-so re not that our conviction of the perfect reality of Christ's dominion strengthened every time we open the volume of inspiration, our feelings, as Protestants, would be inexpressibly gloomy. And we cannot but view it as remarkable,markable, that we call the very particular attention of our readers to it, and request them, in the progress of events, to keep their eye steadily fixed upon it, that one of the legally-established Churches of this country, which makes the supreme, active Headship of Christ a fundamental article of faith, and is, for that reason, placed in circumstances of unexampled difficulty, and secular peril, is the one which has resolved to set the example of fraternal affection, in the recognition of co-existent Christian churches: while the other, taking an external, successional Episcopacy, placed in dependence on the secular authority, as her fundamental principle, will not allow the utmost soundness of doctrine, nor the most evident symptoms of the spiritual presence of Christ, to obtain the slightest degree of ecclesiastical recognition. Vilified Rome is the only society, in this part of the world, that she will acknowledge to be a Christian church along with herself. Such are the signs of the times. They cannot easily be mistaken. Nor do we think it would be very difficult to decipher their prognostications. But it is more important to attend to their intimations of duty. We do not wonder that Luther, called as he was to fight the battles of saving truth, against antichristian and souldestroying error, attached such vast importance to the Epistle to the Galatians. The Apostle there speaks in language not to be mistaken, pronouncing a sentence of separation from the church of Christ on all who depart from the Gospel of a free justification by faith in the atoning Saviour. That Gospel is, at all hazards, to be maintained in its purity, and preached in all its pristine vigour. No other system is a conductor of spiritual influence. This, and this only, is the power of God unto salvation. And it is to the salvation of men,-their present justification and regeneration, in order to their subsequent holiness, and their final acceptance,-the great object on account of which the Christian ministry was first instituted, and is still perpetuated, that the Preacher of the Gospel is continually to look. Mr. Wesley has often been loudly censured for inconsistency. To be vindicated, he must be understood. Mr. Wesley had the heart of a Christian Minister. He longed for the salvation of men. With him, preaching was not the discharge of a professional duty, but the transaction of a real and most weighty business. His congregation, in his view, consisted of men in a state of fearful peril, for whom Christ had died; and whom it was his duty to persuade to seek, and to direct how to find, the great salvation which they needed. He preached a present salvation, that men might experience it. He looked for visible results. He was not satisfied without them. From the line of conduct thus suggested he never departed. He had his plans of usefulness, suggested by his opinions ; and as experience might confirm, or modify, or change his opinions, so his plans would undergo alteration. But his principles never varied: he always aimed at the same objects; and to these, as his whole life was devoted, so all his plans were subordinated. And this is the legacy which he has bequeathed to his successors. Their object must ever be, the salvation of all that hear them; the instrument with which they seek to accomplish it,-that Gospel which is so clearly described, and so fearfully guarded, in the Epistle to the Galatians. And this is Methodism. It is the key-stone of the theological system which in modern times has been thus denominated. It suggests the principles of that ecclesiastical order which the Methodists observe; and has been the means of collecting and uniting those living beings for whose benefit that order exists. And till it is proved that it was Luther who preached the "other" and the anathematized Gospel, and that the Council of Trent asserted the Gospel which Paul preached, the Methodists may be satisfied with the security of their position. We have heard some expressions of surprise, that the Wesleyans have been singled out, by the Clergymen who have adopted the Tridentine scheme of religion, for vehement and even peculiar opposition. "The Wesleyans," it is said, "have not only defended the principle of an ecclesiastical Establishment, but they have manifested an especial respect for the established Church of England, because it was originally the Church of Mr. Wesley. But, notwithstanding this, there is just now an attack made on them so simultaneously, that it can only have been the result of design and agreement." This is all perfectly natural. would have been strange, indeed, had it been otherwise. Methodism is every way, doctrinally and practically, a complete system of antiTridentinism. The two schemes are as opposed as the two Gospels-one of which is yet not the Gospel-of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. And though the professors of Tractarian doctrine seem utterly unable to enter into the spirit of Methodism, they see that it is, at all points, the antagonist of their own. It what were, in point of fact, gross misrepresentations, he would be very likely to make matters worse. But we did not expect what we find in his more recently published Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The history of theological controversy would furnish some strange occurrences; but we question whether, among them all, one more painfully strange can be found, than the attack on the Wesleyan Methodists which this Letter contains. It demanded a reply; and a reply that should be searching and complete. It was not a mere question of church-order. If the Methodists are what Dr. Pusey says they are, it is time that they break up their societies, and retire from all public notice. But to the charges thus publicly brought against them, they as publicly plead, Not guilty! and this plea Mr. Jackson's Letter supports. A good idea of the spirit of the Letter, and of its general character, may be collected from the opening sentences. "Rev. Sir,-Occupying as you do an office of high distinction in one of the first Universities in the world, and having acquired no common celebrity as one of the principal leaders of a great ecclesiastical movement, it will perhaps excite your surprise to be thus publicly addressed by a plain Methodist Preacher. Should any one blame me for engaging in a public controversy which you have been the first to excite, I can only say, Is there not a cause?' In the third edition of your Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury,' you have seen it good to assail, in no measured terms of censure, the tenets and character of the Wesleyan body; and it is in defence of my brethren and of myself that I appear as your opponent. Great as is the disparity between us, I venture to withstand you to the face;' because I conceive you are 'to be blamed' for statements which are at variance with truth, and for aspersions, Dr. Pusey, in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, discovered, very plainly, not only the fact of this opposition to Methodism, but the reasons for it. When we read that Letter, we saw at once what was the state of the case. We saw that the Professor had derived his views of piety from the more serious Divines of the Roman Penitentiary school, and from the representations which they give of the doctrines of "the Fathers." We saw, too, that of the Methodism which he opposed,-salvation by faith, peace of conscience, love to God, religious happiness and holiness in beautiful conjunction and order,—he had not a single idea. liberty, which is given to me both by On these subjects I shall take the He was evidently bewildered in the the laws of Christ and of my country, of mystic asceticism of the earlier addressing you with all freedom and un Jesuits. It was plain, therefore, reserve; certainly without flattery, and that when called to account for I hope without any approach to unchris both harsh and severe, which, not being founded on fact, are unjust and calumni ous. tian rudeness. If there is a time to keep silence,' there is also 'a time to speak.' The New-Testament Scriptures, which enjoin upon the disciples of the Lord Jesus the exercise of meekness under reproach, contain the command, Let not your good be evil spoken of." Our blessed Saviour defended himself under false accusation; and St. Paul followed his example, when the cause of evangelical truth and righteousness was likely to be injured by his silence." 66 (Page 3.) The complaint thus urged is stated, as was necessary, with a plainness which leaves no room for mistake. Dr. Pusey's "statements" are de. scribed as being "at variance with truth," and his aspersions" as being not only "harsh and severe," but as "not founded on fact;" and, therefore, as being "unjust and calumnious." That every reader of the Letter may himself be in a position for judging whether such complaints be well founded or not, Mr. Jackson quotes, at full length, all that Dr. Pusey says in relation to Methodism, in his Letter to the Archbishop. We are glad that he has pursued this plan. Detached passages may be modified by the connexion in which they stand; and the reader who wishes to understand a controversy, will always desire to have the whole of what is animadverted upon, that he may see whether, when taken in their proper connexion, the words complained of do really bear-and were, as far as he can judge, intended to bear-the meaning which is given to them. The reader of Mr. Jackson's Letter has the whole case before him. Those of our readers who have not seen any extracts from this Letter of Dr. Pusey, will be grieved, if they are not surprised, at the following: "The root of that heresy " (into which Methodism is represented as degenerating)"consists in the way in which the doctrine of justification is held, being in fact, and practically, a justification by feelings.' 'Believe (not in Christ,' but) that you will be saved, and you will be saved,' was early a Wesleyan doctrine. The persuasion that a person will be saved is made the condition, and, vir tually, the only condition, of his salvation. As long as he believes he is saved, so long, according to them, he is so. Then, the first persuasion having beet obtained by the feelings, these thenceforth-not good works which are the fruits of faith,' Art. xii.-are prominent in the mind of the Wesleyan as the 'fruits of the Spirit,' and the test of a 'lively faith. Yet further, by substituting another test of acceptance, it even takes people off from considering their practical duties towards God and man, and how they perform these, which our Lord gives us as the test of our love for Him, If ye love me, keep my commandments.' Instead of this, it sets them watching for certain feelings only, which, unhappily, man has it in his power, in great degree, to produce in himself, without their being any criterion of his habitual state, or permanently influencing it, except for evil, by drugging the conscience. It is not, therefore, judging individuals, to say, that the Wesleyan standard of morals and holiness is, of necessity, low. The state of their feelings, not God's commandments, are the standard whereby they try themselves." (Pages 4—6.) Our readers, who know what Wesleyanism really is, will not wonder that such allegations as these are indignantly repelled; repelled, too, in terms which will render it necessary for Dr. Pusey either to acknowledge, that he wrote in ignorance, and put down what he thought to be vered, is not so; or, if he can do so, the case, but which, he has discoby authentic extracts, to rebuke his rebuker, and snatch the victory from his grasp. Mr. Jackson thus begins his annotations on the Doctor's charges: "Let us analyze the several allegations which you have here made, and thus endeavour to ascertain whether the tenets and character of the Wesleyan societies generally are what you describe, or whe. ther you have been led by your preju dices to publish statements which are not true, to the injury of an unoffending people. To an impartial reader your whole account must appear very suspicious, in this view, that while you express the strongest condemnation of what you are pleased to call Wesleyanism,' you make no reference to the acknowledged writ ings of its Founder. It is well known that he has written largely on all the subjects which you have here mooted, and his works are accessible to all who choose to read them; yet have you carefully abstained from quoting a single word that he ever uttered. You have not made even an allusion to any authentic publication where he has embodied his sentiments; but have ascribed to him and his people just what tenets you pleased, and then, on the authority of your own assertions, and of idle tales which no candid man can by possibility believe, charged them with the Antinomian heresy in its worst forms. Such a course, to say the least, is sufficient to awaken an apprehension that all is not fair and honest. If Wesleyanism' is in itself so essentially erroneous, and immoral in its tendency, why are its recognised formularies concealed? and why does a declared adversary take upon himself to be the sole expounder of its doctrines? The fact is, as you well know, that John Wesley, declaring his own views of religion, is a very different person from Dr. Pusey telling the world, in a party pamphlet, what John Wesley believed and taught. The Founder of the Wesleyan societies expresses himself with all possible clearness and simplicity, as if he was wishful to be understood? his interpreter, whatever might be his design, darkens and misrepresents every subject that he professes to explain.' (Pages 6, 7.) Mr. Jackson then "descends to particulars." From page 7 to page 18, the subject of JUSTIFICATION is considered: from page 18 to page 51, Dr. Pusey's charges on points relating to CHRISTIAN EXPERI ENCE are examined: on page 51 the " CHARGE OF ANTINOMIANISM is taken up, and investigated in the following pages, as far as page 73 : on that page Mr. Jackson begins to examine the particular instance of Antinomianism alleged by Dr. Pusey, (the case, namely, of the late Dr. Coke,) continuing this examination to page 94. The remaining pages, from 94 to 110, are devoted to the 68 CONCLUSION." The value of this Letter does not consist merely in the clearness and power with which the censures of Dr. Pusey are repelled, but also in the explanations which it gives of those important subjects, which Dr. Pusey has chosen to debate. We recommend the Letter for its decided instructiveness. The author's own observations, and the extracts from Mr. Wesley's writings, on the different subjects to which Dr. Pusey's animadversions refer, are admirably calculated to give to such readers as are not much accustomed to study systematic theology, information which is the more valuable as relating directly to the "things belonging to their peace." Divinity students, likewise, may read the Letter with advantage, as bringing before them illustrations, as well as vindications, of some of the most important subjects which can occupy their attention. But it is with the polemic character of the Letter that we are now most concerned. And here, as all who know him would anticipate when they had read the singular allegations of Dr. Pusey, the author's success has been complete. His task, howHad ever, has been a painful one. the Hebrew Professor brought forward the real doctrines of Mr. Wesley, and endeavoured to show that they were unscriptural, the nature of the reply, on the part of those who believed that the Doctor's attempts had failed, would have been very different from what it is now required to be. As a specimen of the manner in which this-we will again call it-painful task has been executed, we quote the introductory remarks to that portion of the Letter which is devoted to the doctrine of "justification." Mr. Jackson says, "You affirm, that Wesleyanism substitutes for the catholic teaching a doctrine of justification for which there is no warrant in the word of God.' On one of the most vital points of Christian divinity, you affirm that the Wesleyan tenets are not only unscriptural, but at variance with the teaching' of the universal church of Christ. This is a fearful charge; and if it could be substantiated, would go far to accomplish an object which you appear to have very much at heart, the extinction of Wesleyan Methodism throughout the world. What, then, is the Wesleyan doctrine concerning this great question? You affirm, that it is practically a justifica tion by feelings.' You add, Believe (not in Christ, but) that you will be saved, and you will be saved, was early a Wesleyan doctrine; and then, with regard to what you call 'a section of the Wesleyan body,' you add, 'The original error has been more fatally developing itself. If this statement were true, there would, indeed, be no warrant in the word of God' for the Wesleyan doctrine of justification; and those who 'practically' adhere to it, would be more fit for an asylum or a penal settlement, than for a place either in the great Christian family, or even in civilized life. But, unhappily for you, the statement which you have put forth is an absolute fiction. On this subject I claim to speak with some confidence, having been connected with the Wesleyan body for nearly half a century, and conversed on this very point with thousands of its members in various parts of the kingdom; having also carefully read every theological book and pamphlet that Mr. Wesley ever wrote, as well as the writ ings of the principal Ministers and laymen who have at any period been connected with his societies; and, in direct opposition to your declaration, I solemnly aver, that I never met with the doctrine that you have propounded, till I saw it in your pamphlet. I never heard it uttered by either man, woman, or child; nor do I believe, that there ever was in the Wesleyan Connexion a single person that seriously held it. I have, indeed, heard of a few dreaming religionists, not holding the Wesleyan tenets, who have said, 'Believe that you are justified, and you are justified;' but that Wesleyanism' ever taught, Believe (not in Christ, but) that you will be saved, and you will be saved,' I indignantly deny. With your motives in charging upon the Wesleyan body a tenet which the wildest ranter would be ashamed to avow, I have no concern. I state the fact, and leave motives to Him that judgeth righteously." (Pages 7-9.) There is one part of this Letter to which we must take another opportunity of directing the attention of the reader more fully than our narrow limits (which we have already exceeded) allow us to do at present. We refer to the able vindication of the character of the late Dr. Coke from the charges brought by Dr. Pusey against him, grounded on a private and confidential letter addressed to Mr. Wilberforce; and which his sons, since his death, have given to the public. No extract will be sufficient to do justice to this question. We leave it, therefore, for the present; only thus intimat ing our intention of recurring to it. For the reason to which we have just alluded, we can give no more extracts from this able and powerful pamphlet. The author has rebutted the charges of Dr. Pusey, and reproved Dr. Pusey himself. How the Regius Professor will conduct himself under this rejoinder, it is impossible to foresee. Confused as he evidently is by the mysticism of Popery, which allows him to see leyan doctrine of justification is nothing clearly, but that the Wesutterly opposed to the system which he has embraced, he may, perhaps, venture upon a reply; a reply, how. ever, which can only show his increasing bewilderment. The reason is obvious. His charges are not true. And as we cannot impute this to a deliberate intention to deceive, we can only refer it to that confused state of intellect which is always produced when the essential truths connected with man's redemption by Christ Jesus, are made the subjects of merely human study. Dr. Pusey evidently does not at all understand the matters about which he writes. We earnestly recommend Mr. Jackson's Letter. We hope it will have a very extensive circulation. Wherever Puseyism is stirring itself, let this antidote to the mischief be Wesleyans who are at all likely to procured and distributed. Let those be moved by some of the more plausible representations of Puseyism, be shown the manner in which the Doctor speaks of Wesley, and of Wesleyans. That of itself will be sufficient to show them that the representations even of the leaders of the party are to be taken very warily. Dr. Pusey says, that such and such were the doctrines of the early church. Yes; and he says, that such and such were the doctrines of the Wesleyans. And if he were mistaken on subjects on which it was so easy for him to obtain correct information, how can he be a safe guide through the intricacies of |