"It is by no means their intention to en

force those provisions of the law which, from the evident change of manners, may be considered as obsolete, or to shock the feelings of modern life by attempting to circumscribe those ordinary gratifications, which the enlarged freedom of the present times has sanctioned and prescribed." It is necessary" to distinguish between those gross or unbecoming irregularities, which at all times threaten the well being of society, and those acts which former times

have considered as aberrations from rectitude," ""but which the refinement of modern life admits as practicable or indifferent." "Indecency, at one period of civilization, is considered as decency in another." (p. 60-62.)

We have found it difficult to affix a precise meaning to these expressions. As far as we can understand them, they seem to intimate, that the society had judged it expedient to limit their attempts at reformation to the lower classes of the community. But this restriction, when we consider the influence of example, appears, even on the ground of expediency, to be highly questionable. Allowing, however, that it were politic to grant immunity to delinquents of the upper classes; was there any necessity for proclaiming it? If in the prosecution of vice, the society are to be restrained by a regard to "the allowed habits," "the feelings," "the refinement of modern life," and "the enlarged freedom of the present times;" is not this to depart from the purposes avowed in some other passages of their report? and having affirmed that the principles generally prevalent in the world are, in the highest degree, corrupt and unchristian, may they not be understood to intimate a design of respecting these very principles?

We have been led to fear, from the passage above alluded to, as well as from other parts of this address, that the society might be influenced to relax, in some degree, the sternness to their own principles, by a dread of the imputation of Methodism, that bugbear which leads many, who pro

fess a regard to religion, to reduce the principles and motives of Christianity to barren generalities, and deters them from boldly entering their protest against the vices of the higher ranks. We are far from meaning to insinuate, that this would be an unfounded apprehension. On the contrary, we are well persuaded, that no one, who engages cordially in promoting the interests of vital religion, though perfectly regular in his deportment and warmly attached to the Church, will escape the name of Puritan or Methodist from those who hate to be reformed. The address states in one place, that

"Religion, the main spring of moral action, if taught at all, is taught in so superficial and cursory a manner, that but few precise ideas are received into the mind,

and the heart remains callous and insensible to those peculiar motives which revelation proposes as the basis and incentives of morality: hence that morality which prevails is rather heathen virtue, improved from the stolen light of revelation, while the jewel revelation itself, whose faint ray illumines this gloom of heathen night, is past by, forgotten, and neglected." (p. 96.)

Let us then suppose, that a clergyman persuaded of the truth of the above statement (which we fear is too true), and affected by the prevailing disregard to religion complained of in the report, should zealously endeavour to awaken those " whose hearts are callous and insensible;” that lamenting the "superficial and cursory manner" in which religion is taught, he should preach with all earnestness that repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, form the only true "basis," and the love of God and the hope of his favour the only true "incentives" of Christian "morality;" or that, following the steps marked out by this society, he should attack the mass of Christian professors as no better than "heathens;" and affectionately urge them, if they would escape from the wrath to come, to place no dependance on a participation of the sacraments or an attention to the external observances of the Church, but to seek the end for which alone these were instituted, the renewal of the hearts in holiness: what would be the effect? Could he avoid incurring the charge of methodism? We would not, however, be understood to intimate the most distant disapprobation of a zeal on the part of the society to

guard against religious enthusiasm. We conceive it to be their duty. But we would remind them, that as there are fanatics in religion so also there are fanatics in politics and morality, and that to adopt any immoral means of promoting a moral end, is that species of enthusiasm of which this society is, perhaps, in the most danger. We are led to this reflection by reports which have reached us, that the society had practically proceeded in their attempts to discover guilt, upon the principle of doing evil that good may come; a report which we should have been glad to have seen contradicted.

To conclude. We cannot but highly approve of the institution of this society: they have our best wishes and our prayers for the complete success of their plans of reformation. If, however, the voice of friendly admonition from us could reach or influence those who superintend its affairs, we should be disposed to say, that if they would emulate the success of former societies, they must tread in their steps: they must fearlessly avow themselves hostile to every sinful practice: they must scrupulously adhere to the scriptures as the guide of their conduct, and the measure of their principles: they must disclaim every substitute, however specious, or by whatever names it may be sanctioned in particular they must reject that dangerous principle of general expediency, which, pretending to enter into the designs of the Almighty, makes his laws of secondary authority, and supersedes the force of the most sacred injunctions.

XCIII. A Dialogue between a Minister of the Church and his Parishioner, concerning the Christian's Liberty of choosing his Teacher. By the Reverend THOMAS SIKES, M. A. Vicar of Guilsborough. London, Rivingtons. 1802.

A second Dialogue between a Minister of the Church and his Parishioner, concerning Christian Edification. By the same.

A third Dialogue between a Minister of the Church and his Parishioner, concerning Gospel Preachers, or Evangelical Ministers. Harborough, Harrod. 1803.

ALTHOUGH the last of these three tracts be anonymous, we suppose CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 17.

that we shall commit no error in ascribing them all to Mr. Sikes.

We have no wish to withhold from the author the just commendation of having written much that is valuable in itself, and at the present time deserving of peculiar regard. But when we extend our judgment to the whole of the contents of the dialogues before us, we feel ourselves under the neces sity of considerably qualifying and limiting our commendation. It would lead us into too much detail were we to notice every position which appears to us to be questionable: suffice it to say, that Mr. Sikes, in our opinion, would have employed his pen to much better purpose, had he undertaken only to prove that the laity ought not to leave their parish Church for another without the most weighty considerations. He even goes so far as to insist, that the relation between a minister and his parishioners is of the same necessary and indissoluble nature, as that which exists between a parent and his child.

But upon the question of the absolute illegality, upon any consideration, of leaving one's parish Church to repair to another, we leave Mr. Sikes to settle matters as he is able with Dr. Croft, who, in certain cases, is an advocate for the practice. See Anti-jacobin Review for 1803, page 188, and Christian Observer for 1803, page 170, &c.

We strongly suspect, but cannot certainly affirm, that the character of Mr. B is overcharged; and we might venture the same observation with respect to the still more extravagant character so graphically pourtrayed, Dial. iii. pp. 33-37. - Eut this we make no hesitation to assert, that to offer to the public such characters, as a general and faithful representation of the whole body of those, who are stigmatised as Gospel Preachers and Evangelical Ministers, is with difficulty to be justified even upon the most flexible principles of morality.

Mr. Day, as in the former they are a minister of the Church and his parishioner, Twilight. This author does not spare the weak side of Mr. Sikes's argument; but in some instances he seems to have pushed his advantages too eagerly, and to have betrayed himself into difficulties.

In this publication, as in the former, we are to seek for what was most wanted, and most to the purpose-an accurate statement of those causes which are, and those which are not, of sufficient weight and consideration to justify the laity in bestowing their attendance upon another, in preference to their parish Church.

The directly opposite sentiments of Mr. Sikes and Dr. Croft upon this subject, shew that the question involved in it is not easily to be decided by any party.

Authors, who take the side of the question, which it is the object of this pamphlet to defend, are generally represented as hostile to the Church: with how much justice the following quotations are adduced to determine, "The commission given to all priests is a high and heavenly commission; and this, doubtless, is the source of all their power and authority in the Church of God. Without receiving commission from the great head of the Church by ordination, it is an impious presumption in any man to meddle with the priest's office. Yet in these evil days, hordes of daring novices, that have nothing to recommend them but impudence, put on the clerical appearance, and would be considered as the ministers of religion. The most regular and pious part of Dissenters lament with us, to see men without ordination, or approbation of bishops or presbyters, without any regular call from God or man, take upon theinselves the office of public teachers. These meteors are not the lights of the world,

which blaze for a moment, and then are

lost in their native darkness. If any thing can bring ordination and the priesthood into contempt, it is the profligacy of priests, and the presumption of laymen, that will do it. Every real friend of religion will contribute all in his power towards supporting the honour of the Gospelpriesthood and ministry. To degrade the ministerial office, is to wound religion itself; and every thinking Christian will beware, that the enemies of Christ's kingdom, by whatever names they may be called, aim at nothing more, in the present day, than to bring the priestly office into contempt." (p. 33.)

"I have examined, with some care and pains, the very strongest pleas for dissent that have yet been made, and found them

fallacious. Nothing short of proving that the Church of England is not a Church of Christ, can justify a separation from her communion; and they who tear and divide the Church of God, take the most efit out from the face of the earth. fectual means in the power of man to blot Were I inclined to turn out of the established

Church to-morrow, I know not where to

go; for the Dissenters are not agreed, neither respecting doctrines, nor discipline, nor Church government: the different numerous denominations amongst them, are full as opposite to one another as they are to our Church. We cannot possibly believe they are all right: it is more natural to conclude that they are all wrong. When we see swarms leaving the Church of Engbut one right way, and that they choose land, and in leaving, plead that there is this; yet no sooner leave than they take different roads, some to the east, and some

to the west, some to the south, and others to the north, and every party crying as they go, We are right! Is this the way to convince us that they are so? God loves union, and hates confusion." (pp. 38, 39.)

Associations have so powerful, though an insensible, effect upon the mind, that we could have wished the author before us had chosen some other mode of overturning the principles of Mr. Sikes, than that of making a layman confute and discomfit his parish minister.

XCV. Plain Thoughts on the New Testament Doctrine of Atonement By JOHN SIMPSON, of Hackney. 8vo. pp. 91. London, J. Johnson. 1802.

We took up this pamphlet with the reasonable expectation, that, whatever might be its faults in other rewould, at least, be conducted with spects, so important a discussion temper and sobriety. We, however, We had scarcely turned over a page soon found ourselves disappointed. or two, when we were assailed by a rapid succession of intemperate and abusive expressions, which did not cease to offend our eyes and our patience, till we reached the conclusion of the pamphlet.

Although we could rely upon the lication for the proof of our assertion, most cursory inspection of this pubwe will save our readers the trouble of a reference, by transcribing a few (and only a few) of the expressions to which we allude. "Crafty and assuming priests" are very soon introduced (p. 3): the mysteries of our

religion experience as little mercy they are called "that complication of ignorance and falsehood," (p. 3): "priestly arrogance and spiritual demagogues," then make their appearance, (p. 5): creeds are "undigested crudities," (p. 7): we are again favoured with the introduction of "fraudful, proud, overbearing, avaricious priests," (p. 7): and human systems" are, throughout, the object of implacable and furious hostility. We do not think proper to try our readers' patience by any further detail of such expressions; but shall content ourselves with barely referring to a note at page 82, which will serve for a crown to the whole.

A work, in which so disproportionate an attention has been paid to this species of embellishment, will excite no very sanguine expectation of close and conclusive argumentation; and, indeed, he who peruses this pamphlet must feel a considerable degree of surprise at the extreme inacquaintance which the author discovers with the subject selected for discussion; at his recourse to arguments which have been repeatedly shewn to be futile, the vulgar and frivolous objections which he adopts, his misrepresentation of the opinions of his opponents, and his suppression of the strong body of evidence on which the commonly received view of the atonement is founded.

The discussion before us sets out with a fundamental error. Reason has a province assigned, and faculties ascribed to her, to which, even according to her own legitimate decision, she has no pretensions. On the subject of revealed religion she has three distinct offices, and no more -to determine its truth, to ascertain its meaning, and to submit.

We will state Mr. Simpson's hypothesis respecting the New Testament doctrine of atonement as briefly as we are able. He undertakes to prove, and flatters himself that he has proved, that "satisfaction by the death of Christ is not a doctrine of scripture,' (p. 77); nor was there "in it, any thing

رو

of the nature of substitution," (p. 34) ; "God loved his rational creatures, merely because they were his creatures,' (p. 27); and in the death and resurrection of Christ it was not his object to reconcile us unto himself, (p. 36.) The death of Christ has no efficacy ascribed to it, but that of qualifying him for his resurrection, and by that mean to afford an assurance to Christians of their resurrection, (pp. 31, 32.) It is only necessary here to point out to our readers the common fallacy, by which a part only is put for the whole of an effect. The assurance of our resurrection was, undoubtedly a part of the object of the death and resurrection of our Saviour, but the entire object comprehended much more. It appears likewise that our author, in his zeal to establish"a God all mercy," cannot, or will not, distinguish between the wrath which God manifests against sin, and his being "a wrathful incensed being." (p. 42.)

Mr. Simpson offers it as his apology for the present publication, that he had "never seen any thing written professedly on the subject, which appeared to him satisfactory," (p. 11.) Did we entertain the hope, that the force of reasoning would produce an impression upon his mind, we should presume to recommend to his perusal the elaborate work of Grotius De Satisfactione, and the equally elaborate, but more appropriate, Discourses on the scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice, by the Reverend William Magee, D. D. To us, these treatises are not rendered less "satisfactory" by the pamphlet of Mr. Simpson.

It is with pleasure, however, we do our author the justice to observe, that, in some respects, he does not proceed to the same excess as Dr. Taylor, and the Unitarians; and that he does not admit the opinion, that an hereditary faith and an external profession of Christianity supersede the necessity of personal conversion. (pp. 14-27.)

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. You have already received admoni

tions from more than one benevolent adviser, on the subject of your work. But no one of them, as far as I have

observed, has favoured you with any suggestions for the improvement of your style. I proceed, therefore, to offer you some useful information, respecting the rules to be observed, in order to the acquiring a fashionable, elegant, and beautiful style. It is possible that you may have heard, in the course of your (I fear) antiquated mode of education, that the most proper and eligible method of putting ideas into words, is to use such words as are natural, simple, suitable, and intelligible. But, Sir, this is a profound mistake. Perhaps you may tell me in reply, that this was the mode pursued and approved by Demosthenes, Cicero, and the many Greek and Roman orators and writers, who are the glory and boast of antiquity. To all this I have only one thing to say, and that is, that Demosthenes, Cicero, and all these Greek and Roman geniusses, knew nothing of fine writing. Yes, Sir, I say this, and I am bold to maintain it: and I moreover add, that it has been reserved to be the glory of a favoured band of literary optimates of the present age, to discover, establish, and adorn, a new code of phraseological regulations. From this system, which possesses respectability without antiquity; ingenuity, without complexity; delicacy, without feebleeness; lustre, without ostentation; and moral rotundity, without intellectual obtuseness*; I will extract three or four rules, and illustrate them by five or six examples, accompanied with seven or eight comments.

In the first place, Sir, it will extremely embellish your language, if you now and then give new terminations to old words-for instance, you may denominate an entertaining story an amusive tale;" or ascribe the evils of life to "deceptious causes. My next door neighbour, the schoolmaster, who is a knowing man in these matters, calls this practice Kainotelomuthism.

My second rule is, that you should aim at new, and heretofore unthoughtof, associations of adjectives with substantives. There is a law interdicting the connecting a man with his grandmother, &c. &c.; but, for* This with-and-without style is becoming extremely fashionable among the mimetic tribe of writers: and no wonder; for though the invention of it might require some little ingenuity, not an atom is necessary for the adoption of it.

tunately, there is no table specifying forbidden compacts between nouns substantive and nouns adjective. Here then is free range for a lively imagination. You may, therefore, astonish your readers, by telling them of "the equivoque of personal identity," "being beautifully unravelled by the help of collateral incident." And if you talk to them of "the course of social event," they will feel themselves as delightfully puzzled, to conjecture what "a social event" can mean, as if you proposed to them one of the most arduous charades to be found in the Ladies' Pocket-book.

Thus, again, should you have occasion to applaud a detail of the sufferings of a king and queen, or of a prince and princess; you may call it a very affecting portraiture of royal privation of nature's claims." How a privation of the claims of nature can be a royal deed, is a question, which will be enough to overwhelm moderate intellects. But you know, Sir, to astonish and perplex, is, according to my principles, an atchievement of the very highest order.

Again, I would suggest to you, as an admirable expedient for enlivening and improving your language, that you should aim at the frequent interspersion of certain little prettinesses of expression, which it is not easy to define, but of which it is happily very easy to give you some examples: for instance, you may inform your town and city readers, that "sylvan delights give a charm to rustic nature:" you may also enrapture the amateurs of tragedy and romance, by describing

"the tender pathos of catastrophe;" and by representing all the incidents of a history, as "hinging” upon "the ill-starred existence" of the hero of it. But if you would attain the ne plus ultra, the zenith, the north pole, the-what shall I call it? of exquisite amænity and felicity of phrase, you must sketch "a portrai ture" of " those flitting beings of folly, whose transient emanations of buckism glimmer their short day along the path of Bond-street."

The use of alliteration, as an embellishment of language, has been established so long, and sanctioned so fully, that it is unnecessary for me to say any thing in recommendation of it. I shall therefore content myself with hinting, that when, in imitation of some other reviewers, you proceed