merits and demerits of our friends, and acquaintance, fhould have given offence to the Christian Observer. But we feriously affure him that, if we had it in our power effectually to recommend to a bishopric, he is the laft person whom we fhould think of confulting with regard to the proper object of choice. Of the terms in which we spoke of Dr. Gleig's fermons our readers, and the public in general, muft judge; and we are happy to find that the character which we gave of them has met with the full approbation of those whofe approbation we are, on every occafion, moft folicitous to obtain. With regard to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of our religious fentiments, we moft willingly fubmit to be tried by the fame judges. We should blufh, we muft own, to be thought, for a moment, by any perfon of difcernment and fenfe, to have been bred in the fame school with the Chriftian Obferver; whose found doctrines confist of the rankeft Antinomianism, grafted on the impious tenets of Calvin; and whose churchmanship is proved by unceasing endeavours to unchurch the

nation.

What the Chriftian Obferver means by the "teftimony of fome recent events," we fhall not give ourselves the trouble to conjecture. The expreffion was probably intended only to enhance in the eyes of those who implicitly devour his poifoned morfels, the fuppofed importance of the Chriftian Obferver, by infinuating that he is intimately acquainted with the fecrets of our corps, to which he is, however, an abfolute stranger. As to the "r contrariety of fentiment which marks our pieces," and our being "compofed of individuals without any common principles to infure uniformity;" the public, we imagine, will be rather difpofed to believe that thefe imputations are true when the Christian Observer shall have proved their truth, than when he has fimply afferted it. He fays, indeed, that many proofs might be adduced of our inconfiftency;" but, in the article before us, he confines himfelf to two, relating to the two important doctrines which have formed the principal fubject of our prefent difcuffion. Thefe proofs it is incumbent upon us to examine.

In our Number for October 1802, (Vol. XIII. p. 187, &c.) we praised, as it deferved, a vifitation-fermon by the Rev. E. Cooper. Of the topics handled in that masterly fermon one was the importance of the doctrine of juftification by faith alone, which the preacher calls "a grand fundamental doctrine of the Gofpel." This doctrine, fays the Chriftian Obferver, is reprobated by Dr. Gleig: fo that the fentiments of these two divines on this fubject are, according to him, "diametrically oppofite." "The cafe," fays he, "admits of fuch a very concife and categorical statement, that we will give it. Mr. Cooper holds, that a man is juftified by faith alone. Dr. Gleig holds, that a man is NOT juftified by faith alone. The Anti-Jacobin Reviewers agree with them BOTH!!" He then favours us with a fcrap of Latin poetry, the intention of which, if we rightly comprehend it, is to prove that the Anti-Jacobin Reviewers are hermaphrodites.

"forma duplex, nec fœmina dici,

"Nec puer ut poffint; neutrumque; et utrumque, videntur."

To the Chriftian Obferver's display of his learning we can have no objection. We do not even grudge him the liberty, (fince it pleases him) of making a little merry with ourselves. We fhall not, however, be greatly furprized, should we hear that he has been "fmitten," by his brother

Kk4

Dr.

Dr. Haweis, with a fevere reprimand for being fo profane as to quote fuch heathen men.'

But what opinion muft our readers form of the honesty of the Chriftian Obferver, when we inform them that on the fubject of juftification by faith, there is not between Dr. Gleig and Mr. Cooper even the fhadow of a difference? Let us hear the manner in which the latter expreffes himfelf. Perhaps there is not one of the glorious truths of revelation, which is more frequently turned to a bad use, and made the inftrument of greater evil, than this. Men of corrupt minds have raised on it the most monstrous and abominable fyftems: not ashamed publicly to teach that, fince we are justified by faith alone, good works are no longer neceffary to falvation and thus not only weakening the obligations to morality and holiness, but even making that, which is the glory of the Gofpel, the avowed foundation of profligacy and vice." Mr. Cooper then obferves that this perverfion of the truth is no modern invention; though," adds he, " perhaps in no time has this Antinomian herefy been more. openly, and, it is to be feared, more fuccefsfully propagated, than in the prefent."

From these paffages it appears that of juftification by faith alone, as uniformly taught by the Chriftian Obferver and the fect of True Churchmen, Mr. Cooper is no lefs a ftrenuous oppofer than Dr. Gleig or ourfelves. We fhall now produce fome paffages to fhew in what fense the learned preacher underftands this fundamental doctrine of the Gospel. Because the doctrine has been abused, shall we therefore, he asks, abandon it?" By way of providing an antidote to the poifon, 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 fervices as coeffential with the meritorious obedience of Chrift himself?" No. "Let us contend, as earnestly as our opponents can do, that the merits of Chrift àre the only grounds of the finner's acceptance with God." But, "while we contend, with even Antinomian zeal, that by grace we are faved through faith} that we are juftified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Chrift Jefus;' at the fame time let us maintain, with Apoftolic energy, that without holiness no man fhall fee the Lord;' that as the merits of Chrift alone conftitute our title to eternal glory, fo in purity of heart alone confifts our meetnefs for partaking of the inheritance of the faints in light."

6

Our readers may now, perhaps, be difpofed to admire the impudence of the Christian Obferver in laying claim to the Rev. E. Cooper as the advocate of his own Antinomian principles. On the fubject of juftification by faith, Mr. Cooper's notions are precifely the fame with those of Bishop Bull, with thofe of Dr. Hey, with thofe of Dr. Gleig, with thofe of the Anti-Jacobin Reviewers, and, finally, with thofe of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, as explicitly declared in her incomparable Homily "Of the falvation of mankind by only Chrift our Saviour." In the very concife and categorical statement" on this point by the Chriftian Obferver, there is, therefore, a very confiderable mistake, which we fhall beg leave to correct. The cafe, when properly stated, ftands thus: "With regard to the doctrine of juftification by faith only, Mr. Cooper and Dr. Gleig entirely agree; and the Anti-Jacobin Reviewers agree with them BOTH.

"

The Chriftian Obferver's fecond proof of our inconfiftency is derived

from

from our calling on the Rev. E. Pearfon to explain a paffage in his “ Annotations on the Practical Part of Dr. Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philofophy." (See Vol. XIII. p. 263.) That call was, perhaps, expreffed in words too warm for the occafion. The Anti-Jacobin Reviewers do not pretend to be infallible. They were, perhaps, too hafty in fufpecting a latent evil tendency in the paffage quoted, from Bishop Butler, by Mr. Pearfon; though their evident anxiety, on the fubject, demonftrates how cautious they are of admitting affertions which but feem to carry with them a meaning contrary to the doctrines of our Church. Mr. Pearfon, however, with that candid politeness which can diftinguifh. folicitude for right opinions from a bigotted zeal to propagate wrong ones, vouchfafed the explanation required, which our readers will find in our XIVth Vol. Pp. 98, 99. This explanation appeared no less than fix months before our review of Dr. Gleig's fermons; a circumftance of which the Chriftian Obferver could not have been ignorant when he fumed to accufe us of cenfuring, in the cafe of Mr. Pearfon, opinions which we applauded in the cafe of Dr. Gleig. As Mr. Pearson's letter to us was published without any delay, and accompanied on our part with no animadverfions, the Chriftian Observer was bound to infer, that we were fatisfied with his explanation, and did not, on more mature deliberation, difapprove his fentiments: and of this he ought to have informed his readers. Of this letter one paragraph is fo peculiarly important that we wish it to be univerfally attended to; and as many, no doubt, occafionally fee the Anti-Jacobin Review who cannot turn to the volume in which it is contained, we have determined to re-print that paragraph.

pre

"My meaning was, and probably the meaning of Bishop Butler was the fame, not to deny the depravation of human nature by the fall, but merely to guard against thofe mifreprefentations refpecting it, which frequently occur in Calviniftic writers, and by which, at the expence of the gratitude due to the gracious Author of our being, they furnish men with excufes for their own voluntary faults. When, even in countries profefling Chriftianity, we fpeak of men as actually indulging in vicious courfes, we can scarcely make ufe of terms too ftrong for the occafion. I do not think that, in this fenfe, the corruption and degeneracy of the world' can easily be furpafied by defcription. For, while I have a better opinion of human nature than the Calvinifts have, I have, perhaps, a worfe of men themselves, even in what is fometimes mifcalled their fanctified state. Notwithstanding the many happy effects of the Gofpel revelation, the defcription, which St. Paul has given us of the heathen world, may with too much juftice be applied to the world as it is at prefent. But, when we fpeak of human nature as the divine workmanship; that is, when we fpeak of men as they are born into the world, before they fuffer themfelves to be corrupted by bad examples, or drawn away of their own lufts and enticed,' we ought to hold a different language, and to have regard to the caution which St. James has given us, not to caft the blame of our fins on our Maker. Though the image of God in man was defaced by the fall, it was not entirely deftroyed; and, if you had recollected that, fubfequently to the fall, and even to the deluge, the Scripture (Gen. ix. 6.) applies this honourable distinction to man, you would not have been fo indignant at Bishop Butler's application of it, nor have seen any reafon for difdaining to proceed." I adopted and recom

mended,

mended, then, the fentiment of Bishop Butler, becaufe I fuppofed him to have the fame notions refpecting human nature, as I fuppofe our Saviour to have had, when, fpeaking of little children, he faid, Of fuch

is the kingdom of God. Our Saviour urges on men the neceffity of converfion, in order to their becoming worthy members of that kingdom, from the confideration of their being fo unlike to what they were when they came into the world: Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye fhall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

66

The

Will the Chriftian Obferver fubfcribe to thefe notions, and particularly to those contained in the three laft fentences? If he will there is no difference, on this fubject at least, between him and us. But we venture to foretel that he never will; though he will find it, we prefume, no eafy task to convict them of heterodoxy. Thefe, however, are the notions of human nature which, wherever, in his volume of sermons, he has occafion to speak of it, are inculcated by Dr. Gleig. We may here, however, with propriety take notice of another inftance of the fhameless effrontery with which thefe evangelical "True Churchmen" knowingly mutilate, in order to diftort, the language of their opponents. Chriftian Obferver quotes with difapprobation an expreffion of Dr. Gleig, in which the Doctor, he says, "fpeaks of the mind being brought by reformation nearer to its original frate of purity." The Doctor's words are thefe: "On the contrary, we always confider his mind," the mind of a man who has reformed his ill conduct, 66 as, by fuch a reformation, brought nearer to its original state of purity, than it was when corrupted by his former bad habits." Does the Chriftian Obferver deny that this is true? He cenfures Dr. Gleig too for " introducing the text God made man upright,' as applicable to mankind in general, and as difproving the doctrine of the original depravity of our nature." To this accufa tion we have nothing to reply but only that when the Chriftian Obferver fhall have proved, by the context, or by any other proper medium of proof, that the text in question was not intended, by Solomon, to be applicable to mankind in general, or that it has any relation to the doctrine of original fin, we have little doubt that Dr. Gleig will retract his opinion, and become a convert to that of the Chriftian Obferver. It muft, however, be observed that this writer feems incapable of ftating any opinion of those who differ from him in a fair point of view, for Dr. Gleig exprefsly introduces the text, and difcourfes upon it, NOT for the purpose of difproving either the original or acquired depravity of our nature, but of proving that men's tranfgreffions proceed "from their own criminal inattention or deliberate perverfenefs."

We shall now take leave of the Christian Observer, at leaft for the prefent. Hereafter, indeed, we may, perhaps, be more attentive to his proceedings than we have hitherto been. His general principles, we have often been told, are deferving of the most unqualified reprobation; and the truth of this account we can readily believe: for, if the publication be uniformly confiftent, it is certainly one of the most dangerous and peftilent which were ever employed to pervert or corrupt the religious and moral fentiments of a people,

The

The Annual Review, and History of Literature for 1802. Arthur Aikin, Editor. Vol. I. Longman and Rees. 8vo. Pr. 978.

R

1803.

EVIEWS having been ufually published once in a month, readers are accufiomed to expect them at thofe ftated periods; and from that very cufiom, lefs difpofed to be favourable to periodical criticifin, that occurs either at fhorter or longer intervals. Hence a weekly paper, called the Sunday Review, and of which the object was criticifm as well as politics, foon loft its literary diftinction, and was obliged to fink into a common Sunday Newfpaper. We do not pretend to fay, that the term of thirty or thirty-one days, is, by nature and reafon, better fuited to a furvey of new publications than any other; but fuch being the common time, we look for fuch works at its expiration. The Edinburgh Reviewers attempted three months, and as their work is faid to have begun with fome appearance of fuccels, the Editor and proprietors have probably been thereby induced to extend the interval, and make the publication annual That project we are far from cenfuring as impracticable, and deem the eventual fuccefs neceffarily to depend on the plan and execution; we therefore fully admit it poffible, that there may be a very matterly Annual Review, if undertaken and executed by men of abilities and literature adequate to the task. The conductors of the work before us have acted very fairly and candidly, in prefixing the name of the Editor: the public is thereby certified, that whatever critical talents, erudition, and difcrimination, may be expected from the fuperintendance of Mr. Arthur Aikin, will be found in the Annual Review. At the fame time, we must confefs ourselves, when we read the title page, to have been somewhat at a loss how we were to afcertain the probable grounds of fuch expectations, as we really were not acquainted with the literary reputation of the gentleman in ueftion, and confequently the authority due to his name, or his qualifications for directing literary judgment. Dr. Aikin, and his talents and learning, we know as well as the purposes to which they were frequently applied: that gentleman, among his own fet, paffes, we are told, for an able and eloquent writer; and among impartial judges, as a pretty writer, without depth, ftrength, or range. Mr. Arthur Aikin, we understand, is his fon, and a good deal occupied about magazines and tranflations; but we knew no more of him, until we looked over the prefent work, for which he renders himself responsible. Now we are better able to appreciate his editorial powers, and to eftimate the fanction which fuch a production derives from the prefixed notification of " Arthur Aikin, Editor."

A very thort preface apologifes for the lateness of the publication: we muft candidly confefs we do not fee the neceflity of fuch an apology. If in other refpects meritorious, the publication is fufficiently early; sat cito, si sat bene. Our Editor pleads guilty to the charge of inexperience; we admit the modefty of fuch a confeffion, but not the neceflity that it fhould be true. Why fhould an Editor of a Review be inexperienced? Is the history and examination of learned works fo unimportant, that a man pro fessedly without experience thould undertake the task?

In reviewing this Annual Review, we fhall confider the plan and the execution; the former may, in fome degree, iuftrate the extent and accuracy of the Editor's views, how far he is acquainted with the compartments of literature; the refpective bearings and connections of the different

claffes,