Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lics, to whose interests the King's devotion was sufficiently apparent. But what display of religious tolerance or enlightened civil policy could be expected from one, surrounded, during his exile, by emigrant noblesse, martyrs to the ancient Régime, and a crowd of priests, whom nothing less than the grossest form of popery could satisfy? With too much truth was it observed that, in twenty years, the Bourbons had forgotten nothing and had learned nothing. Will France never deserve a better order of things than such a paternal government?

R.

ART. III.-A Candid and Impartial Inquiry into the Present State of the Methodist Societies in Ireland: wherein several important points relative to their doctrines and discipline are discussed. By a Member of the Society, 8vo. pp. 512. Belfast, printed; sold by Commins, Lincoln's Inn, London, 1814.

TH

HIS work contains much important information respecting the state of opinions on some of the most leading points in theology among the Methodists in Ireland. The author regards as an evil, the want of uniformity in religious doctrine, which his statements prove to exist, and to shew itself publicly, among the ministers of his denomination, as well as among the people. The object of his book appears to be, to stir up his brethren to provide a remedy for this imagined evil, by forming "an official compendium" of the doctrines of the Methodists, "compiled from the voluminous writings wherein they now Jie scattered, and bearing the stamp of legitimate authority." P. 348.

That among so numerous a body of Christians as the Methodists now are, a diversity of opinion on a variety of subjects should exist, might naturally be expected; but we were not aware that inquiry had extended itself so far, or that what is called heterodoxy existed to such a degree, as this writer shews to be the case among the societies in Ireland: not a few of his pages are filled with the proofs of this sup; posed departure from the truth, and the discussion of the controverted points. A statement of the subjects on which the Methodists in Ireland are divided in their opinions will not be uninteresting to our readers, and it

will enable them to judge of the grounds on which the writer thinks "an official compendium of doctrines," in other words, a creed, necessary for the preservation of methodism. They are, Original Sin, Imputed Righteousness, Justification, Faith, and Regeneration.

After stating, p. 69, that " Original Sin, implying the actual propagation · of a nature morally corrupt and positively evil, comprehending complete alienation from God, a prevailing bias and propensity to sin, a direct enmity to the nature of holiness, and an inward association with the powers of darkness, if not an actual participation in a diabolical nature" is contended for as a first principle by the Methodists, he adds

"But although this doctrine is generally received in the Methodist connexion, yet it is important to know that this is not universally the case. There are, both among preachers and people, those who cannot reconcile the popular opinions respecting this point, to their notions, either of the wisdom, the goodness, the justice, or the truth of God. For denying the necessity of the continuance of a corrupt nature, transmitted through the ordinary course of generation, as a foundation of redemption, they contend that this redemption should operate to the extirpation of the principle of evil from our nature in its initial state, and thereby prove its claim to the glorious title it sustains, and exhibit in infants the full accomplishment of the important objects it is intended to attain. And under these impressions, the opposers of the doctrine as above delineated say, it is incompatible with the divine wisdom, to permit the actual propagation of sin; for, say they, if God really wills the salvation of all men, and if holiness be essential to that salvation, and actually unholy in the extreme, have can the propagation of a nature positively any tendency to promote that glorious end? Certainly not. On the contrary, it would be a radical, and in most cases, au effectual opponent to the hopes of salvation.” P.70.

The author states in the following pages, the reasoning of his brethren who reject the doctrine of Original Sin, assert its inconsistency with the goodness and truth of God, and maiutain that neither sin nor holiness are susceptible of propagation. But though the arguments, many of which are strong and pointed, are given as the language of others, he himself seems to take the heterodox side on this subject. He says,

"As our object is not to foster preju

Review.-Inquiry into the Methodist Societies.

dice, but to ascertain and vindicate truth,
it is highly necessary in the investigation
of any point of doctrine, to turn it on every
side, to look at it in all its bearings, and
with patience and candour to appreciate its
real merit by the acknowledged criterions
of orthodoxy. With this view let us put to
ourselves the questions which follow.-If,
as is generally supposed, Original Sin,
propagated as an active principle in the
soul, be the efficient cause of the universal
prevalence of evil, will not this exonerate
mankind from much of the responsibility
which would otherwise attach to their dis-
positions and actions, as moral agents in a
state of probation? For really if our na-
ture be radically evil, or if evil be so closely
interwoven with its fabric as is generally
believed, it would appear unreasonable to
expect any good fruit from so corrupt a tree.
Yet we find God both expects and demands
it." (See Jer. ii. 2.-Isa. v. 4.) P.
Note.

185.

Imputed Righteousness. "Upon this interesting subject also," says the author, "there is a considerable diversity of opinion in the Methodist connexion." P. 95. He acknowledges "the popular feeling appears to be rather against it;" and though he labours to prove it by quotations from the writings of Mr. Wesley, he is compelled to admit that the founder of the Methodist connexion, if in the early part of his ministry he maintained, afterwards rejected, and openly opposed the views of the subject for which he contends. He quotes a passage from Mr. Wesley, which it is impossible to reconcile with the notion that Christ's

righteousness and merits are imputed

to the sinner.

"Again; Mr. Wesley proceeds, least of all does justification imply that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be in fact what they are not, that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us, contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth; neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more in this manner confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham."

P. 168.

The author lays the greatest stress on the doctrine of Imputed Righteous ness, and laments the opposition it meets with amongst the Methodists.

99

Sentiments respecting the death of Christ, which alarm him, are entertained by some of the preachers,

"The author has heard from a Metho

dist pulpit, the doctrine inculcated that the

death of Christ was not essential to the salvation of mankind, but that God made choice of that as the most eligible and advantageous mode of reconciling the world to himself. And he has been told by another preacher, and one of very distinguished rank and eminence in the connexion, that the death of Christ was not a meritori ous sacrifice for the sins of the world, which was a Calvinistic notion; that God tend his mercy to men through that medium; chose indeed to manifest his grace and exbut that if it had so pleased him, he might have doue the same through the death of a bullock or any similar medium." P. 355.

Note.

"The

We are informed, p. 138. most general sentiment in the Methodist connexion concerning" Justification "is, that it is perfectly synonymous with the forgiveness of sins; the removal of guilt, and of the liability to punishment which we incur thereby; a mere exoneration from the penalties to which a breach of the divine law subjects every transgressor." To this the author objects, though it appears from his own account, that it was the sentiment of the founder of the Methodist societies, and has been from the first the sentiment most generally maintained in those societies.

He makes great complaint of the increase of legality among the Methodists, because they do not insist on some popular doctrines which are generally termed evangelical, but continually enforce reformation and good works, without directing their hearers to depend on the personal righteousness of Christ imputed to them for their justification, pp. 130-194; and with all his veneration for Mr. Wesley he hardly acquits him of being too legal. for God, and for the honour of the diHe says, p. 278, "Mr. Wesley's zeal vine law, carried him with a full tide into the bosom of the strongest Arminianism." And adds, in a note, "We may here notice an instance of Mr. Wesley's having about that time lost all dread of danger from the introduction of legality into his system of divinity. In a letter to Miss Bishop, of Bath, dated November 5, 1770, he observes:-"I'cannot find in my Bible any such sin as legality. Truly, we have been often afraid where no fear

[blocks in formation]

We are glad to find that rational ideas respecting the nature of faith, are making progress among the Methodists in Ireland; for which they are censured by this writer. Complaining of the pharisaism of some of the preachers, he says, p. 130," faith according to them, being only a rational conviction of the great truths of revelation, and its only use to act as a spur to our endeavours to fulfil the righteousness of the law, which is to be our chief passport to heaven." Again,

"The advocates for this doctrine (and they are numerous in the Methodist connexion,) contend that the faith which is

ordained of God to be the instrument of our

salvation, is essentially the same with that reliance which we repose upon the testimony of a man, in whose integrity we can place implicit confidence; the distinction between these consisting only in the diversity of the objects which they embrace. And accommodating their language to their principles, they divide faith into human and divine: human faith is, according to them, the assent which we give to human testimony; and divine faith the asrent which we give to divine testimony. And they insinuate, that the one is as much the spontaneous act of the natural powers

of the human mind as the other.

"The evidence upon which this divine faith' is required and supposed to rest, is that which is contained in the oracles of inspiration. But little or nothing is either said or admitted respecting the particular influence of the spirit of God, in applying

the truths of scripture to the conscience, or inspiring a conviction of their reality and importance." P. 224.

The following is the view of Regeneration, which this author states as entertained by some of his brethren the Methodists, and to be rapidly gaining ground among them. "They appear to believe that every man possesses what may properly be termed a natural power to obey the divine commandments, to repent of his sins, and believe the gospel at his pleasure;

the spirit of God being always ready (so far as his influence may be neces sary,) to co-operate with the sinner, and assist him in the work of conversion. But it would appear, from this system of doctrine, that by far the greater part of the work rests with the sinner himself, who, it seems, has it completely in his power to become a saint whenever he pleases; only in consideration of the foolish and sinful habits he has long indulged, it will necessarily be a work of some time and labour to get his heart thoroughly converted to the ways of truth and holiness. No extraordinary degree of divine influence, however, is to be expected, or is indeed supposed to be requisite to effect the great work of conversion; and accordingly it is a principle held by the favourers of this doctrine, That God, prompted by his own goodness, hath already done all that he possibly can do, consistently with his own glory, for the present human creature upon earth; and that happiness and final salvation of every consequently no farther interference of divine power or influence need be expected to effect the conversion of any individual; although, as the divine spirit is omnipresent, and is in fact the primum mobile of all physical, intellectual, and moral power in the universe, his aid in a general way cannot be excluded, particularly as it is admitted, that God is loving to every man, and his tender mercy is over all his works."" Pp. 177-178.

Though this writer asserts, p. 287, that " the Methodist societies are well grounded in the fundamental and im portant doctrine of a trinity of persons in the Godhead;" it appears from his account at large that a dissonance of language is found among them respecting the divinity of Christ, and that a complete uniformity of opinion on the subject does not exist in their socie"The geneties. He says, p. 288. rality both of preachers and people seem content with a general, but often very confused idea of the divinity of Christ." In a note, he adds, "A preacher, who certainly has no mean opinion of his own talents and orthodoxy, was delivering a discourse from Col. i. 12-18. He admitted that the terms Jesus Christ applied only to the manhood of our Lord, and were descriptive of his vicarious character, as the Saviour of the world, and the only

Review-Inquiry into the Methodist Societies.

mediator between God and man. And he contended strenuously that his person and character had no kind of existence until the formation of the former in the womb of the virgin mother, and the subsequent developement of the latter in the life and death of Christ." Even some of the writer's own expressions will be found difficult to reconcile with the proper doctrine of the trinity, of which he declares "Athanasius the great oracle." P. 295. He represents the notion that God died, as the greatest of absurdities.

"But is any one among us weak enough to conclude from this figurative expression, (Acts 20-28.) that the eternal God literally shed his blood for us? This preposterous motion would be incomparably more grossly absurd than the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation. The idea of a suffering and expiring Deity is so repugnant to our enlightened reason, so degrading to the divine character, so much at variance with the principles of all theology, and so subversive of every attribute of the Godhead, that it is beyond measure astonishing how such a notion could ever find its way into the doctrines of Christianity; or that any figurative expression of scripture could, by men of sense, be ever tortured into the support of a doctrine so full of absurdity and contradiction. It is deifying the material body of the blessed Jesus, and laying the foundation of the grossest idolatry, in the very person of the immaculate Son of God. Doubtless the idolatry of the mass originally sprang out of this absurd notion of a corporeal Deity: whereas we know that God is a spirit, whom no man hath seen nor can see :' and they that worship him acceptably must do it in spirit and in truth." P. 297.

Again, he says,

"It is very commonly supposed that the vengeance of God, which was satiated by the blood of Christ, was infinite in its extent, and boundless in its demands; and hence it has been concluded that the Deity himself must have participated in the suffering, and have given merit to the atonement, which otherwise could not have been adequate to the purposes of reconciliation upon legal principles. The accuracy of these sentiments may be justly questioned; they appear to be the offspring of a fallacious mode of reasoning, unsupported by divine authority, and instituted for the purpose of accommodating a pre-conceived opinion of an excessive rigour in the divine economy, which even transcends the boundaries of strict justice, and which induced God to require an infinite satisfaction for a finite offence. We call it a finite offence,

101

because although committed against a being infinite in his perfections, yet it was the transgression of a finite creature who was incapable of performing an infinite act, and it was also the violation of a law instithat finite creature; consequently its terms tuted for the regulation of the conduct of were suited to the limited capacity of that being, or those beings who were to be its subjects. Now we argue, that if the fulfilment of that law did not demand the exertion of infinite powers, so neither could its violation require an infinite atonement." P. 299.

He justly censures the following lines in the Methodist hymns, which he says, carry their own condemnation on their face."

66

"The immortal God for me hath died!"
And-

"I thirst for a life-giving God,
"A God that on Calvary died!"

It will be difficult for the author to reconcile the above passages with his ascribing to the Son of God all the essential attributes of Deity, p. 287, for if, as he justly asserts, God could neither suffer nor die, it follows that he who actually suffered and died was not God: but Paul declared, "It is Christ that died," and that he was "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Could the author induce the Methodists to form a creed, under the of Doctrines, it is not at all likely it name of "An Official Compendium" would produce uniformity, though it might dissimulation and hypocrisy. If creeds when enforced by the civil power, and fenced by all the terrors of persecution, never produced uniformity of opinion, how can it be thought that one unsupported by the state and not so fenced would do it? The most probable effect of such a measure would be, that no longer permitted to exercise freedom of opinion

in the methodist connexion multitudes would leave it, and form separate societies where they could freely think for themselves, and openly declare their views of divine truth. We trust the Methodists are too sensible of the value of religious liberty, ever to submit to the yoke of bondage this writer wishes to see imposed opon them. Is it not enough that the societies are denied the liberty of choosing their own ministers; must the preachers also be put in fetters by their "per

fect coincidence in their public capacities, with the essential doctrines therein contained:" that is, in the proposed compendium? The adoption of the author's plan would be a direct violation of the rights of conscience, and a gross departure from the principles of liberty, which he states as asserted and acted upon by the founder of the Methodist connexion. The following note deserves the attention of every person in that connexion, and should the plan recommended by this writer, ever be proposed at Confer ence, it is hoped some of its members will move that this note be read.

"It is both interesting and important

here to refer to the minutes of the First Conference, held in June 1744, where we find the ground of private judgment distinctly laid down as the unalienable privilege of every Christian; and, at the same time, the boundaries are ascertained at which a surrender of that judgment is required of a Methodist preacher. These fundamental principles being coeval with the preacher's character as a Christian, and his admission as a minister of the gospel in the Methodist connexion, are in full force at the present day, and must continue so to the end of time. These therefore must form the basis of all future regulations, respecting the belief and propagation of doctrines in the Methodist societies. They run thus:

Question. How far does each of us agree to submit to the judgment of the majority?-Answer. In speculative things each can only submit so far as his judgment shall be convinced. In every practical point, each will submit so far as he can without wounding his conscience.

"Question. Can a Christian submit any farther than this to any man, or number of men upon earth?-Answer. It is undeniably certain he cannot, either to Bishop, Convocation, or General Council. And this is that grand principle of private judgment on which all the reformers proceeded, Every man must judge for himself, because every man must give an account of himself to God.' It is impossible to read this without admiring it; let it never be forgotten that these principles formed the basis of the Methodist Conference." P.

336.

After reading the above, we were ready to ask, can this writer be in carnest in wishing to have the religious opinions of the whole body of the Methodists fixed by "An Official Compendium?" Most inconsistently with the plan he recommends, speaking of John and Charles Wesley, he says,

"But neither of these eminent men, no, nor all the conferences at which they assisted or presided, had any power to enact laws, to establish principles, or institute regulations, binding upon their successors or their posterity. Our acquiescence in these is a matter of choice, and not compulsion; and we possess the unquestionable power of revising, altering, or abolishing any part of our religious establishment. P. 340.

The length to which this article is already extended, compels us to pass over several things we had intended noticing; we conclude our extracts with the following note, p. 231. It is quoted by the author from the Belfast Monthly Magazine, for March, 181S.*

"AN EXAMPLE TO MODERN METHODISTS.-The Rev John Wesley himself has asserted in his writings, not only that an Anti-trinitarian may manifest a desire of escaping future misery, but that he may be a truly good man. In one of the numbers of the Arminian Magazine, published a few years before his death, he inserted an extract of the memoir of the life of that eminent Unitarian, Thomas Firmin. In introducing this extract, he observed, that be had been formerly inclined to think, that a person who was unsound with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, could not be a converted or good man. But that now he thought differently, since the subject of the memoir was undoubtedly a pious man, though erroneous in the doctrine of the Trinity, and that there was no arguing against facts.'"

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

* The extract which follows was taken

by the editor of the Belfast Magazine, from our number for January, 1813, Vol. VIII. From the Belfast Magazine it has been copied into the "Inquiry," and copied back by our reviewer into the Monthly Refacts and truths are put into print, it is impository. A striking proof, that when possible to guess how widely, and by what means they may be made known to the public. The statement concerning John Wesley, which was the original of these several publications, was made in a letter to us

On the Methodist Excommunication at Flushing," under the signature of Sabrinus, adopted in the former volumes of this work, by the late much-respected Rev. W. Severn, of Hull. ED.

« AnteriorContinuar »