conversation.  To warn them is not only lawful, but not to warn them would be criminal.  He may warn them, one by one, in friendly converse, or by a parochial visitation.  But if he may warn each man singly, what shall forbid him to warn them altogether?  Of that which is to be made known to all, how is there any difference, whether it be communicated to each singly, or to all together?  What is known to all, must necessarily be publick, whether it shall be publick at once, or publick by degrees, is the only question.  And of a sudden and Solemn publication the impression is deeper, and the warning more effectual.

It may easily be urged, if a minister be thus left at liberty to delate sinners from the pulpit, and to publish, at will, the crimes of a parishioner, he may often blast the innocent and distress the timorous.  He may be suspicious, and condemn without evidence; he may be rash, and judge without examination; he may be severe, and treat slight offences with too much harshness; he may be malignant and partial, and gratify his private interest or resentment under the shelter of his pastoral character.

Of all this there is possibility, and of all this there is danger.  But if possibility of evil be to exclude good, no good ever can be done.  If nothing is to be attempted in which there is danger, we must all sink into hopeless inactivity.  The evils that may be feared from this practice arise not from any defect in the institution, but from the infirmities of human nature.  Power, in whatever hands it is placed, will be sometimes improperly exerted; yet courts of law must judge, though they will sometimes judge amiss.  A father must instruct his children, though he himself may often want instruction.  A minister must censure sinners, though his censure may be sometimes erroneous by want of judgment, and sometimes unjust by want of honesty.

If we examine the circumstances of the present case, we shall find the sentence neither erroneous nor unjust; we shall find no breach of private confidence, no intrusion into secret transactions.  The fact was notorious and indubitable; so easy to be proved, that no proof was desired.  The act was base and treacherous, the perpetration insolent and open, and the example naturally mischievous.  The minister, however, being retired and recluse, had not yet heard what was publickly known throughout the parish; and, on occasion of a publick election, warned his people, according to his duty, against the crimes which publick elections frequently produce.  His warning was felt by one of his parishioners, as pointed particularly at himself.  But instead of producing, as might be wished, private compunction and immediate reformation, it kindled only rage and resentment.  He charged his minister, in a publick paper, with scandal, defamation, and falsehood.  The minister, thus reproached, had his own character to vindicate, upon which his pastoral authority must necessarily depend.  To be charged with a defamatory