Chapter I: PASS RAPIDLY over these things, and omit a thousand others, that (2)

For that _other_ requisite of a _good example_, the case is too plain to require more than one word. Our blessed Master has told us, that we are _the salt of the earth_: and we remember what he pronounces of that salt, _when it hath lost its savour_. This warning may suffice to guard the minister of the word from gross vice and immorality. But much more is expected from him. He is to _excell_ in all virtue, and in such sort as to make it amiable in the eyes of men. He is to take care, that even _his good be not evil-spoken of_, and that _the ministry be not blamed_. For there are certain decencies, which must be ranked by us in the place of virtues. To be wanting in _these_, is to scandalize the brethren, and dishonour ourselves. Our profession is so sacred, that even our Christian liberty must be abridged on many occasions; and we must deny ourselves an _innocent_ amusement, when we have reason to conclude that others will take offence at it.

How far, and in what respects, this sacrifice must be made to the decencies of our profession, is a matter of great _prudence_ and _charity_; and can only be determined, in particular cases, by an honest exertion of those _two principles_.

Ye have now, my reverend Brethren, presented to you a brief sketch of our ministerial duties. And our encouragement, for the performance of them, is, That hereby _we shall bring forth fruit_, and that _our fruit will remain_: that is, we shall be instrumental in producing a RIGHT FAITH, a PIOUS OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, and a TRULY CHRISTIAN LIFE, in our several charges and congregations; and we shall, likewise, be the means of transmitting these blessings to Posterity, and of perpetuating these good fruits to the end of the world. Thus, that which is the _end_ of our ministry, is also the reward of it. Nor will the recompence of our labours end here. In saving others, by the means now recommended, we shall assuredly save ourselves. For, by giving this full proof of our ministry, we shall be _sincere, and without offence till the day of Christ; being filled with all the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God_[29]. AMEN.

A

CHARGE

TO THE

CLERGY

OF THE

DIOCESE OF WORCESTER,

DELIVERED AT THE BISHOP’S PRIMARY

VISITATION IN 1782.

A CHARGE, &c.

REVEREND BRETHREN,

On this first occasion of our meeting, you will think it agreeable to the relation I have the honour to bear to you, if I take leave to remind you of such of your Clerical Duties as tend more immediately to your own credit, and to the good order of this Diocese: Not, as if I suspected you of being, in any peculiar degree, deficient in them; but as, from the general state of the _present_ times, and from the singular importance of them at _all_ times, these Duties deserve to be frequently and earnestly recommended to you.

The Clergy of the Reformed Church of England have always distinguished themselves by the soundness of their learning, by the integrity of their manners, and by a diligent discharge of the pastoral office. But these virtues could not have flourished so much and so long, had it not been for the PERSONAL RESIDENCE of the Clergy. Hence that leisure which enabled them to excell in the best literature: hence those truly clerical manners, unadulterated by too free a commerce with the world: and hence that punctuality in performing the sacred offices, so edifying to the people, and, from their being always upon the spot, so easy to themselves.

Now this Residence, which the very institution of Parishes supposes, and the Common Law intends, has, from early times, been bound upon us by ecclesiastical canons, and, from the Reformation, also by express Statute. So that, in the style of Law, and even in common language, _Incumbent_ is the proper name of every Parochial Minister.

I know, indeed, what exceptions there are to the Statute, and needs must be in a Constitution like our’s, founded on a principle of Imparity and Subordination. I know, too, how many more exceptions must be made on account of the poverty of very many Cures, and the necessity there unfortunately is of having several churches served by the same person. Lastly, I do not forget that, in the case of ill health, and doubtless in other cases that may occur, there will sometimes be good reason for the Incumbent to desire, and therefore for the Ordinary to grant, an occasional suspension, or relaxation, at least, of the general Rule. But, when these cases are allowed for, no Clergyman, who considers the nature of his office, and the engagements he is under, or who respects as he ought, either the esteem of others, or the satisfaction of his own mind, will suffer himself to solicit, or even to accept, an exemption from Residence.

And even they, who have to plead the privilege of the Statute, or can alledge any other just and reasonable excuse, will endeavour to compensate for their absence, _by_ occasional visits to their benefices; _by_ diligent inquiries into the conduct of their assistants; _by_ acts of benevolence, hospitality, and piety; in short, _by_ such means as testify a readiness to do all the good they can under their circumstances, and manifest a serious consideration of the duties which, in some degree or other, are inseparable from the Pastoral Care.

In short, the reason of the thing speaks so strongly for the incumbency of Parochial Ministers, that they, who have the best excuse to make for themselves, will lament their absence, and accept the leave granted to them with regret. And the rest of the Clergy will not allow themselves to desert their charge, and forfeit the dignity and almost the use of their destination, for such slight and frivolous reasons as can neither satisfy themselves nor others: for the convenience, suppose, of living in a better air or neighbourhood; of seeing a little more, or, what is called, _better_, company; or sharing in the advantages and amusements, be they ever so innocent, of the larger and more populous towns.

Pretences of this sort are nothing, when they come in competition _with_ the decency and utility of being where we ought to be, and among those whom we ought to serve; _with_ the obligation that lies upon us to make ourselves acquainted with the spiritual and temporal wants of our people, and, as far as we can, to relieve them; _with_ the precious opportunities, which a personal residence affords, of knowing their characters, and of suiting our publick and private applications to them; _of_ watching over their lives, and contributing to reform or improve them; _of_ guarding them against the attempts of those who lie in wait to pervert their minds, and indispose them to our Communion; _with_ the heart-felt satisfaction of being beloved by our flocks, or of meriting, at least, to be so; of knowing, in short, that we discharge our duty towards them; and, while we approve ourselves faithful ministers of the Church in which we serve, are promoting the noblest ends which a mortal can propose to himself, The salvation of souls, and the honour and interest of our divine Religion.

These considerations are so animating, that they cannot but make a deep impression upon every serious mind; and are so obvious at the same time, that just to have mentioned them to you must be quite sufficient.

I return, therefore, to the duty of those who, on several accounts, may very reasonably excuse themselves from a constant personal residence. And with regard to such of you as may be in this situation, I must,

II. In the second place, recommend it to you, in most particular manner, that you be careful in looking out for proper persons to supply your place, and that you faithfully co-operate with me in appointing none but _regular_, _well-qualified_, and _exemplary Curates_.

By REGULAR Curates, I mean such as lie under no legal disabilities, and have received episcopal ordination. You will perhaps think it strange that these cautions should be thought necessary. But in our licentious times there are those who will presume to offer themselves to you to be employed as Curates, although they have incurred the public censure of their superiors, or have not perhaps been admitted into holy Orders. You will be careful, therefore, before you allow any one to officiate for you, though for a short time, and on a pressing occasion, to inform yourself of his general character, and to inspect his Letters of Orders.

But, if you mean to take him for your settled Curate, you must do a great deal more. You must send him with a _Title_ and _Testimonial_ to be examined and allowed by me. And then I shall have it in my power, not only to prevent your being imposed upon by _irregular_ persons, but to see that you take for your assistants only such as are in all respects WELL QUALIFIED: including under this term _a competent degree of knowledge for the service of the Cure to which they are nominated; a good report of their moral and religious conduct by credible and respectable witnesses; and a willing conformity to the discipline and doctrine of the Church of England_.

With these qualifications, it is to be presumed that your Curates will represent you not unworthily, and will instruct and edify your people as you yourselves would endeavour to do, if you lived amongst them. And the rather, as both you and I are concerned _to take care, as much as possible, that whosoever is admitted to serve any Cure_ DO RESIDE IN THE PARISH WHERE HE IS TO SERVE: _especially in livings that are able to support a resident Curate; and, where that cannot be done, that he do reside at least_ SO NEAR TO THE PLACE, _that he may conveniently perform all the duties both in the Church and Parish_[30].

Still, it is not enough that an officiating Minister, whether principal or substitute, be of no ill fame, and under no disability, nay that he possess the _qualifications_ and the _means_ of discharging his duty. It is further expected of all who are commissioned to minister in holy things, and therefore of Curates as well as others, that they execute their important trusts with fidelity and zeal, that they be EXEMPLARY in their whole conduct and conversation.

To merit the application of this term to himself, a Clergyman will not only perform the duties of his Church with becoming seriousness, and with exact punctuality, but he will be ready at fit seasons to advise or exhort, to comfort or rebuke, as occasion requires, such of his parishioners, whether in sickness or health, as may stand in need of his charitable assistance. He will spend much of his leisure in reading and meditation, particularly in the study of the sacred Scriptures, that he may adorn and purify his mind, and qualify himself the better for his spiritual ministrations. He will even take care that his very amusements be inoffensive, and not pursued with an eagerness or constancy that may give occasion for censure or misconstruction. He will be so far from drawing upon himself the imputation of any gross vice (which it would be dreadful for a minister of the Gospel to deserve), that he will not be suspected of levity or dissipation; _but_, as the Canon directs, _will always be doing the things which shall appertain to honesty, and endeavouring to profit the Church of God; having always in mind that the ministers of religion ought to excell all others in purity of life, and should be examples to the people of good and Christian living_[31].

Such is the conduct which the Church requires of those whom you employ in the care of your parishes. I hope therefore I shall not be thought too severe, if I give a particular attention to the appointing and licensing of Curates, and if I expect of the beneficed Clergy that they chearfully and heartily concur with me in this necessary circumspection.

To this end, and that the Church may be served with reputable and useful ministers, I must,

III. Further make it my earnest request (and this is the _last_ particular I have at present to give in charge to you), that you take especial care _what persons you recommend to me on all occasions_.

It is my duty, and if it were not, it would be my inclination, to rely much on your advice in all things; much more, to lay the greatest stress on your opinion and sentiments, when presented to me under your hands in the solemn way of a Testimonial. No consideration, therefore, I hope will ever prevail with you, no bias of acquaintance, neighbourhood, civility, or compassion (for I shall never suspect my brethren of any worse motive), to give the credit of your testimony to any person whatever that is unworthy of it, whether for the purpose of obtaining holy Orders, or my License to a Cure, or Institution to a Benefice. The most scrupulous good faith must be observed in all these cases; or it will be impossible for me to prevent those scandals, which an unqualified Clergy will be sure to give to the world, and the infinite mischiefs they do to Religion.

Whenever you set your hand to a testimonial, consider, I beseech you, that the honour of the Church is concerned in what you are doing; that the edification of the people, the integrity of their lives and purity of their faith, the salvation, in short, of their souls, depends on your signature. When such momentous interests as these are at stake, inattention is something worse than _neglect_, and the easiness of good-nature the greatest _cruelty_.

And now, my reverend brethren, by observing these few plain directions—by residing on your benefices when you can, and by improving that residence to its proper uses—or, when you cannot reside yourselves, by employing only resident and respectable Curates—and, lastly, by a scrupulous use of your credit with me in recommending none but fit persons for the several departments of the Ministry.—By complying, I say, with my earnest request, in these several instances, you will render the government of this Diocese easy and pleasant to me. I reckon so much on your kindness to me as to believe that _this_ consideration will be some inducement to you. But there are _others_ of more importance. For you will consult your _own_ honour, and that of your _Order_: You will rejoice the hearts of your _friends_, and stop the mouths of your _enemies_.

I said, _of your enemies_; for enemies you will always have, so long as there are bad men. And, while we endeavour to lessen the number of these, it should be our utmost care that none but _such_ be ill-affected towards us. God forbid that the friends of virtue and religion should have so much as a pretence to speak or think ill of us! They cannot have this pretence, but through our own fault. Be we therefore strictly observant of our duty: Let us be seen, where the world will naturally look for us, in our proper places, intent on our proper business; and acting in our proper characters; and we shall infallibly secure the esteem of _good_ men, and till it please God to touch and convert their hearts, we may defy the malice of _bad_ ones.

The truth is, my reverend brethren, it depends very much on ourselves, whether the world shall conceive well or ill of us. Licentious and unbelieving as that world is, a learned and prudent and pious Clergyman will force respect from it. The more it may be inclined to blame, the greater must be our diligence and circumspection. And to animate myself and you to this care, is the whole end and purpose of this friendly address to you.

It only remains that _I pray_, with the holy Apostle, _that we may abound in knowledge and in all judgment; that we may approve things that are excellent; that we may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Him to the glory and praise of God_[32].

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

_The Use and Abuse of Reason in Matters
of Religion_:

A

CHARGE

OF THE

BISHOP OF WORCESTER

TO THE

CLERGY OF HIS DIOCESE.

DELIVERED IN THE YEAR 1785.

A CHARGE, &c.

REVEREND BRETHREN,

Without the use of Reason in Religion, we are liable to be imposed upon by others. With the immoderate or indiscreet use of it, we impose upon ourselves. Both extremes are to be carefully avoided: but the _latter_, being that into which we are most in danger of falling in these times, will possibly deserve your first and principal attention.

Indeed the great Apostle of the Gentiles, foreseeing the mischiefs which the pride of human reason would produce in the Church of Christ, gave a timely warning to the Roman converts, _not to be wise in their own conceits_[33]. And whoever considers the history of the Church from that time to this, will find that nothing has been so injurious to it as the affectation of being wise _above_, or _beside_, what is written; I mean, in opposing our own sense of things to the authority of Scripture, or (which is the commoner, because something the modester way of the two) in forcing it out of the sacred text by a licentious interpretation. In either way, we idolize our own understandings; and are guilty of great irreverence towards the word of God.

It infinitely concerns the preachers of the Gospel to stand clear of these imputations; and therefore it may not be unsuitable to the occasion of our present meeting, if I set before you what I take to be the whole office of REASON on the subject of revealed Religion; what it has to do, and what it should forbear to attempt; how far it may and should go, and where it ought to stop; and lastly, how important it is for a Christian teacher, and indeed for every Christian man, to confine his curiosity within those bounds.

I. The first and principal office of Reason on this subject is to see whether Christianity be a divine Religion; in other words, whether the Scriptures, especially those of the New Testament, which contain the religion of Christians, be written by inspiration, or have no higher authority than the compositions of mere fallible men.

Now, for this purpose, you will collect and examine the numerous proofs, _external_ and _internal_, which have been alledged as the proper grounds of assent to the truth of Christianity: The proof EXTERNAL; first, from _Prophecy_, involving in it an incredible number of probabilities, some less striking than others, but all of them of some moment in your deliberation; secondly, from _Miracles_, said to have been purposely wrought to attest the truth of Christianity; recorded by persons of the best character, who themselves performed there miracles, or saw them performed, or had received the accounts of them immediately from the workers and eye-witnesses of them; and not questioned, as far as we know, by any persons of that time, or for some ages afterwards. In the next place, you will consider the INTERNAL PROOF, from the history and genius, from the claims and views and pretensions of this Religion.

Under this _last_ head, you will particularly attend to the promises said to have been made by Jesus to his disciples; and to the manner in which those promises appear to have been made good: the promise of inspiration to the Apostles, and the evidence they afterwards gave of their being actually so inspired.

Above all, you will carefully inspect those books which contain the account of these and other momentous things, as well as the doctrines of Christianity itself; and you will see whether the _facts_ they relate be, any of them, contradicted by authentick history, or the _doctrines_ they deliver be repugnant to the first and clearest principles of human knowledge. You will next inquire whether these books, containing nothing but what is credibly or supposeably true, were indeed written by the persons whose names they bear, and not by persons of later times, or by persons of that time, whose authority is more questionable. You will, further, consider what _degree_ of inspiration these writings claim to themselves, and whether their claims have, in any instance, been discredited and confuted. You will, lastly, take into your account the _event_ of things, and will reflect how far the success of so great an undertaking has corresponded to the supposition of its having been divinely directed; if, in short, you can any way account for what you know and see to be clear and evident _fact_ on any other supposition.

Such, I think, is the outline of what must be thought the duty of a reasonable inquirer into the pretensions of Christianity. To fill up this sketch would require a volume: but you see from these hints that here is room enough for the exercise of the understanding, for the full display, indeed, of its best faculties. If Christianity, which invites, will stand the test of this inquiry, you cannot complain that Reason has not enough to do, or that your reception of it, as a divine revelation, is not founded on reason. Only, let me caution you against coming hastily to a conclusion from a slight or summary view of the particulars here mentioned. You must have the patience to evolve them all; to weigh the moment of each taken separately, and to decide at length on the united force of these arguments, when brought to bear on the _single_ point to which you apply them, the DIVINE AUTHORITY of your religion.

To grasp all these considerations in one view will require the utmost effort of the strongest mind: And, when you have done this, you will remember that very much (so widely extended and so numerous are the presumptions on this subject) has probably, nay, has certainly, escaped your best attention.

However, on these grounds, I will now suppose that a serious man, who would be, and is qualified to be, a believer on conviction, has fully satisfied himself that Christianity is true, and that the Scriptures, in which the whole of that religion is contained, are of divine authority.

II. A second and very momentous use of Reason will then be, To scrutinize these Scriptures themselves, now admitted to be divine; that is, to investigate their true sense and meaning. For, whatever their authority be, as they were written for the use of men, they must be studied, and can only be understood, as other writings are, by applying to them the usual and approved rules of human criticism.

I have already supposed, that you have seen enough of these Scriptures to be satisfied of their containing no contradictions to the clear intuitive principles of human knowledge. For this satisfaction must precede the general conclusion, that the Scriptures are divinely revealed; all truth being consistent with itself, and it being impossible that any evidence for the truth of revelation should be stronger than that of Intuition. Still, it remains to inquire of doctrines taught in these books, and apparently, as to the general sense of them, not inadmissible, what is their precise and accurate interpretation.

And here, besides the use of languages, antiquities, history, and such other helps as are necessary to the right understanding of all ancient books, you will have ample scope for the exercise of your sagacity in studying the character of the sacred writers, the genius and views of each, with the peculiarities of their style and method; in tracing the connexion of their ideas, the pertinence and coherence of their reasonings; in comparing the same writer with himself, or different writers with each other; in explaining the briefer and darker passages by what is delivered more at large and more perspicuously elsewhere; in apprehending the harmony of their general scheme, and the consistency of what they teach on any particular subject.

In all these ways, and if there be any other, your Reason may be and should be employed with all the attention of which ye are capable. And when this task is now performed, and you have settled it in your own minds what the true genuine doctrines of Christianity are; what our religion teaches of divine things, and what it prescribes to us in moral matters; What more remains to be done? Clearly, but this—To BELIEVE, AND TO LIVE, according to its direction.

But, instead of acquiescing in this natural and just conclusion, the curiosity of the human mind is ready to engage us in new and endless labours. “_The wise in their own conceits_ will examine this Religion, and see if it be REASONABLE: for surely nothing can proceed from Heaven but the purest and brightest reason.”

Here, _first_, they perplex themselves and others, by the use of an ambiguous term: for, by _reasonable_ is meant, either what is _not contrary_ to the clearest principles of reason, or what is _clearly explicable_, in all respects, by those principles. In the _former_ sense, it must be maintained that Christianity is a _reasonable_ Religion, and that no such contrariety to reason is to be found in it. In the _latter_ sense, it may be true that Christianity is _not reasonable_, I mean, that the reasons on which it is founded are not always apparent to us: but then this sense of the word is not pertinent to the case in hand; and we may as well pretend that the constitution of the natural world is _unreasonable_, as that the system of Revelation is so, because we are in the same ignorance, for the most part, of the grounds and reasons on which either fabrick is erected.

In the _next_ place, supposing that, by intense pains, and a greater sagacity than ordinary, we are enabled to see, or guess at least, in some instances, on what principles of reason the great scheme of revelation or some of its doctrines at least are founded, what do we get by the discovery? Only, the addition of a little speculative knowledge, which does not make us at all _wiser_ to salvation, than we were before, and possibly not _so wise_; since _knowledge_, we know, _puffeth up_, and _God giveth grace to the humble_.

But, _lastly_, how do we arrive at this supposed pre-eminence of wisdom? Generally, by forcing the word of God to speak _our_ sense of it, and not his; by taking advantage of some difficult texts, and by wresting many plain ones; by making every thing bend, in short, to our presumptuous fancies and preconceived opinions.

You see, then, what my meaning is—“That the EVIDENCE of Christianity, and not its _rationale_ (which, however justly conceived and ably executed, cannot extend so far as curious men require, because Reason itself is so limited); I say then that the _evidence_ of our religion is the proper object of inquiry;” and “that the _Scriptures_ are to be admitted in that sense which they obviously bear, on a fair unforced construction of them, although that sense appear strange to us, or be, perhaps, inexplicable;” in a word, that the AUTHORITY and RIGHT INTERPRETATION of Scripture are what we ought to look after, and not the REASONABLENESS of what it teaches.

THE TRUTH is (for I would now, in conclusion, point out to you the mischievous _effects_ of this curious theology, which has so much engaged the minds of Christians), the truth, I say, is, That we know not what we do, when we take heaven, as it were, to task, and examine a confessedly divine Revelation by the twilight of our Reason.

1. One effect is (and can there be a more dreadful one?) that this inquisitive humour, thus leads directly to _Infidelity_, and even _Atheism_. For _the wise in their own conceits_, not being able to clear up many parts of the divine dispensations, whether of nature or grace, to their satisfaction, hastily conclude that there _is_ no fitness or wisdom, where they _see_ none, and make their inapprehension an argument for their rejection of both. A perverse conduct, indeed! but so common, that I doubt whether there be any _other_ so fruitful source of irreligion. But

2. When the mischief does not proceed to this extreme, still it is no small evil, that heresies arise, and must for ever arise, among believers themselves, from this way of subjecting the word of God to the scrutiny of our reason. For this faculty, being a different thing, under the same name, in every pretender to it, and, in its most improved state, being naturally incapable, where the revelation itself is silent or obscure, of deciding on what is fit and right in the divine counsels, must needs lead to as many different views and conclusions, as there are capacities and fancies of curious men. And, as every man’s reason is infallible to himself, because his _own_ reason, his zeal in the propagation of what he calls _truth_, will keep pace with his presumption, till all is noise and dissonance and discord; till peace and charity forsake the world; till Religion herself disappears; and what is left to usurp her name and place is only an art, or rather a fit, of disputation. Then consider

3. How immense a sacrifice we make to the indulgence of a wanton curiosity. The Gospel was given to fix our faith and regulate our practice; to purify our hearts and lives, and to _fill us with all joy and peace in believing_. Instead of these substantial fruits, we reap I know not what phantom of self-applause for our ingenious speculations: we lose our precious time in reasoning, when we should act, and hardly ever come to an end of our reasonings: we grope on in these dark and intricate paths of inquiry, without ever attaining the heart-felt joy of conviction: we are so intent on _trying_ all things, that we _hold fast_ nothing: we spend a great part of our lives, some of us our whole lives, in suspense and doubt: and are so long examining what our _faith_ is, and whether it be reasonable or no, that, with a divine directory in our hands, we drop into our graves before we come to a resolution of those questions.

These are the sad effects of this intemperate wisdom, which therefore we shall do well to exchange for a little modest piety. And such has been uniformly the advice of the ablest and wisest men, from the foundation of Christianity down to this day. It would be endless to refer you to particular instances in their writings. Their sentiments on this subject are concisely and forcibly expressed in the following passage of as great a master of reason as hath appeared in the Christian world since the revival of letters, which I will therefore leave with you, and would recommend to your most attentive consideration.

“Rationibus humanis scrutari divinæ naturæ (and what he observes of the _divine nature_, is equally true of the divine councils) cognitionem, temeritas est: loqui de his, quæ nullis verbis explicari queunt, dementis est: definire, impietas est.” And again—“Satis est ad consequendam salutem æternam, ea de Deo credere, quæ palam ipse de se prodidit in sacris literis, per selectos ad hoc viros, spiritu suo afflatos; quæque post versans in terris ipse discipulis aperuit: ac demum per spiritum sanctum iisdem in hoc selectis discipulis patefacere dignatus est. Hæc simplici fide tenere, Christiana philosophia est: hæc puro corde venerari, vera Religio est: per hæc tendere ad cœlestis vitæ meditationem, pietas est: in his perseverare, victoria est: per hæc vicisse, summa fœlicitatis est. Cæterum HOMINEM ULTRA HÆC HUMANIS RATIONIBUS DE REBUS DIVINIS VESTIGARE, PERICULOSÆ CUJUSDAM ATQUE IMPIÆ AUDACIÆ EST[34].”

A

CHARGE

OF THE

BISHOP OF WORCESTER

TO THE

CLERGY OF HIS DIOCESE.

DELIVERED IN THE YEAR 1790.

A CHARGE, &c.

REVEREND BRETHREN,

It has been observed, that men of sense and parts are not always on the side of Christianity: And it is asked, how the unbelief of such men can consist with the honour of that Religion?

We find this topic insisted upon, or insinuated at least, with much complacency, in all the free writings of these times. And some of them, however offensive for their impiety, being composed with vivacity, and delivered in a popular style, gain more credit with unwary readers than they deserve.

It behoves us to be on our guard against those insinuations, and to prevent their having an effect upon others. It will not therefore be unsuitable to the design of our meeting, if I suggest to the younger part of you (for the elder and more experienced have no need of my instruction), if I expose in few words the _folly_ of inferring the falshood of religion from the rejection of it by a few plausible or learned men. And to give what I have to say the greater weight with you, I shall deliver my sentiments on the subject in a short comment on a remarkable text of St. Paul; who has indeed long ago obviated this prejudice, and fully accounted for the supposed _fact_, without derogating in any degree from the honour of our divine Religion.

For no sooner was Christianity published to the world, than it was opposed by all the wisdom of that age, which was, in truth, distinguished by its wisdom. But then it was _human_ wisdom only, confiding in itself, and wholly unacquainted with _divine_ wisdom. These were often at variance, and sometimes irreconcileable with each other. No wonder then, that _not many wise men after the flesh_, as the Apostle expresseth it, _were called_, i. e. converted to Christianity, and that the wisdom of Revelation was deemed _folly_ (as it is in our days, and as it always will be) by the idolaters of their own _carnal_ wisdom.

This early and popular prejudice, therefore, against the religion of Jesus, the great Apostle of the Gentiles found it expedient to remove. And he does it effectually in that oracular sentence delivered by him in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in these words;

“_The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them; because they are spiritually discerned[35]._”

The meaning of the words is clearly this: “That no man can, by the force of his natural understanding, however improved, discover the doctrines of the Gospel; nor even relish them, when they are proposed to him, so long as he judges of them by the light of his reason only: and that upon this account, _because_ those doctrines are solely derived from the wisdom of God, which is superior to our wisdom; and will even seem _foolishness_ to such a man, _because_ those doctrines are not such as his natural reason, or wisdom, would suggest to him.”

The text therefore, you see, consists of two distinct _affirmations_, with a _reason_ assigned for each. 1. That the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, _for_ they are foolishness unto him: and 2. that he cannot know them, _because_ they are spiritually discerned.

I begin with the _last_ of these assertions. I. That the natural man cannot _know_, i. e. discover, the doctrines of the Gospel, is so clear, that this assertion hardly requires any proof; or, if it do, the reason given in the text is decisive—_because they are spiritually discerned_—i. e. because the knowledge of them is derived from the spirit of God. For, how can man’s understanding penetrate the secrets of divine counsels? Or, as the Apostle himself manages the argument much better, _What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God._

II. His other assertion—_That the natural man receiveth not the things of God_, i. e. is indisposed to receive them—is more interesting to us, and will require a larger illustration. His reason for this assertion is, _For they are foolishness unto him_. The reason is very general, and therefore obscure: for you ask how or whence is it, _that those things are foolishness unto him_?

I answer then, 1. because, _he could not discover them_. It is argument enough, many times, with the natural man, to reject any doctrine, which his own sagacity was unable to find out. For, taking for granted the all-sufficiency of human reason, and that what is knowable of divine things is within the reach of his own faculties, he concludes at once that such doctrines as he could not have discovered are therefore false. If it be only in matters of human science, a discovery, which very much transcends the abilities of common inquirers, is for that reason ill-received and slighted by many persons. Much more may we suppose this prejudice to be entertained against discoveries which no human abilities whatever could possibly have made.

But 2. a further reason why such things are thought _foolish_ by the natural man is, because they are widely different from his notions and apprehensions. He was not only unable to _invent_ them himself; but, when proposed to him, he cannot see how they should merit his regard, being so little suited, as they are, to the previous conclusions of his own understanding. Now this prejudice is of great extent; and is almost natural to the pride of human reason.

For, supposing a divine Revelation to be given at all, men form to themselves certain notions of what it must needs be; and finding that it does not correspond to those notions, _they receive it not_, i. e. they conclude it to be unreasonable.

Thus, _one_ man imagines that the Gospel could be only a republication of the law of nature. He finds it is much more; and therefore, without further search, infers its falshood. _Another_ man admits that the Gospel might be an extraordinary scheme for the advancement of human virtue and happiness: but then he presumes that these ends could only, or would best, be answered by a complete system of moral truths, and by making the future happiness of man depend upon moral practice only. He understands that the Gospel proposes to reform mankind by _faith_, and holds out its rewards only to such as are actuated by that principle. He rejects then a scheme of religion which so little accords to his expectations. A _third_ person allows that _faith_ may be the proper object of reward, but a faith in _God_ only: to his surprize he perceives that this faith is required to be in Jesus, the son of God indeed, but the son of man too, and in him _crucified_; that the Gospel supposes mankind to have been under the curse of mortality, and to be redeemed from it only in virtue of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. This strange dispensation is nothing like that which he should have planned himself: it is therefore disbelieved by him.

Thus it appears how the _natural man_ is disposed to think unfavourably of the Gospel, because its doctrines are not such as he should previously have expected. But another and more fatal prejudice misleads him. For

3. The things of the spirit seem _foolishness_ to the natural man, because on the strictest inquiry he cannot perhaps find out the reasons of them; and must admit them, many times, upon trust, as we say, or, in the language of Scripture, on a principle of _faith_ only. This experienced inability to search the deep things of God hurts his pride most of all. That the divine counsels are _beyond_ his discovery, may be true; that they should be _besides_ his first hasty expectations, may be digested: but that, when discovered and considered, they should yet elude his grasp, and not submit to be comprehended by his utmost capacity, this disgrace is insupportable to him. Yet such are the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Revelation. “The forfeiture of life and immortality, for all mankind, in consequence of one man’s disobedience,” implies a degree of rigour in the divine justice, of which he cannot understand the reason. On the other hand, “The restoration of that lost inheritance by the transcendent humiliation of the Son of God,” is an abyss of mercy which he can still less fathom. These two principles, on which the whole scheme of the Gospel turns, are not to be scanned by human wisdom, and must be admitted on the authority of the Revelation only. The natural man finds his reason so much discountenanced and abased by its fruitless efforts to penetrate these mysteries, that he has no disposition to _receive_, nay, he thinks the honour of his understanding concerned in _rejecting_, such doctrines.

4. The _fourth_ and last reason I shall mention (and but in one word) for the natural man’s unfavourable sentiments of revealed religion, is, That the wisdom of this scheme, so far as it may be apprehended by us, can only appear from considering the harmony of its several parts, or, as St. Paul expresses it, by _comparing spiritual things with spiritual_[36]; a work of time and labour, which he is by no means forward to undertake. So that, as, in the former instances, his indisposition arose from the _pride_ of reason, it here springs from its _laziness and inapplication_.

I omit other considerations, which indispose men for the reception of the Gospel; such I mean as arise from the perversity of the human _will_; because I confine myself at present to those only which respect the exercise of human _Reason_. Now it has been shewn, that this faculty, as it is commonly employed by those who pride themselves most in it, is unpropitious to Revelation—_because_, it cares not to admit what it could not discover—_because_, it willingly disbelieves what it did not expect—_because_, it is given to reject what it cannot at all, or cannot, at least, without much pains, comprehend. So good reason had the Apostle for asserting, that _the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God_!

Very much of what his been here observed of _Unbelief_, might be applied to what is so prevalent in our days, and is termed _Socinianism_: which, though it do not disown altogether the authority of revealed religion, yet takes leave to reduce it to a small matter, and to explain away its peculiar doctrines, by a forced and irreverend interpretation of Scripture. So that the difference is only this: the _unbeliever_ rejects revelation in the gross, as wholly inconsistent with _human_ reason; the _Socinian_ admits so much of it as he can bend, or torture into some conformity with his _own_ reason.

But I have considered this species of _Unbelief_ on a former occasion.

At present, I conclude, on the authority of the text now explained and justified, that no abilities whatsoever of the professed unbeliever bring any the least discredit on Christianity, because we know that the two inherent defects of the natural man, _pride_ and _indolence_, very fully account for his unbelief, without supposing any want of evidence or reasonableness in the Christian Religion.

Let it then be no discredit to the Gospel, that it requires _faith_, which is but another term for MODESTY, in its professors. With this amiable, and surely not unreasonable, turn of mind, the sublimest understanding will not scruple to receive the things of the spirit of God; without it, the natural man cannot receive them: _for_, as the Apostle declares, and this whole discourse testifies, _they are foolishness unto him_.

A

CHARGE

OF THE

BISHOP OF WORCESTER

TO THE

CLERGY OF HIS DIOCESE.

DELIVERED IN THE YEAR 1796.

A CHARGE, &c.

REVEREND BRETHREN,

The Christian Church has, in no age, been exempt from trials. The _faith and patience of the Saints_ have been successively exercised by persecution, by heresies, by schisms, by superstition, by fanaticism, by disguised or avowed infidelity, and sometimes by downright atheism.

In the midst of these perpetual changes, the duty of US, the Ministers of the Gospel, is one and the same, TO PREACH THE WORD, _in season and out of season_, that is, whether the circumstances of the time be favourable to us or not[37].

Concerning the _evidences_ of the Gospel, or the grounds on which our belief of it is founded, I say no more at present, than that they have been accurately considered, and set forth at large, by ancient and modern writers, and are in themselves abundantly satisfactory.

Taking for granted therefore, as we well may, the divine authority of our holy Religion, there can be no dispute about the obligation we are under to PREACH it with diligence. But this may be done in several _ways_: and it may be of use to consider in WHAT way we shall most effectually discharge that duty.

The Apostle delivers the whole secret in one word, when he ordains—IF ANY MAN SPEAK, LET HIM SPEAK AS THE ORACLES OF GOD. And my present business will be to unfold the meaning of this text, or rather to deduce the _consequences_ which naturally flow from it.

We are to _speak as the Oracles of God_: that is, as men, who have it in charge to deliver the will and word of God.

I. It follows then, FIRST, that we are to preach the Gospel SIMPLY AND PLAINLY; i. e. 1. to deliver Scripture truths, in opposition to merely human tenets and positions: And 2. cogent and immediate inferences from those truths, in exclusion of far-fetched and fanciful deductions.

1. Having a _message_ to deliver, our business is to report it with fidelity, and, as a message coming from _God_, with all imaginable reverence. Human ingenuity may be employed in other compositions, but has no place here. Our own fancies, and even persuasions, so far as they rest on our own discovery, must be kept distinct from revealed truths; and _the two sorts of learning, philosophy and divinity_ (as the wisest man[38] of the last age advised), _are on no account to be blended together_. The reason is, that they stand on different foundations; the one, on the use of our natural faculties, the other, on supernatural illumination only. The latter we call _Faith_; the former, _Opinion_, or, as it may chance, _Knowledge_.

Some regard must be had to this distinction, in discoursing on Christian _morals_, where Reason can do most. But, as to articles of _faith_, that is, the sum and substance of Christianity, properly so called, the rule is to be observed universally and inviolably.

2. It follows also, from our speaking as the _oracles of God_, That we take great care how we deviate from the sacred text, either in our conclusions from it, or in our glosses upon it. Our _conclusions_, unless immediate and direct, and even countenanced by the inspired writers themselves, may easily mislead us. For the nature of the subject being not at all, or very obscurely, known, we have but a dim view of the truths necessarily connected with it. Great caution, then, is in this respect necessary. It is not less so, in _explaining_ the sacred text. An oracle of God should be delivered either in its own words, or, at least, in words clearly, and according to the best rules of interpretation, explicatory of them. The contrary practice is evidently irreverent, rash, and even prophane. Had this circumspection in reasoning _from_ revealed truths, and in commenting _upon_ them, been strictly observed, all those heresies which have corrupted, and still corrupt the faith, had been prevented; and the Church of Christ had happily enjoyed the great blessing we daily pray for, _The unity of the spirit in the bond of peace_.

II. It follows, in the next place, from our being instructed to _speak as the Oracles of God_, that we preach the truths of the Gospel AUTHORITATIVELY, in exclusion of doubt or hesitation.

This is a consideration of great weight, and puts a wide difference between the Christian preacher and the theoretical discourser. When weak men have no ground to stand upon in their moral or religious enquiries but their own industry and ingenuity, they may well suspect the soundness of their conclusions, and had need deliver them with distrust and caution. But the word of God is unquestionable. What is built upon it is certainly true. Our modesty therefore suffers nothing from announcing truths, so derived, with perfect assurance[39].

The advantage of this mode of preaching must be obvious to every body. It was observed by the Jews in the case of our Lord himself; who, _speaking as the oracles of God_, and as _God_, astonished his auditory, for that _he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes_[40]: as having _authority_, because he uttered nothing but infallible truth, which he had received from God, and had even a right to deliver in his own name; and not as the _Scribes_, who might indeed have spoken with authority, if they had duly respected the Law of Moses, which was the Law of God; but had forfeited this advantage by the liberty they took of mixing with it their own glosses and traditions[41]. A perpetual and awakening admonition to the Christian preacher never to forget or betray his high privilege of speaking with that tone of authority which becomes his office, and commands attention[42].

This authoritative mode of preaching requires that we carefully avoid, in our public discourses, whatever has the air of CONTROVERSY[43]. Our business is to speak undoubted truths, not to dispute about uncertain opinions. There are many points, no doubt, relative to the Christian Religion, besides the evidences of it, that may be properly inquired into, but not in our Churches. We are to press _there_ only what we know to be true, and to press it _for that reason_. Let such persons, then, as are curious to pry into abstruse questions, have recourse to the _Schools_, where such discussions are in their place; or to _Books_, where they may be regaled with this sort of entertainment to satiety. But let them not carry this sceptical humour into that _Chair_, whence oracles only should proceed.

The preacher will indeed say, his design is to recommend and illustrate the truth by the use of reason. It may be so: but let him remember, that _the plainest truths lose much of their weight when they are rarefied into subtleties_[44]; and that what is readily admitted on the authority of God’s word, becomes doubtful to the common hearer, when we would prove it by ingenious argumentation.

To compleat the character of a Christian Preacher, it follows as a

III. Third inference from the Apostle’s rule of _speaking as the oracles of God_, That he inculcate his doctrine with EARNESTNESS and ZEAL, and not with that indifference which is usually found, and cannot be much wondered at, in a teacher of his own inventions.

The Christian preacher should, I say, speak with _earnestness_; that is, with a solicitous concern to instruct and persuade, such as the known truth of his doctrine warrants. This earnestness must also be attended with _zeal_; by which I mean nothing extravagant or fanatical; but such a fervour of application as must become an Instructor, who, besides the certainty, knows the _moment_ of what he utters.

These rules, it is true, were not unknown to the ancient masters of Rhetoric, who told their scholars, That to _convince_, and, much more, to _persuade_, they were to speak with force and warmth. But to do this, they were first to be convinced and persuaded _themselves_[45]; which, in their case, was no easy matter. For the principles they went upon in their reasoning on moral or religious matters, were frequently such as they could not confide in; or the end they aimed at, in applying to the passions, was in no high degree interesting. In spite of the rule, then, their discourses were often feeble and unimpressive. It is quite otherwise with the Christian preacher. For we are not recommending a scheme of notions which we have framed out of our _own heads_, or which we think in some _small_ degree conducive to the benefit of our hearers. But we speak that which is _indisputably_ true; and inforce that which, out of all question, concerns us most, “The salvation of our souls, and eternal happiness.” The coldest heart must be touched with sure truths, and cannot impart them without vehemence.

I intimate, rather than express, my meaning to you in few words; both because the time allows me to do no more, and because I know to whom these hints are addressed. For your experience in the ministry of the word must have prevented me in all I have _said_, and will readily supply what I have _omitted_ to say. I assure myself, therefore, you will come with me to this short conclusion, “That in our sermons we should execute our commission with FIDELITY, because it is _a commission_—in the way of AUTHORITY, because it is a _divine_ commission—and lastly with ZEAL, as knowing the _end_ of our commission, and the infinite importance of it.”