vice. At the same time it must be observed, that this perversion of the truth is no invention of modern date, but is coeval with the truth itself. We read of those who, in the days of the Apostles, turned the grace of our God into lasciviousness;' (Jude iv.) abused their christian liberty to fleshly purposes; and held the detestable maxim of continuing in sin, that grace might abound.'” (p. 12.) "But are we to oppose these perverters of the glorious Gospel of Christ, by insisting less fully or less frequently on that essential point, which they make the subject of their abuse? By way of providing an antidote to the poison which they disseminate, are we to preach that good works make any part of the grounds on which we are accounted righteous before God, and thus extol our own unprofitable services, as coessential with the meritorious obedience of Christ himself? Are we thus to deliver our hearers from the dangers of Antinomianism, by leading them into the no less dangerous principles of self-righteousness? (p. 14)

"And yet is there not a danger of our acting thus? Are we not in danger of being induced to bring forward this doctrine less frequently than we ought to do; or at least to present it to our hearers, in so crippled and mangled a form, so confounded and intermingled with the imaginary merit of our own works, as to obscure its lustre and destroy its spirit? But was it in this manner that St. Paul defended his doctrine against similar perversions? No. He did not recede in the slight est particle from his position: but he denied the conclusions which were drawn from it. He contended that the doctrine which he taught of justification by faith alone,so far from weakening the obligations to morality, streng thened and confirmed them; and furnished the most exalted and efficacious motives for universal holiness. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.' (Rom. iii. 31.)

1.) In short, while we contend, with even Antinomian Zeal, that by grace we are saved through faith;' (Ephes. ii. 8.) that we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (Rom. iii. 24) at the same time let us maintain, with apostolic energy, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.' (Heb. xii. 14.) (p. 15-18)

"I would call your attention to another fundamental doctrine of our religion, the renewal of the heart to holiness by the spirit of God. This, like the former, has been and still is the subject of much abuse. Designing or deluded men have taken occasion to set up feeling as the standard of truth; and to substitute lively and rapturous affections in the room of practical piety and rational devotion.

But how are they to be opposed? Will it be best done by rushing into the contrary extreme? Shall we counteract these pernicious tenets, by declaring, that there is no such thing as a renewal of the heart to holiness by the spirit of God? Shall we counteract them by maintaining, as some have incautiously asserted, in opposition to the plain deductions of reason, the stubborn testimony of facts, and the positive declarations of Scrip. ture, that nothing more is meant by this and similar expressions, than a conversion from judaism or heathenism, a baptismal regeneration, or an outward reformation of life?* Is not this to maintain that Simon Magus himself was renewed in the spirit of his mind (for he believed and was baptized.') (Acts viii. 13.) in direct contradiction to St. Peter, who pronounced him, notwithstanding this outward profession, to be yet in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity; and to have neither part nor lot in this matter, because his heart was not right in the sight of God? (Acts viii. 21. 23.) (p. 18-20.)

"As a third illustration of this subject, I would instance those false and mischievous opinions, which are sometimes advanced concerning the teaching influences of the Holy Spirit of God, and the utter inutility of all human learning in the attainment of divine truth. (p. 25)

"Let us remember to maintain that the Holy Spirit alone is the author and giver of all spiritual light; and that it is he only who can guide us into all truth."

We rejoice to find that the Antijacobin Review has spoken of this Sermon in very favourable terms, (Antijac. Rev. for Oct. 1802, p. 188) and has particularly pointed out what Mr. Cooper has said on the subject of "Justification by faith alone," and "the renewal of the heart to holiness, by the Spirit of God," as sound, forcible, impres sive, and judicious. Certainly no advice could be more seasonable, or managed with greater delicacy, than that which is conveyed in these pages and the necessity of address adds an emphasis to the admonition, which ought not to be overlooked.

We very sincerely wish that the

principles which Mr. Cooper inculcates, guarded as they are on each side, may become the universal characteristics of the ministers and members of the English Church. We are well persuaded that Enthusiasm and Antinomianism gain a great advantage from every disposition in those who stand opposed to them, to depart into a contrary extreme; and that the zealous propaga tion of truly evangelical doctrines affords the best means of promoting Christian unity in the land, and of both strengthening the foundations, and enlarging the pale of the Church. How much is it to be lamented, that men, like Mr. Cooper, should sometimes be charged with being themselves the very enthusiasts whom they so ably and successfully endeavour to counteract.

We are not aware of being under any obligation to lay before our readers all the unfounded objections of dissatisfied authors, whose works may have passed under our review. Indeed the labour would be endless, for we often find that even where general expressions of diffidence and conscious inability are strongest, if the Reviewer should unfortunately particularize but one fault, he is sure to wound the self-love, and to provoke the enmity of the author. We depart from our usual rule in inserting the following letter from Mr. Bogue, because it gives us an opportu"nity of making some additional remarks on that gentleman's valuable Essay on the Divine Authority of the New Testament: and we trust they will meet with some attention, both from him and from the Society at whose expense it is to be circulated in France. We have subjoined a few notes, which will enable the reader to form a judgment of the merits of the case as he proceeds.

SIR,

To the Elitor of the Christian Observer.

A friend of mine has put into my hands a review of An Essay on the New Testament, which I lately published. As Christ. Observ. No. 11.

to the sentiments you entertain of the skill and ability with which it is written, I have nothing to say or to object. Reviewers, like other men, have a full right to judge for themselves and to declare their judgment. But if in addition to this they impute to an author sentiments which he does not hold, and does not express; and then argue against these opinions, and represent them as false and dangerous to the peace of society, they do a manifest injury to his character, both in the world and in the Church of God: an injury which the common influence of natural justice, much more the powerful energies of Christianity, when they are felt, will make them willing to repair.

I am sorry, Sir, to be under the necessity of bringing this accusation against you. I do not charge you with misrepresentation; I only say it was a mistake or misapprehension of those, who, as will appear from the sequel, had never entered so deeply into the consideration of the subjects as critics ought.

There are two questions respecting civil government, perfectly distinct from each other; the one respects its constitution, the other, the precise limits of authority and obedience. The

5 B

first only came in my way. From a variety of causes, infidels both in France and England, are ready to assert, that Christianity is the friend of despotism, and the enemy of liberty; that it authorizes rulers to treat their subjects just as they please; and while it binds down the people to subjection, it gives a license to rulers to act according to their will.

In answering to this objection, I endeavoured to shew, that the New Testament, in conjunction with the Old, lays the foundation of civil government in justice resting on this basis, I urged, that every species of injustice must be displeasing in the sight of God; that an unjust government is contrary both to his nature and will; and that no man, whether ruler or subject, can plead authority from God to act unjustly, either by oppression or rebellion; and that no length of time can give a prescriptive right to any man, or class of men, to act contrary to the rules of justice and equity. In confirmation of these sentiments, I observed, that in all the domestic relations on both sides, of parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and servants, duties are pointed out and enforced with

*The charge preferred against us by Mr. Bogue, is a serious one; but we apprehend that nothing more is requisite in order to refute it, than to lay before our readers the pas. sage in our work which has called forth his animadversions.

While, however, we cannot but cordially applaud the well tempered zeal and sound piety, which are generally displayed throughout this Essay, we should deem it a dereliction of our duty, were we to omit animadverting upon the Author's erroneous representation of the sentiments of the Apostles on the subject of Civil Government. In answering a supposed objection made to the Christian religion, as favourable to despotism, and inimical to civil liberty, he observes, (p. 208.) "But let us hear the New Testament speak for itself; and it speaks with plainness and fidelity, and yet with a delicacy suited to the age in which it was written, and to the jealousy of the govern ments which then existed. (See Rom. xiii. 1.) Civil government, it says, is an ordinance of divine institution: this means, it is the will of God that men should not live as the beasts of the field, without control; but that they should be formed into societies regulated by laws; and that these laws should be executed by magistrates appointed for the purpose.

equal precision, and with equal authority.

In ecclesiastical relations between ministers and congregations it is the same. I argued from a clear analogy, that we might naturally expect this would be the case in the relation referred to in the objection, namely, between rulers and subjects. I quoted the passages in the New Testament where these two relations are mentioned, and I argued from them, that rulers and subjects are under equal obligations to perform the duties incumbent on them towards each other; that rulers are as much bound to be ministers of God to the people for good, and to be a terror to evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, as the people are to be subject to their authority, and to pay tribute. And that both rulers are bound

to govern justly, and the people to be subject to them, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and that if the rulers did not govern in righteousness, and the people refused to be subject to them, they would both receive to themselves condemnation from a righteous God, as being both transgressors of his holy law.*

Such is the substance of my answer

What kind of government and what kind of rulers are designed, the writer particularly specifies..." They are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil-They are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing;" i. e. their talents and their time are all employed in this great and good work. Such is the government which the New Testament describes; and such are the governors to whom it enjoins subjection." And he proceeds to add, that whoever refuses to be subject to such a government, and to give high respect to such rulers, and to pay them tribute, resists an ordinance of God which is both reasonable and beneficial, and deservedly receives to himself condemnation.

.

very angry. If you could have shewn that I had made some duties incumbent on magistrates which the New Testament does not enjoin, and which they are not bound to perform, and that I have excused subjects from the performance of certain duties towards their rulers, which they are commanded by the New Testament to do,* you would have just cause to condemn me as perverting the word of God. But no charge of this offence appears in your critique. If then I fairly stated the obligations and duties of magistrates and people,† and shewed that both were enforced with equal authority, and, by equal sanctions, and without respect of persons, whether rich or poor, great or small, I

maintain, that in all cases God must be obeyed rather than man: and that whenever he commands, even of our lawful rulers require us to act in opposition to the express will of God, we ought, rather than comply, to endure any extremity of suffering. This reserve we are taught to make, not only by the words of the Apostles (Acts v. 29.), but by their example also, as well as that of the whole army of martyrs. We contend, however, that no other exception can be fairly deduced from the New Testament.

Had Mr. Bogue quoted the entire passage, he would have furnished his readers with prima facie evidence of the futility of his reasoning. Why has he not given the Apostle's words, instead of his own forced construction of them? Let us insert what he has omitted, and contrast it with his comment. (Rom. xiii. 1 and 2.) "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation." Again, (Tit. iii. 1.) "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers to obey magistrates;"and to the same effect in St. Peter's injunction, in his first Epistle, (ii. 13.) "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well." In these passages there are no exceptive clauses, no restrictions of the words to particular kinds of government, or to rulers of a certain character. When St. Paul so strongly commanded every soul to whom he wrote among the Romans, to be subject to the powers that be, no exception was inade of the government then existing at Rome, or of the then

There is a second question relative to civil government, quite distinct from the former; were I to state it in both its points, the first would run thus"How far are rulers bound by the law of God to bear with their subjects, when the subjects do not perform their duty?" But let the consideration of this be postponed,and the other only be brought forward, namely" How far subjects are bound to obey their rulers, when the rulers do not perform their duty to their subjects?" This is a piece of casuistry which lay quite out of my way; I had not the shadow of a reason to en

reigning emperor. And yet, if the character either of the government, or of the person administering it, could be pleaded as an exemp tion from the obligation of this command, it might well be argued that the government of Rome under Nero was of that description. But, as if to silence for ever such reasonings as those of Mr. Bogue; it is even under the despotic government of Rome, it is even under Nero, one of the most cruel, unjust, and despotic of Rome's tyrants, that Christians are commanded, on pain of condemnation, to be subject unto the powers that be; and that, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake? Christ. Observ. No. 2, p. 113, 114.

We agree with Mr. Bogue, that rulers are bound in the sight of God to administer justice to their subjects But we deny that subjects, are enjoined in scripture to pay obedience only to such as do; a doctrine which, if there be any meaning in words, is fairly implied in Mr. Bogue's reasoning. Mr. Bogue admits that there is a clear analogy between the case in question and the case of parents and children, and masters and servants. But would Mr. Bogue think it right to limit the obedience of children to such parents as discharged properly their parental duties, or to direct servants to be subject only to the good and gentle, and not to the froward also? Our readers will be able to judge a perusal of this note, whether we have imputed to Mr. Bogue "sentiments which he does not express." Whether he does in reality bold them or not, is a point which we had no means of knowing, except from his expressions.

* We conceive that we have done this, inasmuch as we have shewn that Mr. Bogue affixes an unscriptural limitation to the duties which subjects owe to their rulers.

We do not think that Mr. Bogue has fairly stated the obligations of subjects, either in his essay or in this explanatory letter.

ter into the consideration of it, and I must have dragged it in forcibly by the head and shoulders, if I had brought it, to be the subject of discussion.*

It is no peculiar or distinguishing question between Christians and Deists, and therefore lay quite out of my sphere, when arguing in defence of the gospel.t

But this question, which you appear to confound with the former, you bring forward; you represent me as treating upon it, you accuse me of holding false opinions and dangerous errors concerning it, and hostile to the peace of society, which you loudly call upon me to retract. This charge, Sir, permit me to say, must proceed either from great inattention or want of candour; because I made a distinction between this and the former question, in express terms. (p. 208.) "What the gospel may enjoin individuals to bear for the sake of peace, and from a principle of forbear ançe, is another thing; but that is not the question before us." After so plain a declaration, how could you possibly bring so severe a charge against me? Does such conduct reflect honour on you as critics?

* But if this question lay out of the way of a direct discussion, Mr. Bogue ought not to have indirectly decided it, in a way which we think we have shewn to be inconsistent with the scriptures to which he refers.

Here we differ from Mr. Bogue. The point at issue is certainly a peculiar and distinguishing question between Christians and the Deists or Atheists of France, who have pro. fessed, among many other unscriptural tenets, to hold that of the sacred right of insurrection.

What may have been the professed object of Mr. Bogue's consideration is perfectly unimportant. All we meant to say was, that, in considering it, he has introduced unscriptural, sentiments which we deem unscriptural.

Our objections to Mr Bogue's doctrine are by no means lessenew by this quotation. We gave it as our opinion, that Scripture enjoins an unqualified submission to civil rulers, and we blamed Mr. Bogue for giving a different view of the subject. Mr. Bogue accuses us of misrepresenting his sentiments, and yet he here introduces language which serves still more to qualify the injunction. It is for the sake of peace, it is from a principle of forbearance that Christians are to bear with their rulers, according to Mr. Bogue. Apply this

But what renders your treatment still more improper is, that in the concluding paragraph of the preceding section, I had expressed my sentiments concerning the spirit of the gospel in words which could not be mistaken, .(p. 206.) "That Christians make not the noise of those who sack cities, and desolate countries, and spread far and wide the work of destruction, is certainly not to their dispraise. Their method of reforming the world, and ameliorating the condition of man, is not by brute force, but by implanting in the heart the sentiments of knowledge and of goodness, the fruit will be certain felicity. Christianity does all her works, and effects all her purposes, by means of principles. She employs, and she permits no other way besides."||

Let the impartial part of mankind judge, whether these sentiments are hostile to the peace of society, and what there is in them to recant, according to your earnest entreaties; at the same time I will boldly affirm, there is not one idea in the book which a man, who understands the subject, will say militates against these ideas.¶

D. BOGUE.

rule, however, to the case of parents and children, and its insufficiency will immediately appear But is not the command to obey our rulers, as absolute and unqualified as the command to obey our parents?

This quotation seems introduced for the purpose of blaming all wars, even wars of self defence, for it makes no distinction; but we do not see that it is connected, in the most remote degree, with the question under consideration the duty of submission to civil governors.

We have avoided entering farther into an examination of Mr. Bogue's letter, than was requisite to our own vindication, although the intelligent reader who compares it with the whole of sect iii chap. 8. of the Essay, and with our critique No 2 p. 112, will perceive that there was much room for further comment.

Our readers, we trust, will see the propriety of our taking this opportunity of animadverting upon another sentiment in Mr. Bogue's Essay, which escaped our notice when we first perused it. In order to prove that "the New Testament conveys more improvement than any other book,” a proposition in which we most cordially concur, he observes, "The argument will derive still more weight from the consideration, that the whole mass of truth