it still exists, and has many advocates; but I never conversed with a native in the rural districts who did not testify towards it lively abhorrence, and earnestly deprecate all second parties between the cultivator and the Government. I cannot conceive of such a system existing in any country, and, above all, in an Asiatic country, without exposing the husbandman to numerous and oppressive wrongs. The more immediately our Government deals with the mass of the people, the more clearly will they perceive the equity of their principles, and the mildness of their intentions. All interposition is detrimental at once to the interests of the cultivator and to the popularity of the Government.

66

The Hindus have never known any but despotic Governments. "A King," says Menu, is formed of particles from the chief guardian deities, and consequently surpasses all mortals in glory. Like the sun, he burns eyes and hearts; nor can any creature on earth even gaze on him, He is fire and air; he, the god of criminal justice; he, the genius of wealth; he, the regent of waters; he, the lord of the firmament. A King, even though a child, must not be treated lightly, from the idea that he is a mere mortal: no, he is a powerful divinity that appears in human shape. In his anger, death." But, notwithstanding these extravagant concessions to royalty, the King has always been required to hold the Bramhans as his natural council; while laws, in some cases wise and benign, were instituted to guide his conduct. On the whole, tyranny has been the rule, and a paternal King a very rare exception. Each subordinate ruler exercised in his own province absolute authority; but his office and his head were always at the disposal of the King, unless, indeed, he were protected by his power, or by troublous times. Revenue and legal authority were constantly vested in the same officers. Trial by jury was in use; the number of jurors consisting of not less than five; or whatever might be the number, it was always odd, in order that, on a division, there might be a majority, the verdict of the majority holding good.

(To be continued.)

MR. WESLEY'S AUTHORSHIP, JOURNALS, &c.

66

OBSERVATIONS ON A REMARK IN AN ARTICLE EXTRACTED FROM THE NORTH BRITISH REVIEW."

(For the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine.)

THE affectionate veneration with which the Ministers and members of the Wesleyan societies regard the character of the man who constructed that ecclesiastical system in which they are comprehended, and the importance they attach to his writings, as well as the respectful deference which they pay to them, are sometimes, even by those who are by no means unfriendly, mentioned in a somewhat reproachful manner, as if carried to excess. Their enemies, indeed, have gone further, and charged them with rendering either a blind submission, or one due only to the word of God. When the charge is preferred in this latter form, it deserves no other reply, as being not only without, but against, evidence, than a direct denial of its truth. The Wesleyans may, and they certainly do, regard Mr. Wesley as a great and a good man, a chief instrument in the establishment of one of the most stupendous works ever effected on earth by merely human agency; but still as only a man and an instrument. Between the results

and the instrumentality they carefully distinguish: the former they believe to be the work of God; the latter they know to be human. And when they view the two comparatively, they the more admire that wonderful providence, that mighty and abounding grace, which so completely prevented the work from being affected by the unavoidable defects and infirmities of the instrument: unavoidable, because the almost hackneyed adage, Humanum est errare et nescire, is anything but a merely abstract and speculative observation; it is a practical axiom that requires particularly to be kept in view in all investigations which have moral conduct and character for their object.

There are two or three reasons deserving notice, which, perhaps, powerfully tend to diminish the sympathy of others with the admiring affection with which the Wesleyans regard everything connected with the memory of him whose name, for purposes of distinction, to a certain extent they are willing to bear.

In the first place, they experience the benefit of his labours, that benefit relating to their highest interests. Of all his plans, all his exertions, the sole object, uniformly and constantly sought, was, the personal salvation of all who placed themselves under his care. His own disinterestedness on every point is become historical, and almost proverbial. And for them, nothing satisfied him but their actual possession of the true Christian experience. To this, the whole system of Methodism, in all its operations, was directed; for this was it constructed and designed. The result was to be anticipated. The Wesleyans may not be noted for literary superiority, or for superior aptitude for theological discussion. But they are for their practical attention to spiritual experience. Methodism has become the very term by which, often reproachfully, professions of anything of this sort are described! Now, this being, in more philosophical language, no other than the true summum bonum, no wonder that they who are in possession of a present happiness, and of a joyous hope of future blessedness, should have feelings more than ordinarily strong in relation to the man who, though not at all the author of this, that honour is due only to God, -was yet the providentially fitted and employed instrument, from whom the whole work, in its human origination, proceeded.

And then, the Wesleyans attach a value to the connexional character of their system, which a Congregationalist, of course, cannot admit that it deserves, and with their feelings in reference to which he is unable to sympathize. He frequently cannot understand them. Which is the best system, is no part of the present inquiry. The fact alone is now mentioned, that the Wesleyans do thus value it; and the more so, because they understand it in its innermost construction: whereas others, not being particularly concerned in it, look only at its external surface, and often content themselves with a view necessarily imperfect. Many speak even dictatorially on the subject who never examined any further. They see the face and fingers of the watch, and never look at either the parts or the fitting together of the inward mechanism. But the Wesleyans are acquainted with the whole, both in construction and in working; and this produces a class of feelings which they who adhere to an opposite system cannot even understand; and causes a reference to the plans of that wise man who devised the system, and sought to give it perpetuity, which they in whom the same feelings do not operate, and in whom they do not even exist, may think to be too laudatory. But here, as in the former case, Wesleyans speak from actual experience of beneficial results. They often

mention Mr. Wesley as the providential centre and nexus of unity in a way which they who do not understand the cause may consider as implying an undue deference to his wisdom, an improper submission to his authority. But they themselves are conscious of no such impropriety. They believe they have far more reason for their conduct than the disciples of the school of ancient philosophy, to whom the ipse dixit, "he has said it," of their master was so conclusive in argument. The scheme which they have received from him they approve on scriptural grounds, and they love it as having experienced its utility; and knowing how well it was understood by himself, his judgments concerning it are so much the more valuable to them. Were they who doubt in this matter placed in the same circumstances, they would, there is the highest probability, be moved by the same feelings.

But though these views and feelings are so well-grounded and natural, they go not beyond the limits which have already been stated. They refer to Mr. Wesley as an instrument providentially raised up and qualified, and very honourably employed; but still as only an instrument, and only human. When they speak of him as an extraordinary instrument, they do so in the sense in which they thus speak of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer: providentially extraordinary, in comparison with the usual class of labourers,-higher in the class, but not taken out of it. Neither he nor they belonged to the class constituted by the inspired Prophets and Apostles. These laid the foundation; the others only built thereon; and if we, in any case, praise the work, it is because, having tested it by the only allowable standard, we believe they built with gold, and silver, and precious stones. It is sometimes useful, however, to see the point of view in which this truly devout and eminent man, universally acknowledged to be so by all whose judgment deserves respect, is regarded by others. We had almost said, it is sometimes even amusing. In pointing out what they conceive to be defective or mistaken, we have scarcely ever seen an instance of correct observation. In almost every case, the supposed defectiveness has really originated in the want of a clear knowledge of the whole case on the part of the observer. Often, closer examination, especially if connected with reference to actually existing circumstances, would have led to very different conclusions. And in this opinion we are confirmed by some remarks in an article on Evangelism in England, in the last Number of that able periodical, the "North British Review." The transference of a portion of the article, including the remarks in question, to the pages of the Wesleyan Magazine, we were glad to witness, both as showing a willingness to allow the friendly utterance of a judgment differing from our own, and as affording an opportunity for a few explanatory statements on subjects often mentioned, but perhaps not always correctly understood. Among the warm admirers of Mr. Wesley we ever wish to be ranked; but we hope that our admiration is not a blind one. We esteem Mr. Wesley much, but truth more. When he cannot be defended on just principles, let it be allowed that it is a small spot on a disc of no ordinary splendour: for with candid opponents this will be confessed to be the whole of the case. We do honestly think, however, that in the present instance, that which is supposed to be so, is in reality a speck in the glass of the instrument of observation. The writer of the article in question (so far as his observations extend) can scarcely be considered in the light of an opponent. He is evidently willing and wishful to do justice to Mr. Wesley's character; and he fully admits that even what he regards

as somewhat defective, may only appear to be so through defective information.

For forming a correct judgment of Mr. Wesley's writings, two or three preliminaries are indispensable. There is, first, Mr. Wesley's rigidly enforced resolution to be laconically brief in his style. Unavoidably will such a resolution produce two phenomena, the just character of which may easily be mistaken. An ancient critic and poet said, and the saying has become an established canon, "I labour to be brief, and I become obscure." Mr. Wesley of set purpose endeavoured to say what he had to say in the fewest and plainest words, and without repetition. Be it admitted, that this, for many readers, may not always be the best way. They need what is more diffusive, and to have line upon line, that they may fully understand what is placed before them. But Mr. Wesley, weighing the whole matter, concluded so to write, as that no one, with ordinary attention, could misunderstand him. And this is closely connected with another fact. His engagements were most numerous. Rising at four in the morning, and lying down at ten at night, his eighteen hours' day was fully occupied. To do all that he had to do, a rigid economy of time was absolutely necessary; and for this purpose, among others, did he resolve to be brief in his written and spoken style. With him, this brevity was part of a system spreading through his whole life, for the redemption of time. And then, he evidently laboured under a deep, and even oppressive, conviction, that the preaching of the pure, simple, truth of the Gospel had, in his day, to be completely revived, and that this only, as being by God's own appointment "the power of God unto salvation," could produce a general and lasting revival of religion. It is not easy to place ourselves in Mr. Wesley's circumstances in this respect. None can do this at all, who regard the ministry as a mere profession, and class together, as species of the same genus, the eloquence of the Senate, the Bar, and the Pulpit. Mere worldly critics view sermons as professional compositions, and apply to them the ordinary maxims of literature. The profound maxim of St. Paul, “Not by wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of none effect," they never think of applying; for they do not understand it. And even critics of a better school easily have the perfect straightness of their course somewhat deflected, by the unsuspected strength of the current over which they are sailing, so as to place the sermons of a nation among the classics of its language, to be judged by its usual rules of criticism; forgetting that sermons are sui generis, belonging to a peculiar system of instrumentality, to the true character and designs of which they must always be referred. Now, what the sermons were, usually delivered when Mr. Wesley began to preach, all know who have read Tillotson, Atterbury, and Seed, Samuel Clarke, and Archbishop Sharpe. Among the Dissenters there was more Evangelism, comparatively, but still there was too near an approach to these theological classics of the Church school. Watts and, somewhat later, Doddridge occupied, indeed, a high position in this respect; but who can read them now without feeling that there was too much of the tame correctness of the day, and far too little of that soul of Christian preaching, the pressing home on the conscience certain cardinal truths, for the actual production of certain effects? Justification by faith, and regeneration by the Spirit, had to be preached, not in reference to their doctrinal aspect merely, but as describing certain duties to be performed, and blessings to be enjoyed. Mr. Wesley, as a sermon writer, must be viewed in reference to his day; and the question be asked, not, What rank does he hold as compared with

Seed or Amory? but, What were his sermons in a period when such as we know they were, were the received theological classics? He did not preach and publish his sermons in eighteen, but seventeen, hundred and forty-seven ; a view of the case making a world of difference in judging on it. When what is truly the Gospel is generally preached, individuals may with more safety pay attention to what is ornamental in composition; though, even then, the utmost care must be taken that there be no weakening, no obscuring, the only instrument of a sinner's conversion; the plain, faithfully-applied preaching of the cross of Christ. The grand, undiluted, pointed themes, must still be,-repentance, faith, justification, regeneration, and holiness in heart and life arising out of them. All this, as to both doctrine and position, Mr. Wesley plainly saw. At the commencement of his course he considered it with the most serious attention, and formed in reference to it that line of conduct to which, through his long life, he unswervingly adhered; witnessing, however, at its close, and rejoicing to witness, a state of things as greatly as happily altered. Still, his sermons, and other writings, must always be considered in reference both to the earlier portion of his career, and to his great and undeviating objects.* Mr. Wesley devoted himself to the revival of what is, eminently, saving truth, both by preaching and writing. And how necessary this was, let not only the published sermons of the age bear witness, but also the fact, that Mr. Whitefield, to a great extent, contented himself with that preaching, by which, under God, he wrought such wonderful effects. Many of Mr. Wesley's writings were, necessarily, controversial; but even in these, his great object is kept in view; and even in his polemic tracts, the scholar, the logician, and the Divine, may be seen, contending for the essential truths of the Gospel his Treatise on Original Sin, written in answer to the Socinian, Dr. Taylor, is an elaborate performance, most distinctly exhibiting these characteristics. In his "Earnest Appeals," this is particularly the case. They are carefully written, and show the power with which he could have engaged in other topics; but even here, it was not so much the defence of himself, as of the same essential, but almost forgotten, truths. In his Sermons the same objects are kept in view. The First Series contains a compendium of what he believed those truths to be. Into other subjects it is indisputable that he could have entered; but to these his life and labours were devoted. And of these, his expositions are masterly. He meant they should be clear for the understanding, and impressive for the conscience; and such he has made them. They are a standard textbook of doctrine, and they exhibit the purposes to which doctrine should be applied. Without being designed for servile imitation, yet they are models in these most important respects,-What the chief topics are on which he who would be wise to win souls must insist,-in what manner he should explain them,—and how, and for the production of what effects, he should apply them. No man of sense would imitate either Mr. Wesley, or any one else, in style and form; but as to doctrine, principle, and objects, we again say that his Sermons are models. But his Second Series must not be overlooked. In these, he allowed himself a larger variety; and here especially it may be seen what he could have done, had he chosen. Even if an intended limitation to the grand truths of the Gospel produced any meagerness, which assuredly it did not, here, where his scope was wider, both his powers and resources were made more convincingly apparent.' The several Of course,

We only mention Mr. Wesley now, as only concerned with him. Mr. Whitefield is not to be excluded.