Or take the case of the apostle Paul, whom I have heard extolled as most consummate for his prudence and skilful management of men and things, so as not to give offence. Please to turn to the account we have of him in the Acts of the Apostles and his own Epistles. You will see at once that he was forever getting into difficulties, and might positively be tracked almost over the world by the commotions that he raised. His very first preaching produced such a ferment at Damascus, that he had to be "let down over the wall in a basket" to escape not only the "Jews," but the civil officers; and no sooner had he arrived at Jerusalem, than he gave such offence to the Grecians that they went about to slay him." Now we have him "disputing with the Jews at Antioch," and "shaking off the dust of his feet against them"-again, exciting the multitude into a rage at Philippi, by breaking up their gains from sooth-saying; directly we have him raising an uproar at Thessalonica, and charged with "turning the world upside down," and interfering with the "decrees of Cesar," what is now called politics and affairs of state-presently we have him hauled by a mob before Gallio at Corinththen raising such a stir at Ephesus as "filled the city with confusion," by so preaching against idolatry as to deprive the "craftsmen" of their " gains," and render useless

66

their stock on hand.

He excited commotions repeatedly by urging points that were considered as interfering with the right of property. He was charged again and again with meddling with politics, and even moving sedition, by preaching doctrines that tended to change the existing state of things. We have indeed his own confession that all the churches planted by him in Asia, were "turned away from him," and from an attachment that made them willing to "pluck out their own eyes and give them to him," were become "his enemies," so stoutly had he plied them with offensive truth.

This really, at first view, looks as if Paul had laboured in the Gospel to little purpose; and yet he is not more remarkable for the trouble and confusion and everlasting contention of his ministry, than the conclusion he draws respecting the good growing out of them. After he had "five times received forty stripes save one"-"thrice

been beaten with rods"- -"once been stoned," with a thousand adventures in his efforts to escape more handling of the same sort; we find him writing to the Churches, and congratulating himself, while informing them, that what had happened unto him had fallen out rather to the furtherance of the Gospel."

66

That Paul was a faithful preacher none can doubt; but that he was a prudent one, according to the above standard, is very questionable. The most earnest attempt recorded of him, to be prudent in the way of giving no of fence, was at the earnest request of the elders at Jerusalem. They knew the fiery temperament of that people; and appear to have adopted to some extent the prudential rule, of doing nothing that would give offence. They were desirous that Paul during his visit among them, should act on their principles. They kindly furnished him with a plan for getting along smoothly. And Paul really appears in good earnest to have resolved that for a few days he would be upon his best behaviour and avoid giving offence. He had many inducements for so doing. He was at Jerusalem, on a visit to the mother church, in the company of the apostles and elders; reports to his disadvantage had gone abroad, and now during the feast, when multitudes were collected from all quarters, he had the best opportunity of putting down those reports. In addition to all these reasons, he had again and again been prophetically warned that difficulties were before him, and must, if he ever did, have felt the need of prudence and circumspection. Alas, poor Paul! and poor human wisdom, and prudence, and management! Seven days had not passed, before he had the whole city in an uproar; and the Roman governor, with an army had to interfere to save his life. All the prudential maxims which his brethren had kindly pressed on him were forgotten in a moment. The ardor of his character returned, increased eleven fold by the restraint of seven days. No sooner is he out of the hands of the multitude, who were about to kill him, than he undertakes to harangue them; and driving at once into the very topics of all under the sun most offensive to them, soon raised a clamour almost sufficient to break the slumbers of the dead.

It is well for Paul's character that he was an apostle, and lived at the time he did; and especially well that the account we have of him is in the New Testament, and has the approbation of that sacred volume. Nothing else as appears to me, saves him from the charge of being almost uniformly imprudent,-if the proper test of prudence be that of giving no offence. How much benefit he would have received from a course of lectures on prudence by some modern professor of the amiable virtue, I know not. I fear, however, but little. It seems that the elders at Jerusalem had counselled him to little purpose. He had more contention and strife, and raised up more enemies than all the rest of the apostles together; and yet perhaps in the midst of it, did twice as much good as the whole of them.

You will err greatly, if you infer from the above remarks, either that I hold in low estimation ministerial prudence, according to the scriptural import of that term, or that I think much care is not needful to avoid giving unnecessary offence. They are designed to show that many have notions of ministerial prudence, which are wholly unscriptural, and that prudence according to their notion of it is often downright disobedience to God. Ministerial prudence, according to the scriptural standard, has more regard for God than it has for man-it fears him more than it fears man-it is more desirous of pleasing him and gaining his approbation than of pleasing and receiving the approbation of man. It does desire the benefit of man; it may choose out good and acceptable words; it may watch for the most favourable times; it ought to be wise to wise souls; but it does not forget that all its success is from God; nor that God has in his word laid much more stress on a faithful declaration of divine truth than on "excellency of speech," or "the enticing words of man's wisdom."

The inspired teachers, a record of whose ministry we have in the scriptures, evidently felt most deeply solicitous that their ministry might benefit their fellow men. They evidently sought to save their hearers, and they showed this by teaching and exhorting, and reproving them in all faithfulness. In some respects, they accommodated their

teaching to the characters and circumstances of their hearers,-bearing the infirmities of the weak-leading them on from step to step, as they were able to bear it-feeding those with milk who were not able to receive strong meat. All this I admit; yea, more, I insist that in this we have them for examples. It is still undeniably true, that this accommodation to the weakness, and especially to the prejudices of their hearers, had its limits. It did not prevent their declaring, at its proper time and place, the whole counsel of God-it did not set a seal on their lips, respecting important branches of moral duty-it did not prevent them from plainly teaching, and faithfully admonishing, and solemnly warning their hearers, on points so offensive, as to expose them to bitter persecution. I appeal to the record.

The minister who can declare the whole counsel of God-give each portion of truth its due explanation, and each duty its due enforcement-and all without giving offence, has much cause of thankfulness. Some, no doubt, have a more happy talent than others for doing this. If a faultless manner, however, would always prevent offence, we might have supposed that men of God speaking as moved by the Holy Ghost-that apostles speaking when filled with the spirit, and especially that Christ himself, in whom dwelt all the fulness of wisdom and knowledge, would not have given offence. Yet what preachers have ever given more offence, or excited against them more bitter persecutions. "It is enough for the disciple to be as his master, and the servant as his Lord." The duty of faithfulness, generally considered, all admit. But when we come to its application to particular parts of religious duty-for instance, slavery, then objections are made, and it is perhaps decided to be an imprudent thing to declare the truth of God on that subject.

It is so common to make objections to ministers of the gospel saying or doing any thing on the subject of slavery, that I feel disposed to make a remark or two on that point. Passing by their natural and equal right as citizens, which few will deny, I shall notice the objection to their bringing their religious character and influence as expounders of God's word, to bear against it.

I must first remark, that there is a very manifest inconsistency in objections of this kind, when made by the American people. No one who has made himself at all acquainted with the history of the American revolution, can be ignorant of the willingness with which preachers were heard when they brought religion and the Scriptures to justify our defending our own liberties; nor with what solicitude their influence and co-operation were sought. There was then no objection to considering liberty as so far connected with religion, as to bring all the force of religion to bear on the question of defending it. The minister who was known to be a good staunch Whig, was the more willingly listened to. The Royalists and Tories, it is true, complained of this, and called it preaching politics; but no good Whig had any scruples on the matter, or any difficulty in defending the course of the Whig clergy.

Now I put it to your candour, is it fair to take opposite ground as soon as the question is transferred from your rights to the rights of others? How can you in consistency and conscience justify the Whig clergy of the revolution in their continual treating our rights and liberties as moral questions; and at the same time object to their sons, or the hoary heads of the same men, when they only do the same thing? Does not our Lord and Master say again and again, that he is no respecter of persons ?" that he has made of "one blood all nations of men," and that we must apply his law impartially to all? On what principle can you require one doctrine to be dealt out, when your rights and liberties are in question, and another when the same question comes up respecting doing justice to those in slavery?

66

It is not more inconsistent in people to require such "deceitful handlings" of the word of God, and the sacred principles of religion, than it is in ministers to practice it. If they believe that the Americans were justifiable in their separation from the mother country; if they believe that their fathers in the gospel were right in considering that case as having a moral character, and in bringing Scripture and religion to bear on it, they are bound by consistency, yea, by higher obligations, to aid all safe and lawful means for bringing about the emancipation of those in bondage.