felt, the arts, which merely transform nature, and bring together her scattered rays in order to produce a unique and profound emotion, will become powerless.'-P. 346.

Voltaire had an utter abhorrence for Gothic art, as barbarous. He was for pulling down Notre Dame itself in order to erect a templemore worthy of the capital.' St. Paul's Cathedral, in our own metropolis, was an object of peculiar envy; and to express his dislike to Corneille, he adds, after all other abuse he can think of, that his pieces resemble fine Gothic churches.'

This severance between art and nature had much to do with all the errors of French philosophy. It was Rousseau's startingpoint, in the idea that human nature was good till spoiled by civilisation. Heathen art never at any time recognised the human mind as being the work of God, equally with all nature, animate and inanimate. It was reserved for Christian times to harmonise man's powers of sense, and his intellect, with the world in which he lives, so that it may become his noble privilege and his greatest pleasure to use the talents that are given him in the work of identifying the praises of his Maker with a deep appreciation of those things which God created to be around us, and to administer to our good.

It was the total neglect of such truths as these that made Rousseau say that the savage state is the true state of man.' One condition, which he amusingly yet prudently makes, in order that this savage state may be the most desirable one is, that the typical savage' shall have dined.'

"The savage man," he says, "when he has dined, is at peace with universal nature and the friend of all his fellow men."-P. 375. Before dinner the same individual, M. Bungener thinks, would not be so firm a supporter of the rights of others. But Voltaire and Rousseau, whether we look on the former as the enemy of the old religion, or the latter of the old political state of things, both come to the same conclusion in expounding a pure despotism. Rousseau would have a religion, and one not only encouraged by the State, but enforced by it; that is, he would persecute all who exceeded the bounds laid down for them, and he would look on all those who were not included in this system as the outcasts of mankind. Practically, therefore, no man had a profounder contempt for the lower orders than he had; for he saw, plainly enough, that the aristocracy sympathised more with his theories than did the peasants and the poorer classes. In the religious question, Voltaire's view is thus expressed :

'Voltaire-and it is a trait which would hardly be forgiven him at the present day, but that his friends take care to say nothing about it-Voltaire teaches, in many places, that the enlightenment of the people should not

even be attempted; he even goes so far-and this assuredly, in him, implies the last degree of contempt-as to say that even their conversion to infidelity should not be attempted. In a letter to the King of Prussia, we find him say: "Your Majesty will do an eternal service to the human race by destroying that infamous superstition, I do not say among the canaille, who are not worth being enlightened, and for whom all yokes are proper, but among persons of credit, among men who think.... It is for you to feed their souls; it is for you to give white bread to the children of the family, and to leave the black bread to the dogs."'—P. 443.

And again

"We shall soon have new heavens and a new earth," he writes to D'Alembert-"I mean for people of credit; for as for the canaille, the stupidest heaven and the stupidest earth are all that they require."'-P. 444.

But small liberty would exist under such principles. It is an ideal man which the philosophers alone considered; they cared not for men. What greater despotism, then, can there be, than the upholding of a self-conceived ideal which all must copy, or be excluded from every civil right; nay, from the right itself to live; for the Revolution afterwards developed these principles even to this fatal excess.

We have not space, however, to follow M. Bungener through all his political examinations of French philosophy. He warns France of modern times to profit by the lesson of the last century. In the principles of very many of that school, he traces the one conclusion, that the ideal liberty there taught is nothing but despotism.

England has cause to be thankful that the infidelity of last century was not allowed to arrive at the same climax, or bring down the same judgments; but although checked, enough has lingered on to prove the narrowness of our escape. The book before us plainly identifies much that has been said by politicians, within our own memory, with the philosophy of the eighteenth century. That view of religious liberty which only energizes by persecuting earnest partisans in the cause of the Church, and which seems always well disposed to accept the State as the fit and proper government for a national religion, is all very congenial in its character with the sentiments of Rousseau. There have also been followers of Voltaire, both in literary and political circles, who have united with every wave of discontent that may have agitated the country, and striven to make men sceptics. But the difference, as regards success, is remarkable. In England these principles have never spread sufficiently, even in the class from which they took their origin, to bring about any great or overwhelming catastrophe. In France, the case has unfortunately been the reverse. Yet, to the nations at large, we trust that now there is not so great a difference between the two as history might lead

one to expect, In both countries there is now a revival of religion, and a longing for peaceful union among civilized nations. The history of a class has not proved in France to be the history of a nation, though all may for a time have suffered. There is a reverence for religion in the French people which has surmounted the waves of infidelity, and made her again Christian, in spite of the storms that have passed over her. May France and our own country be henceforth as well agreed in the general advancement of religion, and of all peaceful works-whether in art, literature or industry, as now they are united in the cause of justice and national freedom, against tyranny and oppression.

195

ART. VI.-1. Memoirs of the Wesley Family; collected from original Documents. By ADAM CLARKE, LL. D. F.A.S. Second Edition. 2 vols. London: Tegg. 1843.

2. An Account of the Rise and Progress of the Religious Societies in the City of London, &c. By JOSIAH WOODWARD, D.D. Sixth Edition. London. 1744.

3. The Pious Communicant, &c., with Appendix relating to our Religious Societies. By SAMUEL WESLEY, M.A., Rector of Epworth, in the Diocese of Lincoln. London. 1700.

4. Some Account of the Societies for Reformation of Manners, &c. London. 1699.

5. Sermons by ANTHONY HORNECK, D.D., late Preacher at the Savoy. To which is added, The Life of the Author, by RICHARD (KIDDER), Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells. Vol. I. London. 1706.

6. The Nature, Design, and General Rules of the United Societies in London, Bristol, &c. 1739. Works of Rev. John Wesley, Vol. VIII. London. 1830.

7. Rules of the Band Societies. 1738. Ibid.

IT is not among the least remarkable proofs of the amazing influence obtained by John Wesley over the minds of his followers and adherents, that such a man as Adam Clarke should have employed himself in collecting the history of the several members of the Wesley family, fondly tracing the possible origin of the name to an Arabic or Spanish source, and pointing out the meaning in Arabic, as that of Father of Union, or Uniting Father. We do not propose to investigate this part of his subject. But there is one fact connected with the establishment of Wesley's system which we believe to have been hitherto almost wholly overlooked or disregarded, and to which we desire to call attention, on account of its important bearing on our own times, and on the present wants and necessities of our Church. It appears that Samuel Wesley, the father, successively Rector of South Ormsby' and of Epworth in Lincolnshire, and Convo

Dr. Clarke has fallen into repeated mistakes about the connexion of Samuel Wesley with this place, for want of consulting the Bishop's Register. He tells a story, p. 107, related by John Wesley, of his father's first living having been given him by a nobleman who kept a mistress, and that this person would visit his wife, which he prevented; and having guessed this nobleman to have been the Marquis of Normanby (Sheffield, afterwards Duke of Buckingham), whose chaplain he afterwards was, he refers to this matter again as proved at pages 193, 204, and 205;

cation Proctor for that diocese, a man of letters and of eminent piety, was one of the promoters of those Religious Societies in the Church of England, of which an account was published by Dr. Woodward, and of which Bishop Kidder, in his Life of Dr. Horneck, gave some further particulars. Our object will be to trace the connexion which we believe to have existed between these Societies, and that which Charles Wesley, first, and then his brother John, established at Oxford, and which was undoubtedly the germ of modern Methodism. In doing this, it will be necessary first to give some account of these Societies themselves, and this the rather as some of their most abiding results still remain to the Church of England, in the Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge and for the Propagation of the Gospel, as well as in the great efforts for the education of the poor, carried on by the former of these two Societies for a century before the institution of the National Society.

In Robert Nelson's Address to Persons of Quality,' published in 1715, we find the Religious Societies spoken of in the following terms:

If a few persons, on no account considerable, and whose names are hardly known, being of the Church of England, by their frequently meeting together to pray, sing psalms, and read the Holy Scriptures, and to edify one another by their religious conferences, have, through their united endeavours and the grace of God, been enabled to do so much as they have done; and to propagate and form themselves into such societies as those that are called religious societies have been able to do; if they have been so instrumental in promoting the daily service among churches, with the regular administration of the Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ every Lord's-day, and in some churches also every holyday in the year; as well as other excellent designs conformable to the practice of the primitive days and to the established constitution of this best reformed Church; . . . . . and have contributed more than a little, while under the direction of their spiritual superiors, to revive the true spirit of Christianity by their charities and devotions: how much more easy would it be for persons of quality,' &c. And again, 'Some of the methods which have been taken for this end, have been the setting up several societies and funds for the more frequent and devout attendance on the divine service; for the religious observance of fasts and festivals by authority appointed; for the more exact conformity to the rules of the Catholic Church, and of the Church of England in particular; for the suppressing vice and immorality; for promoting true knowledge and piety, and for proselyting to the established doctrine and constitution such as have erred and gone astray from it, for want or due information and instruction."

and this account is followed by Archdeacon Stonehouse in his History of the Isle of Axholme, where Epworth is situated. But it appears from the Bishop's Register that he was instituted to South Ormsby, June 25, 1690, on the presentation of a private family, who were then, as now, the patrons. The fact is that the house belonging to this family was rented during the minority of the owner by another nobleman, Lord Castleton, some of whose family were connected with that of the patron; so that nothing is more natural than that he should have obtained the iving for Wesley, though he did not present him.

Address to Persons of Quality and Estate, pp. 137-139.