Church.* From this statement, it should seem that Dr. Mant is as much mistaken as Mr. W. who has embraced his opinion without sufficiently examining the subject. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, the miracle to have been the occasion of such an accession of members to the church of God, why must it follow, that it should operate to the conviction of the multitude "at once?" Do we not find that they were actually in doubt ? Must no time elapse, as in case of doctrine for people to examine whether a miracle be true or false? Are ancient prejudices for a favourite religion so easily conquered? Notwithstanding all the miracless the Jews saw, they still clamoured for signs; and Paul found the greatest difficulty in inducing them to abandon the ceremonies of the law. Mr. W. too, were he to take pains to examine the subject, would find that the conversion inculcated in the New Testament, is something more than what he states, a bare change from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity; whereas, continues he, "The conversion contended for by the Methodists is a change from corruption and sin to purity and holiness."+ This, in other words, is saying, that every professor of the Christian Religion is a Christian; and that, as the conversion of the Methodists differs from the conversion of the New Testament, the former implying "a change from corruption and sin to purity and holiness," the conversion of the latter will neither admit of "purity" nor" holiness," but will permit its subjects to wallow in" sin and corruption!" After having adverted to the doctrine of assurance of pardon, "This," says Mr. W. " is the proof, and the only proof, on which any reliance is placed, of the conversion of the sincere Methodist; for we must remember, that good works without this experience of grace, are considered as no certain indication of the Christian's repentance." To shew how ill supported this is by evidence of any kind, a reference to Mr. Wesley's Works would be quite sufficient, where, in addition to assertion, both the fruit of the Spirit and the fruit of good living, are required in confirmation of the whole. Or let any man read over the General Rules of the Methodist Societies, and say whether nothing else be required of a person, in proof of his conversion to God, than bare assertion. He will there discover, that, as an evidence, the very thing is required which Mr. Wainewright denies to the Methodists, that is, “ permanent character;" || and not as he affirms in the same place, “constitutional temper and fervour of imagination." It is expected that every member shall continue to evidence his desire of salvation, and still more his actual conversion, by avoiding swearing, a profanation of the Sabbath, drunkenness, fighting, quarrelling, brawling, railing, going to Acts ii. 37--47. + Page 31. + Page 43, 44. Works, vol. xiii. p. 273; 134. || Page 47. law with his brethren, buying or selling uncustomed goods, giving or taking things on usury, unprofitable and uncharitable conversation, costly apparel, foolish diversions, singing songs, reading improper books, self-indulgence, laying up treasure upon earth, and borrowing without a probability of paying:-by doing good both to the bodies and souls of men, according to his ability, in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, instructing the ignorant, reproving the guilty, using all diligence, frugality, and in taking up the cross-and, lastly, by attending to all the ordinances of God, as public worship, the ministry of the word, the supper of the Lord, family and private prayer, searching the Scriptures, together with fasting and abstinence. This, Sir, is certainly putting conversion to the test; and a test too, which the " permanent character" of many of the opposers of Methodism, would be ill able to brook. We are presented with a string of what Mr. W. designates good works, such as feeding the hungry, comforting the afflicted, &c. and which he intimates avail a man nothing in the estimation of the Methodists," as long as he is destitute of that particular mode of justifying faith, and its concomitant assurance, which are pronounced by the partisans of Methodism to constitute the only passport to the realms of bliss."+ It has been proved, Sir, and, I trust, clearly, that the Methodistic notion of justification by faith, is substantially one with that of the Establishment, and both agree with the notion we have of it in the Bible; and that the doctrine of assurance is countenanced by the Church of which Mr. W. considers himself a member. This being admitted, it will be no difficult task to produce others, beside Methodists, who will not hesitate to pronounce what are improperly called "good works, without THIS EXPERIENCE of GRACE," utterly useless or unavailing. The love of God in the human heart, and saving grace, are, it will be readily conceded, equivalent; and that the man who is destitute of the one cannot possibly possess the other. What are the views of St. Paul, of the works of a man, without love?" Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity," (ayanny, love,)"I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Next to St. Paul, attend to the language of the Church of England. "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, (i. e. before justification, as the title expresses it,) are not pleasant *Wesley's Works, vol. vi. p. 304-307, particularly p. 309. + Page 44, 1 Cor. xiii. 1--3. to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christyea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not they have the nature of sin." To this article, as a conscientious man, Mr. W. must have subscribed, before he took upon himself the priest's office. If you proceed from the Articles to the Homilies, Sir, you will find the same sentiments. "Without faith can no good work be done, acceptable and pleasant to God. For as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, saith our Saviour Christ, except it abide in the vine, so cannot you, except you abide in me. Faith giveth life to the soul; and they be as much dead to God that lack faith, as they be to the world whose bodies lack souls. Without faith all that is done of us, is but dead before God. Even as a picture is but a dead representation of the thing itself, so be the works of all unfaithful (unbelieving) persons before God. They be but shadows of lively good things, and not good things indeed. For true faith doth give life to the works, and without faith no work is good before God. We must set no good works before faith, nor think that before faith a man may do any good works. For such are as the course of a horse that runneth out of the way, which taketh great labour, but to no purpose."+ Such is the confidence Mr. W. has, in the "Experience of the unlettered sectarist," that he considers the whole "As satisfactory and consistent, as the idle tales once so prevalent among the credulous and superstitious, of spectres and apparitions."‡ He should have recollected, that there are some very important points of difference. In the first instance, they were the "credulous and superstitious," who listened to "the idle tales once so prevalent, of spectres and apparitions;" but Methodism, or the Sectarists, if Mr. W. pleases, can bring forward men who have carefully examined every step they have taken in religion, and who are no way distinguished for their superstition. It may be further added, that the effects, as well as the spectres themselves, soon disappeared; but here is " 'permanent character" produced, men who have adorned the doctrine of God their Saviour upwards of half a century. Lastly, they were only the few who professed to have seen these spectres, however many might have believed in them; but here are living epistles, seen and read of all men, with the exception of Mr. W. and two or three more. The doctrine of sanctification meets with powerful opposition from Mr.W.; and no wonder, when he informs us, that "We find no instance on record of a single individual, even among the Apostles and primitive martyrs, who is represented as having arrived at entire cxemption from sin ;"§ and maintains that men are only perfect in a reative sense, that is not really so-pos sessing the name without the thing specified. A doctrine like this * Art. xiii. Homily on Faith, part iii. + Page 54. § Page 59. Page 58 must be very agreeable to such as are in love with moral evil. It is not my intention, Sir, immediately to vindicate the character of the Apostles from the aspersion thrown upon it; I leave that office to their writings, particularly to the writings of him who says, "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not;-and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."* There are two or three particulars relative to the doctrine impugned, and the views of the Methodists of that doctrine, which require briefly to be noticed. Mr. W. observes, 1. That the Methodists hold such a degree of sanctification "As to exempt them altogether from the actual, if not the possible, commission of sin, during the remainder of their life." 2. That sanctification "Is regarded as a qualification absolutely indispensable, preparatory to their reception into future glory." And, 3. That in them it is no less than "Presumption to pronounce with dogmatism, that without its attainment salvation is utterly hopeless."+ On the first of these, from a want of proof on the part of Mr. W. a bare denial is all that it merits. But it shall receive. better treatment. Mr. Wesley, in a letter to Mr. Dodd, says, "I every where allow, that a child of God can and will commit sin, if he does not keep himself. But this, you say, is nothing to the present argument.' Yes, it is the whole thing. If they keep themselves they do not; otherwise they can and do commit sin. I say nothing contrary to this in either Sermon. But, 'hence you say, we conclude, That he who is born of God may POSSIBLY commit sin.' An idle conclusion as ever was formed. For whoever denied it? I flatly affirm it in both the Sermons, and in the very paragraph now before us. The only conclusion which I deny is, That all Christians do and will commit sin as long as they live." He goes still further, and states his belief, that persons perfected in love may make shipwreck of the faith.§ For his more enlarged views on the subject, you, Sir, as the Editor of the last edition of his Works, will naturally advert to his "Serious Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints." To place man in such a degree of perfection in this world, as to raise him above the possibility of falling, is to elevate him above Adam in his paradisical state, and is every way incompatible with a state of probation. As it regards the second particular, the Methodists consider themselves in possession of sufficient ground for its support. They do hold sanctification indespensably necessary to a person's admission into heaven. They view a salvation from sin as the object of Christ's death,-" He was wounded for our transgressions -bruised for our iniquities-delivered for our offences-and bare J John iii. 6, 24. + Page 55-57. Works, vol. xv. p. 341. § Page 87. Vol. xiv, page 412-.498. VOL. XLII. MARCH, 1819. Z our sins in his own body on the tree :"* they behold it as attainable; not only because "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin," but because God has solemnly promised to cleanse us from all our filthiness, and to save us from all our uncleannesses:† and lastly, they urge it as necessary; because, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord, and because the glorified saints in heaven have all "Washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." This, Sir, includes the third particular which I purposed noticing; for if not any thing that is unholy can enter heaven, I contend that there can be no presumption to pronounce even with dogmatism, that, without entire sanctification, final happiness is "utterly hopeless." For further reasons, I again refer you to Mr. Wesley's Works.§ Mr. W. anticipating an objection to which he seems afraid he will be laid open, asks of a person laying claim to the inspiration of the Spirit, "Are we to admit that it would be a satisfactory answer to those who might feel disposed to dispute his claims, to say, that they were absolutely incompetent judges of the case, since they never had shared in the same privilege?" Such persons, it is readily acknowledged, may be competent judges in what relates to the arts and sciences-civil life-moral conduct, &c. but in what relates to the operations of the Holy Ghost, they are utterly incompetent to decide. Some have treated admirably of painting, who never excelled in the use of the pencil. Cicero could remark that Aratus, by the common consent of the learned, wrote excellently of the heavens and of the stars, though no noted astronomer. Many have delivered lectures on eloquence, who were not remarkable as orators. Galen, that great master of physic, wrote learnedly on the subject, though seldom seen in the practice. Some of our best treatises on poetry, have been penned by men who never shone in the art. And not a few have descanted on military tactics, who never entered the field. All this is within the range of reason, and of extensive knowledge. But, Sir, the case in dispute, is properly an exempt one. It was considered as such by St. Paul, who positively affirms, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.¶ You will excuse this long letter: but really, Sir, where the very vitals of Christianity are wounded, it is difficult to compress the subject. In my next, in which I purpose taking up the subject of Providence, I promise, if that will be any consolation, to be more brief.-Your's, JAMES EVERETT. * Isai. liii. 5; Rom. iv. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 24. + 1 John i. 7; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 29. Paga 52. § Particularly vol. vi. p. 329--334. Errata. In the former part of Mr. Everett's second letter, in our number for February, page 102, line 7, the words "own system" should have been at the end of the line instead of the beginning. |