on the nature and importance of the objects which it was intended to compass; and in this mild and qualified case, should even appeal to the spirit of the principle which has been already mentioned-the principle of a conscientious preference of duty to all other considerations, however pressing.

With respect to the question of duty, we are aware that men may be prompted by delusive impulses and erroneous comments to measures of extravagance, justly censurable by civil authority. But we are governed by no such inpulses. We have no notion of any thing being the will of God, but what may be proved from the scriptures; nor of any obligations upon us to go among the heathen more than upon other Christians. If we be not authorized by the New Testament, we have no authority. And as to our comments, if they will not bear the test of fair and impartial scrutiny, let them be discarded, and let our undertakings be placed to the account of a well-meant but misguided zeal. The principal ground on which we act is confined to a narrow compass it is the commission of our Saviour to his disciples, Go-teach all nations; which commission we do not consider as confined to the apostles, because his promise presence to them who should execute it extends to the end of the world.

Our accuser is aware that the apostles and primitive ministers went every where preaching the gospel, even though it were at the risk of liberty and life; and this, he conceives, was right in them, because "they were expressly commanded to do so. (p. 80.) His conclusion, that it was wrong in Christians of the present day, rests upon the supposition that the command of Christ does not extend to them; but we shall not allow him to build on these disputed premises.

That there were things committed to the apostles, for them to commit to Christians of succeeding ages, cannot be denied. Such must have been the great body of Christian doctrines and precepts contained in the New Testament; and, seeing the promise of Christ to be with his servants in the execution of the command reaches to the end of the world, the command itself must have been of this description. Not that every Christian is obliged to preach or any Christian in all places: but the Christian church as a body,

and every member of it individually, is obliged to do its utmost in the use of those means which Christ has appointed for the disciplining of all nations.

Το say, that because we are not endowed, like the Apostles, with the gift of tongues and the power of working miracles, there. fore we are not obliged to make use of the powers which we have for the conversion of the world, is trifling, not reasoning. What proof, or appearance of proof is there, that the obligations of the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations arose from those extraordinary endowments? If our being unable to work miracles be a reason why we should not preach the gospel to all nations as far as opportunity admits, it is a reason why we should not admit it at all or, which is the same thing, a proof that the Christian ministry, as soon as miracles had ceased, ought to have terminated. The institution of the Christian ministry is founded in the commission, even that commission which enjoins the teaching of all nations. And if we leave out one part, we must, to be consistent, leave out the other. We ought either not to teach at all, or according to our powers and opportunities, to teach all nations.

If we believe the scriptures, (and if we do not we are not Christians,) we must believe that all nations are promised to the Messiah for his inheritance, no less than the land of Canaan was promised to the seed of Abraham; and we, as well as they, ought in the use of those means which he has appointed, to go up and endeavour to possess them. It is not for us, having obtained a comfortable footing in Europe, like the Israelites in Canaan, to make leagues with the other parts of the world, and, provided we may but live at ease in our tents, to consent for them to remain as they are. Such a spirit though complimented by some as liberal, and inconsistent with the love of either God or man. Our accuser (who will neither be a Christian, nor let Christianity alone) represents the apostles as "authorized to act in defiance of magistrates," to "break the laws of the different countries they visited," and to despise the orders of men:" "But Christians now," he tells us, "are expressly directed to obey the powers that be." If the principle acted on by the apostles "be admitted in

is mean,

these days," he thinks,

79, 80.)

66

we must bid adieu to India." (pp. 53.

It would seem, by this account of things, as if the apostles, under a divine authority, trampled on all law and order among men, and, as far as their influence extended, actually turned the world upside down." If it were not so, the conclusion that the same principle acted upon in these days, would prove the loss of India, is mere unfounded assertion. But were any such effects produced by the labours of the apostles? What colonies were lost to the Romans through them? Let the countries be named which were ruined or injured by their preaching.

In attempting to fix a charge upon us, our accuser has libelled the apostles, and even their master, as well as the Christians of all succeeding ages. Where did he learn that Jesus Christ authorized his apostles to act in defiance of magistrates, or to despise the orders of men? What proof has he that they ever acted on such principle? was there any thing like this in the behaviour of Paul, before Felix, or Festus, or Agrippa? Such a spirit had no more place in his religion than our accuser has been able to prove it to have had place in ours. The apostles were commanded to break no laws, but such as were inconsistent with their allegiance to Christ; and in breaking them they never acted with contumacy, but merely as impelled by a superior authority; bearing at the same time, the consequences with meekness and fortitude, as their Lord had done before them. The principle on which they acted was that which He had laid down for them when tempted by certain "hypocrites," with the intent of rendering him obnoxious to government; (not that they cared for government, but were desirous of making it the instrument of their malice,) namely, Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

What authority has our accuser for representing the apostles as enjoining on common Christians that subjection to civil government which they did not exemplify in their own conduct? Were not they themselves subject to the powers that were? Yes, in every thing, save in what concerned their allegiance to Christ, and this reserve they made for all Christians. Why else did they en

courage them to hold fast their profession under the most cruel persecutions; referring them to the last judgment, when God would recompense rest to them, and tribulation to those that troubled them? Could they have submitted their consciences to the ruling powers, they need not have suffered persecution but they acted on the same principle as the apostles, who, instead of laying down one law for themselves and another for them, exhorted them to follow their example: Those things, said they, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in us, do.

The

On the principle of our accuser, all those Christians of the first three centuries, who had not the power of working miracles, though peaceable and loyal subjects in civil concerns, yet not submitting their consciences to the ruling powers, were rebels. same may be said of the English Martyrs in the days of the first Mary. They could not work miracles any more than we, and pretended to no special commission from heaven to break the laws: but while they manifested the utmost loyalty to the queen in civil matters, they felt themselves accountable to a higher authority, and submitted to be burnt alive rather than obey her mandates. These characters, whom all succeeding ages have revered as men of whom the world was not worthy, were loaded by the Bonners and Gardiners of the day with every epithet of abuse, and treated as rebels.

We may be told that the cases are dissimilar: they were put to death, but the whole that our accuser aims at is banishment; they suffered for avowing their religious principles at home, whereas we might have done this without his wishing to interrupt us. But this dissimilarity relates only to degree; the principle is the same. If, since the days of miracles, Christians have been under an obligation to submit to the powers that be, in religious matters, the martyrs of seventeen hundred years have been, in fact, a succession of rebels.

Our accuser may think it a matter "not to be endured," that sectaries should compare themselves with these honoured char

acters but with his leave, or without it, we are Christians; and though we should be less than the least of Christ's servants, yet we must aspire to act upon the same principles as the greatest of them.

What is there in these principles which affects the honours of government, or the peace and good order of society? Is it any disparagement to the highest human authorities not to interfere with the divine prerogative? On the contrary, is it not their highest honour to respect it? Those governments which, disregarding such men as our accuser, protect the free exercise of religious principle, will not only be prospered of heaven, but will ever stand high in the esteem of the wise and the good, and when the ferment of the day is over, be applauded by mankind in general.

A great deal is said, by all our opponents, on the power of working miracles, as though because we cannot pretend to this qualification, we had no warrant to attempt the conversion of the heathen, "It is not to be endured," says our accuser, "that these men should be compared with the apostles who wrought miracles." Another wiseacre gravely suggests, that "sectaries are not likely to have" these extraordinary powers; as though, had we been Churchmen, we might have stood some chance of attaining them! † It was the commission of Christ, and not the power of working miracles, that constituted the warrant of the apostles to go and teach all nations. The latter was, indeed, an important qualifica

* Considering the pains which have been taken to load us with the odium of sectarianism, it may be thought I should have done something towards removing it. The truth is, our opponents care not for the Church, nor have they any dislike to Dissenters, provided they be averse to evangelical religion. All that they say, therefore, against us as sectaries, is for the mean and crafty purpose of working upon the prejudices of Churchmen; and such vulgar abuse requires no answer.

+ This suggestion is contained in a piece which has lately appeared, under the title of The Dangers of British India, from French Invasion and Missionary Establishments. I see nothing in the pamphlet which requires an answer. Government will see to that part which refers to the danger of French Invasion, whether they read this performance, or not; and as to what relates to the Missionaries, it is a mere repetition of things which have been answered in the preceding pages.