they have ordained a feast' also, 'like unto the feast which is in Judah,' and have come to think their own feast, which they had 'devised of their own heart,' to be as acceptable to God, and as rich in blessing to them, as that ' ordained by Christ himself.' And so, likewise, as to other bodies; the farther

any have departed from the doctrine of the apostolic succession, so much the lower has their doctrine of the sacraments become." (Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, pp. 160, 161.)

We are willing to admit that we have departed very far indeed from the doctrine of the apostolical succession, as held by Dr. Pusey and his friends; (though from that same doctrine, as taught in the New Testament, we have not receded an inch;) so far, in fact, that it is hardly possible to depart farther. We hold it to be "a fable which no man ever did, or ever can, prove." Our views of the sacraments ought, therefore, to be, according to our author's principle of calculation, as low as those of Socinus himself. But what is the fact? The definition of a sacrament in the Church Catechism stands without a word of alteration in our own; and the description given of the sacraments in the twenty-fifth Article of the established Church may also be found in Mr. Wesley's abridged Liturgy, with this difference only, that whereas the Article says, They be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace," the Abridgment entitles them "certain signs of grace." Did Dr. Pusey know this? If not, he was not competent to write on the subject. If he did, he has borne false witness against his neighbours. We cannot suspect him of deceit; we must, therefore, suppose him to have been ignorant. But, it seems, he has met with some Wesleyans who have preferred class-meetings and love-feasts to the eucharist as means of grace, and have lost the abstract belief of the superiority of the divine institution over those which are merely human. Now, had he stated this as a fact, which had come within his own knowledge, to illustrate the danger of departing from the Church, and listening to

uncommissioned teachers, we might have allowed it to pass. Valeat quantum valet. There are ignorant people in all bodies; and some ignorant Methodists may have fallen in the way of Dr. Pusey and his friends; but is it right to judge of the whole by a few? and especially when those few speak and act in opposition to the rules and standards of their church? We could tell Dr. Pusey of ignorant Churchmen, and even of profligate Clergymen not a few; but would he like us to form our opinions of the Church by such specimens as these? Having affirmed that these ignorant persons are "at least many," he goes on to speak of the whole as acting under the same influence, and holding the same tenets. We enter our solemn protest against this injustice. It is discreditable to any writer of controversy to attribute to his opponents opinions at variance with their public professions; and, most of all, it is discreditable to a Christian Minister, and one reputed to be an eminent saint. In addition to the authorities adduced above, namely, the Catechism and the Abridged Prayer-Book, we direct the attention of our readers to the Rules of our society, where, as bearing directly on this point, Dr. Pusey might have found an enumeration of the principal means of grace. The extract is as follows:-"It is expected of all who desire to continue in these societies, that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, thirdly, by attending all the ordinances of God: such are the public worship of God; the ministry of the word either read or expounded; the supper of the Lord; private prayer; searching the Scriptures; and fasting or abstinence." This is surely unexceptionable evidence for the society, and against those many Wesleyans (if many they be, though we strongly doubt the correctness of the statement) who set up human ordinances before divine. It proves what we before stated; namely, that they think, speak, and act in direct opposition to the body of which they are a part. A further evidence

that the body has not departed from the catholic faith with regard to the eucharist, may be found in the fact that only a few years ago the Conference directed the republication of the Hymns on the Lord's Supper, one of the most elaborate productions of the brothers Wesley. That hymn-book is really a paraphrase of parts of Dr. Brevint's treatise on "The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice," an extract of which is prefixed to it. Dr. Brevint's sentiments are too well known to render it necessary for us to extract them here. It shall suffice to say, that many of the same portions of this treatise which were selected by Mr. Wesley for the instruction and edification of his societies, are quoted with approbation in the Tract for the Times," No. 81, pp. 190, et seq. So little foundation is there for the assertion that we have lowered the doctrine of the eucharist. We do not, indeed, pretend to believe all that Dr. Pusey believes on this head; for we have little doubt that he goes beyond the teaching of the established Church; but our present business is not to inculpate him, but to vindicate ourselves.

Dr. Pusey is fond of referring to the history of Jeroboam. At pages 154, 155, he has a note, justifying the use of the offensive term "Samaria," in reference to the Church of Scotland, by one of the authors of the Lyra Apostolica. And now again, when speaking of the Methodists, he cannot forbear another quotation: We have, he says, " ordained a feast like unto the feast which is in Judah." But the parallel does not hold. If the learned Professor had been speaking of the administration of the holy communion among the Methodists, we should not have wondered at his comparing their feast with that in Judah; for it is a well-known fact, both that the Wesleyan Ministers do administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper, and that the Wesleyan societies hold their sacraments to be as valid and effectual as those of the established Church. But when he is speaking of our love-feast as a Samaritan

institution, we cannot resist the temptation to inquire what is "the feast in Judah," over against which ours is set up? Or, in plain terms, where is there in the Establishment any thing at all resembling the agape of old? We make bold to tell Dr. Pusey, that so far from having devised, of our own hearts," an institution which will not bear the test of Scripture, we are fully persuaded that, both in regard to class-meetings and love-feasts, we are in possession of a great advantage over other bodies of Christians; having been led by the providence of God to the adoption of such prudential means as enable us to satisfy the apostolic rules regarding the communion of saints, more fully, exactly, and obviously than they do. The consequence is, that in these particulars, at least, we are more primitive and apostolic, and therefore more truly catholic, than those whose outcries against us are so loud and frequent.

We had designed to offer some remarks upon the scriptural consti. tution and legitimate authority of the ministry exercised among the Wesleyans, with reference to Dr. Pusey's accusations under this head; but must confine ourselves to the correction of a mistake in point of fact, as there is another and more important subject yet remaining to be mentioned. Speaking of the invalidity of unepiscopal ordinations, Dr. Pusey argues, that as Mr. Wesley had no commission to ordain, his ordinations must have been void ab initio; and that length of time cannot mend the original invalidity. He then continues :

"And this original difficulty seems to have been felt alike by Luther and Wesley. It is well known, that Wesley reluctantly took the step of ordaining at

all; that he meant those whom he ordained to be subordinate auxiliaries to the ministry; and that to the last he refused, in the strongest terms, his consent that those thus ordained should take upon them to administer the sacra❤ ments. He felt that it exceeded his

"He was consulted how to proceed with a society, who threatened to leave the Connexion,

powers, and so inhibited it, however it might diminish the numbers of the society he had framed." (Letter, p. 151.)

There are two inaccuracies here. First, it is not correct to say that Mr. Wesley intended those Preachers whom he ordained to be so far subordinate to the Clergy, as not to administer the sacraments to the Methodist societies. He ordained them in order that that they might have what he considered a scriptural right and authority to do so. The letters of ordination given by him to the Rev. H. Moore, and dated Feb. 27th, 1789, plainly show this. In them he speaks of Mr. Moore as a man whom "I judge qualified to feed the flock of Christ, and to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, according to the usage of the Church of England; and, as such, I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern." Similar letters he had before given to several Preachers, after having set them apart to the office of the ministry by prayer and the imposition of hands, in which solemnity he was assisted by two other presbyters of the established Church. He made a distinction, as one of his ancestors had done, (for the letter cited by Dr. Pusey and other of his writings plainly show this,) between the work of preaching and the work and office of the ministry; and held that those who might lawfully engage in the former, might as lawfully be inhibited from the latter. On this principle he constructed the "Sermon on the Ministerial Office," contending that an outward call was not indispensable to a mere Preacher of the Gospel, though it was to one who would administer the sacraments of the Church, and dehorting those whom he did not suppose to

unless permitted to have the sacraments administered by their own Preachers. His answer was, 'Modern laziness has jumbled together the two distinct offices of preaching and administering the sacraments; but, be that as it may, I will rather lose twenty societies than separate from the Church. This was only about three years before his death. The letter was first published in the British Magazine, vol. vi., p. 297." (lb., p. 151.)

have such a call (though, of course, not those whom he had himself ordained) from attempting, or even desiring, to administer. From first to last he desired that all the Methodists should receive the sacraments at the Church; and the letter printed in the British Magazine, therefore, conveys no new information to the Methodists. It speaks the same language as all his other publications on the subject; but it is not at all inconsistent with the fact of his having provided against that partial and gradual separation from the Church which he foresaw would inevitably ensue on his removal hence. It follows that it is not correct, in the second place, to say Mr. Wesley felt that he had exceeded his powers in ordaining persons to the work of the ministry, and therefore inhibited them from administering the sacraments. Mr. Wesley, from an early period of his history, was convinced that there was no truth whatever in the claim set up by some Episcopalians in behalf of their system. And, having dismissed the idea of divine right from his mind, he had no alternative but to admit that Bishops and Presbyters, being essentially one order, had an equal right to ordain. He did not, it is true, parade these opinions before the world. He could not spare time for the controversy in which the avowal of them would have involved him ; and to the last he clung to the hope that the Establishment would receive into her own fold those whom he had recovered from the wilderness of the world. Had this been the case, his opinions would most likely have died with him. But when he found how vain this hope was, he acted quietly on the views which he had long entertained, and left the consequences to the great Head of the church. The Methodist Ministers of the present day his legitimate successors; and they feel that neither upon moral nor ecclesiastical grounds have they any need to be ashamed of their ancestry. Next to "Christian godliness," they value and maintain "Christian order;" but

are

from his confusion, he will discern that there is before him a comparatively novel modification of the old and most bewitching theory of justification by works; if not, he falls an easy prey into the inextricable toils of formalism, and wearies himself in vain to recover the liberty of the Gospel. We have often felt thankful for the simplicity of Mr. Wesley's teaching on on this cardinal point; but never was our gratitude so sincere and hearty as after we had long laboured in vain to comprehend, in all its parts, the scheme which these writers have set forth. It is only natural that they should feel the prevalence of Methodism to be a great obstacle to the spread of their views, and should, therefore, be much in earnest to depreciate and condemn it. And so accordingly we find them. We will put together the various passages in which these references to Methodism occur.

"The Lutheran view, (of justifying faith, scil.,) especially as developed in the Wesleyans, and a section of our Church, leads men to look to their own feelings as that by which their reliance on Christ may be ascertained, to analyse them, operate upon them, work them up, rely at last, with satisfaction, upon them as tests of their love for Christ. They have been taught that justification is not the gift of God through his sacraments, but the result of a certain frame of mind, a going forth of themselves and resting themselves upon their Saviour; this is the act whereby they think themselves to have been justified: and so as another would revert to his baptism, and his engrafting into Christ, and his thus being in Christ, so do they to this act whereby they were justified: they cherish their

wise I am greatly doubtful whether I should ever believe at all: but, sure I am, I never should know, for certain, whether I did believe.' And exactly the same thought came across me, only a few days ago, when I was reading a book on another subject of the same kind, and not more likely, we should think, to be disputed; it was a book on justification. I had read St. Paul, and he told me I was to be justified by faith through Jesus Christ: that seemed to me to be clear: but when I read this book, a large volume, on justification, it appeared to me doubtful whether I was to be justified by any thing, everything, or nothing. I really said, at last, What am I to look or trust to, for my justification?' And I was glad to come back for the Bible to tell me."

then feelings, not to act upon them, but for their own sakes; mourn over their fading; endeavour to reproduce them; make their Christian life to concentrate in them; and lose out of sight, as carnal and legal, its ordinary, hourly duties. These tendencies, doubtless, are checked in individuals; but whatever checks there are, are the result of past duty, of an implanted integrity, of God's law within them, in despite of their system. Their tendency is to act upon a theory, not upon Scripture; to suppose that if the feelings be right, the acts will, as a matter of course, be right; and so to neglect that about which Scripture bids To take the most them be diligent.

systematic developement of this theory, the first thought which occurs to the mind of a Wesleyan, in speaking of his spiritual state, is, not what temptations he has surmounted or failed in; what duties he has neglected or performed; but what were his feelings? His 'experience' concentrates in these."

(Letter, pp. 72, 73.)

"A modern popular theology speaks very peremptorily, and will have no interference with its decrees. According to it, the whole office of repentance is to bring men to Christ; the terrors of the law are to drive men to dread the pu nishment due to their sins, to renounce them, to seek for reconciliation through the free mercy of Christ: and so far is, of course, true; but when men have thus been brought to lay hold of his saving merits,' then, according to them, their sins are done away, they are 'covered;' they can appear no more, a man has nothing more to do with them than to thank Christ that he has been delivered from them. This ' apprehension of Christ's merits' is to them, instead of baptism, a full remission of

"This feeling is encouraged in popular hymns, irregularly admitted into our churches; as in that, O for a closer walk with God.' What a contrast with the peace resulting from continued growth in grace are such lines as,

Where is the happiness I knew

When first I knew the Lord;
And felt the heart-reviving view
Of Jesus and his word?
What peaceful hours I then enjoy'd;
How sweet their memory still!
But now I feel a painful void

No human joys can fill.'

Such lines would describe truly a backsliding Christian, or a dejected one, who had been taught to make his feelings the test of his state; but they are too likely to make one think himself backsliding, because his feelings are not what they were." (Ib., p. 73.)