صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

Southey describes the afflicting case of John Haime, who had been a soldier, was for many years a Methodist preacher, and who during a considerable portion of his life suffered under the most depressing religious despondency, though at length he obtained "a full witness from the Spirit of God, that he should not find that bondage any more;" and he lived to the age of seventy-eight years, and preached as long as he could speak, though he could not stand, nearly his last words being, “O Lord, in Thee have I trusted and have not been confounded." We refer to the case for the sake of Coleridge's note:

"In this sorrowful case, it is difficult not to think, and even to hope, that it is that of a patient so erroneously treated from the beginning as to make the late and final recovery a work of Divine merey, in spite of the physician and his injudicious medicines; which yet, in a different case, might have been right ones. The Moravian doctrine, especially that of imputed righteousness, would have suited this case. Haime should have been led to fix his whole attention, and all the ardour of his seeking, on that which he was sure to find; and there, where he was sure to find it-the righteousness of God in Christ-the infinite love and loveliness of the redeeming God, the Son of Mau; in short, he should have been drawn out of himself, or rather, out of the morbid acts and products which he took for himself." (pp. ii. 43, 44.)

The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" is not a Moravian doctrine, though the Moravians hold it, as all do who hold that faith was reckoned (imputed) to Abraham for righteousness." Wesley said that "imputed righteousness is imputed nonsense;" -a most exceptionable remark, whatever were his meaning; but we presume that his real intention was, to oppose the Antinomian perversion of the doctrines of grace, as if holiness were imputed where it is not also imparted; as if a man might be justified without also being sanctified. Wesley had subscribed the doctrine of the eleventh Anglican Article which asserts that "We are accounted [account, reckon, and impute being nearly synonymous and interchangeably used for the same words in the Greek Testament] righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings;" and on his death-bed he said,

"I the chief of sinners am,

But Jesus died for me."

This was imputation in fact, however much he might object to the word, at least in the sense in which he considered-whether rightly or not-some of his opponents, as Toplady and Hervey, used it. But we concur with Coleridge in thinking that Haime might well be perplexed by the Wesleyan teaching on this subject, as if he was to look for his justification to his sanctification; to himself rather than to his Saviour; and that the Scriptural doctrine, however much self-justiciaries might represent it, or solifidians abuse it, was that which could alone meet his case. On psalmody and hymnology, and the respective merits of our Old and New Versions of the Psalms, Coleridge writes:

"I have lately looked into Hopkins and Sternhold; and though I cannot pretend that it is not coarse frieze,' or that a more dignified metrical version

is not a desideratum; yet I do say, that it does not merit Southey's harsh description of 'miserable, scandalous doggerel,' and that Sternhold and Hopkins are David and Asaph themselves, compared with Tate and Brady. There is assuredly a becoming dignity in the having the Scripture itself sung, that fits a national church; but yet I cannot blind myself to the superior edification and geniality of Christian hymns, especially such as are David Evangilizans, i. e. the psalms interpreted." (vol. ii., p. 118.)

On another occasion Coleridge interposes with a remark which may be useful as a general caution not rashly to fasten our own inferences upon another man's doctrine when he himself disclaims them. The occasion of Coleridge's remark will appear in the following passage from Southey's text.

"The Scotch Seceders,' says Wesley, who have fallen in my way, are more uncharitable than the Papists themselves. I never yet met a Papist who avowed the principle of murdering heretics. But a Seceding minister being asked, "Would not you, if it was in your power, cut the throats of all the Methodists?" replied directly, "Why, did not Samuel hew Agag in pieces before the Lord?" I have not yet met a Papist in this kingdom who would tell me to my face, all but themselves must be damned; but I have seen Seceders enough who make no scruple to affirm, none but themselves could be saved. And this is the natural consequence of their doctrine; for, as they hold that we are saved by faith alone, and that faith is the holding such and such opinions, it follows, all who do not hold those opinions have no faith, and therefore cannot be saved.' Even Whitefield, predestinarian as he was, was regarded as an abomination by the Seceders: how, then, was it possible that they should tolerate Wesley, who taught that redemption was offered to all mankind?" (vol. ii., p. 137.)

[ocr errors]

Whereupon Coleridge remarks

'Not only Wesley, but his biographer, seems to make a difference where I can find none. Surely Whitefield thought it his duty to offer the Gospel to all, though he believed it foreseen by God that only a certain number would receive it." (vol. ii., p. 137.)

Wesley wondered that the Scottish ministers of that day-the dry dissertationists, whose sermons, for want of application to the heart and conscience, "did no more good than the singing of a lark,"-were not sensible of this, and "could not see that no sinners are convinced of sin, none converted to God by this way of preaching." Southey, in their vindication, says: "They aimed at no such effect." Whereupon Coleridge exclaims: "What! not to convince any sinner of his sins." Southey explains what he means, when he adds:

"The new-birth of the Methodists, their instantaneous conversions, their assurance, their sanctification, and their perfection, were justly regarded as extravagances by the Scotch as well as by the English clergy." (p. 141.)

This only makes bad worse, because it confounds doctrines of unspeakable importance, the solid verities of Scripture, with "extravagances" which have nought to do with them. There is also an unfair slyness in Southey's substitution of his own words for Wesley's. Wesley lamented that by the preaching then in vogue in Scotland, and which Southey eulogistically relegates also (and we fear too truly at that period,) to the English clergy, "no sinners are convinced of sin, none converted to God." Southey replies that they did not aim at the "extravaCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 146.


gances" of "the new-birth of the Methodists, their instantaneous conversion, their assurance, their sanctification, and their perfection." But Wesley, whatever were his own opinions, had not used the phrases which Southey employs as synonymous with conviction of sin and conversion to God. Whether "the Methodists" described the new birth extravagantly or otherwise, it is a Scriptural doctrine that sinful man requires to be born again. Whether conversion is or is not "instantaneous," has nothing to do with the doctrine that conversion, whenever or however it takes place, is necessary to salvation. And as for "assurance, sanctification, and perfection," Wesley had not used the words; though even if he had, all these words might be rightly used in a Scriptural and a Church-of-England sense, without any Methodistical "extravagances," or so much as touching upon anything peculiar to Wesley's system. There is no Methodistical extravagance in saying, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect;" or in saying, "This is the will of God, even your sanctification;" or in saying, "Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith;" "Shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope;" "Being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding." Whatever might be Wesley's peculiar opinions or practices, these obligations and privileges are constantly urged in Scripture and in our own Prayer-book. Southey, therefore, in saying that the Scottish or English clergy "aimed at no such effect," either unjustly maligns them, or unconsciously condemns them. But, we repeat, Wesley, in the passage referred to, had not used these particular phrases; he spoke only of "conviction of sin and conversion to God;" and these Southey applaudingly declares were not so much as aimed at. Well might Coleridge pen a note of astonishment. And said we not well that Southey, with all his talents and diligence, was unqualified to write the life of Wesley? He had not the knowledge to discriminate between what was Methodism or extravagance, and what was Scriptural truth, and received as such by the Anglican Church. And he even pays the English and Scottish clergy the bad compliment of being as ignorant as himself, and not aiming to convince men of their sins, or to convert them to God. His blunder would not, however, have been worth dilating upon, were it not that too many other persons formerly, and some even now, confound Scriptural truth with the distortions with which they have allowed themselves to connect it. This is as absurd as to call it a Jumper and Shaker doctrine that a man ought not to get drunk, if it happened that a Jumper or Shaker had said so. And in truth our allusion to Jumpers and Shakers is not so far-fetched as it might seem; for Southey is not ashamed again and again to blend God's truth with man's vagaries; and Coleridge justly reprehends him for it. Thus upon Southey's sketch of the life of Thomas Walsh, he exclaims:

"Alas! What more or worse could a young infidel spitaller, fresh from

the lectures of some facetious infidel anatomist or physiologist, have wished, than to have the sense of the utter vileness and helplessness of man left to himself, gradually followed by the conviction of an Almighty Helper, than to have THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE STRONG DESIRE OF SALVATION,' represented as so many regular symptoms and crises of a bodily disease? Oh! I am almost inclined to send this my copy of his work to R. Southey, with the notes, for my heart bears him witness that he offendeth not willingly." (vol. ii., p. 165.)

Granted "not willingly;" nor have we said "willingly;" we have imputed it, as Dr. Johnson said of one of his own lexicographical mistakes, to "ignorance, sheer ignorance." But this does not diminish the mischievous tendency of Southey's remarks upon the minds of those who are as ignorant in these matters as himself, and are liable to be misled by his mistakes.

We have now concluded our notes upon Coleridge; and we do not wish in general to dislocate our Reviews; but the dissertation of Alexander Knox is entirely distinct matter, and it embraces questions of so much importance that we purpose noticing it in a future Number.

(To be continued.)


The New Testament Expounded and Illustrated, according to the usual Marginal References, in the very words of Holy Scripture. By CLEMENT MOODY, M.A. Longmans.-It is a most cheering fact, among others of a less satisfactory character, in the statistics of religion, that the demand for Bibles with parallel passages, is every day rapidly increasing. Our readers are, for the most part, aware that the references in our authorized Bibles are printed without public authority. It was enough for the early Reformers to secure the sacred text itself for general use, without thinking of parallel passages; but their own perpetual reference to it in a measure supplied the deficiency. In the authorized version of 1611 few references were introduced. In 1638 an edition with more parallel passages was published at Cambridge; and in 1683 another at Oxford. The references in these editions were much improved and enlarged by the labours of Bishop Lloyd, and afterwards by Dr. Blaney, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University. There is a general impression, and not without good reason, that these references are still susceptible of great improvement. Mr. Moody has, however, shewn in his Preface, that a more diligent examination of them would lead to larger results than are yielded to the cursory reader. And, at all events, they are more valuable than none; and the author before us has rendered an important service to the Church of Christ by publishing the four Evangelists and the Acts, with the parallel passages in our authorized Bible, not given in mere numerals, but in the full words of Scripture. The work has

been executed at much labour and expense; and we should be sorry that the author of it did not meet with corresponding encouragement from the public. Whoever has felt with us the pain of delay in searching out the Scripture references—and of disappointment in their not unfrequent inappropriateness when found-will be thankful to the author for a copy of the Gospels and the Acts which enables the eye to glance from the passage to the reference without an effort. It is the intention of Mr. Moody to discharge the same office to the other books of Scripture; and we heartily wish him success in his undertaking.

Is a Decision of the Privy Council a reason for Secession? A Letter to a Clergyman of the Evangelical School. By another Clergyman. London: Bell.-If the Reverend Professor to whom the Letter is by some persons assigned be really the author, we must plead something of the same apology urged by Dr. Johnson for his not detecting certain North-country impostors: "How should I detect them, when the rogues had disguised themselves in clean linen?" In like manner, how should we detect the Professor, when he has disguised himself in plain sentiments and simple language? We venture to say, however, that there is perhaps no production of his pen-if this be his-of which he has less reason to be ashamed. The object of the Letter is to dissuade the Evangelical Clergy from being betrayed into the folly of either changing their opinions, or of quitting the Established Church, because Sir H. J. Fust or the Privy Council, whom he is pleased to describe as "the cobblers" of their respective Courts, should happen to agree in deciding against Mr. Gorham. The pamphlet is, as we have said, clearly written; is in the main accurately reasoned; and above all, breathes through every part of it a conciliatory and Christian spirit. He is much pleased that Sir H. J. Fust, whom he seems to regard as a wonderfully poor theologian, and a sort of dull representative of the lay "sense" of the country, should agree with himself; and still more delighted that he should denounce the "baptismal theory of the Bishop of Exeter.". He thinks, moreover, that the High Church school would "do much more wicked and oppressive acts, if the terror of (the Evangelicals) were removed from them ;" and he has no taste for those who "make a State tyranny, real or imaginary, an excuse for setting up Jacobinical Church Clubs, under the name of ' Unions,' for the sake of coercing the rulers of the land as well as the Fathers of the Church." We are sorry to state, as the single drawback on the Letter, that when the writer comes to express his own sentiments on Baptism, he becomes for a moment so high-flown and exaggerated, that we can scarcely pretend to follow him. "I look upon the doctrine that the child is actually regenerate in Baptism, as a practical witness that the redemption of Christ is a reality;" and he finds in it a deliverance from ultra Calvinism,

« السابقةمتابعة »