attainable in this life." Now the fact is, that Wesley never inculcated that opinion," but says, " sinless perfection is a phrase I never use." See his Plain Account of Christian Perfection. Again. They speak of that "winning deportment, which they say, arose in him (Wesley) from the benignity of his nature, "and couple it with the "art of the Jesuit," in the

same sentence.

The Reviewers say, "it is not to be expected that the disciples (of Whitefield and Wesley) should be more charitable and forgiving than their teachers ;" and we wish they were in all cases as "charitable and forgiving." But when they tell us" the difference" between those two men "resulted in an entire separation, and a genuine odium theologicum between their disciples," they say more than is true. They never carried matters to such an extreme. Notwithstanding the heat of controversy about certain points of doctrine, which existed for a time, their" disciples," as two bodies of people, did then, and have more especially since, regarded each other as christians, and rejoiced in each other's prosperity. We do not say with the Reviewers, that these bodies of Christians have treated each other with "decent civility" merely, but they continue to speak and write of each other affectionately as Christians.

We speak of them as bodies of Christians; because it would be as weak in any one to say there were no exceptions to be made of individuals, as it would be unjust and uncharitable to make those individual exceptions give a character to those whole bodies. And to say the least, we think the Reviewers have done this.

It is a natural inference that Reviewers are identified with the author whose works they approve and recommend. In this light we have considered them, and on this ground we hold them to answer for what they have said of the "tendency and effects of Methodism. We would premise that, as far as the fundamental doctrines of the gospel are concerned in "Methodism," the Reviewers have passed them over, calling them "their tenets," except barely" repentance and amendment," which we suppose they still hold for the benefit of the vicious part of the community. But it is incumbent on us to state, that what the Reviewers call "tenets," are the doctrines of man's corrupt and lost estate by nature, the necessity of divine agency and supernatural grace, atonement by the death of Christ, justification by faith, the new birth, witness of the Spirit, and universal holiness, and all these brought home to the heart by experience the fruit of which is peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. "Tenets" were never idolized by the Methodists, nor were different" tenets" from their own ever made a bar to Christian fellowship. And it is a fact well known that in this

Church are persons of contrary opinions, as Calvinists and Arminians, especially in England, where the Societies are made up of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, and where the government and administration is varied to meet these different views. A singular instance this, of “liberality and a catholic spirit." This is the system which they say has a" tendency to produce mock humility and spiritual pride. It is chargeable also" say they," with leading to bigotry, illiberal manners, confined knowledge, and uncharitable superstition. In its insolent language, all unawakened persons, that is to say, all except themselves, or such graduated professors in other evangelical sects, as they are pleased to adinit ad eundem, are contemptuously styled unbelievers.-In proportion as Methodism gained ground among the educated classes, its direct effects were evil. It narrowed their views and feelings;-restricted them from recreations which kept the mind in health; discouraged, if it did not absolutely prohibit accomplishments that gave a grace to life; separated them from general society; substituted a sectarian in the place of a catholic spirit.It carried disunion and discord into private life, breaking up families and friendships. What infinite domestic unhappiness must this abominable spirit have occasioned!"

"

If all these be the direct effects of" Methodism," as Mr. Southey and the Reviewers assert, we shall agree with them that it is not good even for the "vulgar," the poor and the ignorant." But in condemning this system they have suggested another, which if it be not good, yet doubtless will be agreeable not only to the "vulgar," but to all who think that to talk of being" awakened" is a sign of " fanaticism"-who laugh, at the New Birth and prefer a life of self-indulgence, amusement, recreation and pleasure, to that self-denial, mortification of the body, cross, and habitual devotion recommended in the gospel; who prefer worldly friendships and carnal connections, to plucking out the right eye, cutting off the right hand that offend, coming out, and separating from the world-in a word, to all those, whether" vulgar" or well-bred, who think the words of our Saviour breathe an "abominable spirit of infinite domestic unhappiness," when he says: Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay; but rather diDision: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father, &c.

But it cannot possibly escape the observation of the enlightened reader, that Mr. S. and the Reviewers have here brought forward against "Methodism" the substance, and that too in due form of the objections of Deists against the religion of the

Bible. Which of the Deistical writers has not charged revealed religion with being a set of " tenets-leading to mock humility and spiritual pride"-to "bigotry, illiberal manners, confined knowledge and uncharitable superstition :" as imposing" restrictions" with respect to "recreations and accomplishments which keep the mind in health, and give a grace to life?" And what Deist, we ask again, has not represented Christianity as more "remorseless" and "abominable" than Paganism, and as having "produced infinite domestic unhappiness," as well as national evil?

And we cannot doubt but they view "Methodism,” much in the same point of light, and with much the same "liberality," that the Deist does Christianity. In one point the Reviewers seem to exceed the Deist; for the latter will acknowledge the use of Christianity to keep the "vulgar and the ignorant" in awe; but they ask, " are we to encourage and support Methodism as a good religion for the poor and the ignorant? We think not."

After all Mr. Southey and the Reviewers have said to the contrary, we cannot doubt but all genuine humility, liberality and charity will be found in that experimental religion which "Methodism" teaches, and which the Methodists hold in common with thousands of their fellow Christians. What can fill the soul of man with genuine humility but a discovery of his corrupt, wretched, helpless state, and his entire dependance on the merits of Christ for salvation? Or what can enlarge the "confined knowledge" and feelings of man, and inspire true "liberality and charity," but the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us in our regeneration and sanctification? That kind of humility and liberality which grow upon an unrenewed heart, and are inspired merely by education, fall as far below the humility and liberality of the gospel, as a painted wax figure falls short of real life, or as the motions of an automaton come short of the actions of a real mau. But while this unfortunate child, "Methodism," is cast out to die of hunger and want, being given to understand that she is to have neither" encouragement," nor "support," in future, it may be thought by some that the Methodists themselves ought to be thankful that they have got off with their lives, seeing the Reviewers have asked nothing more of" those who are rulers in the land," than" to provide all possible means of instructing and enlightening the mass of the population."

When we first noticed this "call upon the rulers," we felt disposed to smile at the credulity of the Reviewers, who seem to think that" Methodism" might be dissipated by intellectual light. But after looking at it again and again, it appears to assume a more imposing aspect; and we have some doubts

whether the Reviewers did not mean more than they thought prudent to express. They have assumed a very high character and tone, and look down on "Methodism" with a little of the fastidious. Surely they cannot be ignorant that "Metho dism" is not of the night, nor of darkness:-that she had her birth at Oxford, the fountain of light, and grew up under the meridian of enlightened Europe;-that being attracted by the light, she bent her course westward, and about fifty years ago first set foot on the shores of enlightened America ;-that about thirty years ago, still attracted by the light, she came to NewEngland, when she rested, brought forth, and nourished many children. But it may be thought that a fact given by the Reviewers favours their position, that " Methodism" cannot endure the light. Speaking of what they call the "pernicious consequences of Methodism," they say, " these consequences are more clearly seen in those parts of our country where it has extended more widely, and been less checked in its operations, than in our own immediate neighbourhood." How much they include in their "own immediate neighbourhood" we cannot tell, but we will suppose they include the New-England States. And then we ask if it be true that " Methodism" has been more "checked in its operations" in these, than in the other parts of our country? If at its first entrance into New-England, it was somewhat"checked" and cramped by the spirit of those times, yet as the light shone with increasing brightness, as the spirit of bigotry and superstition was checked by the spirit of free inquiry and jurisprudence was better understood, and better administered," Methodism" gained ground, and the last year was the best she has ever had. And she now has not far from 25,000 living children in the neighbourhood of the Reviewers, exclusive of those who have emigrated to the west. And when all circumstances are put together, we think it will appear, even to the Reviewers themselves, a hopeless labour to attempt to "check" the growth of " Methodism" by employing means to "enlighten the mass of the population." But though we do not believe that any means can sanctify a design to "check" the prosperity of a religious body of people, yet we assure the Reviewers that we will support any measures calculated to "enlighten the mass of the population."

If "Methodism" may cause her voice to be heard, she would ask, as in the language of supplication, why not suffer her to live with her sisters," modifications of Christianity?" Oh! say the Reviewers, "we are sure its consequences are in some respects more pernicious." Are you" sure" it is as you say? then tell us, tell the world what evil she has done." These consequences are more clearly seen in those parts of our country where it has extended more widely, and been less checked VOL. IV.

44

in its operations, than in our own immediate neighbourhood." A clear escape, indeed! So the "pernicious consequences of Methodism," of which you were just now 66 sure," are all of a sudden so far off, that the Methodists cannot contradict you, nor prove your assertion false-nor can you prove it true. We will not attempt to name this species of calumny; but while its authors are thinking on the subject of a defence, we will state what we know of some of the happy "consequences of Methodism in those parts of our country." "Methodism" bas carried the light of life, and the glad tidings of great joy to many tens of thousands, who would have remained in the darkness and guilt of sin to this day, had it not been for her voice crying in the wilderness. She embraces in her arms more than 40,000 negroes and people of colour in the United States, to the greater part of whom she is all that is dear in the world, and 23,000 in the West-Indies. These are a part of her good deeds, while her evil doings are as notorious in Boston as in any part of the globe.

To conclude. We feel no fear for the character of Wesley, and almost as little for the success of Methodism. But there is one point, we cannot dissemble, that gives us pain. The Reviewers are learned men, and they sit in Moses' chair; but if we mistake not, they have cast down, and broken, both tables of the law, while they have denied experimental religion, and misrepresented the character and conduct of the professors of it. They appear to have adopted a system of religion in several points nearer Deism than Christianity. They show some "liberality," it is true; but then it is of that kind which believes there may be good men who are Mahometans, or worshippers of Juggernaut," while it considers "Methodism" as too pernicious in its consequences "to be either encouraged or supported."

We think the present occasion will be productive of some good, as it will show the world more clearly what is the religion of Unitarians, and what their liberality.

Feb. 1821.

Religious and Missionary Intelligence.

Holston District, Tennessee, June 20, 1321.

To the Editors of the Methodist Magazine.

DEAR BRETHren,

I TRANSMIT to you for publication in your very useful miscellany, an account of a most gracious revival of religion in New-River circuit, presented to me by the assistant preacher of that station. JOHN TEVIS.