mysterious parts-not to enter into the inquiries, how? and why?-nor to clog it with difficult, or refined questions; against which the apostle to Timothy, long ago, took abundant pains to guard us; but to preach it, as we are directed, with plainnefs - to lay the stress on its obvious truths and when we have occafion to mention

a mysterious point, (one of those great points, which relate to God's part in the covenant of grace, rather than to man's,) to be careful of going too far to keep as clofe as poffible to fcripture, left we make a difficulty more difficult by endeavouring to explain, what cannot be explained. The lefs, in general, that is faid on fuch points, the better. One thing we should always remember; and that is to adapt our dif courfes to the lower, rather then the higher parts of our audience; that we may, like good ministers, difpenfe that gofpel, whofe peculiar character it was, to be preached to the poor.

I fhall close this head, with the account, which an ancient heathen of the fourth century gives of the mode of preaching the gospel in his day: "The Christian philofophy," fays he, "is very "fimple. Its principal concern is to regulate "the manners of men, and to infufe worthy "notions

D 3

"notions of the Deity. Obfcure questions, and "nice arguments, it avoids. Nor does it enter

into the nature and foundation of virtue: but "exhorts, in general, to the practice of it; "which experience fhews us is more effectual 66 among the vulgar*."

Our manners fhould be as fimple as our doctrine.

But you afk, what is fimplicity of manners? It is a phrafe of ambiguous meaning.

Let us not here again puzzle ourselves with definitions. They who feek for close definitions on these subjects, I should fear, seek rather for evafion, than information. The scriptures have little to do with definitions. On these subjects, they speak to the heart, more than to the head. Whoever reads, with a defire to learn, the inftructions which our Saviour and his apoftles give to the ministers of the gospel, will foon feel -unless indeed it be a point which he wishes to overlook-not only in what the fimplicity of our manners fhould confift-but alfo, that it fhould be our first, and moft indifpenfable care.

See Lardner's Teftimonies from Alexander of Lycopalis. Vol. IV. p. 11.

And the reafon of the thing, as we are preachers of the gofpel, is plain; because the fimplicity of our manners must give force to what we say. It is not every body, with his best endeavour, who can get hold of the propereft method of communicating his ideas; or can practife that mode of application in his dif courses, either publicly or privately, which may have the best effect upon the people. But fim. plicity of manners is a mode of preaching, which makes up many defects it is adapted to every capacity every body understands it ; and it adds a dignity and confequence, even to a difcourfe of lefs weight. Though the common people are no good reasoners, there is however one mode of reafoning, at which they are very ready that of inferring doctrine from manners: and they will not only make the latter a test of the former; but they will in general pay more attention to it likewife.

When the city of Antioch was difpofed to receive the gofpel; and the apostle Barnabas was fent from Jerufalem to promote the good work, which was there carrying on, the people feem to have been particularly influenced by his holy life; for he was a good man," fays the apofto

lical historian," and full of the Holy Ghoft, and "of faith -and much people was added unto the

"Lord."

On the other hand, the pureft doctrine will lofe its effect, among the common people at least, in proportion as they fee their minister pay less attention to it himself. That apoftolical apostrophe, Thou that preacheft to others, teacheft thou not thyself? will ever be the language of popular contempt.

There is another kind of contempt also, which every consistent man would particularly wish to avoid — and that is, his own contempt of himself. What must that man's feelings be, whofe life is spent in a continued variance with those truths, which he is obliged to preach? Who must tell his hearers of governing their undue affections; and yet lets his own loofe in all the vanities of a diffipated age? Who must talk of the world as a pilgrimage; while every action of his life fhews it to be his carnal home? Who is obliged to preach the glories of a future ftate, and the joys of heaven, while his own happiness is plainly centered in worldly ambition, and worldly atten tions? - Contempt abroad may be borne, if a man feel from the uprightness of his own heart,

that

that he does not deferve it; but there is no refuge from contempt within - unless a man is past feeling, and fets at defiance the remonftrances even of common decency.

How far the minister of the gospel should keep at a distance from the world- from its ambitious views its interefts- and its party. contentions how far he should stand aloof from its pleasures; and abstain from many amusements, which, though perhaps innocent in themfelves, may (at least when countenanced by him) have a tendency to break down the fences of religion, are questions -not proper indeed for me to determine: but very proper for every churchman to examine feriously in his own confcience. It is becoming furely that the ministers of a religion, which fo entirely disclaims the world, fhould endeavour at least not to be much intangled in it. A morofe character is not the alternative. Cheerfulness is the natural companion of religion. Sourness is an alien intruder. Amusements too are neceffary: but I am not fingular in thinking those amusements should rather be of the retired kind; than fought for amidst the noise and bustle of the world. Riot and excess generally attend the amufe

ments