repreſented as characteriſtical of our order.

THIS is the more neceſſary, becauſe the late author, to whom we have referred, has unwarily admitted ſome fallaci⯑ous [36] principles, and wrong ſuppoſitions into the reaſoning, by which he ſupports the charge. Theſe render his arguments ſpecious, and make thoſe inducements to vice appear to ariſe from the original and prevailing ſpirit of our profeſſion, which are really but the partial effects of ſome of its circumſtances, or accidental temptations ariſing from the abuſe of it. And, be⯑cauſe theſe failacies run thro all the parts of his reaſoning, it will be proper, before we examine the particular vices, which he derives from the genius of our calling, to make a few obſer⯑vations on the general method, in which he traces out the ten⯑dency of that calling.

IF we ſhould allow that he has given a true account of the tendency of thoſe circumſtances in our profeſſion, which he mentions yet we might inſiſt with reaſon, that he has applied the character, which reſults from them, by far too generally. He juſtly blames the undiſtinguiſhed judgments of the vulgar, who comprehend every individual of a nation, without excep⯑tion, in the ſame national character. He juſtly obſerves, that all that can be aſſerted with truth is, that ſome particular qua⯑lities will be more frequently met with among ſome claſſes of people than others. Has he preſerved this neceſſary caution and delicacy in determining the character of the clergy? He indeed ſays, there are exceptions. I will not enquire, how far he can ſeriouſly admit exceptions, with reſpect to ſome particu⯑lars, conſiſtently with the manner in which his reaſoning is purſued. But certainly it was wrong to combine all the vices, which he mentions, into one character, and to aſcribe it to moſt individuals of our order. The ſame temptation will not prevail with all; but only with thoſe to whoſe conſtitution it is adapted. Every day's experience proves, that that may be an irreſiſtible temptation to one man, which makes no impreſſion on another. Tho', therefore, the genius of our calling were ſuch as it is deſcribed, it could only be inferred, that ſome of the vices, which are enumerated, will belong to one clergy⯑man, others to another, but not that all theſe vices will be u⯑nited [37] in the temper of any conſiderable number. The circum⯑ſtances, which operate on the character are ſo various, and on that account, the influence of each of them is ſo precarious, and the turn of mind, from which each derives its force is ſo uncertain, that we ought to reaſon on this ſubject with a pe⯑culiar degree of diffidence.

IT is eaſy to ſelect a few circumſtances in any profeſſion, which, conſidered by themſelves, may appear to have an im⯑moral tendency; but we cannot thence infer that the profeſſi⯑on hath an immoral tendency upon the whole; for the influ⯑ence of theſe may be overballanced by other circumſtances e⯑qually eſſential to it. Were we to eſtimate the character, which any profeſſion forms, by the ſeparate view of ſome circumſtan⯑ces belonging to it, we might repreſent it in a very unfavour⯑able light. The character of a ſoldier is reckoned ſo amiable by this author, that he judges it the fitteſt to be oppoſed to ours, in order to ſet off its deformity. But it is a ſoldier's bu⯑ſineſs, to fight and kill, at the command of his ſuperiors, with⯑out examining the juſtice of the cauſe. Were it fair to attend to this circumſtance alone, we might ſay that his employment neceſſarily renders him cruel, arbitrary, a contemner of right, and an abſolute peſt in ſociety. Such preciſely is the reaſon⯑ing, by which this author would prove, that our office neceſſa⯑rily inflames many of the blackeſt vices of human nature. He has, by ſome overſight, omitted many circumſtances eſſential to it, which have the moſt powerful influence on virtue; he has fixed on a few circumſtances, ſome of them really foreign to our office, and others of them but caſually and remotely con⯑nected with it; he has conſidered the effects, which theſe would produce, if they conſtituted the whole of our office; and, I will venture to ſay, he has exaggerated both theſe ef⯑fects, and the cauſes, from which they are repreſented as pro⯑ceeding. In this reſpect his reaſoning is fallacious, being built on an inſufficient foundation.

[38] WHEN it appears that any circumſtance in a profeſſion, viewed in one light, tends to vice, we cannot always conclude, that even this circumſtance tends to vice upon the whole; be⯑cauſe it may as naturally, or more naturally, produce other ef⯑fects of an oppoſite kind. It is the office of a judge to pro⯑nounce ſentence exactly according to law, without regard to the ties of relation, to compaſſion, or to worthineſs of charac⯑ter. By conſidering this circumſtance in one point of view, we might be inclined to think, that this office naturally bani⯑ſhes from the heart, pity, generoſity, friendſhip, the love of re⯑lations, and all the amiable offspring of benevolence. But this will not be its natural effect; for this unbiaſſed regard to right, in oppoſition to all inducements from affection, is fit to cheriſh an attachment to publick happineſs, for promoting which all the rules of juſtice are calculated; and, by giving conſtant ex⯑erciſe to the ſenſe of virtue, it ſtrengthens this ſenſe, and ena⯑bles it to controul all vicious diſpoſitions, and to lay the mind open, by this means, to the operation of every generous, and kind, and worthy affection. But this author has conſidered thoſe circumſtances in our profeſſion, of which he takes notice, only in one point of view; he has obſerved only ſome of their conſequences on the character, but has unluckily overlooked others, more eſſential and important, and of a perfectly con⯑trary nature. If this be true, his arguments will be inconclu⯑ſive, and that may be but a very partial tendency, which they would repreſent as the prevailing ſpirit of our office.

THIS author begins his character of our profeſſion, by a⯑dopting a trite maxim, which, he ſays, is not altogether falſe, that prieſts of all religions are the ſame. I think, it may be eaſi⯑ly proved, that this maxim cannot be true. It neceſſarily ſup⯑poſes, that the way of life and the occupation of prieſts of all religions is perfectly the ſame. Different cauſes can produce the ſame or ſimilar effects, only by means of thoſe qualities, which they poſſeſs in common. Every circumſtance in an occupati⯑on has ſome influence upon the character. Characters, there⯑fore, [39] perfectly uniform, cannot be the reſult of occupations, which do not coincide in all reſpects. Politeneſs and the good qualities related to it make up the character, which this au⯑thor derives from the profeſſion of a modern ſoldier. He quotes a ſaying of an ancient writer, who was perfectly acquainted with life and manners, that it is not in the power even of the gods, to make a polite ſoldier. Yet the way of life of an an⯑cient ſoldier included almoſt all the circumſtances, from which he derives the politeneſs of a modern ſoldier. The very ſame profeſſion, therefore, may produce perfectly contrary charac⯑ters, in different periods, by means of a difference in the pre⯑vailing manners of the world. It is ſtrange, that an author of uncommon penetration, who had remarked, in this inſtance, that a ſmall change, in the cuſtoms of common life, could e⯑ven reverſe the ſpirit of one profeſſion, ſhould immediately af⯑ter produce a maxim, which ſuppoſes that the greateſt change, in religious principles and cuſtoms, cannot make any alterati⯑on in the character of prieſts.—Prieſts, being the miniſters of religion, muſt derive, from their office, a character corre⯑ſpondent to the nature of that religion, in which they miniſter. But ſurely the nature of all religions is not perfectly the ſame. This author acknowleges in another place,^d that no two nations, and ſcarce any two men have agreed preciſely in the ſame religious ſentiments; that polytheiſm of every kind is, moſt properly, a ſort of ſuperſtitious atheiſm, ſimilar to a be⯑lief of elves and fairies, which it is great complaiſance to dig⯑nify with the name of religion. The pagan religion conſiſted wholly of groundleſs fables, inconſiſtent traditions, immoral tales, inſignificant ceremonies, and empty pageantry^e. Could it then have the ſame tendency with chriſtianity, which deli⯑vers the genuine principles of theiſm, which inſtitutes very few ceremonial duties, which everywhere repreſents theſe as ſub⯑ſervient to moral virtue, which proclaims, that the alone weigh⯑ty matters of the law are juſtice, mercy, fidelity, and the love of [40] God, ^f which ſets before men the moſt illuſtrious examples of every virtue, and the ſtrongeſt motives to the practice of it? Can a pagan prieſt, wholly employed in the abſurd rites of the former, derive from his office the ſame character, to which a chriſtian miniſter will be naturally formed, by teaching the doctrines, and inculcating the duties of the latter? What one principle almoſt is common to their functions? The proteſtant religion is very different from popery, both in its form, and in its ſpirit. The office of a popiſh prieſt is, in conſequence of this, very different from that of a proteſtant miniſter. The one is continually recommending inſignificant ceremonies, as a compenſation for real goodneſs; the other is perpetually in⯑culcating, that nothing can compenſate the want of it. Can theſe employments promote the very ſame turn of character? It can ſcarce be ſaid, that prieſts of theſe two religions agree in the acknowlegement of the ſcriptures; for in popery the ſcriptures are made void by legends and traditions. But, if they agree in this, the only part of their character, which they can, on this account, derive in common, from their office, is either that, which reſults from the general tendency of revela⯑tion, the love of God and man, or thoſe virtues, which are re⯑commended particularly to the miniſters of religion. And what are theſe? The ſcripture commands them to be apt to teach, blameleſs, holy, godly, vigilant, ſober, temperate, not given to wine, modeſt, of good behaviour, juſt, not covetous, not ſtrikers, not brawlers, not ſelf-willed, not ſoon angry, patient, forbearing, gen⯑tle, meek, peaceable, benevolent, given to hoſpitality, lovers of good men ^g. May theſe ever be the qualities, in which prieſts of all religions agree! But then their character will be, in every reſpect, the reverſe of what this author has drawn for them.—In a word, becauſe different religions are unlike in many cir⯑cumſtances, fit to operate on the character, prieſts of all religi⯑ons cannot be the ſame.

[41] IT is not very eaſy to determine with certainty, what place the falſe maxim, which we have mentioned, really poſſeſſes in this author's reaſoning; whether it be one of the principles, which he uſes in aſcertaining the tendency of the ſacerdotal of⯑fice; or whether it be the concluſion which he draws from cir⯑cumſtances, ſuppoſed to belong to that office, in all the vari⯑ous forms of religion.

IF it be a principle, on which the reaſoning proceeds, it ought to have been clearly proved, before it was adopted; for, if it be really falſe or doubtful, every argument built upon it is deſtitute of evidence, however plauſible it may appear to thoſe, who take the principle for granted. If it be conſidered in this light, there is but one argument produced for proving it. ‘Prieſts of all religions are the ſame, for as chymiſts ob⯑ſerve, that ſpirits, when raiſed to a certain height, are all the ſame, from whatever materials they be extracted; ſo theſe men, being elevated above humanity, acquire an u⯑niform character which is entirely their own.’ Do you think that this compariſon beſtows any evidence upon the ma⯑xim? Is the diſtillation of ſpirits, by a chymical proceſs, a caſe exactly ſimilar to the forming of a character, by means of religious and moral principles? And is it not ſomewhat ſtrange, to ſuppoſe all prieſts elevated above humanity, as a ſtep towards proving, that they are all ſunk into vices, which depreſs humanity below itſelf? To produce this as an argu⯑ment, would be unworthy of this ingenious philoſopher, who is well acquainted with the rules of reaſoning; who can eaſily diſcern the fallacy of very ſpecious arguments; who is even ſcrupulous in allowing men to reaſon from one ſubject to ano⯑ther, in which the leaſt circumſtance of ſimilarity is wanting^h. It is a mere metaphor, an alluſion to a fact, ſo wholly diſſimi⯑lar, that it has almoſt too much the appearance of a turn of wit, to be admitted as an appoſite image in the more ſerious [42] kinds of poetry. On this account, I am inclined to think, that the maxim in queſtion was intended, not for a principle in the reaſoning, but for the concluſion deducible from it.

BUT if the author really deſigned to infer, from the nature of our office, that prieſts of all religions agree in the character, which he deſcribes, he ought not to ſuppoſe this concluſion in determining the nature of that office. This is plainly reaſon⯑ing in a circle. Yet many of his arguments reſt on this ſuppo⯑ſition, and will be inconcluſive without it. Could this man⯑ner of reaſoning be allowed, it is obvious that great advantage might be derived from it. By means of it, all the baſeſt cor⯑ruptions of religion come to be regarded as eſſential parts of it; every thing, which, in conſequence of the corruption of reli⯑gion, has ever been attempted by its miniſters, in the moſt de⯑generate ſtate of things, for ſupporting or promoting that cor⯑ruption, comes to be repreſented as a neceſſary part of the pa⯑ſtoral office, tho it be in fact repugnant to the very nature and deſign of it.

BUT if we would examine fairly and impartially, what is the tendency of the paſtoral office, with reſpect to any virtue or vice, we muſt diſtinguiſh the office itſelf from the abuſes of it. In order to this, we muſt take our account of it only from the ſcriptures; we muſt conſider the end, for which they declare that it was appointed, the employment on which they put chriſtian miniſters for promoting that end, and the rules, which they preſcribe concerning the manner of executing their em⯑ployment. An infidel cannot juſtly proceed in any other way; for whether the ſcriptures have any real authority or not, it is only in them, that the inſtitution of this office, or the manner of executing it, is ſaid to be contained. Whatever is not, by the ſcriptures, incumbent on a clergyman, is foreign to his of⯑fice, at leaſt; and may be inconſiſtent with it, however general⯑ly it be practiſed. An enquirer muſt firſt diſcover, in this man⯑ner, what our office really is; and then he muſt conſider all [43] the circumſtances of it together, trace out all the natural effects of each, ballance the good and the bad effects of the ſame cir⯑cumſtance, and weigh the tendencies of different circumſtances againſt one another, before he can expect to determine its ge⯑nuine ſpirit. This will be, indeed, a difficult and complex induction; but philoſophers know well, that an induction e⯑qually ſevere is requiſite, before a certain concluſion can be e⯑ſtabliſhed, in ſubjects of a leſs intricate nature, than the for⯑mation of human characters. Whether the author, whoſe ar⯑guments we are examining, has obſerved this method; whe⯑ther, in eſtimating our character, he has not, on the contrary, fixed on ſome circumſtances in our profeſſion, conſidered even theſe but in one light, pointed out only ſome of their effects upon the character, unduly exaggerated particulars, and argu⯑ed from circumſtances foreign to the office of a chriſtian miniſ⯑ter, nay wholly contradictory it; I will appeal to the impar⯑tial; I will appeal to his own candour, after he has reviewed his arguments, by the acknowleged rules of reaſoning. It will appear in ſome meaſure, from the following examination, of thoſe vices, which our office is ſaid to have a fixt and unalter⯑able tendency to promote. They are hypocriſy, ſuperſtition, am⯑bition, vanity, party-ſpirit, rancour. Truly a black catalogue of the moſt diabolic vices! Had one of us drawn ſuch a charac⯑ter for the laity in general, or for any particular profeſſion, would not it have been cited as an inſtance of prieſtly fury? But deſtitute, as we are repreſented to be, of the noble virtues of humanity, meekneſs and moderation, we will content ourſelves with ſubmitting our cauſe coolly to the cognizance of reaſon.

DO thoſe abominable vices, which have been mentioned indeed compoſe the genuine character of the miniſters of Je⯑ſus? Are theſe the natural reſult of their profeſſion? Say, chriſtians, when you look around you, and obſerve the miniſ⯑ters, who come within your knowledge, do you really find theſe to be the qualities, which are predominant in the temper and conduct of the greateſt part of them?—Would you be [44] diſpoſed to give greater indulgence to theſe vices in a miniſter than in another? Or would not your hearts condemn them as unſuitable to his profeſſion? If theſe vices reſulted neceſſarily from our office, would it not follow, that mankind muſt be diſ⯑poſed to excuſe them in miniſters, on account of the difficul⯑ty of their avoiding them? But can our adverſaries ſay, that hypocriſy, ambition, pride, rancour, or any other vice in that horrid catalogue, by which they deſcribe the ſpirit of our cal⯑ling, is regarded with a more favourable eye in one of us, than in men of a different occupation? The weak may not perceive ſome exertions of theſe principles to be vicious, the prejudiced may miſtake them for virtuous: but whenever they are at all diſapproved as wrong, are not they, as well as other vices, con⯑demned with ſingular ſeverity in a clergyman? Doth not the common ſenſe of mankind thus declare that our office tends to promote the virtue, oppoſite to theſe, as well as other virtues? Some vices are reckoned more indecent in a clergyman than others: but all vices are reckoned more indecent in him, than in any other man. Some virtues are eſteemed more indiſpen⯑ſibly neceſſary than others, but every virtue is eſteemed more requiſite in this profeſſion than in other profeſſions.

THERE are two circumſtances in our profeſſion, which, it is ſaid, neceſſarily form us to hypocriſy—One is the obliga⯑tion, which it lays us under to obſerve ſtrict decency.—Decen⯑cy conſiſts in abſtaining from all behaviour, that is either vici⯑ous or offenſive. The moſt natural principle of this abſtinence is virtue; and our office obliges us to decency, only by oblig⯑ing us to blameleſs virtue. Did it exert its full influence upon our character, we ſhould not ſtand in need of diſſimulation, in order to appear virtuous. Indeed it cannot be expected, in the preſent imperfect ſtate, that this office will exert its full in⯑fluence univerſally, or produce that exalted virtue, which it demands, in all who exerciſe it. On this account many mi⯑niſters may have an inducement from their profeſſion, to en⯑deavour in particular inſtances, to conceal vices and imperfec⯑tions, [45] which really belong to them. Yet ſtill this is but a ſe⯑condary tendency, by which the profeſſion cannot be fairly characterized; a tendency too, which reflects honour upon it, becauſe it proceeds only from the ſtrength of its original ten⯑dency to virtue.—And is that conduct, which even this ſe⯑condary tendency produces, abſolutely blameable? Can it be allowed, that all reſerve is criminal hypocriſy? Is every man obliged in honeſty to diſcover to others all the faults, of which he is conſcious in himſelf? Is it not right to conceal our vices from the knowledge of others, by all lawful means? Will it not in ſome meaſure prevent the infection of our bad example? Certainly it is not criminal for a perſon to endeavour to reform himſelf from any vice, which he has contracted. Yet this can be done, only by ſetting a guard over his word and actions, and abſtaining from giving ſcope to thoſe wrong paſſions, which continue to ſollicit him very powerfully. May not a miniſ⯑ter abſtain from the practice of vices, to which he is diſpoſed, from a ſenſe of duty, or from a deſire to extirpate them by de⯑grees; or may not he abſtain from things which he knows to be lawful, in charitable indulgence to the weakneſs of others, or from a regard to character, without any fault, without be⯑ing liable to the charge of hypocriſy, without incurring any danger of deſtroying the candour and ingenuity of his temper, or making an irreparable breach in his character? Is not the conduct rather laudable?—Indeed if a clergyman be obſtinate⯑ly wicked, he will be expoſed to a temptation, from his office, to blameable hypocriſy. In every profeſſion, the vicious are often induced to affect an appearance of virtue, in order to pro⯑mote their deſigns. The paſtoral office will not render every in⯑dividual really virtuous. But it cannot be executed by a perſon who is known to be vicious. It is, therefore, probable that a vicious miniſter will put on a falſe ſhow of goodneſs. But ſhall the whole order be, for this reaſon, charged with affecting a continued grimace, in order to ſupport the veneration of the ignorant vulgar, and promote the ſpirit of ſuperſtition? Ab⯑ſurd corruptions of religion there have been, which were intend⯑ed [46] for promoting a ſpirit of ſuperſtition, and which could not be ſupported without an implicit veneration of the prieſt: but to argue from theſe, is to confound the vileſt perverſions of religion with chriſtianity, the baſeſt proſtitutions of the paſto⯑ral office with the office itſelf. Where do the ſcriptures enjoin a clergyman to promote a ſuperſtitious ſpirit? The clergyman, who aims at it, purſues a wrong end, ſuggeſted to him by his corrupt paſſions, not by his office, to which it is altogether fo⯑reign; and the ſame corrupt paſſions lead him to pervert his of⯑fice, that it may become ſubſervient to this end. For what part of the paſtoral function is the blind veneration of the ignorant vulgar requiſite? Indeed we cannot execute our office, with⯑out being careful to deſerve eſteem; virtue alone deſerves it; our office, therefore, prompts us ſtrongly to virtue. If any of us attempt to ſupply the want of virtue, by affected grimace, in order to procure eſteem, he uſes unlawful means of accom⯑pliſhing a lawful end; he is guilty of baſe hypocriſy, the temp⯑tation to which ariſes indeed from his office, but ariſes ſolely from its rendering virtue neceſſary for the execution of it. If any of us weakly miſtake grimace for the genuine dignity of virtue, he confounds a vice with a good quality, to which it bears ſome general reſemblance. But how does the miniſteri⯑al office contribute to the miſtake? Do any of the duties of that office, deſcribed in ſcripture, or does the example of our Saviour, who came eating and drinking ⁱ, or the example of his apoſtles lead into it? It ariſes only from the weakneſs of men, which produces ſimilar inſtances of ſelf-deceit in all pro⯑foſſions.—We may add, that our danger of being ſe⯑duced into hypocritical grimace cannot juſtly make the cha⯑racter of our order appear in a diſadvantageous light, when it is compared with the character of other ranks of men. The weakneſs of our nature may render that corruption of religion and of our office, from which the temptation to hypocriſy ariſ⯑es, very frequent; but the ſame cauſe will as frequently in⯑troduce diſhoneſt views, and diſhoneſt artifices, of different [47] kinds, into other profeſſions. When the paſtoral office is actu⯑ally perverted from its real end, to promote the purpoſes of a corrupt religion, the temptation to hypocriſy may be very ſtrong, ſo as actually to prevail with many of our order; but the perverſions of other profeſſions afford temptations, to thoſe ſpecies of diſhoneſty and craft which ſuit them, as irreſiſtible and as univerſally prevalent. The hypocriſy, which ariſes from our compliance with theſe temptations is highly blameable and pernicious, but it is not generally baſer or more deſtructive than the various frauds and artifices, which are practiſed by bad men in other callings.—On the whole, our office leads primarily to real virtue, not to an affected appearance of it; it very naturally produces a grave and ſerious tem⯑per, and a cautious attention to our deportment, which may be diſagreeable to the gay and diſſipated, and which they may uncharitably charge with hypocriſy, becauſe of its contrariety to their own manners, but which is totally diſtinct from vicious grimace; corruptions of religion may pervert our office ſo far as to lead us to purſue ends, which cannot be accompliſhed without affected grimace, but the temptation to it is to be im⯑puted, not to our office, or to religion, but to the corruption of both, and to the weakneſs and fault of individuals; and whatever degree of grimace may really prevail among the cler⯑gy, it cannot juſtly expoſe them to peculiar diſapprobation, becauſe many kinds of diſhoneſt art, as odious to the full as this, are equally general among other ranks of men.

IT is likewiſe ſaid, that our office promotes hypocriſy, by leading us to be employed in the exerciſes of religion oftener than we can be poſſeſſed with the real ſpirit of devotion.—It leads us, indeed, to be frequently employed in the exerciſes of religion. The natural tendency of this is, to improve a temper of piety in our ſouls; for every habit is formed and ſtrengthened by frequent exerciſe. Miniſters will ſometimes find their devotion languid, when they are called to exerciſe it. But the more conſtantly an affection is exerted, the ſtronger and more habitual it is rendered by this means, the leſs will a [48] perſon be indiſpoſed for exerting it. If, therefore, our office leads us to be more conſtant in the exerciſes of devotion, than other men, it will neceſſarily render us leſs ſubject, than others, to fits of languor. They who have not originally a higher or more conſtant ſpirit of devotion, than the generality of man⯑kind, will naturally acquire it, by being engaged in our pro⯑feſſion. It cannot be denied, that our employment has an eſſential and ſtrong tendency to form us to eminent and con⯑ſtant piety, the moſt neceſſary and the moſt excellent of all vir⯑tues, without abſurdly ſuppoſing, either that frequent acts of any virtue have no tendency to promote a habit of that virtue, or that the ſtrength of a habit has no tendency to lead us to act frequently upon it.—But it is ſaid, that our office obli⯑ges us to affect devotion often, when we are already jaded with the exerciſes of it, or when our minds are engaged in worldly occupations. Suppoſe that it ſometimes called us to devotion, when we are in this ſituation. Is it neceſſarily unlawful to at⯑tempt to exert a good affection, when a perſon is ill diſpoſed to it? If the attempt proceed from a ſenſe of duty, it is ſurely virtuous. And it is remarked by philoſophers^k, that one of the moſt proper ſeaſons for exerting a principle, ſo as to im⯑prove it, is when we are worſt diſpoſed. Then a ſtrong effort will be neceſſary to overcome the oppoſition ariſing from our reluctance; and by this effort the principle will acquire great⯑er ſtrength, than if it had been exerciſed more eaſily^l. When other men find themſelves indiſpoſed for devotion, they may be tempted to neglect it; by neglecting it they will become more indiſpoſed; and are thus in danger of becoming, by de⯑grees, habitually impious; but a clergyman, being under a ne⯑ceſſity, from his office, to exerciſe it, is led, by this means, to take one of the fitteſt opportunities for cultivating a temper of real piety.—As our affections ariſe directly from juſt con⯑ceptions of their objects, we can ſeldom be ſo averſe from the exerciſe of any affection, that it cannot be produced by due [49] attention to its object. Our office leads us to frequent medi⯑tation on that God, who is the object of devotion, and on all thoſe ſubjects, which can render our ſentiments of his perfecti⯑ons vigorous and lively. It thus affords us the proper and di⯑rect mean of rouſing pious affections, when they are languid. And ſince our office thus fixes us in contemplation of God, and obliges us frequently to exerciſe devout affections towards him, we muſt be groſsly faulty, if we be, at any time, ſo ill-diſpoſed, as to approach to him with feigned devotion. By theſe advantages, which our profeſſion gives us, piety may be rendered ſo habitually predominant in our temper, that it ſhall eagerly ſeize every opportunity of acting, and that we ſhall be able to exerciſe ſincere devotion, in circumſtances, in which they, who are ſeldom employed in religious duties, judging of us by themſelves, may think it impoſſible, and cenſure our worſhip as hypocritical.—But is there no danger that we may be contented with going the round of religious exerciſes, without being at pains to excite the inward affections, which ought to animate them? And if we ſhould, will not this pro⯑duce hypocriſy? Undoubtedly. Mere formal worſhip, fre⯑quently gone about, tends to make us think that we are alrea⯑dy poſſeſſed of thoſe inward affections from which our worſhip ſhould have proceeded, and thus prevents our ſetting ourſelves to cultivate them, and confirms us in hypocriſy. This danger ariſes from the very conſtitution of human nature, and extends to all external actions, which may ſometimes proceed from o⯑ther principles than the virtue, to which they correſpond, and will, in that caſe, diſguiſe our want of that virtue from us. If miniſters, notwithſtanding the peculiar advantages, which their profeſſion gives them for cultivating a temper of real pi⯑ety, engage in devotion without exciting that temper into act, they will be in greater danger, than others, of becoming in⯑ſenſible of their want of piety, and will more quickly contract a ſtrong habit of hypocriſy, by reaſon of their frequent calls to devotion. But is this habit really worſe, than a want of all appearance of religion, which theſe men would have infallibly [50] run into, from the ſame degeneracy of mind, in any profeſſion, which did not give them frequent calls to devotion? Or tho it were, can our profeſſion be juſtly blamed for requiring thoſe acts of devotion, from the wrong performance of which that habit ſprings? If it could, it muſt follow, that all exerciſe of devotion is not only uſeleſs but highly dangerous. Nay, on this principle, all good external actions muſt be cenſured, as tending to corrupt the character, becauſe they may be perfor⯑med, when they do not proceed from their natural principle, and becauſe, when they are thus performed, they will rather obſtruct, than promote the improvement of that principle.—But, after all, a clergyman can really be in no peculiar danger from the public exerciſes of religion, becauſe in them all the people profeſs to join; and yet they alone appear to be intend⯑ed by this author. He ſeems to have had thoſe prieſts in his eye, who are almoſt conſtantly employed in running over forms of devotion, in a language which the people do not underſtand. But is it fair to draw an argument from them, to clergymen, who, by their office, only preſide in theſe exerciſes of devotion in which all the people are as much concerned as they? He ſeems likewiſe to confound mechanical warmth and extaſy, which muſt needs be tranſient, with calm and rational piety, which may actuate the mind as habitually, and uninterrupted⯑ly, and be as much in readineſs to exert itſelf, whenever an occaſion offers, as gratitude, friendſhip, or any other affection of the human heart.—In a word, our profeſſion is ſingularly fit to form us to ſincere and exalted piety, by obliging us to fre⯑quency in thoſe exerciſes of devotion, by the right performance of which alone a temper of piety can be formed, and by giving us great advantages for performing them aright; we may in⯑deed perform them in a wrong manner, it may require ſtrict at⯑tention to avoid it, if we do not beſtow this attention, we may become hypocritical in our devotions; but the fault will be chargeable, not on our office, but on ourſelves, who have re⯑ſiſted its primary and natural impulſe.

[51] TO conclude this head, the prevailing tendency of thoſe functions, in which we are employed, is to promote virtue and piety; they will tempt the obſtinately vicious to hypocriſy, but they could not ceaſe to tempt them to this, without ceaſing to urge powerfully to univerſal goodneſs. Thoſe only will be⯑come hypocrites by being engaged in our profeſſion, who would have been either diſhoneſt or abandoned, if they had followed another occupation.

ANOTHER of the vices imputed to our office is ſuper⯑ſtition, leading us to regard an appearance of religion, or zeal for religious obſervances, as a full compenſation for all vices and violations of morality.—But is there any ſpirit, againſt which the ſcriptures, the only rule of our inſtructions, guard mankind with greater care? Can we teach the religion of Je⯑ſus, without making it a great part of our buſineſs to warn our people againſt this vile perverſion of devotion? What circum⯑ſtance can there be, then, in our profeſſion, that puts us in pe⯑culiar danger of ſuperſtition? This author really mentions none. Inſtead of ſupporting his charge, inſtead of attempting to prove, that ſuperſtition is one of thoſe characters, which are entirely our own, he obſerves that all mankind almoſt have a ſtrong propenſity to it; an obſervation, which is inconſiſtent with its being peculiar to the clergy. Our office, indeed, naturally tends to form us to a temper of devotion; but from the warmth of genuine devotion, ſuperſtition never can ariſe. On the con⯑trary, it is plain from the nature of the diſpoſitions themſelves, as well as from the declarations of ſcripture, that reverence, and love of God, gratitude to him, ſubmiſſion to his provi⯑dence, regard to his authority, and to his judgment of us, and all the other parts of real piety lead to univerſal virtue, and cannot be completed without producing it. All mankind ap⯑pear to be ſenſible of this. They will allow a perſon to be re⯑ally juſt or temperate, tho' ſome other virtues be plainly want⯑ing in his character. But if a man want any virtue, and have an appearance of piety, they determine that his piety is inſin⯑cere [52] and hypocritical; conſcious that, if it were genuine, it could not ſail to produce every moral virtue.—If men be apt to ſuſpect the probity of thoſe, who put on an extraordinary appearance of religion, their judgment may be eaſily account⯑ed for. For it is too obvious to eſcape their notice, that real piety is attended with little ſhow; and it is an obſervation, which all men make in numberleſs other caſes, that whenever a man affects any good quality, which he does not really poſ⯑ſeſs, he is ſure to overact his part.—But we need not dwell on this article of the charge; for the author, inſtead of pro⯑ducing any evidence for it, indulges himſelf in remarks, which only tend to depreciate all religion, by confounding it with ſu⯑perſtition. An examination of this point, tho' it be important in itſelf, is foreign to our preſent ſubject.

THE clergy have been often accuſed of ambition, and the accuſation has been moulded into many different forms. This author chooſes to repreſent them as a ſet of men, whoſe ambi⯑tion can be ſatisfied, only by promoting ignorance, and ſuper⯑ſtition, and implicit faith, and pious frauds, that, by argu⯑ments drawn from another world, they may move this world at their pleaſure; whereas the ambition of other men may com⯑monly be ſatisfied, by excelling in their particular profeſſion, and thereby promoting the intereſts of ſociety.—Is this a fair compariſon of our character with that of others? Is it not plainly a compariſon of laudable ambition in them, with the greateſt corruption of that principle in us? But is the ambiti⯑on of other men always of the praiſe-worthy kind? Is it this that has prompted individuals to raiſe themſelves by ſupplant⯑ing better men, by fraud, by perfidy, by aſſaſſinations, by eve⯑ry the moſt ſhocking crime? Is it this that has diſtracted king⯑doms with faction and rebellion, and filled the world with war and bloodſhed? Will it be ſaid, that the ambition of the laity has never appeared in this form, or produced theſe effects? And is not this the form of it, which ought, in juſt argument, to have been oppoſed to wrong turned ambition in a clergy⯑man? [53] On the other hand, will it be aſſerted, that our office does not ſuggeſt to us a laudable object of ambition, which will bear to be compared with the deſires of others, to ſerve man⯑kind, by excelling in their own profeſſions? Our office, bre⯑thren, naturally propoſes to us only one object of ambition, the nobleſt indeed that can be propoſed, to be workers toge⯑ther with God, and with Chriſt, in recommending righteouſneſs to mankind^m, and thus promoting the moſt valuable inte⯑reſts of ſociety. It is the direct end of our office, to excite man⯑kind, by the diſcoveries of a future world, which reaſon and revelation make, to that conduct, which alone can promote their true happineſs, both in time and in eternity. If we miſ⯑apply theſe engines, to move men at our pleaſure, or to render them ſubſervient to our deſigns, we baſely deviate from the end of our vocation, and, inſtead of it, purſue an oppoſite, an unworthy, and pernicious end. And ſhall that be imputed to our office, which is contradictory to its whole deſign?—But may not our office contribute, in ſome way to this conduct? Moſt men are prone to prefer preſent and temporal, to ſpiritual and eternal objects, and to purſue them by whatever means they can. Many, who were not of our order, have often pro⯑ſtituted religion, by making it a tool for promoting their ſecu⯑lar ends. The vice is not, therefore, peculiar to our order. To be employed in the functions of our office will never lead a man to form theſe worldly deſigns, which can be accompliſhed by a proſtitution of religion; theſe are ſuggeſted by the vici⯑ouſneſs of his own temper, or by his being engaged in foreign occupations, and would not probably have been formed, if he had confined himſelf to his proper buſineſs. Indeed when am⯑bitious views are, from theſe cauſes, once formed by a clergy⯑man, he will endeavour to promote them by thoſe religious in⯑ſtruments, which his office affords, more readily than by any others, becauſe they are moſt directly in his eye. His office obliges him to apply them to the moſt glorious purpoſe; this [54] is an argument for its excellence: his wickedneſs prompts him to miſapply them to bad purpoſes; this is wholly his own fault. Ought the world to have been deprived of the only means by which virtue and happineſs can be obtained, becauſe the abuſe of them may ſometimes be pernicious? This vice cannot, therefore, juſtly be imputed to the genius of our cal⯑ling; for it has no primary or eſſential tendency to promote it; on the contrary it has a very remote, indirect, and accidental influence upon it; it will ſupply a temptation to it very ſel⯑dom, never except by reaſon of the previous corruption either of individuals, or of the ſpirit of religion; the vice will not be generally characteriſtical of our order, except in the moſt degenerate ſtate of things; on this account, and likewiſe be⯑cauſe ambition often aſſumes the ſame form in the reſt of man⯑kind, and becauſe other forms of it are equally deteſtible and pernicious, particular inſtances of clergymen applying religion to ſelfiſh or worldly purpoſes cannot, with any reaſon, render the character of the profeſſion peculiarly odious.—If we promote ignorance, and ſuperſtition, and implicit faith, and pious frauds, for any end, we uſe the moſt unjuſtifiable means. But it is impoſſible, that our office can, in the remot⯑eſt manner, prompt us to uſe them. The method, by which its genuine end can be promoted, is the manifeſtation of the truth ⁿ; our buſineſs is rightly to divide the word of truth ^o to all, to diffuſe religious and moral knowledge to the utmoſt of our power. Is this the ſame with promoting ignorance and error? Say, all the world, is it not perfectly the reverſe? Our office tends ſo directly to make us apt to teach ^p, that it cannot even afford a temptation to the conduct of which we are accuſed, 'till it be firſt perverted to the very oppoſite of what it ought to be. It cannot put it in our power to purſue this conduct, except all the reſt of mankind be, in one way or ano⯑ther, as degenerate as ourſelves.—What then could lead a perſon to charge our office with a tendency, abſolutely contra⯑dictory [55] to its genuine ſpirit? There is one religion, the prieſts of which purſue this unnatural conduct. Chriſtianity was gra⯑dually corrupted from its genuine purity, during ſeveral ages of ignorance and barbarity, by a mixture of the groſſeſt abſur⯑dities of paganiſm. The monſtrous medley could not bear ex⯑amination, and, therefore, the prieſts of the Romiſh church be⯑took themſelves to the only means, by which it could be pro⯑tected from contempt or indignation. But is it candid to tranſ⯑fer their character, to other chriſtian miniſters, whoſe conduct is avowedly the contrary? This were to take it for granted, that prieſts of all religions are the ſame, not only without evi⯑dence, but really in contradiction to the evidence of actual ex⯑perience. This character ſprung, not from the office of teach⯑ing religion, but from men's having ceaſed to teach true reli⯑gion: it can be aſcribed only to thoſe cauſes, which pro⯑duced the corruption of religion, and, by that means neceſſa⯑rily changed the buſineſs of the ſacred function, and reverſed the natural character of the clergy.

IT is affirmed, likewiſe, that we lie under a peculiar temp⯑tation, from our office, to vanity, and an overweening conceit of ourſelves, becauſe we are regarded with veneration, and are even deemed ſacred, by the ignorant multitude.—There are few ſituations, from which men may not take occaſion for criminal vanity; for there are few, which do not give perſons ſome real or imaginary advantage; and every opinion of ad⯑vantage, however trivial, may produce an high conceit of our⯑ſelves. But the more important, or the more exalted any ſta⯑tion is, the ſtronger its temptations to this vice. Our office has plainly very conſiderable dignity; the provinces of the phi⯑loſopher and the orator are united in it; it is deſigned for the nobleſt end, for training men to virtue, and fitting them for e⯑ternal happineſs. It is by its excellence alone, that it leads us to ſet a value on ourſelves; and it has this tendency in com⯑mon with every thing, which has any degree of worth.—But it is not every kind of ſelf-eſteem, that can be reckoned faulty. [56] A juſt ſenſe of any real and important advantage is not blam⯑ed in others, and cannot be blameable in us. It muſt be own⯑ed, however, that all men are very prone to an exceſs of pride, and very ready to expreſs it in an improper manner. Vanity, oſtentation, arrogance, inſolence are highly cenſurable, both in miniſters, and in others. But the cenſure is due ſolely to the individuals, who abuſe the advantages of their ſituation, to fo⯑ſter theſe vices in their ſouls. The fault will be peculiarly chargeable on individuals in our profeſſion, becauſe it gives us ſtrong inducements to avoid it. The very dignity of our of⯑fice will fill a man of an ingenuous ſpirit with deep humility, when he compares it with his own unworthineſs. Who is ſuf⯑ficient for theſe things ^q? Its functions will lead us to fix our thoughts often on the majeſty of the divine nature; and, when we think of it, what is man? and what is the ſon of man ^r? And can we always avoid reflecting, that the humble and low⯑ly Jeſus ^s is our founder? If we cannot, will not his example have ſome tendency to form this mind in us, which was alſo in him ^t?—The principle of ſympathy is very powerful. By means of it we enter into all the ſentiments of others. The good opinion of the world cannot fail to have a conſiderable in⯑fluence on our judgment of ourſelves. But have miniſters of the goſpel any peculiar ſecurity for veneration or reſpect? It is plain, that many profeſſions are, in the general eſtimation of the world, more reputable than theirs. It will be difficult to point out any ſet of men, on whom greater reproach and contempt has been poured out, for their work's ſake, than the teachers of religion. Undiſtinguiſhed reflexions on this order are thrown out without reſerve, and hearkened to with pleaſure, by many, who would regard general cenſures of any other body in the groſs, as an evidence of prejudice and ill-breeding. If, there⯑fore, general reproach and ridicule have any tendency to mor⯑tify the vanity of mankind, the clergy, at leaſt in the preſent age, are furniſhed with a peculiar antidote againſt vanity.— [57] All the veneration, which we can expect on account of our of⯑fice, it is inſinuated, is that of the ignorant multitude. We will not complain of the ſeverity of this inſinuation; we hope that our profeſſion may give us a right, while we maintain a charac⯑ter becoming it, to the reſpect of the moſt knowing. It will prompt us more ſtrongly to vanity, by this means; but if we allow that paſſion to have any other effect, than to give us a new reaſon for endeavouring to deſerve their eſteem, it will be wholly our own fault. If we cannot expect the eſteem of the diſcerning, we can ſcarce have an irreſiſtible temptation to vanity, from the veneration of the ignorant, except we be form⯑ed very differently from all other men, who are moſt apt to be elated with the approbation of the moſt knowing judges. And, truly, in the preſent age, we cannot certainly obtain the veneration even of the ignorant; they, who oppoſe religion, or inveigh againſt its miniſters, are formidable rivals to us. Theſe are not generally like this author. His infidelity will proba⯑bly rob him of ſome part of the attention and regard, which his philoſophical genius, and taſte would have otherwiſe com⯑manded from the curious and intelligent. But almoſt all the reſt owe their reputation ſolely to their irreligion, and muſt have been neglected or contemned, even by the moſt ignorant and careleſs reader, if they had attempted to write on any other ſubject.

OUR office is, alſo, cenſured, becauſe it leads us to bear a great regard to the members of our own profeſſion, and to have a particular concern for the intereſts of our own body.—But can this be culpable? Becauſe our power to do good is very limit⯑ed, becauſe our beneficence would become uſeleſs, if it were diſſipated equally among all mankind, God has wiſely formed our conſtitution in ſuch a manner, that benevolence riſes in ve⯑ry different degrees towards different perſons. The human heart is ſo ſtrongly turned to love, that we eagerly take occa⯑ſion for exerciſing a peculiar degree of this affection, not on⯑ly from relation, perſonal qualities, or favours received, but al⯑ſo from more trivial circumſtances, a name, a neighbourhood, [58] or the like. This conſtitution of nature, neceſſarily leads men to love thoſe of their own profeſſion, and to be concerned for the intereſt of the ſociety, to which they belong. Was this ever before cenſured as vicious? To neglect this were highly blameable. It is chiefly by particular kind affections, that men are linked together in ſociety.—If the intereſts of clergymen of the ſame religion be really united more cloſely, than the in⯑tereſts of thoſe of other profeſſions, our office has a direct ten⯑dency, by this circumſtance, to prompt us ſtrongly to one ſpe⯑cies of benevolence and public ſpirit, and thus is peculiarly fit to promote one of the moſt amiable virtues. The intereſts of men of other profeſſions not only are diſtinct, becauſe each carries on his buſineſs apart, but often interfere, and by this means, the love, which they ought to bear to one another, is extinguiſhed. Ought it not to be mentioned to the honour of our profeſſion, inſtead of being objected to it, as a reproach, that it does not expoſe us to this danger?—All particular attachments may, indeed, be carried too far, and obſtract the exerciſe of other ſo⯑cial virtues; love to a family may render a man negligent of the good of his country: even patriotiſm may make a man too careleſs about the intereſts of the kind. But is that conſtituti⯑on of our nature, which makes us capable of theſe attachments to be blamed on this account? In like manner, if ſome clergy⯑men pervert that juſt benevolence, which they owe to their ſo⯑ciety, into a narrow party-ſpirit, diſpoſing them to ſacrifice the intereſts of the laity, or leading them to aim at the ſupport of their own peculiar tenets, or at the ſuppreſſion of antago⯑niſts, inſtead of the real intereſt of the order, which always coin⯑cides with the intereſt of truth and virtue, and, by conſequence, with the intereſt of mankind; is the office to be therefore cenſured? It gives occaſion to this miſconduct, only by con⯑taining a circumſtance, which has a direct tendency to promote an amiable virtue, but which is capable of being abuſed by the folly or perverſeneſs of men.—At the ſame time, our office tends ſtrongly to prevent the abuſes, which might ariſe from an exceſſive attachment to our own ſociety. We teach a religion [59] which repreſents us and all mankind as connected together by every endearing relation, which can excite the tendereſt love, and by every ſimilarity of condition, which can improve our love by ſympathy and fellow-feeling. Our office ſets frequent⯑ly in our view the general connections of the children of men; and it unites us with mankind by peculiar ties. It intereſts us in their moſt important concerns, it engages us in the moſt af⯑fectionate intercourſe with their very ſouls. Benevolence can be cheriſhed only by thoſe exerciſes of beneficence, for which the circumſtances of men give opportunity. A miniſter has all the ſame opportunites of doing good, with another man; and, if he really execute his office, he muſt have many peculiar to himſelf; for he can ſeldom ſpend a day, without being led to inform the ignorant, to comfort the diſtreſſed, to confirm the wavering, to cultivate the ſeeds of goodneſs in the minds of men. Such employment is certainly fit to melt the heart into love, and to make it to overflow, in ſtreams of good-will to the whole human race.—When this author repreſented the clergy as a ſeparate body, wholly unconnected with ſociety, I am apt to think, that he had in his eye only one ſet of clergymen, thoſe prieſts, whom the law of celibacy, and a monaſtic life cut off from all the ordinary relations to mankind. Indeed they are ſcarce a part of ſociety, they have an independent intereſt, by which they are firmly united among themſelves, by which they are often prompted to conſpire in oppoſing the intereſt of ſociety, and for promoting which their religion is evidently framed. But is it fair to aſcribe a character, which ſprings from peculiarities in their ſituation, to clergymen of other pro⯑feſſions, who are joined with ſociety by all the ſame tender cha⯑rities, with other men? To ſpeak the truth, by means of theſe, the intereſt of individual clergymen is ſo much interwoven with that of the reſt of mankind, that they are in conſiderable danger of bearing too little regard to the members of their own body, and of becoming the tools of the laity in promoting de⯑ſigns, which a concern for the intereſts of their own ſociety ought to urge them to oppoſe.

[60] IN the laſt place, the ſpirit of our profeſſion is ſaid to pro⯑mote impatience of contradiction, bigotted rancour, bitterneſs, and fury againſt antagoniſts.—When we conſider, brethren, the genius of the chriſtian religion, as it is delineated in ſcripture, we can ſcarce expect to find this vice among either the mini⯑ſters or the profeſſors of it: for it is indeed the goſpel of peace ^u its end is charity ^v, its ſpirit is moderation and forbear⯑ance^x, it is wholly deſigned to root out of the hearts of men all bitterneſs, wrath, anger, clamour, evil-ſpeaking, malice, and to make them kind, tender-hearted, forgiving, loving and bene⯑volent^y. Is it poſſible that the teachers of this religion can derive from their office a perfectly contrary ſpirit? If this office do not tend to ſweeten the temper, and to give peculiar advantages for meekneſs, moderation, and humanity, it will be difficult to ſay, what are the proper means of cultivating theſe noble virtues.—The character and the office of a chriſtian miniſter are deſcribed in ſcripture, as perfectly ſuit⯑able to the benign ſpirit of his religion. The ſervant of the Lord muſt not ſtrive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, pati⯑ent, in meekneſs inſtructing them that oppoſe themſelves ^z; re⯑proving, rebuking, exhorting with all LONGSUFFERING and doc⯑trine ^a. This employment is ſo far from leading to the leaſt degree of malevolence or wrath, that it cannot be executed aright, if we give any ſcope to this diſpoſition.—But when we attend to the hiſtory of the chriſtian church, we find it, in contradiction to the ſpirit of the goſpel, filled with fierce contentions, often about trifles, producing angry zeal, and cruel perſecutions on account of religious differences. Had theſe things been peculiar to the clergy, we might have re⯑garded a temper of blind zeal, as a vice, to which our profeſ⯑ſion lays us under peculiar temptations, intended for our trial, which it will require our utmoſt vigilance to avoid complying with. Yet even in this caſe, we ſhould have been able to evince that they are temptations, which reflect no real diſho⯑nour [61] on the paſtoral office, becauſe they ariſe from a perverſion of it. But indeed a ſpirit of bitter zeal has not been peculiar to the clergy; it has infected all ranks among the laity, in al⯑moſt every age of the chriſtian church. What has been the cauſe of this? And does not it affect the credit of the goſpel itſelf?—In order to anſwer theſe queſtions, we may ob⯑ſerve, that chriſtianity, as it is exhibited in the ſcriptures, is a ſyſtem, not of curious ſpeculations, or intricate diſputes, but of plain and ſimple facts, fit to affect the heart and influence the practice. It is propoſed, not with a view to exerciſe the ingenuity of men, but expreſly as a doctrine according to godli⯑neſs; and it is repreſented in that manner, which fits it moſt for promoting this important end. As the principles of com⯑mon ſenſe, which the powerful hand of the God of nature has impreſſed indelibly upon the human ſoul, influence the ac⯑tions of thoſe, who have never made them an object of refle⯑ction or enquiry, in ordinary life; ſo the principles of true reli⯑gion, which the ſame God has revealed in the goſpel, firmly embraced and thorowly digeſted, will exert their full force up⯑on the religious and moral conduct of thoſe, who are noways qualified to anſwer all the difficulties, or even to comprehend all the abſtruſe queſtions, that may be raiſed in relation to them. But men are prone to refinement on every ſubject, to nice diſquiſitions concerning the manner of things, and to contentions with thoſe who receive not their theories, or ad⯑vance others repugnant to them. Even the moſt obvious and irreſiſtible dictates of common ſenſe have been called in queſti⯑on by the ſubtlety of philoſophers; and, had nature left it in our power not to act upon them, till theſe diſputes were de⯑termined, the moſt neceſſary functions of life would have been ſuſpended, and immediate ruin would have enſued. Now, brethren, the chriſtian religion has been treated like every thing elſe; it has been made a ſubject of endleſs cavil and di⯑ſputation. Men have ſet themſelves to refine upon its ſimple tenets; and, inſtead of repreſenting it in a manner fit to ope⯑rate upon the principles of action, they have reduced theology to a ſyſtem of ſubtle controverſies. We are ſo prone to diſpu⯑tation, [62] that the greateſt ignorance, to which mankind can be reduced, does not prevent it altogether. But the introduction of this evil into religion was immenſely forwarded by the uni⯑verſal authority, obtained by that ſyſtem of philoſophy, which Ariſtotle had eſtabliſhed, in declared oppoſition to all his prede⯑ceſſors, and which, in conformity to the ſpirit of its author, was wholly calculated for wrangling and altercation, and abſo⯑lutely untolerating to all who oppoſed it. The ſpirit of this falſe philoſophy diffuſed itſelf over religion, as well as over every o⯑ther ſubject, filled it with innumerable ſubtle queſtions, and, by this means, rendered it unfit to influence the practice: for the manner of repreſenting any doctrine, with a view to guard it ſtudiouſly againſt the cavils of adverſaries, will ever be very different from the manner, in which it muſt be repreſented, in order to move the heart. A ſyſtem of principles of any kind, which ſpends itſelf in diſputes, muſt be barren of works, and uſeleſs with reſpect to practice. It can produce only conten⯑tions, with all the fierce paſſions, that muſt needs attend them. Thus chriſtianity has been perverted, by a falſe philoſophy, from its real nature and deſign; and from this perve ſion have ariſen religious heats and animoſities, and a bitter and perſe⯑cuting ſpirit.

THE apoſtles foreſaw this depravation of religion, and put both miniſters and people on their guard againſt it, warning them to beware, leſt any man ſhould ſpoil them thro philoſophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Chriſt ^b; not to give heed to fables, which miniſter queſtions rather than godly edifying ^c; to avoid fooliſh and unlearned queſtions, knowing that they engender ſtrifes and contentions, and are unprofitable and vain ^d. And the a⯑poſtle Paul intimates plainly, that they conſent not to the whole⯑ſome words of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and to the doctrine which is according to godlineſs, who dote about queſtions, and logomachies, whereof cometh envy, ſtrifes, railings, evil ſurmiſings, perverſe [63] diſputings of men of corrupt minds ^e. But chriſtians have not been ſo wiſe as to regard theſe warnings. They have deviated from the ſpirit of the goſpel, they have corrupted it, into a diſputatious theology, by foreign mixtures; and hence male⯑volent paſſions have ariſen. But can they be imputed to the ſpirit of the goſpel, when they have been introduced by men's contradicting its ſpirit? Can we be infected with them by teaching the goſpel, when their cauſe is plainly teaching ſome⯑thing elſe, inſtead of the goſpel? They are a groſs abuſe of the goſpel. But there is nothing incapable of being abuſed. They have been very frequent in the chriſtian church. Per⯑haps God permitted them, for the exerciſe and probation of chriſtians, that, as they have much greater advantages than o⯑ther men, they might likewiſe have ſome peculiar temptati⯑ons.—When religious diſputes ariſe, they will naturally be managed with greater warmth, than queſtions on other ſub⯑jects, by reaſon of their ſuperior importance, and the convicti⯑on of each party that their ſentiments alone are agreeable to the will of God. But this warmth will not be peculiar to the clergy; the people will engage in the diſpute with equal acri⯑mony. If there be inſtances, in which the clergy have inflamed the people, it is certain too, that, in ſome inſtances, the clergy have been urged to fiery zeal, by the art of deſigning laymen; and that, in ſome inſtances, they have laboured to curb the fu⯑ry, and to cure the bigotry of the people, by illuſtrating and enforcing the principles of toleration and free enquiry. Nay, uncommon ardor ſeizes not the friends of religion alone, in queſtions where it is concerned, but the oppoſers of religion likewiſe. Warmed with the moment of the ſubject, they too urge their arguments without a ſtrict regard to the rules of modera⯑tion. Is not the author, to whom we have ſo often referred, an example of it? Would he have reaſoned on any other ſubject, in the manner, in which he has reaſoned concerning the cha⯑racter of the miniſters of religion? Had he been perfectly free [64] from that zeal, which he imputes to us, and from the preju⯑dice, which it occaſions, I am perſuaded, that his benevolence of heart would have rejected with indignation the general re⯑flexions, which he has thrown out againſt the clergy, and that his ſtrength of underſtanding would have enabled him to per⯑ceive, that they prove nothing to the diſadvantage of the paſ⯑toral office, or of the chriſtian religion. Wrong-turned zeal has ſometimes excited the clergy to call in the aſſiſtance of the ſecular arm for the ſuppreſſion of their antagoniſts; is not this author, do you think, under the influence of ſome degree of the ſame ſpirit, when, in imitation of their conduct, he endea⯑vours to alarm ſociety againſt the attempts of the body of the clergy, as neceſſarily factious, ambitious and perſecuting?—Thus the odium theologicum is not peculiar to prieſts, it ariſes not from the particular genius of their calling, the corrupt paſſions of all men often take occaſion, from the importance of religion, to inflame it, in queſtions where religion is anyways concerned. Fully convinced of the truth of their own opinions, they are too apt to indulge intemperate zeal, under the ap⯑pearance of the love of truth.—But have clergymen no temp⯑tations to this vice from which other men are free? Perhaps they have. If religion be already perverted, if the credit of pe⯑culiar tenets be ſubſtituted in the place of the intereſts of reli⯑gion, which always coincide with the intereſts of virtue; they will, in that ſituation, but only in that, have a temptation to ſupport their peculiar tenets with intemperate zeal, becauſe their own credit and their livelihood will depend upon the be⯑lief, which their opinions meet with. But could either depend ſo much on this, if the people were not fired with a bigotted attachment to certain peculiar tenets, and diſpoſed to deſert or perſecute their teachers, when they differ from them? Into the corruption of the people, therefore, that temptation muſt, in ſome meaſure, be ultimately reſolved, which, on a ſuperfi⯑cial view, ſeems to ariſe from the paſtoral office. In truth, re⯑ligion is firſt corrupted thro the weakneſs or wickedneſs of men; this corruption enters into the characters of all who profeſs it; [65] both together pervert the paſtoral office from its genuine ſpi⯑rit; and the perverſion of it increaſes that corruption from which it ſprung.—If a man enter into the paſtoral of⯑fice ſired with a ſpirit of diſputation or wrong-turned zeal, the fault is chargeable only on his natural temper or his edu⯑cation. But if he enter into it without this ſpirit, the office will give him ſome advantages for avoiding it. It is acknow⯑leged that, in other ſubjects, an acquaintance with the vari⯑ous opinions of learned men, and with the arguments by which each ſupports his own, tends to ſecure a man from unreaſonable dogmatiſm. If it has the ſame tendency in religion, a clergy⯑man muſt have an inducement to moderation, from his office. His office leads him alſo to ſtudy the ſcriptures, in which meek⯑neſs and all the kindred virtues are enforced by every method, by examples, by precepts, by promiſes, and their oppoſite vi⯑ces are expoſed, prohibited, and ſeverely threaten'd: and this ſurely has ſome tendency to ſweeten the temper and humanize the heart.—In a word, my brethren, a ſpirit of bitter zeal ſprings not from religion, nor from the office of the teach⯑ers of religion, but from a corruption of both; from a corrup⯑tion, however, to which human nature is ſo prone, that it will require the greateſt vigilance, both of miniſters, and of the people, to preſerve themſelves from its infection.

I HOPE it is by this time evident, that this author has haſtily thrown off a portrait for the miniſters of religion, which does, by no means, expreſs their genuine features; and that the charge, which he brings againſt the ſpirit of our office, has been rendered in any degree plauſible, only by fixing on ſome ſeparate circumſtances of our profeſſion, by omitting ſome of their moſt natural effects upon the character, and by exagge⯑rating the reſt; nay by aſcribing circumſtances to our office, which are not only foreign, but even repugnant to it; by con⯑founding the temptations, which may ariſe from the corrup⯑tions of it or of the goſpel, with the direct and eſſential ten⯑dency of both; and by comparing the higheſt degree of the [66] vices, to which theſe temptations may ſollicit us, with the low⯑eſt degree of the vices, into which other men may be led by their particular ſituation. If the vices, to which clergymen are moſt expoſed, be compared with the ſame degree of the vices to which men of other profeſſions are liable, the former will not appear to be more odious than the latter. It cannot be pretended that the peculiar temptations of the paſtoral office are more generally complied with, than the common temptati⯑ons of our earthly ſtate or the peculiar temptations of other pro⯑feſſions. There is, therefore, no reaſon for repreſenting the character of the clergy as peculiarly diſagreeable in compari⯑ſon with other characters. There is ſtill leſs reaſon for cen⯑ſuring the ſpirit of our office, or the goſpel, by which it is in⯑ſtituted. In the preceeding enquiry, we have not diſſembled any real temptation to the vices charged upon us, which can ariſe from our profeſſion. But it has appeared that, whatever theſe temptations be, they ariſe from it only ſecondarily and indirectly; from the corruptions of our office, not from the office itſelf, whoſe primary and prevailing tendency is only to virtue. It has appeared, that, if our functions be performed aright, they will naturally and ſtrongly promote ſincere and manly piety, completed by univerſal virtue; and will lead to warm and diffuſive benevolence, fit not only to check all angry paſſions, and all deſigns hurtful to mankind, but to prompt us likewiſe to uninterrupted aſſiduity in producing the happineſs of others, by inſtilling the moſt important know⯑lege, and recommending the pureſt virtue.

IF this be the character, which the miniſterial office tends to form in the ſeveral individuals of our ſociety, it will be un⯑neceſſary to prove, by any additional arguments, that no go⯑vernment can have reaſon to dread the attempts of the ſociety itſelf, while its members retain the true ſpirit of their profeſſi⯑on. As long as they are actuated by it, they muſt agree in conſidering all mankind as united into one great ſociety, un⯑der the ſupreme government of God, and in regarding them⯑ſelves [67] as members of this ſyſtem, connected with all the parts of it, employed to promote the order, and enforce the laws of this moſt ancient and univerſal polity, by doing their utmoſt to render all, to whom their influence can reach, wiſe and virtu⯑ous and happy. They muſt totally apoſtatize from this ſpirit, before they can form themſelves into a faction, eager to eſta⯑bliſh any ſeparate intereſt, any intereſt diſtinct from that of truth, goodneſs, and mankind. They muſt contract a ſpirit op⯑poſite to that, which reſults from the true genius of their call⯑ing, before they can concur in giving ſcope to ambition, pride, or a perſecuting ſpirit. Society can have no reaſon to be more jealous of their attempts, than of the attempts of every other claſs of men; for they are not more apt to degenerate from the virtuous ſpirit of their profeſſion, and to promote faction or perſecution, than other men are to become vicious, and to form deſigns, and purſue meaſures, equally deſtructive of the peace and order of civil government. A peculiar jealouſy of the clergy, and a deſire to depreſs them will always indicate a prevailing corruption of manners, a diſaffection to religion, an indifference about the practice of real virtue, and about the e⯑ternal happineſs of mankind, in the ſocieties or individuals, who entertain that jealouſy.

IT was remarked, in the beginning of this diſcourſe, that the enquiry, which we propoſed for the ſubject of it, is of a very practical nature. It ſuggeſts important inſtructions, both to miniſters and to the people.

1. EVERY part of the inveſtigation, now attempted, forces reflections into our view, which merit the attention of all the miniſters of the goſpel. It ſhows us, my reverend fathers and brethren, both the advantages, and the difficulties of our ſituati⯑on; both the ſtrong obligations to virtue, which we lie under, and the dangerous temptations to vice, to which we are expoſed. By exhibiting the former it urges us, ſeeing we have this mi⯑niſtry, not to faint ^f, till we have attained that blameleſs ho⯑lineſs, [68] which is ſo ſtrictly incumbent on us. By diſcovering the latter, it warns us to take heed to ourſelves ^g with the moſt con⯑ſtant vigilance, leſt we be ſeduced by them.

THE office of a biſhop is, indeed, a good, a worthy work ^h. It has the ſtrongeſt tendency to adorn the characters of thoſe, who exerciſe it, with univerſal holineſs, the true beauty, the only excellence of the human ſoul. It gives us the nobleſt op⯑portunities of ſaving ourſelves, by doing all that we can to promote the ſalvation of others. The advantages which we en⯑joy, demand from us the pureſt and the ſublimeſt virtue. The voice of mankind, the nature of our office, the credit of our re⯑ligion call upon us to guard carefully againſt every ſin, and to ſtudy to excell others in every amiable quality. In gratitude, in duty, in intereſt, in honour, by every poſſible tie, we are in⯑diſpenſibly obliged to be blameleſs, to have our ſouls deeply tinctured with all real goodneſs, and to render our whole lives an uninterrupted ſeries of conſpicuous holineſs. Every degree of vice in us is ſingularly atrocious, not only in the opinion of the world, but in the eye of unbiaſſed reaſon, and in the uner⯑ring judgment of God; and will be puniſhed with the greateſt ſeverity: and what would be eſteemed only a defect of virtue in others, will ever be accounted a poſitive and heinous vice in us. In vain ſhall any miniſter of the goſpel expect to derive eſteem from the dignity of his calling, if he do not walk wor⯑thy of it. Its dignity ariſes from its holineſs. A vicious mi⯑niſter will debaſe it more, in the opinion of the world, than all the groundleſs cenſures of its enemies. Nay, brethren, to our vices their reflexions may juſtly be imputed; for our vices alone put it in their power to cenſure the genius of our pro⯑feſſion, to revile our order, or to blaſpheme the goſpel for our ſakes; our vices alone diſpoſe mankind to liſten, in any de⯑gree, to their aſperſions, or hinder them from rejecting them with indignation.

[69] BY improving the advantages, which our occupation gives us, we may, with the aſſiſtance of God, which will never be wanting to us but thro our own fault, attain the higheſt de⯑gree of virtue: but by miſimproving them, we ſhall ſink into the loweſt degeneracy. As meat, which is extremely nouriſh⯑ing to the healthful, may inflame dangerous diſtempers in the weak, ſo advantages for cultivating virtue, which have the moſt powerful influence on the well-diſpoſed, will contribute to harden the wicked in their vices. The danger of our fal⯑ling ſhort of that exalted virtue, which our advantages render indiſpenſible, and the danger of our periſhing for ever, which will neceſſarily ſpring from our falling ſhort of it, have ap⯑peared ſo great to many pious perſons of our proſeſſion, that they have not ſcrupled to expreſs their fears, that a ſmaller proportion of our order, than of other ranks of men, ſhall ob⯑tain ſalvation. Certainly, we cannot be too careful to impreſs upon ourſelves the deepeſt ſenſe of both theſe dangers, which the ſtrictneſs of our obligations and our ſignal advantages ren⯑der very great. It is infinitely hazardous for a vicious man to enter into the paſtoral office; it is infinitely hazardous for us to neglect the immediate application of its advantages to the improvement of our own hearts; for, if the peculiar means of holineſs, which it affords, do not very quickly excite the mini⯑ſters of the goſpel to virtue, there is ſcarce a chance for their reformation. Where can they find means of reformation, more efficacious than thoſe, with which they have already refuſed to comply? It is of great importance, that every perſon, who aſpires to this ſacred office, ſhould devote himſelf early to pie⯑ty and virtue, that he may be qualified to improve its opportu⯑nities, and to avoid its dangers. It is of everlaſting importance to his own ſoul. Every man, who finds himſelf deſtitute of the ſeeds of exalted and uniform goodneſs, ought to relinquiſh all thoughts of engaging in a profeſſion, to which his vices, of whatever kind they are, will be a reproach and ignominy. Whoever has entered into the paſtoral office ought to give up [70] himſelf to the practice of its duties, and, as much as poſſible, to confine himſelf to them, that he may not loſe the advantages for cultivating virtue, which this office puts in his power. He ought to be extremely attentive to the manner, in which he exerciſes his ſacred functions, that he may avoid the heinous vice, which will infallibly ariſe from the negligent or the im⯑proper exerciſe of them, and attain that improvement of heart, which will be promoted by the diligent and right performance of the duties of his holy calling.

SOME vices, as intemperance, impiety, exceſſive diſſipati⯑on, are ſo unſuitable to our profeſſion, that they will be indulg⯑ed only by the abandoned; they demonſtrate a total deprava⯑tion of heart, a mind loſt to all the principles of goodneſs. In the moſt degenerate ſtate of things, theſe vices will not be ve⯑ry frequent in our ſociety; the leaſt approach to them is uni⯑verſally reckoned ſcandalous. We ſhould guard againſt theſe, becauſe they will infallibly render our characters odious, and all our labours uſeleſs. However ſlightly they may be diſap⯑proved in others, let us remember, not only that they are highly blameable in their own nature, but alſo that the world will ever regard them with indignation in a clergyman, that even the perverted judgment of thoſe, who practiſe them, will pronounce them deteſtible in him, that even they, who ſollicit him to commit them, and ſeem to like his gaiety, will deſpiſe him in their hearts. Let not the example or corrupted ſenti⯑ments of the world, let not an affectation of ſpirit and free⯑dom, let not the fear of being reckoned auſtere, moroſe, or ſtubborn, let not any inducement prevail with us to admit the loweſt degree of theſe vices into our character or practice. The virtues oppoſite to theſe are abſolutely neceſſary to preſerve us from univerſal infamy; let us take care that we have not the appearance of them only, but that we really poſſeſs the virtues themſelves, and excell in them. They are enforced upon us by the ſpirit of our profeſſion in its full ſtrength; they are in⯑culcated by all the moral principles, by which our employment operates on the temper.

[71] THERE are ſome other vices, which have not ſo manifeſt a repugnance to our profeſſion, or which may even appear to ſpring from a common and probable abuſe of it. But for that very reaſon, we have greater need to be upon our guard againſt them. Intemperate zeal, and its kindred vices will inſinuate themſelves more imperceptibly than thoſe which were mention⯑ed before, will diſguiſe themſelves more artfully, will more eaſily elude the obſervation of the ignorant, or, perhaps, will be even conſecrated by them. In general the vices, which we are in greateſt danger of indulging, are thoſe which admit of the faireſt pretexts, and which are moſt apt to be confounded with ſome virtuous principle; our profeſſion does not afford all the motives to abſtinence from theſe, which it affords to abſti⯑nence from other vices, tho it affords all that their nature will allow. If we attend to the exhortations, which the inſpired writers addreſs to miniſters of the goſpel, we ſhall find that they much oftener give us warning againſt the vices of this claſs, than againſt others; thus plainly intimating that we are obnoxious chiefly to theſe. To avoid every degree of theſe will require the greateſt circumſpection. Theſe will be more frequent in our ſociety, than other vices. Theſe alone can, with any plauſibility, be charged on the ſpirit of our office. If we indulge ourſelves in theſe, their prevalence will furniſh our more diſcerning enemies with the moſt ſpecious arguments a⯑gainſt us. Inſtead of entertaining reſentment againſt them, let us turn their cenſures to our own advantage. The miniſterial office has not ſuch a tendency to any vice, as can juſtly expoſe its ſpirit to reproach; but the vices, which are imputed to it, may notwithſtanding be thoſe, which a wicked or a careleſs mi⯑niſter will moſt probably indulge. Let us not be ſatisfied with a conviction, that our office does not deſerve cenſure; but let every individual take care, that he may not deſerve it. Adver⯑ſaries of penetration will be ſure to attack us on the ſide, where we are weakeſt. Let us take warning; let us employ particu⯑lar attention there; let us beware of every thing, that can lead [72] us into the vices, which they impute to us. Our office has its peculiar temptations; let us not diſguiſe them from ourſelves; let us rather be ſollicitous to diſcover them: they cannot reflect diſhonour on that office, or on religion; yet they may ſome⯑times put our virtue to a very difficult and hazardous trial; they will overcome us, and ſeduce us into vice, if we be not vi⯑gilant and circumſpect. But, if thro the grace of God, whom we ſerve in the goſpel, we ſtrenuouſly reſiſt them, we ſhall ac⯑quire ſtrong habits of ſincere piety, unfeigned humility, diffu⯑ſive benevolence, meekneſs, gentleneſs, charity, and every a⯑miable virtue, which can adorn our ſtation, or our religion.

2. THE enquiry, in which we have been engaged, like⯑wiſe ſuggeſts uſeful inſtructions to the laity.

IN the preſent age, and in this nation, infidelity has erected its ſtandard, and many have enliſted in its ſervice. If there be any among theſe, who think that they have rejected the goſpel, after a fair examination of its evidences, we will pray fervently to God, that he may have mercy upon them, and bring them to the knowlege of the truth ⁱ. We will beſeech them, for their own ſakes, to take care that they have been really unprejudiced in their enquiries. Prejudices againſt reli⯑gion may inſinuate themſelves as imperceptibly, as prejudices for it; and they are, at leaſt, as highly blameable. If God has really given a revelation of his will to mankind, every degree of unfairneſs in examining its evidence, will be highly vicious in the judgment of reaſon and natural conſcience, and will evidently deſerve the ſevereſt puniſhment. But, without pretending to judge of mens ſecret intentions, we may ſurely ſay that, when men attack religion, either in public or pri⯑vate, either in converſation or from the preſs, by throwing out undiſtinguiſhed reflexions againſt the clergy; when they exaggerate the failings of individual clergymen, and charge them on the whole body; when they attempt to reproach [73] the ſpirit of the miniſterial office, by partial or wrong repre⯑ſentations of its nature; when they labour to overturn religi⯑on, by raiſing a groundleſs prejudice againſt the teachers of it; this affords a preſumption of prejudice, tho perhaps un⯑ſuſpected by themſelves, which, when it is pointed out to them, may juſtly excite them to review the temper and care, with which they have enquired into religion. If an infidel be not poſſeſſed with blameable prejudice, he will certainly confine himſelf, in his attacks againſt religion, to direct argu⯑ments, carefully avoiding every topic, which may weaken its influence, without deciding concerning its truth. Let illiberal reflexions againſt the clergy be left to the tribe of vulgar infi⯑dels, who have not perhaps penetration enough to diſcover, that they do not amount to a full confutation of chriſtianity. Let thoſe abſtain from them, who are capable of perceiving, that many miniſters may be extremely vicious, and yet the of⯑fice, which they hold, may have a virtuous tendency, and the goſpel may be true.

MY ſubject leads me alſo to addreſs the chriſtian people. It leads me to warn you, my friends, not to allow any man to beguile you with enticing words, by ſlight and cunning craftineſs, whereby many lie in wait to deceive ^k. It leads me to exhort you that ye ſhould earneſtly contend for the faith, which was once deliver⯑ed unto the ſaints; for there are many crept into chriſtian coun⯑tries, who deny the only Lord God, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt ^l. Let not example, let not inconcluſive cavils, let not unſubſtan⯑tial turns of wit prevail with you to deny the Lord that bought you^m, in oppoſition to your rational conviction. You may adopt ſome of the maxims of infidels, without perceiving their conſequences; you may be infected with their ſpirit. while you reject their principles. This is ſhameful inconſiſtence; but e⯑very day's experience evinces that men may fall into it. Infi⯑dels have no prejudice againſt miniſters of goſpel, except on [74] account of their being the teachers of chriſtianity; they re⯑proach them, only that they may wound religion. But do not ſome of you join in deſpiſing, ridiculing, or reproaching the chriſti⯑an miniſtry, tho you acknowlege the truth of the chriſtian religi⯑on? The conduct of infidels is extremely fooliſh, becauſe their reaſoning is evidently fallacious. But your conduct is infinite⯑ly more abſurd; you promote the deſigns of unbelievers againſt yourſelves; you inconſiderately contribute to the ſucceſs of a cauſe, which you abhor. It has been often obſerved, that mo⯑dern deiſts have derived from thoſe very ſcriptures, which they reject, juſter opinions in natural religion, than the wiſeſt hea⯑thens were able to form, by unaſſiſted reaſon, and that the goſ⯑pel has thus inſenſibly refined the principles even of its ene⯑mies. But it may be obſerved with equal truth, that the pre⯑valence of infidelity has greatly corrupted the ſentiments and practice even of thoſe, whoſe faith it could not directly ſubvert. Be on your guard, therefore, againſt the contagion of its ſpirit.—Indeed, you have a right to expect exemplary holineſs from your miniſters; vice in them may juſtly excite your in⯑dignation; and your expreſſing your diſapprobation of it, in every proper manner, may prevent it from becoming frequent. Be ſure however, to find fault only with real vices. Confine your cenſures to the individuals, who are guilty. In your cen⯑ſures, even of them, remember ſtill, that they are weak and fal⯑lible creatures like yourſelves, expoſed to all the temptations of this ſtate of trial. But let not the faults of a few be imput⯑ed to all. Do not, on account of them, deſpiſe or reproach the office. Blame vicious miniſters for behaving unſuitably to their profeſſion; but remember, that this very judgment implies the excellence of that profeſſion. While you believe the goſpel, you ought to preſerve a high regard for the office of teaching it; you ought to eſteem thoſe, who are employed in it, very highly in love for their work's ſake, ⁿ. If you deſpiſe the order in ge⯑neral, you deſpiſe their work, you deſpiſe the goſpel; for the [75] goſpel both the ſource, and the ſubject of their employment. Is this conſiſtent with your being chriſtians?

YOU, brethren, as well as miniſters, enjoy great advanta⯑ges for the practice of holineſs, by the goſpel. Your obliga⯑tions and your dangers are very ſimilar to ours. It is your bu⯑ſineſs to ſtudy and to practiſe that religion, which it is our bu⯑ſineſs to teach and inculcate on you. Let your ſenſe of the ad⯑vantages, which it affords, animate you to blameleſs holineſs. Let your ſenſe of the danger of your miſimproving theſe ad⯑vantages excite your vigilance and caution. In oppoſition to all temptations, walk worthy of the vocation, wherewith ye are called ^o; walk worthy of the Lord unto all well-pleaſing, being fruitful in every good work, and increaſing in the knowledge of God ^p; let your converſation be as it becometh the goſpel of Chriſt ^q, which you have learned, which we have taught, and by which both you and we muſt be judged at laſt.

MAY GOD fill the hearts both of miniſters, and of the people, with the true ſpirit of the goſpel of JESUS, Amen.