confounded sober-minded men, but which was nevertheless embraced in its fullest extent by Richard Watson; namely, the doctrine of Christian perfection, or entire sanctification. It is usually believed that our sanctification is never complete, on this side the grave. But Wesley and Fletcher thought otherwise. And, in accordance with them, Watson contended that it is "the common privilege of believers to be saved from all sin in the present life, and to be sanctified to God, in body, soul, and spirit, till they enter upon the heavenly state."-(p. 470.) In his Theological Dictionary he says, "Sanctification in this world must be complete. The whole nature must be sanctified. All sin must be utterly abolished; or the soul can never be admitted into the glorious presence of God." We must honestly confess that we have not, at this moment, present to our recollection, the precise line of argument by which the followers of Wesley are in the habit of defending this very hazardous position; and we have no leisure to review the discussion. But there are some fearful considerations which must inevitably rush into every mind the instant the doctrine is propounded. In the first place, it is difficult to understand what can be meant by complete sanctification, unless it implies a process which brings the human soul into a state of conformity with the will of God, as perfect as that which was exemplified in the person of our blessed Saviour himself. And, that any human soul has ever attained to such perfect conformity, is a proposition which sounds to us like profaneness and impiety. In the second place, even on the supposition that such perfection is attainable by man, the number who actually attain it must be most awfully small indeed.

if none but those who attain it, shall ever be admitted into the presence of God, all but a very trifling remnant of the human race, must be doomed to destruction from his presence for ever! Thirdly, the believer is conscious of having reached this consummation of holiness and purity, before the hour of death,—or he is not. If he is conscious of it, he is in possession of the fullest and most finished assurance of salvation that can be communicated to the soul of man; or, in other words, the Calvinistic doctrine of assurance, in its utmost extremity of presumption, is an article of the Wesleyan creed. If he is not conscious of it, he must leave this world with one of two prospects before him; namely, either that the penal futurity which awaits him is purgatorial, and that its fires must be endured until they shall have effected the entire abolition of the body of sin,-(a doctrine which, as we have seen, the Wesleyans utterly abjure); —or else he must expire with a fearful looking for of judgment, that threatens him with never-ending tribulation and anguish. And

in that case, the brightness of hope can scarcely ever visit the chamber of the dying penitent; a covering of sackcloth will be spread over his heaven, and the shadow of eternal death will come his soul.

down upon

It is remarkable that neither Watson, nor even Wesley himself, ever ventured to affirm, that this super-human perfection of holiness had been attained by themselves. And it may safely be presumed that they never could have produced any one human being, of whom they could confidently say that he was thus prepared to meet the face of God. The language of Watson, as the hour of dissolution approached, breathes of nothing but humility. "I have never," he said, " been so powerfully impressed with a sense of my own worthlessness, as during this illness." And again, "I am a poor vile worm. But then, the worm is permitted to crawl out of the earth into the garden of the Lord." Expressions like these may possibly be, somehow or other, explained away, by resolute believers in the doctrine of perfection, And truly the doctrine will, practically, be harmless enough, if its spirit is so far forgotten by the believer, in the course of his thoughts, and words, and deeds, that it requires a circuitous process of explanation to reconcile his language and his demeanour with the letter of the doctrine. The probability is, that the theory of entire sanctification is, after all, a theory only; and, virtually, little more than the exaggeration of this undoubted truth, namely, that no Christian is to aim below perfection; no Christian is to work with a model before him inferior to the highest spiritual excellence. No man is warranted to say, the body of sin can never be utterly abolished in this world; and, therefore, it is madness to attempt it. He is to strive and reach after the things that are before, with as much animation as if his success were to be complete. This is the spirit in which men strive after worldly masteries; and this, too, is the spirit in which they ought to strive for an imperishable crown. Common sense

tells us this; and, what is more to the purpose, the Bible tells us the same thing. And it is not very difficult to imagine, how this plain intelligible principle may be magnified and distended, when seen through the medium of a somewhat enthusiastic piety; till the believer comes to imagine that he may, in the most direct and literal sense of the words, be at last presented personally spotless before the presence of God.

We abstain from all further consideration of the peculiar doctrines of the Wesleyan school. We likewise forbear to enter into any large disscussion of the merits or demerits of the Life of Wesley by Mr. Southey, or of Richard Watson's publication in reply to it. We refrain from this topic purposely and advisedly.

Methodism is now before us. It is interesting to us as a system which, at this moment, is in active and extended operation. The character and view of its founder are, of course, very interesting topics for the philosophic and religious historian. But we have to do with this system, in its present shape, and as it is actually influencing, either for good or evil, the spiritual condition of the existing generation. We, therefore, partake but slightly of the agitation and stir of a controversy, which relates entirely to the source and origin of the scheme. To us, at the present day, it matters comparatively little, whether the motives of John Wesley were free from every earthly taint or mixture; or whether any baser elements dropped in, as unawares, to give a more powerful heat and impulse to his work. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to one remark. It has been alleged by Mr. Southey, that Wesley was, in part, prompted by Ambition to his extraordinary course of labour. Now, whether this surmise be just, or whether it be not, it does appear to us that Watson's way of dealing with it, indicates but a very imperfect knowledge of human nature. “It is mere trifling," he says, " to speak of ambition, in the case of Mr. Wesley, in any but the best sense. Wealth, it is acknowledged, was not his object. The only honour he met with was to be reproached and persecuted. And the power, of which we have heard so much, was the power to manage the affairs of a poor and despised people."-(p. 322.) Now we apprehend that no dispassionate person that ever looked into Mr. Southey's volumes, has ever risen from the perusal with the impression, that the system of Methodism had its rise in ambition, or the lust of power. He would rather conclude that it sprang, humanly speaking, from a spirit of fervent piety, combined with a most extraordinary strength of will. He would indeed find that, in the judgment of the historian, the vast and expanding influence of Wesley brought its own peculiar temptations with it; that a tone of command stole, gradually and imperceptibly, over the demeanour of the great reformer; and that the satisfaction of ruling the movements of a mighty and complicated engine, mingled itself, more or less, with the excitements of religious zeal. Let us here repeat, that we abstain from pronouncing any judgment on the correctness of this theory. But, even if this theory were made out beyond all contradiction, we can see nothing in it which ought fatally to impair the claims of this wonderful man to the reverence and admiration of his own followers. Even if it were absolutely certain that he became somewhat enamoured of his own astonishing supremacy, most assuredly no strange thing would have happened unto him. Wesley, after all, was but a human being. It will, therefore, scarcely be contended, that he was altogether exempt from human infirmities. Why, then, should he have been exempt

from the danger of that last infirmity of noble and ardent minds, -the love of influence and sway? That he despised wealth is perfectly notorious; for wealth was an object far too contemptible and low to impel a spirit like his. But when we are told that the honour of being reproached and persecuted could have no charms, we are, in effect, told to throw away the history of our species. For nothing, we believe, is better known to all who. have carefully studied that history, than the fact, that there have been minds which this species of honour has sometimes affected with a sort of strange intoxication. Again, the power of Wesley, we are reminded, was the power to manage the affairs of a poor and despised people. But then, it must also be remembered, that this poor and despised people were, in a manner, his own creation, that he saw their numbers expanding at his word, day by day, and almost hour by hour,-that the heart of the whole multitude, for the most part, bowed down before him, as the heart of one man—and that this is a spectacle which an enterprizing nature is seldom able to look upon without a certain elation of heart and countenance. Once more, however, let us not be misunderstood. We are not standing forward to accuse Wesley of ambition, or love of power; but, simply, to correct the somewhat defective philosophy of his Vindicator. For any thing that we are much disposed to advance to the contrary, Wesley may have been endowed with the purity and elevation of a seraph. All that we contend for is, that these abstract speculations of his defender, about honour and ambition, can do but little to better his claim to that towering excellence,

It would be unjust to withhold an honourable mention of Richard Watson's vindication of something still more important than the character of John Wesley. In 1818, he stood forth as a champion of the orthodox faith against that very amiable and learned, but rather wrong-headed man, Dr. Adam Clarke. In his Commentary on the Scriptures, Adam had maintained that the title of the Son of God belongs to Jesus Christ, solely with reference to his human birth of the Virgin Mary. He contended, it is true, most strenuously for the true and proper divinity of Christ. But the doctrine of his Eternal Sonship, he considered as one of those doctrines which cannot stand the test of rational investigation, and therefore cannot be true. Upon this, Richard Watson stepped forth to do battle for the truth, although he was by many years junior to his venerable antagonist. Some ex

tracts from his performance are given by his biographer; and these are extremely creditable both to his temper and his understanding. The controversy, however, lies in a nut-shell. The only question is, how is it written? And if it is written, in effect, that Christ is the Everlasting Son of the Father, there is an end

of the matter. If a man is prepared to set up his Reason against the testimony of the Scriptures, especially with regard to matters which the Angels bend down to look into,-he is likewise prepared to turn heresiarch, upon the first serious difficulty which meets him in the Bible. Besides, what relief is gained for Reason, by the application of the title of Son to Jesus Christ, merely as the offspring of a human mother, miraculously conceived? The Reason of an Arian, or a Socinian, indeed, may experience prodigious relief from such an interpretation of Scripture; for the Socinian denies the pre-existence of Christ, and the Arian contends that he was only a created being. But what burden does it lift off from the Reason or the Conscience of an orthodox Trinitarian,-of an advocate for the co-essential and co-eternal Divinity of the WORD? If his Reason does not stumble at the orthodox interpretation of the first verses of St. John's Gospel, we cannot very well understand what other interruption it has to fear. If the Saviour whom we worship, was with God, and was God, from all eternity, of what importance, comparatively, can it be to us, by what human phrase his mysterious relation to the Father is indicated? When once it is allowed, (as it was allowed by Adam Clark,) that the Divinity of the WORD is true and proper divinity," and that of this Divinity the Father is the source and fountain, it must inevitably follow that the Divinity of the Word, though perfect, is nevertheless derivative. And why should not the word Son be used to point out to us the distinction between that ineffable derivation of essence, and the mere result of creative energy? It was contended by the admirers of Adam Clarke's doctrine, that it removed a difficulty from the doctrine of the Trinity. It removes no difficulty deserving of the name. It can remove none,—unless the rejection of the title, the Son of God, in the catholic acceptation of it, be held to convey a negation of the pre-existence of Christ,—or, at least, to imply that he was only an exalted creature. Unless it does this, it gets rid of nothing that can be deemed mysterious; and the whole controversy shrinks into a dispute about the fitness of a word.

a

The publication of Richard Watson on this subject established his reputation as a sound and able divine. It was greatly admired by Robert Hall, who cordially wished it a very extensive circulation. An extensive circulation it certainly had; and there is no doubt that it did much to settle the wavering faith of many of his people. Some, however, there were among them who were unable to imagine that the work was dictated by any thing but a spirit of envy. It was supposed that the author sickened at the well-earned honours of the revered commentator. And there NO. XXXI.—July, 1834.

C