esteem your person with a preference, and listen to your doctrines with attention; methinks, for their sakes, ’tis pity to leave them, were the living of less value, as it is of more, than the other.  For, how many people are there who can benefit by one gentleman’s preaching, rather than by another’s; although, possibly, the one’s abilities may be no way inferior to the other’s?  There is much in a delivery, as it is called, in a manner, a deportment, to engage people’s attention and liking; and as you are already in possession of their esteem, you are sure to do much of the good you aim and wish to do.  For where the flock loves the shepherd, all the work is easy, and more than half done; and without that, let him have the tongue of an angel, and let him live the life of a saint, he will be heard with indifference, and, oftentimes, as his subject may be, with disgust.”

I paused here; but every one being silent—­“As to the earl’s friendship, Sir,” continued I, “you can best judge what force that ought to have upon you; and what I have mentioned would be the only difficulty with me, were I in Mr. Williams’s case.  To be sure, it will be a high compliment to his lordship, and so he ought to think it, that you quit a better living to oblige him.  And he will be bound in honour to make it up to you.  For I am far from thinking that a prudent regard to worldly interest misbecomes the character of a good clergyman; and I wish all such were set above the world, for their own sakes, as well as for the sakes of their hearers; since independency gives a man respect, besides the power of doing good, which will enhance that respect, and of consequence, give greater efficacy to his doctrines.

“As to strengthening of a good man’s influence, a point always to be wished, I would not say so much as I have done, if I had not heard Mr. Longman say, and I heard it with great pleasure, that the benefice Mr. Williams so worthily enjoys is a clear two hundred pounds a year.

“But, after all, does happiness to a gentleman, a scholar, a philosopher, rest in a greater or lesser income?  On the contrary, is it not oftener to be found in a happy competency or mediocrity?  Suppose my dear Mr. B. had five thousand pounds a year added to his present large income, would that increase his happiness?  That it would add to his cares, is no question; but could it give him one single comfort which he has not already?  And if the dear gentleman had two or three thousand less, might he be less happy on that account?  No, surely; for it would render a greater prudence on my humble part necessary, and a nearer inspection, and greater frugality, on his own; and he must be contented (if he did not, as now, perhaps, lay up every year) so long as he lived within his income.—­And who will say, that the obligation to greater prudence and economy is a misfortune?