pose, they must clearly understand, and readily comprehend; but they continually speak of his opening their un derstandings; words, which in fact have no literal meaning, and which therefore, I should suppose, they cannot easi ly comprehend.

Had Mr. R. understood the nature of language, he would have known, that figurative language neither does nor can convey determinate ideas, or precise meaning; and, had he understood the nature of reasoning, he would have known, that indeterminate ideas, and uncertain meaning, can never afford any ground for conclusive arguments; nor would he have endeavoured to establish a particular, and therefore a precise fact, namely, an ope ration or influence of the Holy Spirit, discoverable by the human senses, upon such a foundation. He seems, indeed, rather suspicious of the strength of this sort of reasoning; for (vol. ii. p. 84, 85,) he labours hard to place his opinion upon the literal meaning of the word TEACHING, which so often occurs in Scripture. But as, in the former case, it plainly appears, that figurative language can afford no ground for clear and precise reasoning, so, in the present, the clearness and precision of literal expression completely overturns his own arguments, and shows, that the word TEACHING in Scripture cannot possibly be taken in its common and literal sense. The point he wishes to prove, is, that men can experience, i. e. can have the testimony of sense for the communication of knowledge by (that is, can have the testimony of sense for the teaching of) the Holy Ghost. Now, the word teaching, in its literal sense, means the communication of EXPECTED knowledge, of whatever sort the knowledge may be, and to whatever subject it may relate; for this word teaching is applicable to our actions and affections, as well as to our intellectual powers.

Those who desire to be taught the art of music, do not expect to learn that of medicine; and men, when taught, know exactly what they have learned, from whom they have received this learning, and at what particular time. But human teaching is slow in its progress and gradual in its quantity. Not so the teaching of God. It is instantaneous in its progress, and complete in its quantity. Upon the descent of the Holy Ghost, the apostles became suddenly and fully acquainted with the whole Christian system, and they were equally acquainted; we have not the

least

least reason to think, that there was any difference or inequality in the quantity, clearness, or extent of their respective information. Mr. R. (vol. ii. p. 90.) in order to account for the want of this uniformity of knowledge in those persons, who in these days claim to have derived. knowledge immediately from God, admits, that " opinions directly contrary (contradictory, he should have said, had his ideas been clear,) cannot be derived from one and the same divine influence (by the bye, what are we to think of his own disagreement, before-noticed, with Dr. Hawker?) but, as Christians are in various stages of advancement, one being a babe and unskilful in the word of righteousness, whilst others are of full age, and have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil, it is no more wonderful that they are, as to some points of doctrine, divided in judgment, than that they are not perfectly united in disposition." See how he shifts, from the nature of knowledge derived immediately from God, to the effects of human judgment! and this he calls answering arguments! But what will not men do, to defend a favourite opinion? Those, who received information immediately from God, are never spoken of in Scripture as babes in knowledge. This expression is applied to such only as have had human teachers; and St. Paul, who is never confused in his ideas, plainly shows how perfectly he understood this matter; for he tells the Galatians (Gal. i. 12,) that he neither received the doctrines, he taught, of those who were unquestionably inspired, and the reality of whose inspiration, and the truth of whose words, were ascertained by the co-operation of God, (he giving signs and wonders, and divers miracles to be wrought by their hands) nor was he taught them by the application of human reason to the information of transmitted revelation, but he was taught them by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Mr. R. (vol. ii. p. 84, 85, 86,) asks, why the testimony of numerous and credible witnesses, whose intellect is neither deranged nor weak, who are acknowledged to possess a solid judgment in common concerns, and who unite in declaring, that they have received in ANSWER to prayer for divine teaching, such a perception of some leading truths revealed in the Bible, as is totally distinct from any (perception) which they before experienced, is to be discredited, and scouted as the delusions of a wild and · heated imagination? We have already seen what autho

rity is to be attributed to that sort of experience, which admits not the application of other men's corporeal senses to the subjects of it. Certain it is that, if this sort of experience is to be allowed any weight at all, there is an utter end of the proof of revealed religion. Every reverie of the human mind may be called experience, without a possibility of either detection or confutation. And who is to tell us what are leading truths? They resemble what used to be called essentials and fundamentals, and seem now to take their place. Further, how do these gracious persons know these leading truths? For their perception of them, it seems, is totally DISTINCT from any percep tion (any knowledge, I suppose Mr. R. means) which the words of Scripture can convey. How these leading truths can be revealed in the Bible, and yet not contained in Scripture (for the words of Scripture, it seems cannot convey them) I confess myself unable to understand.

Mr. R. (vol. ii. p. 76.) tells us, that we cannot of ourselves attain the RIGHT knowledge of the word of God. Does he mean to say, that men cannot understand those Scriptures, the subject of which was given by inspiration of God himself to those who wrote them, and who, if we can believe these inspired writers themselves, wrote them for our earning? But, if we cannot understand them, their writing was vain, and our reading is also vain. In that case, it is surely a strange thing to call the Gospel the revelation of Jesus Christ; because, if the inspired account of this revelation is unintelligible, it reveals nothing. It fortunately happens, however, that these gracious persons often possess a large portion of the gift of inconsistency; and so, though we are here told, that we, i. e. mankind, cannot attain to a right knowledge of the word of God, yet there is, it seems, a knowledge, to which we can attain. We are informed (p. 88.) that "there is an illumination of a less excellent kind, by which those who are not favoured with the more excellent sort, may nevertheless know the way of righteousness, may have a striking conviction of the truth of any doctrine, and obtain in some measure a consistent view of the great scheme of redemption, as a mere matter of theory." "That is, men may hold the truth in unrighteousness; may see the truth, and not be influenced by it. In fact, notwithstanding all that is said, by these serious divines, concerning human ignorance, and the darkness of men's minds, we find, that all men, whether rege

nerate

nerate or not, can acquire, if they choose it, a conviction of the truth. But a conviction of the truth, and the inAuence of it, are very distinct and very different things. The Scriptures can afford us a knowledge of the truth; but the state of a man's own mind must produce the in'fluence of it: which inflence can be derived only from attention to, and consideration of, the extreme importance of the subject of the knowledge communicated by the Scriptures. This consideration and attention may be owing to the operation, the unperceived operation, of the Holy Spirit; but attention and considerattion are neither knowledge, nor the influence of knowledge, any more than light is vision, though it is necessary to vision, and without which vision is impossible.

[To be concluded in our next.]

ON THE OPINIONS OF MR. JOHN WESLEY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

MAGAZINE.

SIR,

MR

R. PEARSON, in his Reply to the Christian Observer, inserted in your last number, page 255, has evidently fallen into a small mistake with regard to some of the religious opinions of the celebrated founder of Methodism Mr. John Wesley.

Undoubtedly, at one period of his life, he inclined strongly to the Calvinistical points: but it is well known, that a difference arose between him and George Whitfield, about the year 1744, on account of the doctrines of absolute election and perseverance, which were then denied by Wesley, and as strenuously preached and defended by Whitfield.

This breach grew wider, and occasioned considerable heats and much controversy among the Methodists, who

were

were ranged under the banners of these two leaders. Mr. Wesley went so far as to call the doctrine of absolute election "horrible and blasphemous;" and he also declared that it directly tended to destroy our zeal for good works." [Sermon on Rom. viii. 32.]

And so far from his holding "final perseverance," or the "indefectibility of the elect," after the above period, he says " One who is a pure believer, or in other words, one who is holy and righteous in the judgment of God himself, may nevertheless fall from grace." [Wesley's Predestination calmly considered.] And in another tract he asserts, that "those who live by faith, may yet fall from God." [Serious Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints.]

He maintains the same opinion throughout his Annotations on the New Testament, which flimsy work is a mere compilation, without any acknowledgment of the sources from whence it is taken. In the note on Rom. viii. 30, he says-St. Paul does not deny, that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification; neither does he deny that many are called, who never are justified."

On John xvii. 12. he has this observation" One, even of them whom God had given him, is lost, so far was that decrce from being unchangeable.'

This extraordinary man was certainly very inconsist ent, and childishly credulous; but it is far from being correct to call him a Calvinist, since he continued to oppose the peculiar doctrines of the reformer of Geneva to his death.

In the minutes of a conference held by Mr. Wesley and his preachers in 1770, is the following remarkable declaration on the merit of good works: We have received it as a maxim, that a man is to do nothing in or der to justification. Nothing can be more false. Who ever desires to find favour with God, should cease from evil, and learn to do well. Whoever repents, should do works meet for repentance; and if this be not in order to find favour, what does he do them for ?”

This, and some other articles which militated against the foundations of Calvinism, occasioned a fierce contest between Messrs. Wesley and Fletcher on the one side, and Toplady and Hill on the other.

But, though Mr. Wesley continued to deny the Calvinistic election and perseverance to the last, he unquestion

ably