Images de page

nation" of the Apostle? If such "present salvation" is to be acquired in a moment, why should not-we desire to speak with reverence-a man continue in sin," if he can always have this "full, and free, and unconditional salvation?" If "perfect

[ocr errors]


liberty be thus the test of faith, will not a man soon be tempted to counterfeit, and then to avow this feeling? Is it not an every-day occurrence, that if one tries to feel, as he supposes others under certain circumstances must feel, the transition is easy to persuade himself, or to yield to the temptation of being persuaded that he does so feel?

There are one or two other subordinate points--having thus disposed of the main object which we had in view-viz. to show what the practical tendency of Wesleyan Methodism is; upon which we must make a brief remark. Incidentally (Christian Remembrancer, vol. iv. p. 525) we denied that the Wesleyans were "men of one book, except it be the Hymn-Book." An unexpected, yet most striking proof of our accuracy occurs, which we are bound in justice to produce; for the charge which we made is a serious one against a body which is always talking about "substituting tradition for the Word," and "ranking the Fathers above the Bible." We do not hesitate, therefore, to declare, that with the Wesleyans the Hymn-Book is far above, the Word of God; that they think nothing of postponing all the articles of the Christian Faith to this book of rhapsodies; and that the Lord's Prayer itself is less important than "the Collection." We take up the "Journal of the Rev. James Evans, General Superintendent of the Wesleyan Missions in the Hudson's Bay Territories," published in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, January, 1843. This person it seems-and he relates his trials in a pleasing way-was desirous of setting up a printing press, for the use of his mission among the heathen. By several ingenious devices he at length succeeds in producing types in the "Chree character:"

[ocr errors]

"October 15. Last night I finished the alphabet plate. Nov. 11. My types answered well. The hymn beginning with Jesus, my all, to heaven is gone,' is in the press. I have to-day struck off 300 copies of the first three verses, making a small page. 17th. I have to-day struck off 250 copies of the hymn beginning, Behold the Saviour of mankind,' with a chorus for occasional use. December 3. I printed the hymn beginning, 'Blow ye the trumpet, blow.' . . . . I have now printed about 2000 pages of HYMNS, &c.; and on my return from my winter's tour, by God's blessing, I shall print the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, Commandments, and the first chapter of St. Matthew's gospel.”—P. 76.

This is perfectly monstrous: here is a man, one of the chief emissaries of this schism, daily, according to his own journal, baptizing heathen, and providing for their spiritual sustenance nothing but a set of miserable hymns, which in his eyes are two thousand times superior to "the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments," which the Catholic Church requires

her ministers" chiefly to provide for the soul's health of all baptized christians." We earnestly trust to hear no more about "the popery of appealing to tradition,* and the fathers, and the Prayer-Book," at least in a quarter where the Wesleyans acknowledge a missionary, who having it in his power to print pages by the thousand, prefers giving his converts "the filthy puddle of men's tradition," which the Hymn Book certainly is, to "the infallible word of God," postponing to the vague chance of his possible return

Cum Zephyris, si concedes, et hirundine primâ, the very chief fundamentals and essentials of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Once more, to quote ourselves in our September number, vol. iv. p. 315, we remarked, "It is curious to see how Mr. Jackson is puzzled to know what to call this hybrid body. Sometimes they are Societies; then they are Mr. Wesley's Societies; then Wesleyans;' then Methodists;' then the Wesleyan body;' then Mr. Wesley's followers,' or 'the people to whom the name Wesleyan is applied;' but whether they claim to belong to the One Holy Catholic Church, or whether they form one church in itself,-totus in se teres atque rotundus,—or whether they are dissenters, or whether something made up of each and all of them, we are not told, simply because the writer cannot make out."

Nor were we ever enlightened on this head; but as it is desirable that our readers should know what estimate others have formed of the ecclesiastical status of the Wesleyan Methodists, we depart from our usual practice, and extract from a dissenting contemporary-the Eclectic Review, for January, 1843—

THE METHODISTS SKETCHED BY THEIR FELLOW-DISSENTERS. "Then, again, who could have imagined that a party, so utterly disconnected from the Church as the Wesleyan Methodists, would have felt this controversy as an imperious call upon them to engage in strife from which they have usually kept aloof, or that they would have ventured to implicate themselves as a church, or connexion, or conference, (we know not which term best suits the case,) in a debate, the agitation of which among themselves, may lead to consequences which none can foresee, but which many may live to deplore! But so it is; and the world can no longer doubt that men so wise in their generation as the leaders of Conference are allowed to be, have felt the Puseyite controversy touching them in more points than one. They are not persons to be drawn into thriftless contention. They are not accustomed to essay works of supererogation, and the fact that they have designed a series of controversial and defensive Tracts for the Times, is an unequivocal proof that they have perceived the utility, as well as felt the need, of such prophylactics."

[blocks in formation]

"It appears that many Methodists have been very urgently pressed by this argument Mr. Wesley was a churchman, he discountenanced and con

[ocr errors]

This charge comes with a very bad grace from a body who demand, in the case of all their ministers, subscription to "the tradition" of Wesley's "first Fifty-three Sermons."

[ocr errors]

demned dissent. It is true that he apologised for his new establishment, by alleging the corruption of the old one; but he always urged his people to keep in the communion of the church. Yet modern Methodism has diverged in a variety of particulars from his principles, and has become either a separation from the church, or a schism in it.' Hence the force of the appeal to those who venerate Mr. Wesley, and profess to be guided by his sentiments. The church is vastly improved since his day; the pure gospel is extensively preached in its pulpits, and as he never contemplated the permanence of a sect, or the formation, on professed grounds of scriptural authority, of a dissentient church, in reference to the establishment, you ought now either to merge in the church of England, or harmonize your societies to it, so as to place them under the government and discipline of the hierarchy.

"Our readers will be curious to know how this argument is met by the Connexion, or what is the substance of their reply. It is in brief this-there is an anachronism in the appeal of the churchman to Mr. Wesley's opinions, which renders his argument invalid. It is shown that, though Mr. Wesley commenced his labours, and wrote some of his works, with a full belief in the scriptural authority of the Church of England, and the perfect accuracy of all its principles, yet he subsequently altered his opinion, and though he never avowed himself a dissenter, yet he embraced the doctrine of presbyterian orders, believed in the divine institution of voluntary churches, their government and discipline by presbyters, and consequently left his connexion in the state of a separate, regularly organized, and permanent religious community; and that, since his times, the Conference have merely carried on, and acted out, his last matured opinions respecting the Church of Christ. Hence the Connexion now-a-days discovers no force in the requirement that they should merge in the Church, because they perceive, in Mr. Wesley's later opinions, sufficient grounds to justify them in maintaining themselves independently of all connexion with, and all control from, the Established Church. This is all very well, and so far so good. Let Wesleyanism take its stand upon scriptural ground, in repudiating the doctrine of episcopal ordination, as essential to the validity of orders; let it maintain scriptural authority for government and discipline by presbyters; let it assert the scriptural right to assemble its people, and form them into churches, or a church, or societies, or a connexion, or whatever else they please to call them; and, in all this, let it be conceded that they are but acting in strict conformity with Mr. Wesley's last views and directions, they have the most perfect and indisputable right to do so; and with the Bible in their hands, they are assuredly proof against all the assaults of the intolerant and unscrupulous assailants,' whom they profess to meet in

these tracts.

"But is this all? No; certain important inferences follow. The Churchman retorts,-you have hereby become dissenters; you have done the very thing, committed the very act, which you know full well Mr. Wesley deprecated and forbad. What is the reply which these tracts furnish to this argument? We must give it in the words of the writers:

"The Wesleyan methodists are not dissenters, in the ordinary sense and application of that term; for they do not dissent from the principle of a national ecclesiastical establishment, which derives a measure of protection and support from its union with the state, nor do they dissent from the doctrine and general formularies of the Church of England; and they are not schismatics in the Church, for this plain reason, that, to a considerable extent and degree, they are separated from the Church. They would not affect names which mark parties and distinctions, but they cannot entirely avoid using them; and they are satisfied with the one that has descended to them, indulging the hope, at the same time, of that better day when every sectarian distinction shall cease, and all Christ's disciples shall be one in mind, in heart, and in name. They are not, n, dissenters from the Church of England, in the customary use of that expresand they are not SCHISMATICS in the Church of England; but they are EYAN METHODISTS.'-Wesleyan Tracts for the Times, No. 2, p. 10.

"Again we find in the selfsame Tract—

""Some one may be ready to ask, WHAT, THEN, IS WESLEYAN METHODISM? It must be a strange anomaly. If it is neither schism, nor schismatical separation, in what light shall we regard it? Our answer, which we would make with all humility and gratitude, is this, that singular and even anomalous as the present position of Wesleyan Methodism may be, it is doubtless, in itself, the fruit of an extraordinary visitation and work of God. To this our thoughts cannot fail to advert, when we have occasion to speak of the validity of its ministerial orders, and of its other claims as a part of the universal Church of Christ.'

[ocr errors]

"On reading this remarkable passage we opened our eyes, and rubbed our spectacles, and read it again and again, asking ourselves at the same time what can the writer or writers possibly intend by ascribing methodism, when they have occasion to speak of its ministerial orders, to an extraordinary visitation and work of God? Do they mean to say that its distinctive principles are the result or fruit of a new revelation, thereby designing to remove it beyond the reach of the common revelation and common test? It is confessedly not Church-of-Englandism; it is not dissent from the Church of England, which it would seem to be, by asserting the validity of orders which the Church denies, and the authority of voluntary societies, which that church repudiates; but it is the fruit of an extraordinary visitation and work of God.' It does not attempt to dispute the validity of Church-of-England ordination; it does not dissent from the doctrine of an establishment of Christianity by the state—it even approves of it as lawful and desirable—and yet it very modestly sets up an independent hierarchy, seeking no such thing as support from the state; but after it has constituted a priesthood, not episcopally ordained, and a church or churches, not conformed to the pattern of the established church, it again very modestly tells the world, this methodism of ours is the very best and most perfect, and most strictly apostolic church in Christendom. To be sure it is not, in its platform, episcopacy, and it is not dissent from episcopacy; for dissent from episcopacy we hold, with Mr. Wesley, to be a very abominable thing, and we never will allow ourselves to be guilty of it. We have something among us much better than either episcopacy or dissent.' It is in leed neither the one nor the other, for it is the fruit of an extraordinary visitation and work of God.' This is the only rule by which these tracts direct us to judge of methodism. Now so far as we have been able to pry into the genuine sense, the obvious intention of this singularly humble statement, it seems to affirm nothing less than the superior excellence and authority of methodism over established episcopacy, and over every form of Church government that ranks under the comprehensive epithet of dissent, while it assigns a sufficiently ambitious reason for the preference. We allow that it would have been possible to put a different interpretation upon the words, had they been used in a different connexion, and for a different purpose; but since they are here employed as a reason to show why the Wesleyans are neither Churchmen nor dissenters, they appear to us to be of no force, unless they are intended to annul the grounds of the Churchman's appeal to them to submit to episcopal authority, and at the same time to set aside the dissenter's argument with them, that they ought to account themselves dissenters of some sort, because they repudiate episcopal ordination, and practically reject the alliance of the state. Hence it is alleged that Wesleyan Methodism does not conform itself to the Establishment, because it originates in an extraordinary visitation and work of God! and it will not allow itself to assume the character of dissent from that Church, for the very same reason. If this does not signify that Methodism claims to be a new dispensation, originating in a new revelation, we cannot understand either its meaning or its pertinence to the case in hand.

"Will our readers have the goodness to observe the select phraseology with which this astounding announcement is made? 'Our answer, which we would make with all HUMILITY and GRATITUDE, is this—that singular, and even

anomalous, as the present position of Wesleyan Methodism may be, it is, DOUBTLESS, in itself, the fruit of an extraordinary visitation and work of God.' The definition is placed in italics to arrest attention, and it will no doubt receive, both from Churchmen and dissenters, the attention it deserves.

"This is, to be sure, a very short and easy way of deciding the controversy. It was intended to stop the mouth of the Churchman, who believes in extraordinary works and visitations of God; and it equally aims to silence the dissenter, who wishes to view the Wesleyan as placed in the same category with himself. But then, if Wesleyan Methodism disdains to conform itself to episcopal discipline, because it is the fruit of an extraordinary visitation of God, and yet could not for a moment think of dissenting from that episcopacy and that establishment, because both are scriptural and right; and if, in the next place, it insists that its own platform of church principles shall be considered the fruit of this extraordinary visitation and work of God, exempt consequently from the common test, the old rules and principles of the written Scripture,, it must prepare itself to defend rather more fully than has yet been done, or is likely to be done by twopenny tracts, this new and extraordinary claim.”—Pp. 67—69.

[ocr errors]

"Let us take another specimen from this master of the Wesleyan Israel :"Some have loved to plead that the Wesleyan Methodists must either be dissenters from the Church of England, or schismatics in it. When able men touch upon this notion, and signify their approval of it, they certainly fall into an inadvertency, which was scarcely to be expected in their case; they do not observe the fallacy which lurks in the indeterminate and ambiguous name,


[ocr errors]


"At this point we really expected, from this censor of the able men who have fallen into so glaring an inadvertency, a complete masterpiece of dialectical skill. We prepared ourselves for a piece of ratiocination which should have deterred the sons of Oxford and Cambridge from ever daring again to risk their character as logicians, in repeating such a fallacious proposition as that ascribed to the able men, or approved by them. Will any man venture again to repeat the proposition, Wesleyan Methodists must either be schismatics in the Church of England, or dissenters from it?' This writer has affirmed that the ambiguous and indeterminate name contains a fallacy; and, in proof of this assertion, he adds, that in the ordinary sense and application of that term,' (dissenter,) the Wesleyan Methodists are not dissenters.' But where is the fallacy? A fallacy in a name must consist in its being false in any given application. The term dissenter is perfectly clear and limited, and unambiguous in itself. It merely expresses a negative in relation to something understood. It does not define the degree, nor the particular point of disagreement. It does not pretend to state the reasons for differing from the proposed proposition; it does not say what kind of a dissenter he is, but merely that he does not agree to something implied and understood. Well then, where is the fallacy? The writer affirms a fallacy, but does not attempt to point it out. He merely alleges that the Wesleyans are not dissenters in the ordinary sense of that term. Granted; but the term is not necessarily limited to the sects that are usually called dissenters. Twenty other new sects might arise, and if they refused to conform to the Church of England, they would be just as logically included under this universal negative, as any of those sects to which it is ordinarily applied. In fact, the term is clearly comprehensive of every party and every person who is not bona fide a Churchman. The term dissenter applies to a quaker, a presbyterian, an independent, an antipædobaptist, a Swedenborgian, a Plymouth brother, and everybody else who, being a protestant in his religious opinions and practice, differs from the Church of England. Wherein, then, consists the fallacy in this name, this hated, ambiguous word, dissenter? The learned author of the tract has failed, indeed he has not attempted, to show. He could not do it. He has merely stated that, in its ordinary application, it does not belong to Wesleyan Methodists. They are neither dissenters from the Church, because, observe, they are not such dissenters from the Church as some

« PrécédentContinuer »