therefore a rational, account of the origin and primitive condition of man: He "was made a little lower than the angels,

and crowned with glory and honour.” (Psalm viii. 5.) (Pages 175, 176.)

The Danger of an Uncertain Sound: or, Doctrinal Defection apprehended. With special reference to the Rev. Mr. Purves of Jedburgh's Sermons touching some Points much controverted at present. By the Rev. William Sorley, Minister of the Gospel at Selkirk. 8vo., pp. 280. Simpkins. We lose no time in announc ing, or rather describing, this book, lest our readers should be misled by the "uncertain sound" of the title, and imagine it to refer to the evangelical errors (as they would consider them) now prevalent in so many quarters. It is a violent, bitter assertion that nothing but entire Calvinism, in all that distinguishes it from what we will yet venture to call evangelical Arminianism, is the Gospel. With Calvinism we have no wish to renew the controversy; not that our opinions are in the slightest degree modified, but that at the present crisis, when the enemy is coming in like a flood, the churches of Christ, we think, may find better employment for their zeal. When the last edition of Dr. Payne's work was published, therefore, we announced it without any polemic remarks. And Mr. Sorley may rely on it, if, for the sake of peace and amity, and our common Protestantism, we de

clined entering into the arena with a man like Dr. Payne, we shall not descend so low as to have any discussion on theological subjects with him. He must first learn to write like a Christian gentleman, and to understand the principles of fair controversy, as well as the real tenets of those whom he assails. From everything of this sort he is far distant. His book is made up of ignorant and vulgar abuse and slander; and a figment of argumentation, which just comes to this, What I, William Sorley, believe to be the Gospel, that is the Gospel, and nothing else is the Gospel; and he who does not preach according to this standard, does not preach the truth. seems there are Ministers in Scotland, who have begun to take different views of divine truth from those which have long prevailed there. We deny not Mr. Sorley's right to attack them, if he thinks they are mistaken. content with this. It is against Wesleyanism, and Mr. Wesley, that his most virulent assaults are directed; and when writing on these subjects, he knows no bounds, his passion boils over, and makes him regardless of all truth and honesty. Our readers will expect two

It

But he is not

or three illustrations of the character of the volume. He thus speaks of what, he says, is called "the New Theology of the day:"_"A free and easy Gospel! Of what does it consist? It is but the old heresy revived, that Christ died for all men; and this heresy its modern apostles are accustomed to preach in connexion with the many cognate errors to which it inevitably leads. They assert that, in virtue of a universal atonement, all the obstacles in the way of our salvation have been removed; and that nothing but unbelief, which it is in every man's power to overcome for himself, prevents us from making that salvation our own. Consistently with this opinion, or, rather, as its natural and necessary consequence, they refuse, at least in any intelligible sense, to admit God's purpose of election, or the distinct and personal agency of the Spirit in the conversion of the soul. 'Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,' they 'creep into houses, and lead captive silly women,' by their perpetual commendation of the one simple specific, 'Believe and live; whilst, as a substitute for divine grace, by which the new life is implanted, and the carnal mind slain, they make a show of wisdom in willworship and humility,' by which the proud heart is gratified, and the 'unstable soul beguiled."" That is, in plain English, Arminians are low, canting hypocrites, seeking, in external show, a substitute for divine grace. Is this Mr. Sorley's Christian candour? The Arminians may be mistaken.

6

The great day will decide this. But Mr. Sorley ought to have known, for he might have known, that in matters of experience and practice, the pious Arminian employs, substantially, the same language as the pious Calvinist. The Calvinist cannot go to any one individual, and say, "Thou art eternally elected, and hast, therefore, a right to the blessings of the covenant; claim them, therefore, for they are thine." In one part of the volume, Turretin is quoted as saying that "predestination is not to be regarded à priori, but à posteriori; we are not to descend from cause to effect, but to rise from effect to cause we are not curiously to look into the book of life to see whether our names be written there, which is forbidden us; but carefully to examine the book of conscience, which is both permitted and commanded, that we may know whether the seal of God be impressed on our hearts, and whether the fruit of election, faith and penitence, may be perceived in If this be right, and Mr. Sorley

us."

himself brings it before us, practically in reference to the work of the ministry, what is the difference between the pious Calvinist and the pious Arminian Preacher? Each proclaims the same need of mercy, and the same source and method of mercy. Each calls on God for the same blessings; each exhorts man to the same search and duty. Dr. Chalmers, in one of his last pamphlets, referring to the Wesleyans, says that in prayer they are just like Calvinists. Yes, and within the last few years, in which the Methodists have had the privilege of the occasional services of Scotch Calvinist Ministers, a Candlish, a Grey, a King,—often have we heard the remark, that "in preaching they are just like our own Ministers." The reason is obvious. In prayer we ask that God would give, coming empty-handed, that we may return full-handed. In preaching, man is to be stirred up from indolence to activity, and to be exhorted to a penitent and believing return unto God. The ground which Turretin describes is that on which each party takes his stand. We admit the differences which still exist, as well as their importance. may sometimes enforce his exhortations by saying, "Ye all may come." other may say, "Those of you who are elect will come; but no one knows who they are. The book of life is out of our reach. We call you to the book of conscience." Which occupies the best ground for enforcement, we do not now say; for we are not controverting Calvinism. The main points are those which are to be enforced. And here it is that, substantially, both parties agree. Each preaches Christ to bring sinners to salvation. It is a slander to say that the Wesleyans put a vain show of willworship and humility, in the place of that practical Gospel by which alone either the Calvinist or Arminian Preacher can hope to succeed in his labours. We are not accountable for the "New Theologians " in Scotland; but we will not believe, on the mere assertion of an angry, prejudiced disputant, like Mr. Sorley, that they "creep into houses, and lead captive silly women.' We could fill pages with his vituperations of Mr. Wesley and Wesleyanism. Our only

99

One

The

excuse for him, such as it is, is this, that he only judges of them at second hand, from the writings of their opponents. He retails the charge of Bishop Warburton, that Mr. Wesley claimed the power of working miracles. And because Mr. Wesley would not believe that Mr. Hervey wrote the whole of the remarks of

as

or

the "Eleven Letters," published after his death by Mr. Cudworth, Mr. Sorley says, "We see him vehemently reprobating Calvinistic sentiments, even they came with a sweet and heavenly savour from the pen of the sainted Hervey." On that occasion Mr. Wesley did no such thing. His argument was, that certain expressions were anything but sweet and heavenly, and, therefore, that they could not have come from the pen of the sainted Hervey, but had been written by one of the Sorleys of the day. But we will confine ourselves to one point. Mr. Sorley most vehemently assails Mr. Wesley for asserting that "orthodoxy does not constitute true religion." He adverts to this more than once: we will quote the passage in which he does it formally, and at length. It will furnish a specimen of his style. He says that Mr. Wesley "distinctly states that, of the points on which the Methodists chiefly insisted in their preaching,' the first was 'that orthodoxy, right opinions, is, at best, but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all; that neither does religion consist in negatives, in bare harmlessness of any kind; nor merely in externals, in doing good, or using the means of grace, or works of piety, so called, or of charity: that it is nothing short of, or different from, the mind that was in Christ, the image of God stamped upon the heart, inward righteousness, attended with the peace of God, and joy in the Holy Ghost."" Mr. Sorley says, this "startling sentiment" called forth an "indignant exposure and rebuke from Dr. John Erskine," who said that "if men were brought to believe it, there is scarcely anything so foolish or wicked that Satan might not prompt them to, by transforming himself into an angel of light." Mr. Sorley then calls it "this pernicious dogma," and gives this piece of declamation, for surely even he never meant it for argument: "The 'mind of Christ' without his doctrine; the image, without the knowledge, of God; inward righteousness,' without sound principles; the peace of God,' without reverence for his authority and word; 'joy in the Holy Ghost,' without the truth by which he sanctifies! What a hideous picture of fanatical licentiousness! What an appalling display of the facility with which Satan may baptize into the name of Jesus, and gain a ready acceptation, even amongst the company of professing disciples, for the corrupt but captivating maxims, in which, as the great antagonist of the Redeemer, he has constructed

his kingdom!" We assure our readers this is an honest quotation, even to italics and notes of admiration. Thus does Mr. Sorley attribute to Mr. Wesley not only startling and pernicious doctrines, but a hideous picture of fanatical licentiousness, and an appalling display of the facility with which Satan can gain acceptance among Christians for the corrupt maxims on which his kingdom is based! It is well that hard words break no bones. Mr. Sorley has plenty of powder, but his guns are unshotted, and his battery does no other mischief than the noise of the explosion. Now that the smoke is cleared away, let us look about us a little. After all that Dr. Erskine, Sir Harry Moncrieff, and Mr. Sorley (!) have said,-we beg pardon of the memories of the first two for naming the last with them, we really are audacious enough to undertake Mr. Wesley's defence. First, Mr. Wesley was a logical writer, and always laboured to express himself to the exact point of his argument. If, by aiming at brevity, he sometimes became obscure, others, though it is not the common fault, have done so, since Horace first enunciated what has now become a maxim. But on this point Mr. Wesley was not obscure. Had Mr. Sorley consulted his writings, instead of just quoting from others, he would have known that Mr. Wesley had distinctly (and, with deference to Sir Harry Moncrieff, unevasively) replied to this very charge of Dr. Erskine's, part of which we perceive, on turning to Mr. Wesley's letter on the subject, is expressed in the very words which Mr. Sorley employs. Mr. Wesley's question was, not, What is necessary to religion? but, What is religion? and this question he rightly answers. If everything which religion supposes, is a part of religion, then is human nature a part of religion; for surely a brute cannot be religious. We observe, secondly, that Mr. Wesley puts other things in the same category with orthodoxy; nay, he says more of this than he does of them, by saying,

or at most a very slender part of it." If, therefore, he means that this is needless, à fortiori must they be so. And thus, Mr. Sorley might have said, a man may have peace with God, &c., without even bare harmlessness, without using the means of grace, without works, either of piety or charity; for he says of these what he says of orthodoxy. How might Mr. Sorley, with equal justice, equal logic, and yet more rhetoric, have deepened the shades, as well as multiplied the grouping, of his "hideous picture of fanatical licentiousness!" Mr. Wesley

contended for these other things, in their place, as much as any man: he only said that these, by themselves, did not constitute religion. And so of orthodoxy. Dr. Erskine had said, substantially, that "right tempers cannot subsist without right opinion: the love of God, for instance, cannot subsist without a right opinion of him." Mr. Wesley replies, and what is there of evasion in the reply?" I have never said anything to the contrary: but this is another question. Though right tempers cannot subsist without right opinion, yet right opinion may subsist without right temper. There may be a right opinion of God, without either love, or one right temper toward him. Satan is a proof of it. All, therefore, that I assert in this matter, Dr. E. must affirm too." So wrote Mr. Wesley in 1766: eighty years afterwards comes Mr. Sorley, and repeats the answered charge, taking no notice of the reply, except saying, "Sir Harry Moncrieff tells us that Wesley did not remain silent under the charge preferred against him from such a quarter and that he wrote the author what is certainly a smooth and evasive letter, but cannot be considered as containing any substantial reply."" No? Let us see. We say, therefore, thirdly, that on this ground, devils are not utterly destitute of religion. They believe the great foundation-truth, that there is one God. But they go further. "Ye believe in God," said our Lord, "believe also in me." And devils do this. This is their language, as recorded in Scripture: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know: "We know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God:" "These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation." Now, have devils any religion? If orthodoxy be a part of religion, then, as they thus have orthodoxy, they are not utterly irreligious. No man ever laboured more industriously to promote what he conceived to be right opinions in religion than Mr. Wesley; and one proof is afforded by the abiding orthodoxy of his successors. But here is the point. Is Calvinism, in its peculiar doctrines, an absolute, essential part of orthodoxy ? Cannot a man believe so much truth as shall enable him with the heart to believe unto righteousness, unless he believe also in election and reprobation? The Wesleyans may have misunderstood the Scripture teaching on these points; but to the charge of being "without reverence for God's authority and word," they indignantly plead,Not guilty. If Mr. Sorley means that

no man can be orthodox but a Calvinist, let him say so. We shall not be careful to answer him about that matter. But as to the charge of caring nothing about right opinion, we say that it is false and slanderous. The great essentials of divine truth we hold and teach as firmly and earnestly as any Minister in Scotland; but we do not think it necessary to be always contending about Calvinism. Undoubtedly, no Minister of a church resting on the Westminster Confession can be honestly an Arminian. If he changes his sentiments, let him change his church. We have nothing to do with the Scotch controversy, as relating to Scottish churches. No; nor do we wish, in this perilous crisis, to witness a revival of the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. But we shall not be silent under attacks like these of Mr. Sorley. We neither admit that all that Calvinists believe, constitutes the orthodoxy which all true religion-unless in most peculiar cases, if such there be-pre-supposes; nor do we believe that all that Arminians assert is such. By orthodoxy we mean that without which, generally speaking, a man cannot believe in Christ as his Saviour; and this orthodoxy we attribute, for instance, to the Scotch Calvinists, and to the English Wesleyans. Let the former endeavour to spread their own opinions by all Christian methods; let the Wesleyans do the same: ultimately the truth shall prevail. Mr. Sorley has a right to defend Calvinism in Calvinistic churches: we blame him not for this. But he has no right to assail other churches, not receiving his standard, and to assert that they are altogether careless about truth, and teach that a man may have "the peace of God without reverence for His authority and word, and joy in the Holy Ghost without the truth by which He sanctifies." These are serious charges: they are more; they are slanders, slanders reiterated years after they had been refuted by their first object, and without a shadow of argumentative proof. And thus do Puseyism and Sorleyism meet. Puseyism says that there cannot be a church except in connexion with successional Episcopacy: Sorleyism says, that whatever a society of professing Christians (if they may at all be called Christians) believe, unless the peculiarities of Calvinism be a part of their creed, they are not Christian churches. Really there was more need of the Evangelical Alliance movement than, at one time, we supposed. Aide pour l'Examen de Soi-même. Par Walter Farquhar Hook, D.D.

Traduite de l'Anglais sous les Soins de Vénérable Homme Jacques Hemery, M.A., Doyen de Jersey. 32mo. pp. 16. Le Sauteur.-A miserable attempt to Papalize the inhabitants of one of the Channel Islands, with which we should not have contaminated our pages, had we not felt a desire to guard the people of Jersey against all such endeavours as have a tendency to weaken their Protestantism, by disseminating among them cheap and insidious publications such as the one before us, extracted from a wellknown Popish book of devotion, and thus to lead astray the unthinking and unwary from the faith for which their fathers suffered and bled. Perhaps, ere long, the very reverend gentleman whose name is at the head of this article will endeavour to edify the Jersey-men by another treatise of this nature, say, "Helps to Devotion; or, the Peculiar

Assistance which may be derived from repeating our Prayers before a Cross or Crucifix, in our Closets, &c." It is really melancholy to think, that any man who is eating the bread and cheese, and pocketing the revenues, of the Protestant Church of England, can impudently and coolly endeavour, by such sinister means, to undermine the glorious doctrines of the Reformation. We have also examined the translation of this very reverend personage critically, and do say, that if he is not ashamed of his production, on account of the paucity of his knowledge of the French language, he ought to be: if a scholar at any of our second-rate academies, with one tithe of the reverend gentleman's opportunities, had presented such an exercise for examination, he would have been soundly trounced. Where were the Dean's friends?

STATE OF

IN

AND

ADVOCATES TOLERATION, WAS
STOPPED, REMONSTRATED,
SUFFERED то GO ON FOR A
YEAR-THE POPE-MDLLE. CA-
LANDRINI-NORMAL SCHOOL IN
PISA-KING OF SARDINIA-CATE-
CHISM PUBLISHED BY AUTHO
RITY WITH THE TEN COMMAND-
MENTS- SOCIETIES FORMING
FOR PUBLICATION OF USEFUL
BOOKS.

Pisa, March 30th, 1847. SIR,-As you have been so kind as to value my communication from Italy so far as to print it in "Evangelical Christendom,' "I am going to trouble you with a few more observations on the state of Italy in general, and Tuscany in particular. Would that the Government were more favourable to sound principles of civil and religious liberty; but, alas! in Tuscany the current is retrograde, and takes an opposite course.

The Grand Duke, under the influence of Austria, is becoming daily more despotic; but his measures, instead of taming down the spirit of liberty, or quenching the thirst for free institutions, lead only to the formation of secret societies, injurious to the promoters of them, and fatal to the peace of society. A melancholy instance of their bad effects took place at Pisa. Several young men met in some isolated spot where there were no witnesses but earth and air, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to eat or drink till they had accomplished their purpose; which was, I believe, the equal division of property: they call themselves Communists. is usual in these illegal compacts, some were only tools in the hands of the more ardent among others, a shoemaker was induced to join; but he had no sooner done so, than he got so frightened that he could not help expressing his alarm; and, finally, when some of his colleagues were arrested, his intellects became so unsettled, that he cut his throat. was taken to the hospital, and ultimately recovered; but there is little doubt that he made full revelations as to what he knew of his accomplices: so that secret

As

He