the condition of society. Going back into past ages, and becoming, as it were, a citizen of Athens or of Rome, making himself familiar with all that can be known of their manners, morals, religion, and political institutions, entering their schools to listen to the teaching of their philosophers, and their temples to observe their rites of worship, he will perceive how much the imagination has often disguised their moral depravity, their ignorance, and their miseries; and will return to offer up thanks to God in a Christian church, that he was born among Christians.

The proper office of religious belief is the formation of character. Our faith teaches us, that we shall be happy or miserable in the future life, as we have done good, or done evil in the present. But what is good? what is virtue? These are inquiries which the theologian has to answer. It may be said, perhaps, that as far as regards practice, they are easily settled. When the question is merely, whether some particular action be lawful or not, this, I allow, is easily settled, in the great majority of cases of common occurrence, by one who will not let his passions

triumph over his judgment. But, at the same time, it is not to be forgotten, that different nations, different sects of Christians, and different individuals have held opposite opinions upon many subjects of morals of no small practical importance. You think religious persecution, a profanation of the name of Christianity, and an outrage upon the first principles of natural justice. But a little more than a century ago, it was thought to be one of the first duties of a Christian community, and there was not a Christian community in the world by which this duty was neglected. I certainly do not mean to question the correctness of the decided opinion and strong feeling, which we all now have upon this subject; but if any one be in the habit of ascribing a very high value to the authority of the church, it may startle him to recollect, that he has the authority of all Christendom against him from the fifth century to the end of the seventeenth. The question respecting persecution we may now indeed regard as at rest. But there have been many other mistakes in the Christian world as gross, though not quite as mischievous. Every one acquainted with ecclesiastical his

L

tory knows, that very erroneous opinions have prevailed respecting the nature of Christian perfection, or in other words, respecting the nature of moral virtue. They have prevailed, and they still exist in a greater or less degree at the present day. There are too, at the present day, questions of no small practical importance, relating to particular points of morals, which are agitated among us. Some Christians, entitled to much respect for their virtues, deny the right of defensive war. There are, to give another example, some who allow a license in interpreting promises, affirmations, and oaths, which appears to others in a high degree criminal; and who main tain, for instance, the lawfulness of professing to believe articles of faith which they do not believe. The nature and extent of the duties of active benevolence, of those duties which require something to be done, in contradistinction from those which require something to be avoided, are very imperfectly understood. Different men have different notions of right and wrong, and estimate very differently the requisitions of duty; and they adopt in consequence very different modes of conduct. As it respects the principles of morals,

there is still less agreement than with regard There are moralists, who

to the practice.

contend that some one particular motive, which they select from all others, is in every case necessary to constitute an action virtuous. There are others, who allow that there are many motives which all partake of the nature of virtue. Those too who admit but one, differ most widely from each other as to the nature of this one; some, for instance, resolving all virtue into perfect selfishness, and others into perfect benevolence. With different opinions respecting morals, men may practise in a considerable degree alike; but it would be idle to contend, that their opinions have no influence upon their practice, and none upon their character and happiness. From the inseparable connexion, which I have stated, between theology and morals, it is the business of the theologian, as well as the moral philospher, to study the principles of the latter science, and to trace out their true bearing upon the conduct of men. He knows but little of the subject, who does not know that these are inquiries, which will try and task the understanding to its utmost strength. Morality is not to be determined

by our first impressions; nor is it a matter of intuitive judgment. We cannot be sure that all which we have been taught concerning it is true. It has been too hastily said that it is a science which admits of no discoveries. Morality is now better understood than in former times, and it will, we may believe, be better understood by our posterity, than it is by us.

The ultimate objects of a theologian should be to improve his own character, and the moral condition of his fellow men. But in order to effect the latter purpose, it is necessa ry to understand the human character. The complicated machinery of the mind is easily deranged; and no small mischief has been often produced by the ill directed attempts of the ignorant and violent to regulate and put it in motion. You have undertaken to be a guide to the erring, and an instructer of the ignorant. You have undertaken to lead men in the path of virtue and holiness. Take care that you do not repel them from it, or lead them astray. It is not so simple a work as you may imagine. A sentence may undo the effect of a sermon. It is the office of a theologian to administer the medicine of the