many valuable characters who have diftinguished themselves in the civicchair. Sir Richard Carr Glynn, Sir John Eamer, &c. are among those late ones, who have juftly had their merits appreciated for preferving the peace, and not suffering it to be broken, as fome have done, with total unconcern. They were for keeping the Sabbath-day Holy, and not as the followers of Belial, blotting the ordinance from the calendar, and openly defying the laws both of God and man.

Here again, I feel happy that I am enrolled in a fociety by which vice is to be fuppreffed, not diffeminated by dangerous example. The principal objects which occupy the attention of this society, are very important ones, fuch as blafphemy, obfcenity, debauchery, dishonesty, and cruelty. No fet of men affembled for the exprefs purpose of putting the laws against these crimes in force, can be bad men. I am fatisfied that they are good men, and moreover ftaunch friends to both church and state.-To "love God and honour the king" was a precept I learnt when I was young-and another old adage I got by heart, "Tell me with whom you go, and I will

tell you what you do." I was led by the recollection of these speedily to join, not only the Society for the Suppreflion of Vice," but another alfo with the new year fet on foot, called "The Society for the Diffusion of found Principles."

Really, Mr. Editor, these orthodox-men, are fuch as we had beft follow. I have been frightened for these laft ten years, left our Gallic neighbours should utterly destroy the old church-fabric, with their floating machines, and their balloons. But their aerial flights feem now to be at an end! These Frenchmen are grown giddy, and like Garnerin in his last attempt, appear to me to be, as well as their goddess of Nature, "toppling down headlong."

Mr. Bowles proves himself a true Englishman, he acts and writes like one. He pities the Frenchmen and the Frenchwomen too, and does not think the bonnet rouge becoming of his country-women. He diflikes also tranfparent scenery, but is not to be frightened by a " Phantasmagoria."

The five hundred and fifty men and women, members of "The Society for the Suppreffion of Vice" (and I think that number will be very foon doubled when all corporations have joined us, as I hope they intend to do) will quickly fhew all future as well as former Mayors of Nottingham, and elsewhere, what we mean to do with undressed ladies of a certain defcription. We mean to fend them to Coventry, and not speak to them. This I think, will provoke them to throw on at least a long cloak; for what punishment to a woman can be eqnal to that of making her keep filence?

Mr. Bowles, it feems, is, in every fenfe of the word, an independent man. He is a magiftrate both for Surry and Middlesex, and, what is most valuable character, an upright judge. This makes him, therefore, obnoxious to the Jacobin tribe. He fears no man, let him be of what party he may! His "Letter to Mr. Fox on his Panegyric on the late Duke of Bedford," his "Letter to the Honourable Spencer Percival on the Divorce Bill," and his "Thoughts on the General Election," prove all this.--He honours the king, and adores the King of kings. I with, Mr. Editor, that he was a "Man of Kent" for your county's fake, that you might proudly boaft of him; but as he lives at Dulwich, (where his benevolence and bright example are confpicuous, and that place is closely adjoining,) let us hope his influence may extend throughout your county. Let me alfo, as a friend and true member of the Old Church of England, (which Mr. Bowles is likewife)

likewife) hope it may penetrate into the very precincts, and inmoft receffes of your noble cathedral !-I like no innovations, no mingling of churchparties, Mr. Editor, but that we, and our members may be true to the eftablishment; orthodox throughout; that we may "bear our honours thick upon us." Mayors and aldermen in their gown; bithops, deans, prebendaries and their corps, all in their canonicals.--Let the French, Irish, and Sectarifts fee what we are! They may go to mafs or to tabernacle, as they think proper, we mean to go to the cathedral, where the Songs of Sion" are fung; where once the excellent Dean Horne (afterwards bishop of Norwich) preached as men rarely preach! He held the torch, and fhall we not enter the temple and dwell therein? Shall our excellent archbishop want worshippers in his church? No! I fee, Mr. Editor, the bright dawn of day! The new years opens aufpiciously! Men, like Mr. Bowles, need fear no evil! The Lord is their fhield and their guide" and will be "their exceeding great reward."-Let all mayors at Nottingham, at Canterbury, and elsewhere, do their duty, (occafional inadvertencies will not be imputed to them as fins) and let every man remember, that Felix trembled, when "Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come.”

London, Jan. 9, 1803.

I am Sir, your obedient fervant,

A Member of the Eftablished Church and of

"The Society for the Suppreffion of Vice"

AN ESSAY UPON REPENTANCE.

REPENTANCE is a difpofition of the human mind, and it arifes, like all other difpofitions, in confequence of the action of the perceptive powers. It is that uneafinefs of mind which men feel upon account of fuch actions, intentions, paffions, or defires, as appear from the informations of the moral fenfe (the conscience which God has implanted in our nature) to be WRONG. This uneafinefs may be attended with fhame, grief, or fear, as the blameable proceeding, respects the lofs of the esteem or of the love, or as it excites the apprehenfion of punishment from that being, who implanted this moral sense in the human conftitution. The firft natural effect of this uneafinefs is a concern or forrow for fuch criminal proceeding, and as what is done cannot be made undone, a further defire that fuch faulty conduct fhould not be repeated as the nearest approach to the not having been to blame. From these different fenfations attending this difpofition, different names are applied to it. It is called μTaVION, TEVOOS, AUTη, &c. Repentance may refpect a fingle act, or a course of action. When fingle acts, or a few acts have not been repeated, abstinence from fuch faults can fcarcely with propriety be called amendment. Peter denied the Saviour, and repeated the denial three times; yet nobody would fay that St. Peter had a habit of denying his Mafter. The word amendment therefore is more properly applied to a change of conduct; when men ceafe to do evil, they learn to do well. Both of which have refpect to repeated action. But ceafing to do evil will not remove the blame already incurred; nor will the future performance of duty cancel the guilt of past offences. Men continue to be always anfwerable for paft offences committed againft the divine law: nor can this refponsibility be taken away by any thing we know of, but the positive declarations of the law

St.

giver. Now under the gospel we are told that the BLOOD of Christ cleanseth from ALL fin; but we are NOT told that the atonement of Chrift delivered ALL finners from punishment; for then it could not have been said, that broad is the way that leadeth to deftruction, but narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it. But this mode of fpeaking may teach us the great difference there is between the efficacy and the effect of a caufe. We may confider causes as being of two kinds; fuch as operate upon inanimate matter, and such as operate upon beings poffeffed of intelligence and liberty. This latter kind of caufes are ufually called motives. The efficacy of the former is abfolute; that is, the effect is certain and invariable; the efficacy of the latter is conditional, and therefore the effect variable and uncertain. The operation of the former is fubject to no control, but that of the author of them; the operation of the latter is fubje&t to the control of those beings upon whom they are intended to act. In this confifts the difference between neceffity and freedom. When then a caufe does certainly and invariably produce an effect in certain given circumftances, we fay it is an efficacious cause; but when these circumftances depend upon the will of free beings, the efficacy of fuch caufes is limited, it is not abfolute but conditional. Such is the efficacy of Chrift's atonement as it refpects particular perfons; and were the efficacy of this atonement abfolute, the fubjects of it would no longer be free beings; no more free than men are to chufe the measures of their ftature, the colour of their fkins, or the particular form of their features. Some pious perfons have thought the exercife of uncontrolable power, more honorable to God (fee Burnet's Account of the various Opinions concerning Predeftination in his Expofition of the XXXIX Articles) than this more limited power, exercised in His moral government. Which is moft acceptable to Himself, we learn from His own declaration. Of this latter fort was that which God exercised, when He sent forth His Son to be the propitiation for our fins, and not for ours only, but also for the fins of the WHOLE world, that the world through Him might be saved. Yet it was not for all finners, but that those alone who believe in him (in the efficacy of his atonement) fhould not perish but have everlasting life. Since God fet forth His Son to be a propitiation, not in general, i. e. unconditionally, but through faith in his blood; nor even yet for ALL those who thus believe, for without (another condition) following after holiness fhall no man fee the Lord. By holiness we mean a perfect removal from moral evil, and not only a perfect but a voluntary removal. Choice is and must be the foundation of all holiness, which is acceptable to God; and God is therefore holy, because He choofeth and delighteth in holiness. When then it is faid God cannot be tempted with evil, it neither does nor can mean what we call a natural but what we call a moral impoflibility. To fuppofe otherwise is to remove all meaning from the words right and wrong, holiness and evil, and to set aside all ideas from the word character, which cannot exift without liberty. And when it is faid that without holiness no man fhall fee the Lord, we cannot understand the word holiness in that fenfe, in which it is applied to God, viz. to a perfect removal from all moral evil; because in this sense it is impoffible there should be holiness where there has been amendment. Whofoever fhall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of ALL; not has violated every command of it, as fome have abfurdly fuppofed, but has perfectly forfeited ALL claim to the character of holinefs. But though a claim to the character Vol. IV. Churchm. Mag. Jan. 1803. C

of

of holiness, may, nay, must be loft by a single tranfgreffion, a defire, and wish for fuch character, what the apoftle expreffes, Heb. xiii. 18 by ἐν πᾶσι θελοντες καλῶν ἀνατρέφεσθαι——not ἐν πᾶσιν ἀνατρέφομενοι, analogous to the language of our Lord, hungering and thirsting after, not filled with righteouincis, i. e. not actually poffefling, but earneftly defirous of poffefsing it; fatisfaction in this matter will only be attained when we awake from the fleep of death, Pfalm xvii. 14. An earnest with and fincere defire of fuch a character may remain after repeated offences, and is confiftent with much imperfection in the character as we learn from St. Paul, Rom. vii. 15 to the end of the chapter.

Some perhaps may think that men may have an imperfect holiness. What notions fuch perfons may have clear ideas of, and diftinct conceptions of is hard to fay. Perfection is certainly implied in the idea of holiness; they may as well talk of imperfect perfection, or inclufive demonftration. Who can afcertain or define what we are to understand by this moderate holinefs? It is like Mr. Overton's moderate Calvinifm, and the effentials and fundamentals of Chriftianity-matters utterly impoffible to be determined, and which all men will never be agreed in.-But it is the characteriftic of truth to claim univerfal affent.

The feriptures reprefent, experience confirms, and divines almost univerfally allow that the utmoft amendment attained by fallen man, is made up of alternate tranfgreflion and repentance. For were tranfgreflion WHOLLY forfaken, and of courfe the amendment perfect, those who did fo, would thenceforward be abfolutely juft men, Luke xv. 7, doing good uniformly and finning not; nor could they in fuch circumftances deceive themselves, by faying they had no fin. This affertion would be no lye but the truth! Careless readers may be led from a paffage in St. Paul to fuppofe that forrow for fin muft precede repentance. But repentance can only arise from felf-condemnation; that is from a perception of guilt. Godly forrow, faith the apoftle, worketh repentance, ii. Cor. vii. 10 unto falvation. In thefe words, St. Paul refers to a reproof which he had fent to the church at Corinth, for mifconduct of fome of its members. But though the apoftle was informed of the crime, he was either unacquainted with, or did not chufe to name the criminal, 1 Cor. v. 1. But from the effects of this reproof, upon thofe to whom it was fent, their fenfe of the importance of fuch an accufation, and the defire of individuals to clear themselves from it, 2 Cor. vii. 2, it is plain that the apoftle is not speaking of repentance in the ufual fenfe of the word; for he calls the concern they felt, and manifefted upon account of this general charge a godly forrow-not surely for a fin which they had not committed; but he reckons this forrow a commendable forrow, which they fhewed for being fufpected of guilt; and he means only to affirm, that the fame difpofition of mind, would, in the cafe of actual offence, produce in time fincere repentance, i. e. fuch repentance as the offender might reasonably hope would not be ineffectual-à repentance not to be repented of-a repentance unto life.

It is worthy of remark, that St. Paul does not say that this godly forrow worketh amendment, but what is a very different matter, repentance. For repentance is a difpofition of mind in confequence of felf-condemnation ; but without felf-condemnation there cannot be any repentance; yet there may be repentance, i. e. concern for fin where there is no amendment, Rom. vii. 23. Amendment is an alteration of the conduct, not a difpofition of mind; and St. Paul oppofes this godly forrow, to the forrow of the

world

world, which he faith worketh death; but he could not have opposed amendment to this forrow of the world. It was before observed, that the fenfations excited by repentance might be fhame, grief, or fear. Now grief, or forrow, refpects moft properly the lofs of fuch beneficial effects as fpring from the love of others; and what the apoftle calls the forrow of the world, means forrow for the lofs of present advantages, fuch as thofe of a good character, &c. But forrow of this fort can never be of any estimation in the fight of God, 1 John ii. 15, and therefore the apoftle defcribes the repentance not to be repented of, as repentance rowARDS God; juft as he describes that faith which is available to falvation, to be faith in our Lord JESUS CHRIST.

T. L.

APPENDIX to the ESSAY UPON REPENTANCE-being An Efay upon the Nature of Human Depravity, and of the Remedy for it revealed in the Gospel.

WHOEVER carefully contemplates his own difpofitions muft furely concur with St. Paul in acknowledging that he finds a law in his members warring against the law of his mind; and whether blameable or not for the existence of this law in his members must as furely confefs that he has himself contributed, not a little by his own conduct, to the power and energy of its dominion over him. That he has too generally yielded a willing and a ready mind to it; not only liftening to its fuggeftions, complying with its calls, but courting these calls, foliciting their gratification, and diligently contriving the means of indulgence, and feeking occafions for it. If, when he would do good, evil has been present with him, this evil has too frequently not been unfought, at least it has been much oftener encou> raged than refifted, and provifion been much more frequently made for entertaining than rejecting its folicitations. The mifery of this fituation can be no fecret to those who attend to the law of the mind; St. Paul felt it in all its force, when in the utmost anguish of diftrefs he cries out who fhall deliver me from this BODY of fin and death, this BODY so prone to fin, and fo obnoxious to its certain confequence, punishment; from this grievous tendency to illicit gratification and finful indulgence? And informed by miraculous inftruction, he directs all who are in the fame fituation to look for this deliverance only from the grace of God, through Jefus Chrift our Lord. But though he clearly points out the circumftances, from which this deliverance may be expected, yet he does not acquaint us when this defirable deliverance is to take place; and both experience, and revelation concur, in fhowing plainly that it is not to be expected during this present scene of existence. While the nature of the members continues unaltered, this war in them cannot be expected to ceafe; and fo revelation informs us, that if we say we have no fin, the truth is not in us; for that there is not a juft (an holy) man upon earth who finneth not. The fcripture reprefents our prefent life as a warfare, and recommends unceafing vigilance, continual watching, the most laborious and the most important duty of a foldier, as indifpenfably neceffary; and upon which the fafety of thofe engaged in war depends as much as if not more than upon any other conduct. The great contending parties in this war are the flesh and the fpirit, the carnal principle of improper and illicit gratification (for all gratification is not forbidden), and unreftrained indulgence, thefe, revelation informs us, are contrary one to the other; fo contrary, that these animal