down rules; but as a brother and fellow-minister, I offer my opinion on a case in which the cause of religion in general, and the character of ministers of the gospel in particular, are concerned. I have not the remotest wish that any regard may be paid to my judgment, further than is due to the reasons by which it is supported. It was observed before, that the question of the expediency or danger of the measure, in respect of the public, is not properly of the department of our judicatories. The only question that can strictly be said to come under their cognizance, as church courts, is that discussed in the former chapter,-whether the toleration or the persecution of such people be most conformable to the spirit and laws of our holy religion. There are extraordinary cases in which, I acknowledge, it may be pardonable, perhaps commendable, in the pastors to step aside a little for the sake of doing some signal service whereby the cause they are engaged in may be advanced, and the honour of the Master whom they serve promoted. Let us see whether an application from the representative of this church, of the kind that was proposed at the last meeting of the General Assembly, and will, in all probability, be again moved at the ensuing, would answer these important ends. Waiving the arguments already used, and which to me appear unanswerable, I shall only here advert to two things-first, to what suits the ministerial character to do; and, secondly, to what will probably be the consequences of the measure proposed in the last Assembly, if it shall now be adopted.

In regard to the former, it is the observation of an ingenious modern, that the magistrate and the pastor are both denominated God's ministers, but in very different senses. The magistrate is the minister of divine justice; the pastor is the minister of divine goodness and grace. A most just and pertinent observation. The former, accordingly, beareth not the sword in vain; the latter cometh announcing peace through Jesus Christ our Lord. The service he is engaged in, is styled the ministry of reconciliation. The former operates chiefly by fear, being the terror of evil-doers; the latter chiefly by love, in the display he makes of the tender mercies of God and the love of Jesus. There is a beauty in preserving consistency of character, and, on the contrary, there is something singularly shocking, to men whose taste is not totally depraved, in a gross violation of character. Sanguinary

measures are, on certain occasions, very suitable in the officer of justice; but it ill becomes the messenger of peace to breathe out, like Saul the Pharisee, (unconverted, indeed, but not the less zealous,) threatenings and slaughter. The sense of what became a minister of the new covenant, a preacher of good-will to men, was so strong on the minds of the primitive Christians, that when our religion came first into favour with the magistrate, it was looked on universally as a becoming action in the ministers to use their good offices in behalf of an unhappy creature who had exposed himself to the stroke of public justice, wherever any favourable circumstances could be pleaded in extenuation of his crime. But in no case whatever was it thought suitable that he should interpose to call for vengeance. That the servant of the Prince of Peace should prove a peacemaker, mediator and intercessor, was entirely consonant to the nature of his office; but that he should interpose as an avenger, or as an instigator of others to vengeance, or to violent and vindictive measures, was considered as a practical denial of the Lord that bought him, who came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them; and as what suited more the character of that being whom they called the adversary and accuser of the brethren.

If by some means or other our legislature had been incited to think of imposing new restraints or inflicting new pains and penalties on Papists, or on Dissenters of any denomination, it would have been excusable, nay, on account of the motive, might have been thought praiseworthy in the ministers of religion, to represent, with all due respect, that they hoped, by the use of arms more evangelical, the end might be attained, and the public sufficiently secured from danger. But the interposition proposed at present is of a very different kind. To what shall I compare it? A culprit more unfortunate than criminal stands before his judge. The sword is unsheathed. and ready to strike. Several humane persons intercede, mention every alleviating circumstance, propose taking security of the convict that he shall behave himself properly, and beg that the sword may again be sheathed. The magistrate relents, and is on the point of complying, when a person of a grave aspect interposes, who, though he carry the olive branch, the ensign of peace, in his hand, with a countenance more stern than meek, to the surprise of everybody, cries to the officer of justice, What

are you going to do? No security can bind that wretch, and nowhere can the sword of justice be sheathed at this time so properly as in his bowels. This parable I leave to the reflection of my readers.

I shall add a few words on the consequences of the application. I admit that, if made, it will possibly be successful, not from any conviction of the propriety of making it, or of the fitness of what is asked. But a flame, little to our credit, has been raised in the country; and it may be thought that yielding to the humour, however reprehensible, and granting what is asked, is a less evil than a positive refusal might prove, especially considering the state of public affairs at present. But the question of greatest moment is, In what light will the application represent the spirit of our people in general, and this national church in particular, to the constituent branches of the British senate? It should be remembered how different the fate of the like bill was in England, and even in Ireland, where that sect, with some colour of reason, might have been accounted dangerous. But here, where comparatively they are so inconsiderable both in number and property,-I could say a great deal, but I forbear. I will not dissemble. I am both ashamed and grieved that there should be occasion to say any thing on such a subject.

In what light will our conduct appear, when contrasted with that of the English and Irish bishops, whom it would be absurd as well as uncharitable to accuse of indifference in such a cause, and who, as members of the legislature, readily concurred in granting the relief desired in their countries? Is it possible that any of us are simple enough to imagine that, with judicious persons, the comparison will redound to our honour?

Yet, amid so many grounds of mortification, I am happy to have it in my power to say, that in the last Assembly, a most respectable assembly, and far the most numerous I ever witnessed, (and I have witnessed many,) a motion for an application of this nature was thrown out as altogether improper and unbecoming, by a very great plurality of voices. It ought also to be attended to, that this happened when men had nothing to influence their judgment but the merits of the question, not a single person, that I know of, having had the least knowledge of such a motion till it was made in the house. Tumultuous conventions and mobs and other lawless excesses had not

then been artfully produced to terrify those who could not be convinced. I had never before so distinct an idea of what is called, in ecclesiastic history, preaching a crusade; at the same time I must regret that I should ever have acquired additional knowledge on this subject, from any thing to be seen in this Protestant land.

I beg it may also be observed that Popery is not the only adversary we have to struggle with. I do not speak of the opposition we are exposed to from other sects much more numerous. I speak of the infidelity, the scepticism, the open profaneness and contempt of all religion, that so much abound in this age and country,-a far more formidable foe than Popery. Is it a matter of no consequence to us how our conduct may affect this evil, either by adding strength to it, and furnishing libertines with new arguments for fortifying themselves in their impiety, or by acting such a part as must tend to silence and confute them? It is well known that persons of this stamp are the declared enemies of our order. Let us try to draw instruction from the reproaches and even the aspersions of our enemies. Amongst other things, they arraign all clergymen, of whatever sect, for a pride which takes fire at the least contradiction, for an ambition or lust of power, which makes all rivalry insupportable, and, as the natural consequence of these, for a persecuting spirit, which all possess against the common enemy, and every single sect possesses against every other. The common maxim of these men is, "Priests of all religions are the same. That the character which they draw is done with much exaggeration and malevolence, no impartial person will deny. Nor will it be denied by such, on the other hand, that the unamiable spirit too often displayed by those who ought to have been not only defenders, but patterns of religion, has given too great scope for such accusations.

It was lately proposed in Sweden, a Lutheran and therefore a Protestant country, to give a toleration to all Dissenters. This measure would have chiefly affected Calvinists, and next to them, if I mistake not, Papists. The clergy opposed it. But as the other estates of the kingdom approved the measure, it took place. Should we now, like the Swedish clergy, interpose in order to frustrate the gracious intentions of the legislature, would it not contribute to confirm the irreligious in their errors? Could we be surprised that they should exclaim

in triumph, "It is precisely as we thought. They are all the same thing at bottom-Papist, Lutheran, Calvinist, &c. Their differences consist in a few trifling ceremonies, or unintelligible logomachies, but the same spirit pervades the whole, the same pride, the same intolerance, the same inclination to domineer, and to crush all that oppose them." I know it will be said, "What have we to do to mind the speeches of the profane and graceless? They neither do nor will favour us, whatever part we act." I imagine that even the profane and graceless ought not to be despaired of, and consequently that their sentiments and speeches ought not to be altogether disregarded. Such are not always irreclaimable. Much less ought we to furnish them with what may serve not only to confirm them in their pernicious course, but to prove the instruments of gaining over others to their party. The Apostle Peter did not think the sentiments even of heathens were to be despised by the disciples, and therefore enjoined them to be careful that their conversation might be honest among the Gentiles, that they may be ashamed who falsely accuse their good conversation in Christ.* And the Apostle Paul makes the opinion of infidels of so great consequence, that he expressly requires that regard be had to it, even in the election of a bishop. "He must have a good report of them which are without." Shall we, then, think it a matter of no moment that we give occasion to the enemies of God to blaspheme? Does it appear to us a thing absolutely indifferent, that the good ways of the Lord are, by our means, evil spoken of among them who know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it all one whether fools be recovered by us, or confirmed in their folly?

I conclude with my most fervent prayers to the God of grace and Father of mercies, that he would be pleased to direct the great council of our church, as on every occasion, so particularly on the present; that he would inspire them with the amiable spirit of their Master, with the wisdom that is from above, which is not like the wisdom of the worldling, earthly, sensual, devilish, but first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy; that we may all know, by experience, that the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace. +1 Tim. iii. 7.

* 1 Pet. ii. 12; iii. 16.