Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

begging of the question to say, that to separate from a church which is scriptural in its principles, is schism." We can hardly understand how this can be called a begging of the question,it being as clear as daylight that to separate from a church is a secession, i. e. dixooraoía, which is often used in the same signification as oxioua (schism). And, thirdly, he affirms, "That the great body of the Methodists of the present day never were 'in the Church' in any just sense, and therefore have not separated from it." Now we had somehow imbibed the idea that all true members of Christ were members of one body. "As the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ." Is not this to compare Christians as members of a church to the limbs as members of a body? "Never in the church!"" The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee!" Oh! that the writer of the tract we are considering would only believe us, that the Holy Spirit is a lover of harmony and an enemy to separation! "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." "NEVER IN THE CHURCH!" How, then, will they "stand fast in one spirit with us, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel?"-how are we "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?"

At page 13 in the work before us, the writer repeats his plea, "that according to the New Testament, schism is not a separation from a church, but the prevalence of party-spirit in it.. The Corinthians are charged," continues he, "with this sin, which St. Paul thus describes: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions (axiouara) among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared to me of you, my brethren, by them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (Cor. i. 10-13.) We cannot sufficiently admire the fine play of Vindicator, in referring us to this earnest exhortation of St. Paul. He hoped to weaken the force of the blow by anticipating his conviction. St. Paul presently subjoins that he "could not speak unto them as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among ye envying and strife and divisions," (the splitting of Christians into parties-dixooraoía-i. e. secessiones,) "are ye not carnal? for while one saith I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal?"

It is perfectly unwarrantable to imagine with Vindicator, that

66

either of the above texts can be warped to apply to the members of the church of England. There may be differences bearing upon some particular doctrine, but we have never heard of envying" and "strife." We have heard of no other "secession" than that which Wesley was the cause of; a breach which we would gladly see healed. While human nature remains what it ever has been, men of different tempers, divers dispositions, and various constitutions, are little likely to agree precisely upon any one point: suffice it if their differences be not so great as to give rise to scandal and schism, since "a house divided against itself cannot stand:" but our Church does stand, despite the alleged differences amongst us; therefore we may conclude that the schism rests with the seceders, not with us. Suum cuique is only fair play. From the meaning of the word division, it is clear that something more is meant than a difference of opinion in a church, as the word signifies a separation, or from one into two or more. Cruden tells us that the word schism signifies a rupture, or division, and is taken for a separation from the society of the Church for external things. Dr. Nott observes that "schism may be defined to be an open violation of church unity, when individuals assume to themselves the power either of forming new communions, or of instituting new rites, or of creating a new ministry, in opposition to such as have been established by regular authority, as being the ministry and the ordinances originally of apostolic institution." If this be a correct definition of the word schism, then are the Wesleyans guilty of that grievous lapse. Have they not assumed the power of forming new communions? Do they not create their own ministers in opposition to such as have been established by regular authority, and thereby violate that subordination of teaching, ministering, and governing, originally appointed in the church? If they refer to the 12th chapter of the 1st Cor. and collate carefully and dispassionately the 25th and 28th verses, they must acknowledge that they are guilty of schism. They are at all events the cause of "divisions," which are hardly to be distinguished from schisms; the word alpeous signifying a division, or rent made in a church, by any sect, (Acts v. 17.) And we find it written that they who are guilty of either "shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven." (Gal. v. 20, 21.) Donnegan

* Fr. diviser; Sp. divider; It. dividere; Lat. dividere; from di or dis, and the Hetruscan verb iduo (whence idus,) that is, portion, to part or portion; Becman conjectures iduo, to be siç duw, into two; and Martinius, that it is from idios, that is, proprius, proper or peculiar to; so that iduare may mean, to put, place, or set, idia or kar' idiar, that is, seorsim, separately, asunder.-Encycl. Metrop.

+ Διχοστασίαι, (Gal. v. 20.)

says of the word Exioua (schism), it is that which has been split or divided, splitting, a division or a separation, metaph. a dissension. What does Parkhurst say?-a division in mind or sentiment, a dissension. What says Schrevelius?-fissura, disscidium, SCHISMA: à oxílw, scindo, disseco. We think we may conclude from these authorities that oxíopara signifies separations from a church. But our author says that the Methodists were never" in the Church," and therefore have not separated from it. What logic is there here? Might he not just as reasonably affirm, that because we are not Adam's immediate offspring, we therefore are not partakers of his sin? If the existing Methodists were never "in the Church," it is a fact that Wesley was in the Church, and dissented from the Church; and therefore they who are his followers are also partakers of his schism, or guilt. But Vindicator goes on to say that Methodism is not a schism from a church, because Methodism was cast off by the Church. How does he substantiate this? As usual, by a fallacy. It is very true that the Church cast Methodism from itself; had there been an end of the latter, no schism had ensued. But Wesley persisted in his mistake, and thus a schism was occasioned. "He set a power in motion which he could neither stop nor control. Principle was sacrificed to expediency. In spite of solemn protestations from the Church, farther and farther separations were sanctioned; bitter invectives were connived at, till at length, by the daring assumption of the power of ordaining ministers, (here was the schism), though not without much tampering with conscience, a separate system was in the year 1784 established. Thus by promoting a division in the Church was Wesley guilty of the sin of schism, even according to his own definition of it; for "schism," (says Wesley; see his Sermon on Schism, in 9th vol. of his Collected Works, p. 386, ed. 1811,) "has been almost always wrongly defined a separation from a church, instead of a separation in a church."

But let us pass on to the doctrinal part of this pamphlet, which treats of absolute perfection, and felt justification conveyed to the soul by the Holy Spirit, sensibly, suddenly, and miraculously. Our author rebuts the allegation of these being the doctrines held by the Wesleyan Methodists; and so far as absolute perfection goes, we should hope that he has good grounds for his denial, for we cannot suppose that any set of men in their right minds would declare, in the face of all Scripture, that human perfection was attainable in this world. But, be it said without offence, we have often heard it imputed to Methodists that

* Vid. Southey's Life of Wesley, vol. ii. p. 437.

they pretend to a greater degree of holiness, than prudence, modesty, or Scripture would seem to warrant.

With respect to the other point brought under our notice, namely, "felt justification," we have ever viewed it as their grand essential doctrine. Wesley certainly held this tenet; and the Methodists cling fast to it, as every conscientious man amongst them will admit. Mr. Evans, in his Sketch of all Religions, expressly states, that one of the distinguishing principles of Methodism is perceptible, and, in some cases, instantaneous conversion; and an assurance of reconciliation to God, with which they say the new birth, or being born again, is inseparably attended. Our author cannot, with candour or a chance of success, parry this charge; and we do not know why he should attempt it, since it is a doctrine generally adopted by the body to which he belongs, and professes to admire. He however scorns to mince matters; and he gets over the difficulty by pronouncing the allegation" a specimen of as disgraceful mis،، The representation as was ever palmed upon the world." assurance of salvation is generally understood," says he, " to be an assurance of final happiness; but the Methodists, so far from holding any such tenet, believe that even the best of men may fall into sin and finally perish; and that they will thus fall, unless they live in constant watchfulness and prayer." So far so good; but is this an individual opinion, or one indeed held and maintained by the whole secession, or any where to be met with in black and white?" Otherwise their doctrine must be liable to the imputation of being undefined. And even allowing, for the sake of argument, that this dogma is acquiesced in, or subscribed to, by the whole of the Wesleyan Methodists; they will at least plead guilty to the belief that conversion and justification" are conveyed into the soul by the Holy Spirit, sensibly, suddenly, and miraculously:" and we repeat, that there is no escaping this charge. Our author seems to have felt this, and so makes very little attempt at contradiction. When the simple question is asked, his answer can only be called evasive.

66

But we are reminded that when Mr. Wesley was holding forth in the neighbourhood of Bristol, his preaching was attended by some remarkable PHYSICAL EFfects. The writer favours us with Wesley's own opinion of them. Some of the cases, he considered, were purely natural-others were produced by diabolical agency-and others again must have been the result of strong religious convictions, produced by the Spirit of God. But now hear Wesley's own words, "his recorded opinion." "He had indubitable proof,"-we are told-" that persons who were affected in the singular manner which he has described, were then effectually turned from the love and practice of sin to UNIVERSAL HOLINESS." Is this, or is it not, we ask, human

perfection? It is not in the power of any context to modify this language, or of any after observation to refine away its real tenor. It has been our lot to witness certain of these PHYSICAL EFFECTS, when we were present at the Methodist assemblages which go by the name of " camp meetings." And if the scratching up of the earth, foaming at the mouth, distortion of the countenance, hugging each other, shouts, yells, jargon-if these, we say, be the PHYSICAL EFEECTS of the Holy Spirit, then are we bound to tremble for the members of our Church, since, to our knowledge, no EFFECTS of this sort have been sensibly, suddenly, and miraculously wrought or felt by any congregation. But, indeed, the enthusiasm which produces these physical effects would seem to constitute the very genius of Methodism, which, by nourishing in every individual during divine worship the highest raptures and ecstasies of devotion, consecrates in a manner every individual, and, in his own eyes, bestows a character upon him much superior to what forms or institutions can ever confer.

There was certainly a period in Mr. Wesley's life in which he advocated the tenet of "human perfection," and gave it out to the world as his creed; " but he soon perceived that his composition was hastily composed, and he publicly retracted it." This was honest: it was what every man, similarly circumstanced, ought to do. But now comes the moral,-let every Christian, more especially such as be in authority, lay it to his heart,-let us at least, from Wesley's history, learn what stupendous evil consequences will sometimes be entailed by a single false step. Alas! the society of Methodists, at this day, stick to the evil of their venerable father. They imitate him not in his retraction. When he himself trampled upon the laws of that Church to which he enjoined upon his followers conformity, when he disregarded her authority, and violated the oaths of obedience which he took at his ordination, he set an example which was more powerful than precept. Thus we find at the present day that Methodists are far from universally disbelieving that the Holy Spirit is conveyed into the soul sensibly, suddenly, and miraculously.

But to proceed-our author says that "the honest boast of Mr. Wesley is as applicable to our whole connexion at this day, as it was at any former period. Where is there a body of people in the realm, who, number for number, so closely adhere to what our Church delivers as pure doctrine? Where are those who have approved and do approve themselves more orthodox, more sound in their opinions? Is there a Socinian or Arian among them all? Nay, were you to recite the whole catalogue of heresies enumerated by Bishop Pearson, it might be asked, Who can lay any one of these to their charge ?" Does not this savour, we again submit, of human perfection-of the Pharisee?

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »