proverbial that merely on account of some metaphysical differences on particular points of what they call the "philosophy of the Gospel," new theological schools are established, conflicting reviews published, and even the censures of the Church inflicted on dissentient ministers. But how is this "morbid sensitiveness" displayed? Why, a Congregational reviewer sees fit to enter his protest against our doctrinal peculiarities, to denounce our Church authorities, to caricature our ecclesiastical economy, and to pour forth a stream of sarcastical declamation against our proceedings-and, what is worse than all, to accuse us of misleading the public mind, and even of imposing on our own people by keeping from them requisite information in regard to the financial concerns of the Church-and we have presumed to complain of these things, to refute their unfounded charges, and to appeal to the public for the correctness of our statements. For doing this in the most unexceptionable manner we could, instead of submitting to be thus loaded with reproach in silence, we are accused of "showing a morbid sensitiveness." It is not, however, a matter of astonishment, that they who have exhibited so much of this mental disease, in the instances above enumerated, should suspect their neighbors of being actuated by a similar infirmity.

Had we looked on with cold indifference, while these courteous reviewers were representing John Wesley as having been actuated by motives and designs similar to managing and intriguing demagogues, and by a love of power, which was manifested, as they said, in his arbitrary proceedings-and while they represented the entire superstructure of Methodism as being built upon an assumption of usurped authority, in contempt of Scripture testimony-had we done this in submissive silence, no doubt we might have escaped the censureship of this writer, as being under the influence of a diseased mind. But we very much doubt whether these gentlemen would secretly have honored us under these circumstances, as servants faithful to our trust-faithful in defending that which had been committed to our keeping by our fathers. At any rate, we should have considered ourselves reckless of the characters of those whom we had been accustomed, from an intimate knowledge of their doctrines and conduct, to venerate, as among the most honest, wise, and industrious of our species.

We think, moreover, that our labors in this respect have not been altogether without effect, even on the minds of these Congregational reviewers. This we judge from the tone of the article under consideration. While from the character of former articles, which involved the doctrine and conduct of Mr. Wesley and Methodism, we had reason to believe that the writers never had read Mr. Wesley, nor acquainted themselves with the system they so vehemently condemned, we are bound to think that the present writer has both read and admired the character and general conduct of Wesley. This we judge from the altered tone in which he writes. He thinks the character of Wesley, though he admits that Watson and not Southey has given the most faithful portrait of him, is best seen and appreciated in his Journals. Of course he has read these Journals, as well as Southey's and Watson's life of that excellent It is these sources of information which have compelled him -if we may identify him with the former writer on "Wesleyan

man.

Methodism" in the Christian Spectator-to exchange the bitterness of invective for an admission of the goodness and excellence of Mr. Wesley's character. Though he cannot withhold from his readers the palpable instance of his inconsistency in averring that these Journals exhibit "the true expression of Mr. Wesley's superstition and mysticism," at the same time that they record evidences "of his living piety, his holy life, his tireless labors to serve man, his sufferings from persecution, his unshaken steadfastness in his work, until he went up higher' to stand before the throne." That a superstitious mystic, sometimes "insane as well as sane," should have furnished evidence of so much contrariety of character, is no less extraordinary than it is that this writer should insinuate that his Methodist brethren had'set up for infallibility. This admission, however, will afford some consolation to those who exhibit alternate marks of insanity and sanity, of superstition and living piety, that they may nevertheless at last stand acquitted before the holy throne above.

What follows, as a eulogium upon Mr. Wesley's character, is less exceptionable, more especially, as it seems to have been extorted from the writer as a reluctant homage to truth-truth derived, not from a perusal of Southey's contemptible narrative of one of the most holy, learned, laborious, and successful of God's servants, but from an inspection of his Journals. "Far be it," says this writer, "from us to speak of Mr. Wesley without suitable feelings of respect. He was a highly distinguished servant of God, whose glory no human efforts can tarnish; and if we could we would not pluck a leaf that laurels his brow. We regard him as a luminary of uncommon brightness, whose shining gladdened the Church, and whose splendor still lingers upon its path. His name is enrolled with those worthies whose destiny is to shine for ever in the kingdom of heaven with the brightness of the firmament." This homage to the excellence of John Wesley's character, be it remembered, was extorted from one who had read his Journals, and who had just now given us a labored jejune exposition of mysticism as exemplified by this self-same John Wesley, and whom he had, almost in the same breath, pronounced sometimes insane as well as sane, and which same Journals contain a record of his superstitions and mysticism." We may therefore conclude that a "highly distinguished servant of God, whose glory no human efforts can tarnish,”(of this these reviewers have doubtless become convinced by former experiments) and "a luminary of uncommon brightness," may nevertheless be under the influence of a superstitious mysticism, and sometimes, at least, exhibit evidences of insanity-and even, if the Calvinistic doctrine respecting the necessary continuance of indwelling sin be true, may "sin every moment, in thought, word, and deed." Such inconsistencies may indeed meet in the same character, according to the doctrine of this review, and therefore, though they may deserve rebuke, need not excite astonishment.

Nor should we demur at the following exceptions to the character of Mr. Wesley, did they not proceed from the same pen which had before recorded the lines we have quoted: "But while we eulogize, we cannot be insensible to the fact, that this luminary was not perfectly unclouded. There were spots upon it. which enthusiastic

admiration may easily overlook, but which the unjaundiced eye of a Christian spectator may detect and expose without the least diminution of merited respect." As this writer seems to allow that a "luminary of uncommon brightness" may "not be perfectly unclouded," we hope he will excuse us from supposing that he himself, notwithstanding his claim to be a "Christian spectator of unjaundiced eye," not much removed from the claim of "infallibility"—— may sometimes wander under the clouds of error, and lose himself in those mystical reveries which distinguish "enthusiastic admirers" of a false philosophy, and of a falser theory of divinity.

This we shall now proceed to test-for it is time that we come to the chief object of the present article, namely, to examine the criticisms of this writer on Mr. Wesley's doctrine of the witness of the Spirit.

As the foundation of his remarks upon this deep and vital subject of Christian experience, the reviewer quotes the following sentence from Mr. Wesley's sermon on the Witness of the Spirit.

"The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God; that Jesus hath loved me and given himself for me, and that all my sins are blotted out, and that I, even I, am reconciled to God."

This the reviewer condemns as an evidence of Mr. Wesley's mysticism. He not only faults the language in which it is expressed, but denies the doctrine as unscriptural and irrational. Before we proceed to examine the objections which the writer prefers against this doctrine, we will, in the first place, state Mr. Wesley's views at large, so that there need be no misunderstanding of what they were. Mr. Wesley has two sermons on this subject, the one on the Witness of our own Spirit, and the other on the Witness of God's Spirit; both of which witnesses testify to the same fact, namely, that we are the children of God. In the first of these sermons is found the sentence above quoted by the reviewer, and commented upon in terms of severe reprehension. In the second he says, "After twenty years' consideration, I see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will point out any other expressions, which are more clear or more agreeable to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside." Do these modest words sound like the confident boastings of a self-conceited mystic, bewildered in the mists of his own imaginary wisdom and greatness? We may have an opportunity of contrasting this becoming deference to the judgment of others with some of the dogmatical assertions of this self-confident reviewer.

But Mr. Wesley, who perhaps was one of the most cautious writers of the age in which he lived, to prevent any misapprehension on this deeply interesting and important subject, adds the following:

"Meantime let it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although he may do this sometimes. Neither do

I suppose, that he always applies to the heart (though he often

may) one or more texts of Scripture. But he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong though inexplicable operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside, and there is a sweet calm; the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that God is reconciled, that 'all his iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered." And after answering a variety of objections to this doctrine, most of which are. much stronger than any brought by this reviewer, and therefore, if he had duly weighed them, he might have saved himself the trouble of stating, and us the labor of canvassing his own objections, Mr. Wesley sums up the whole argument thus:

"The sum of all is this: the testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the souls of believers, whereby the Spirit of God directly testifies to their spirit, that they are children of God. And it is not questioned, whether there is a testimony of the Spirit; but whether there is any direct testimony? Whether there is any other than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit? We believe there is; because this is the plain natural meaning of the text," (namely, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God,) "illustrated both by the preceding words, and by the parallel passage in the epistle to the Galatians; because, in the nature of the thing, the testimony must precede the fruit which springs from it; and because this plain meaning of the word of God is confirmed by the experience of innumerable children of God; yea, and by the experience of all who are convinced of sin, who can never rest till they have a direct witness; and even of the children of the world, who, not having the witness in themselves, one and all declare none can know his sins forgiven."

This then is the doctrine of Mr. Wesley, concerning the witness of God's Spirit, so plainly laid down, that no one who is not wilfully blind, need misapprehend him. He believed and taught constantly, on the authority of the word of God, that it is the privilege of every believer in Jesus Christ to have a direct witness from God that his sins are blotted out, and that he is "reconciled to God through the death of his Son." But he believed also, that it was possible for a person to be deceived on this point of Christian experience; to imagine he has this direct witness when he has it not; though he allowed at the same time that it is possible to have an assurance of the Spirit of adoption-such an assurance as to exclude all rational doubt. To prevent any one from deceiving himself on a subject of such vital importance to his eternal interests, Mr. Wesley furnishes his readers with those Scriptural marks and rational deductions, by which he may detect the deception, and fully satisfy himself whether he be in the favor of God or not. This he calls the testimony of our own spirit, which, in an experimental Christian, bears a joint testimony with the Spirit of God, that he is "an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ." These marks are laid down in the first of the above-mentioned sermons, in which he speaks of the testimony of our own spirit, in bearing witness to the same consoling truth, that we are the children of God. After having explained the meaning of this declaration, he says:

"Agreeable to this are all those plain declarations of St. John, in

his first epistle: 'Hereby we know that we do know him, if we keep his commandments,' ch. ii, 3. 'Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in him,' ver. 5. 'We know that we are passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren,' ch. iii, 14. Hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him,' ver. 19; namely, because we 'love one another, not in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.' 'Hereby we know that we dwell in him, because he hath given us of his [loving] Spirit,' ch. iv, 13.And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the [obedient] spirit which he hath given us,' ch. iii, 24.

It is highly probable, there never were any children of God, from the beginning of the world unto this day, who were farther advanced in the grace of God, and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, than the Apostle John, when he wrote these words, and the fathers in Christ to whom he wrote. Notwithstanding which, it is evident, both the apostle himself, and all those pillars in God's temple, were very far from despising these marks of their being the children of God; and that they applied them to their own souls for the confirmation of their faith. Yet all this is no other than rational evidence, the witness of our spirit, our reason or understanding. It all resolves into this:-Those who have these marks are the children of God: but we have these marks: therefore we are children of God.

But how does it appear that we have these marks? This is a question which still remains. How does it appear that we do love God and our neighbor, and that we keep his commandments? Observe, the question is, How does it appear to ourselves? (not to others.) I would ask him, then, that proposes this question, How does it appear to you that you are alive? Are you not immediately conscious of it? By the same immediate consciousness, you will know if your soul is alive to God; if you are saved from the pain of proud wrath, and have the ease of a meek and quiet spirit. By the same means you cannot but perceive if you love, rejoice, and delight in God. By the same you must be directly assured, if you love your neighbor as yourself; if you are kindly affectioned to all mankind, and full of gentleness and long suffering. And with regard to the outward mark of the children of God, which is, according to St. John, the keeping his commandments, you undoubtedly know in your own breast, if, by the grace of God, it belongs to you. Your conscience informs you, from day to day, if you do not take the name of God within your lips, unless with seriousness and devotion, with reverence and godly fear; if you remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; if you honor your father and mother; if you do to all as you would they should do unto you; if you possess your body in sanctification and honor; and if, whether you eat or drink, you are temperate therein, and do all to the glory of God.

Now this is properly the testimony of our own spirit; even the testimony of our own conscience, that God hath given us to be holy of heart, and holy in outward conversation. It is a consciousness of our having received, in and by the Spirit of adoption, the tempers mentioned in the word of God, as belonging to his adopted children;