ADVERTISEMENT.

Ir is not of any importance to the Public to be made acquainted with the motives which have induced the Author to publish the following Sermon. He will only say, that he had no such intention when he composed and preached it. But there are two points on which, he doubts not, many readers will think, he stands in need of an apology. Of them he begs a candid attention to what follows, as the best that he can offer.

IT may be said, that little can be expected new, especially in a sermon, on a subject which has now so long engrossed the public attention, and engaged many able and ingenious writers on both sides. The Author readily admits the truth of this remark. If there be any thing here that can be called new, it is the consideration of what our religion teaches to be the duty of Christians in circumstances like ours. This topic has not been touched, at least in any of those writings which he has read on the present controversy. But though there be little or nothing new in the thoughts, every author has his peculiar manner and arrangement. One manner is better adapted to one set of readers, another to another. If the sentiments then be just, and if they be arranged and expressed with tolerable perspicuity, it may be hoped that there are some to whom they will be useful.

THE second point on which the author finds he must apologize for himself, is his entering at all on such a subject in a sermon. Indeed the prejudices of some are so strong on this article, that he scarcely expects that any thing he has to advance will entirely remove them. The cry is, What has the mini'sters of the gospel to do with matters of state, or Christianity ' with human politics?' The ambiguity of the terms politics and matters of state gives a specious appearance to the objection. The church, no doubt, would be a very improper place for the discussion of many points relating to national interest, and of questions of jurisprudence, which might be very pertinent in

the cabinet or the senate. But when a question arises that affects the title of the magistrate to demand, and the obligation of the subject to yield, obedience: If the precepts of the gospel at all concern our conduct as citizens, it must be the duty of a Christian pastor to point out to his flock what these precepts command, and what they prohibit.

OUR Saviour in his last charge to his apostles, expressly enjoined them to teach all those whom they should convert and baptize, to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them*. Now, it is as really a commandment of our Lord, that we should render to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, as that we should render to God the things that are God's+. Have not his apostles accordingly, Paul and Peter in particular, given most explicit directions on this very head? Paul not only recommends this duty himself to Christian congregations, but in the instructions he gives to Titus, who was also a minister, specifies it by name as an important duty, which he ought not to neglect recommending to his people. Put them in mind, says he, to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates. Can we then think ourselves excused in omitting to teach and enforce so momentous a duty, so strongly recommended to us both by the example and by the precept both of our Lord and of his apostles? In the general order Christ gave his disciples to teach the people to observe all things, whatsoever he had commanded them, were they at liberty to make an excep tion of this?

SOME perhaps will reply, 'Were the duty recommended only in general terms by the minister, as a Christian duty, no ob'jection could reasonably be made: But to enter into a detail ' of facts, or an argumentative discussion on such a subject, is 'what appears unsuitable to the place.' To this the Author has only to answer, The manner, whether general or particular, derives its suitableness entirely from the occasion and circumstances. When people regularly do what they ought in any instance, and when their minds are in no danger of being perverted by false principles, it is perhaps enough to remark their obligations passingly. But the case is different, when by misrepresentations of fact, or by sophistical arguments, their minds

* Matth. xxviii. 20.

† Matth. xxii. 21.

Tit. iii. I.

begin to be alienated from their duty, and they learn to call evil good, and good evil, to put darkness for light, and light for darkness, bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. It is then the business of the preacher, if preaching be not a mere matter of form, to do what he can to inform them better, both as to the fact, and as to the argument. Can then the observance of the duty we owe to magistrates, be an unseasonable subject at present, when so many are at such uncommon pains (some doubtless through mistake, and some through ill design) to undermine it?

THE pulpit without question would be an improper place for canvassing the economical regulations, which might properly be adopted in the government of families. But if tenets should be advanced, and warmly recommended, totally subversive of the honour due from children to their parents, and of the obedience due from servants to their masters, would he deserve the character of a minister of Christ, who chose to continue silent, and under the silly pretext, that the pulpit was not intended for discussing family affairs, would take no concern in the controversy? Shall we find men that are indefatigable in distributing poison, and shall not those who have it in their power, be at some pains to administer the antidote ?

But is

Ir has in like manner been urged, that Under these plau'sible pretences, the pulpit hath sometimes been made the in'strument of raising sedition, and of doing the greatest mischief 'to the public.' The charge is indeed but too true. that a good reason for not employing it for the contrary purpose of inculcating allegiance and loyalty? The pulpit has also been often employed in the service of error. Shall it therefore never be used for the advancement of truth? It has often been perverted to be instrumental in kindling persecution. Shall it therefore be accounted improper to use it in recommending the moderation, the meekness, and the gentleness of Christ? Besides, will those who abuse the pulpit, by employing it to a bad purpose, be the less disposed to do so, because nobody dares oppose them from the pulpit?

FROM the manner in which some talk of the business of a preacher, one would imagine, that in their apprehensions, he ought ever to be occupied (as preachers have been but too often

occupied) in doating about questions and strifes of words, diseussing all the futile logomachies of the schools, which gender contention, envy, bigotry, and wrath, but minister not to godly edifying, to pious and practical instruction.

THE Author begs leave to add, that he hopes the doctrine here maintained may be of some service, independently of the American disputes which have occasioned its publication. There is a real danger arising from the loose and republican principles now so openly professed, and so assiduously disseminated, through the British isles; which should they still make progress, as they seem to have done for some years past, might, after the present controversy is settled and forgotten, involve this country in the most direful calamities. On the other hand, he is happy to observe that this quarrel has excited some person of great learning and penetration, fully capable of doing justice to the subject, to examine more narrowly than had been done before, into the origin, nature, and end of civil government*. It may be expected as the consequence, that the wild schemes of our political visionaries, for there are visionaries in politics as well as in religion, will in due time be properly exposed, and at length abandoned by every body.

* The public has been promised by an eminent writer, one entirely equal to the subject, an examination of Mr. Locke's Theory of Government. It is earnestly wished by many, that an enquiry so useful in itself, and so peculiarly seasonable at present, may not be unnecessarily deferred.