better part, which shall never be taken from you. Whether you have more or less sorrow, it matters not; you want only more faith. This is the one point... Dare to believe! On Christ lay hold! See all your sins on Jesus laid, and by his stripes you are healed."

"Bristol, March 19, 1777... If the returns of your disorder are more and more gentle, there is reason to hope it will be, at length, totally removed. Very probably if you live to five or six-and-twenty, your constitution will take a new turn. But it is certainly the design of Him that loves you to heal, both body and soul; and possibly he delays the healing of the former, that the cure of the latter may keep pace with it. As it is a great loss to lose an affliction, he would not have you lose what you have suffered. I trust it will not be lost, but will be for your profit, that you may be a partaker of his holiness. It is a blessing that he has given you,.. that fear which is the beginning of wisdom; and it is a pledge of greater things to come. How soon?

Perhaps to-day!"

"Bristol, July 29, 1777... No! God hath not forgotten you. You must not say he hideth away his face, and he will never see it. Surely God hath seen it, and he cannot despise the work of his own hands. But he frequently delays giving bodily health, till he heals both body and soul together. Perhaps this is his design concerning you. But why do you not go to the salt water? If you are short of money, let me have the pleasure of assisting you a little. Meantime I give you a word for your consideration. Why art thou so heavy, oh my soul, and why art thou so disquieted within me? Oh put thy trust in God, for I shall yet give him thanks, who is the help of my countenance and my God." Peace be with all your spirits!

66

"I am yours, affectionately,

"JOHN WESLEY."

'However to be accounted for, the fact is certain, that Mr. Knox's health of body, and peace of mind, were restored in the one hour, after a last severe illness, which revived all his best early impressions, when in England, about the close of the last century. As he expressed himself to the editor,.." It is now thirteen years since I gave up the world, for conscience sake; and from that hour to the present, I have never had a return of my illness, either of body or mind, but have enjoyed uninterrupted peace." And so it was to the end. It was the editor's happiness to know, from a common friend, who witnessed the departure of this eminent servant of God, that all was at peace at the last.' Vol. II. pp. 24-26.

The following is from Mr. Knox, dated Jan. 23, 1811.

I will not attempt to write a long letter, for at this moment I am engaged in one of my voluminous ones to Mr. Parken, the editor of the Eclectic. The subject is Fénelon, whose new life he wished me to review. As he sent me a present of the book (2 vols. 8vo.) I felt myself bound to make some return; and being resolved against it, in his way, all that remained was, to shew gratitude in a way of my

own.

My object is, to detect the faults in Fénelon's system of devotion, by showing the oppositeness of its leading features, to that nature, which God has formed us with; that word, which he has provided to be our guide; and that providence, by which he ordereth all things, both in heaven and in earth.' Mysticism, or quietism (in a word) would have the mere mind itself, without any of its instrumental powers, not exercised upon (for how could that be, without memory, reflection, conception, &c.) but absorbed in God; and to make this absorption simple, as well as effectual, the instrumental powers are not merely left out, but they are shut out. They may still serve purposes in this life, but they have no place in perfect religion. This consists in one simple act, or habit, which becomes the more genuine and pure, the less we think about it. In fact, to think about it, is to adulterate it; for we cannot think about it, without employing, more or less, the instrumental powers of our mind, which are discarded by the leading principles of the system.

Christianity, on the contrary, takes mankind as it is, and in its purview, leaves out nothing; affording an antidote, for every moral poison; a medicine, for every moral disease; and providing, at the same time, unfailing aid, attraction, and occupation, for every faculty, and every taste of the soul. The occasion,' says William Law, of persons of great piety and devotion having fallen into great delusion, was, that they made a saint of the natural man; my meaning,' adds he, is, they considered their whole nature, as the subject of religion, and divine graces.' But how signally does St. Paul do this very thing, in that luminous prayer for the Thessalonians, v. 23. This single verse overthrows mysticism; I mean, in that transcendental notion of it, which Fénelon, and Law, and all the German mystics, have inculcated.' Vol. II. pp. 29, 30.

6

At p. 181, we find a singularly inaccurate criticism on a passage in the Eclectic Rev. for May, 1814, in which the reviewer of Collinson's Work remarks very properly, that the • direct commission of Christ, accompanied by the extraordinary 'illumination of the Holy Spirit, alone constitutes authority in religion'; and that this character belongs exclusively to the "Apostles.' Mr. Knox affects to be amused with this faux pas, the designation being, as he contends, not strictly applicable 'to St. Paul', and absolutely falling to the ground in the instances of St. Mark and St. Luke. Was then St. Paul destitute of the direct commission of Christ and the extraordinary illumination of the Holy Spirit? If so, he was assuredly no apostle, for he rests his own claims to the apostolic authority upon these grounds. The inspiration of the Evangelists Mark and Luke is quite another matter. No one has ever ranked them with apostles; but ancient tradition, for which the learned writer professed such unbounded reverence, has set an apostolic seal on their Gospels, derived from the contemporary sanction of St. Peter and St. Paul. The high-church notions of this eccentric man carried him so far

as to render him decidedly opposed to even the operations of the Church Missionary Society.

6

'Dean Graves,' writes Mr. Knox, seemed strongly impressed with a persuasion, that either those movements ought to be aided, or something of the same nature, among the regular clergy, should be adopted. "For," said he, "what will be said, if we neither favour the exertions made for Christianizing the heathen world, nor make the effort ourselves? The character of our establishment will be lost, if we, its clergy, clearly subject ourselves to the charge of indifference, on a matter of such vitality?"

'My answer was, "That the church of England would not be served, by a dereliction, from whatever plausible motives, of its essential principle: that it was an essential principle of the church of England, that, whatever was done in its name, should be done regularly and responsibly, under the authority of its chiefs, and harmonically with its organization. But this," I observed, "could not be the case with missions, voluntarily undertaken, by unaccredited individuals. This would be the work, not of the church, but of selfdirected, irresponsible agents." "If individuals," I added, "would act in this way, let them do it; and let those whose conscience impels them, unite in the undertaking, if they will. But let no one talk of serving the establishment, by exertions irreconcileable with its essential principles; nor call that a church mission, which the church could not recognize without self-contradiction. In a word, a bishop of the anglican church, is now to be established in the east: he was of course be the regular superintendant of all ecclesiastical movements, in that quarter; through him, therefore, alone, would it seem, that a church of England mission could now be set on foot; or, if set on foot, could be conducted with consistency or safety."

He did not deny the force of this reasoning; but Graves is too much disposed to be, not in charity only, but in unison with all men. There is some good in the wish, but there is more weakness.'

Vol. II. pp. 186-188.

Could a Christian bishop of the nineteenth century have had a more unsuitable adviser? This mild censure of Dean Graves is high eulogy. The following extract from Mr. Jebb's reply is abundantly instructive, though not in the exact way which the writer contemplated. We abstain from all comment.

I grant, indeed, that there is such a thing as an awakening, exciting department. But this department is not in our church. And assuredly it is not to be produced within our church, by the superinduction of a dull, vapid, spiritless morality, upon a dry, stern, disputatious dogmatism. Such people will be always learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Such people must inevitably remain nondescript and amphibious entities, without the stability and elevation of a hierarchy, without the magnetism and energy of a sect.

The fact is, that one can feel infinitely more disposed to congenialize, with an honest, orthodox, pious dissenter, than with a perhaps equally honest, orthodox, and pious evangelic, who professes to love, and who thinks he supports our establishment, whilst, in reality, he

..

both deteriorates and undermines it. And the reason is obvious. The strict dissenter properly fills his providential function; the evangelized churchman does not. Nor is this a mere theoretic distinction. For assuredly, whosoever departs in any degree from his proper providential sphere, in so departing, must suffer loss. His movements cannot be steady; his principles cannot be rooted and grounded; his conduct cannot be free, from more or less of trimming, or obliquity. There is a certain sobriety of conviction, a sort of absence of all conscientious misgiving, which cannot be purchased by any lower price, than a wise study of the principles, and a steady adherence to the lawful course, of 'that state of life into which it hath pleased God to call us.' When, therefore, I see a spurious liberality, either in churchmen, or dissenters, when I see the one, ready to view as merely subordinate, and almost indifferent, the goodly order of the hierarchical institution, . . or the other, ready to scoff at the conscientious scruples, which kept their forefathers without the pale, I cannot help apprehending, in each instance respectively, that the light is turning into darkness, and the salt is losing its savour. Amongst dissenters, such departure from the old ground, engenders arianism, socinianism, and unbounded scepticism. Among Church-of-England men, the diffusion of evangelical indifferentism is of too late a growth, to give us a complete result; but the tendencies are, in my judgement, by no means equivocal. The reviews which have lately reached me, place it in my power to offer some illustration. There is much, of course, to which I strongly object, in the Eclectic. Yet, when I compare the moral tone of the best articles in that publication, with the moral tone which pervades the Christian Observer, I am obliged to say, that I could far more cordially mingle minds with the avowed dissenter, than with the soi-disant churchman. You are well aware of the neutralized spirit, and compromising caution, evinced by the Christian Observer, respecting public amusements. Look, on the other hand, at the bold, nervous, manly, and philosophical tone, in which, on this delicate subject, the Eclectic Reviewer (No. for July, p. 84–86.) castigates Miss Hamilton. You must also recollect that indifferentism, which would merge all minor differences, in the pursuit of a common object', on which the Christian Observer delights to expatiate. This conciliatory project is carried to its height, in the charge of the Bishop of, from which I must cite a passage, sanctioned by the Christian Observer (No. for May, p. 303.) The [Bible] Society is constituted on this simple and comprehensive principle, that it may not exclude the aid of any persons, professing to be Christians. Indeed, no contribution for the distribution of the Bible can be unacceptable, whether it come from a churchman, or a dissenter, from a Christian, Jew, Mahometan, or heathen.' Thus speaks a Bishop of the church of England! And thus feel the whole body of the evangelical clergy! Let us now turn to the Eclectic Review for August. I cannot but feel greatly struck with that fine and masterly article, upon 'Belsham's Memoirs of Lindsay.' It were easy here to dwell on felicities of thought, of argument, of indignant reprehension, of playful wit, of cool irony, and of retributive sarcasm, which mark the mind, the hand, and the undaunted spirit, of a controversial hero. But the passage to which my attention was especially

attracted, as contradistinguished in a peculiar manner to the newfangled indifferentism of to-day, is from the top of page 130, to the end of the article. The reference, towards the very conclusion, to the practice of the primitive church; and the quotation from Eusebius, &c. mark out, to me at least, most clearly, a far nearer approach to the genius of a hierarchy, than we can at all discern in our evangelic churchmen. There is here no merging of minor differences', disposition to commingle with Jews, Mahometans, or heathens. Had the writer of this article not been born a dissenter, he would have been a noble churchman. But, on the whole, I rejoice that such men are to be found in the dissenting ranks. They may, under providence, preserve their body, from adopting the system of Socinus, or any other cold negation.'

no

The truth is, that both amongst dissenters, and among the Churchof-England men, we shall invariably find the most unsophisticated piety, and the most zealous attachment to catholic verities, where there is least disposition to recede from the proper ground of their respective callings. Dissenters have, in too many instances, receded and diverged; and, in none of those instances, have they failed to make shipwreck of their faith. Among churchmen, to recede, or to diverge, is a new thing. We have had coldness, indeed, and ignorance, and profligacy, and total disregard for every thing connected with religion. But, in the Church of England, strictly so called, (that is, putting methodism out of the question,) religion cultivated in the sectarian manner,.. the forms of the church retained, but its spirit neglected; the doctrines of the church (as they explain them) strongly asserted, and its order lightly regarded; constituted authorities moved aside, and self-elected bodies usurping their jurisdiction; the ancient distribution of parishes repealed, and the clergymen of those parishes bearded, by the miscellaneous committee of some newly-apportioned district; swarms of dissenters intruded, and intruded by laymen, and clergymen, and nobility, and bishops of the church of England, . . all this is a new thing upon the earth; and its consequences who can venture to foretell? One thing is certain,.. that the result cannot be trivial. In one way or other, it must produce some great change. And the nature of that change, though sagacity may shrewdly conjecture, time alone can thoroughly disclose. Meanwhile, I have good hope, that, even now, some beneficial effect has been produced, among those who wish well to our hierarchical establishment. Jealousy has been awakened; and a spirit of inquiry has been set on foot, as to the nature, the functions, the privileges, and the safe-guards of the church. And though the subject is yet but very inadequately apprehended, its revival, at a period certainly of greater light, and more generalizing powers, than any period in which it was a matter of much thought, or interest, can hardly fail to answer a most valuable purpose. In the British Critic for June, though originating with a man one cannot like, there are some capital observations from Daubeny's Sermon.' I had almost thought him on the true ground; . . that the Bible, to be an efficient instructor, DOES need collateral aid. He is, indeed, substantially on the ground; but he does not plant his foot firmly. Perhaps we may live to see our own Dodwells, and Hickes's, and Collier's, divested of