The extensive circulation of Mr. Mant's work has given rise to many minor compositions, both published and unpublished, on the same topic, and will probably continue for some time to produce similar effects. We might, perhaps, in consequence of our baving already entered so fully into the general merits of the question*, have been excused from noticing Dr. Holland's publication. But Visitation Sermons, printed at the request of a considerable body of the clergy, though not always conclusive evidence of their sentiments, are yet entitled to more than ordinary attention; and in the present case, there is a sufficient degree of novelty to justify us in laying some account of it before our readers. The design of this sermon is obvious from its title. It appears, from the advertisement prefixed, to have been written" on the spur of the occasion," with little more than a general impression of the charge brought against the majority of the clergy by certain writers, of having forsaken the doctrines of the Gospel. Dr. Holland conceived, therefore, and very justly, that it would be expedient in publishing his sermon, to verify his representations by quotations from the authors to whom he refers. He has accordingly added an Appendix of " Extracts from Sectarian Writers, and Notes." Now before we proceed any further, we beg to direct the attention of our readers to the title of these extracts. They are stated to be from sectarian writers. No others are mentioned; and that the term was not adopted without intention, or merely with a view to describe, as it does very correctly, the greater part of the quotations, but to comprehend them all, is manifest, both from the customary reference to the well-known appellation of "Evangelical Preachers, or Gospel Ministers;" and from the declaration at the opening of the • See the Christian Observer for March, 1813. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 147. sermon, that the charge in question "might well have been disregarded, when it was in the mouth of a few seceders from the church."—"Then, indeed," continues the preacher, might the accusation have been suffered to invalidate itself. But, alas! it is not now from the open enmity alone of those who have left the Establishment that we suffer this dishonour; but from the misdirected zeal of some of our own familiar friends, of some who still walk with us in the house of God, as friends!"That the extracts which are to support and illustrate this charge, should be chiefly composed of passages from the Journals of Whitefield and Wesley; from the Methodist and Evangelical Magazines; and from other professedly Sectarian Writers, was to be expected. That, after the example of Mr. Mant, quotations should also be made from Mr. Romaine and from Dr. Hawker, did not surprize us: but that, amidst this farrago of dissent and peculiarity in doctrine, the name of Mr. Wilberforce should be. introduced, and with reference to this formidable charge, which is the ground-work of the sermon, did indeed excite in our minds feelings of mingled astonishment, indignation. and regret. The passage from the "Practical View" of this distinguished layman, which is quoted expressly as to this point, is the following:"In our days, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity have almost altogether vanished from the view. Even in many sermons scarcely any traces of them are to be found." In a subsequent note, Dr. Holland has added another sentence from this eloquent work, to this effect:" Let our churches no longer witness that unseemly discordance, which has too much prevailed, between the prayers which precede and the sermon which follows." Now without urging any further the disingenuous and uncandid classification to which Dr. Holland, in his zeal to establish his own view of the question, has resorted respecting Mr. Wilberforce, 2 B what is there in either of the passages extracted from his work, which is of a sectarian tendency, or which is.not completely borne out by unquestionable facts? They are both taken from that part of the "Practical View," in which a brief inquiry is instituted into the state of Christianity in this country at the time when the author was writing, that is in the year 1797, nearly seventeen years since, together with some of the causes which led to it, Christianity, at that period, was said to have greatly declined into a mere system of ethics; and the cause to which this unhappy declension was said to be principally owing, was the revulsion of religious sentiment and feeling, consequent upon the gross abuse of the doctrines of grace by many of the sectaries in the reign of Charles the First. And is it not notorious, that the divines of the Church of England subsequent to the Restoration, from a strong impression of these abuses, and of the evils which had resulted from them, did gradually run into the opposite extreme, until the peculiar doctrines of Christianity almost vanished from the view? This fact has been acknowledged by Secker and Porteus, by Barrington and Horsley, and many other distinguished prelates of our church, who have laboured by their exhortations and examples, to raise the general tone of doctrinal preaching amongst the clergy. It requires, indeed, but a very moderate acquaintance with the current divinity of the hundred years preceding the publication of Mr. Wilberforce's work, not 10 subscribe to the truth of both his observations, that many sermons of that period exhibited but faint traces of the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel; and that, without comparing them to the sentiments of Calvin, as Dr. Holland would seem to insinuate, a marked discordance might be perceived between the prayers which preceded and many of the sermons which followed. This departure from the doctrines of the Reformation was most general and striking about the time at which Wesley and Whitefield commenced their bold and eccentric career. We are under no apprehension whatever, that our own principles will be mistaken by any competent and candid judges, and therefore we feel no hesitation in expressing our opinion, that notwithstanding the irregularity and enthusiasm of their proceedings, these extraordinary men were the instruments of rousing numbers in the Church of England out of the lethargy into which they had sunk, and of leading the way to a general recurrence to the evangelical doctrines which had been so much neglected. Their efforts, however, tended rather to make converts from the middle and lower orders of the laity, than from the rich and the learned, more especially of the clergy. The improvement, therefore, in the church at large was neither rapid nor promi nent. To promote this, an impulse from a higher, and a more accredited quarter was required; and this we cannot but avow proceeded in a great measure, though certainly in connexion with other coincident causes, from the animated work of the eminent person to whom we are referring From the period of that important publication, a very decided difference has appeared in the divinity of the Church of England. Merely moral discourses began to be exploded, and the genuine doctrines of the Gospel were far more generally and earnestly inculcated. The improvement in the state of things in this respect is perfectly notorious, and forins one of the leading sources of congratulation and thankfulness at the present moment. Indeed, that any man, who on some points can write with candour and good sense, should, even with reference to the period when they were first published, class the judicious and temperate animadversions of Mr. Wilberforce on the state of the national religion, with the coarse and exaggerated accusa tions of the leaders of the Methodists, more than half a century preceding, is an instance of that vulgar and indiscriminating censure which cannot but be deeply lamented. But that such an unseemly confusion should be made at the present day, when the fruits of his fabours, and of those of many other pious and excellent men, particularly among the clergy, are beheld and experienced in every part of the country, is almost as preposterous as it is to hear the Roman Catholics of the nineteenth century, enlightened and improved as they unquestionably are, inveighing against the Saxon Reformers for the injustice and uncharitableness of their charges against the ignorance and corruption of the Church of Rome at the period of the Reformation. This is, untrappily, no new subject of complaint. We have had frequent occasion to animadvert upon it, and we seriously think that it is an offence of no slight magnitude. While it continues to be committed, we fear that the divisions which still subsist in the Church can scarcely be expected to be healed: we feel it, therefore, to be our duty to expose and protest against it, whenever it falls under our notice; more especially when, as in the present instance, it is of so glaring and palpable a nature. We were intending to proceed to some observations on the force and propriety of general defences of any large body of men, such as the clergy; but our readers will probably wish; in the first place, to know something more distinctly of Dr. Hol land's sermon. To this, therefore, we shall previously attend. From the admirable manual of instructions to the Christian Minister given by St. Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, in which he exhorts his disciple to speak the things which become sound doetrine," the Reverend Author proposes to shew, that in the doctrines which are preached by the regular Clergy of the Established Church, as they conform themselves to those excellent rules. Here, again, we are tempted to ask by the way, why this significant term regular? Is it meant to be opposed to that of evangelical, which, whether sumed or ascribed, is well known to designate a considerable body of the clergy; and is it intended to insinuate, that all who are described by the latter term are irregular ei. ther ecclesiastically or morally, or both, and that all who reject it are every thing that the church requires them to be both in doctrine, practice, and discipline? How unwarranted are such insinuations and assumptions as these! How notoriously contrary to truth and candour! But we will once more endeavour to pursue our course. In prosecuting the design which we have just stated, Dr. Holland proceeds to vindicate himself and his brethren on some of the leading points in which he conceives that they are accused of having abandoned the form of sound doctrine. "And first," says the learned author, « let us defend our addressing ourselves to the reason of our hearers;" and then he goes on, spon the whole very justly, though cursorily, to define the use and abuse of reason in matters of religion. We should hot, perhaps, have used the expression, that "Revelation itself is knowledge submitted (if I may say it without irreverence) by the Creator to the reason of his ereatures"--because, though we bes lieve that the meaning of Dr. Ilol. land may be correct, such a mode of speaking is liable to misconstruction; but this is by no means material. The point on which we are altogether in doubt is, to whom this whole topic was intended to refer ? No quotation from any sectarian writer is appended to any part of it, so that we can form no certain conjecture upon the subject. We should have been inclined, had they ever been introduced into the con troversy, to suppose that the tenets of the Quakers had been intended; but this was probably not the design of the author. It is very possible that the leaders or the followers of Methodism, strictly so called, may have unduly depreciated this noble faculty, and that some writers, even of our own church, may have spoken incautiously on the province of reason with respect to revelation. But is there any thing of this nature in Mr. Wilberforce's" Practical View;" in the sermons and other writings of many of the clergy who would be classed by Dr. Holland amongst the evangelical and irregular; or in our own pages, which would doubtless also be referred to the same denomination? Let those who fully and fairly offend upon this point be exposed and refuted. We should rejoice in every such attempt to rescue the understanding from the obloquy which may at any time be thrown upon it by the ignorant, the weak, or the enthusiastic; but let not so unfounded an insinuation go forth to the world, as that all whom Dr. Holland and others may be pleased to stamp with an opprobrious name, are the friends of a religion and a faith which are at war with reason, and the supporters of a system which appeals exclusively to the imagination and the passions of mankind. The next point upon which Dr. Holland thinks it necessary to vin dicate those whom he styles the regular clergy, is, that they preach morality-not the morality of human wisdom, for in this case he admits that they would deserve censure, but the morality of the Gospel. That there was a time when the moral duties of Christianity were so inculcated by many preachers, that too high an opinion was given of the merit of good works, and the doctrines of the atonement and of justification by faith were, in consequence, neglected, is exactly the fact to which we bave already adverted; and that some, even to the present day, continue this erroneous practice, cannot be disputed. It was against this fundamental mistake that the efforts of the early Methodists, and of those in the church who have been called Evangelical Preachers, were chiefly directed; and, as we have before observed, their endeavours have been crowned with signal success. The doctrines of grace are more generally known, and more plainly taught, Dr. Holland, like Mr. Mant and many other respectable writers of the same school, affirms the necessity of a sincere and humble reliance upon the merits and intercession of the Son of God; and we rejoice in bearing our testimony thus far to the soundness of his views. But these divines conceive, that because those whom they consider as their accusers are decided in their exclusion of the best and purest morality from claiming any share in the work of justifying a man in the sight of God, and bringing him to a state of reconciliation and acceptance, they are therefore enemies to good works, and teachers of a'dangerous and licentious doctrine. We are fully aware that the first leaders of the Methodists, in the ardour of their preaching, were frequently betrayed into language which is liable to serious objections; that they dwelt too exclusively on the necessity of faith, and enforced with comparative feebleness that of good works; and that some writers of the Establishment, who had embraced a highly Calvinistic system of doctrines, such as Mr. Toplady, Mr. Romaine, and, latterly, Dr. Hawker, and their disciples, occasionally fall into the same error. We do not need extracts from their journals, letters, sermons, or other publications, to convince us of the truth of this charge. We could readily supply those who delight in such things with a much better assortment than has been yet retailed to the public. But when this was done, the question between them and their opponents would not be the nearer to a decision. The fact is simply this: with the exception of professed and avowed Antinomians, we will venture to assert, that neither Methodist nor Calvinist will be found, who would deny the absolute necessity of good works, of sound Christian morality, to salvation. They deny, with St. Paul, and with the Articles and Homilies of our church, the necessity and the value of good works in the matter of justification. They declare, that man is justified in the sight of God, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, by faith, and by faith only, and they peremptorily exclude from this office good works of every description. But, with equal conformity to scriptural and ecclesiastical authority, they maintain, that the faith which justifies "worketh by love," and will be productive of the fruits of righteousness; that if barren, it is utterly unprofitable; and that without repentance and holiness "no man shall see the Lord." If any preacher or writer whatsoever teach not the things which become this" sound doctrine," but in any manner encourage their disciples to expect salvation while they continue the servants of sin, or do not strenu ously contend for the necessity of a morality far more strict, elevated, and extensive than it is customary to hear from some of the regular clergy, we resign them without hesitation to the reproof and condemnation which they justly deserve. It is, however, very apparent that Dr. Holland has not attended to the important distinction so plainly recognized by Scripture and our church, and so admirably pointed out by Hooker, in his sermon on Justification, between the necessity of good works, the fruits of faith and the evidence of its sincerity, and the exclusive office of faith, as "the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification*." We earnestly recommend • Hooker, vol. iii. p. 474, Oxford edition, 1793.-In one of his notes, Dr. Holland speaks in terms of just praise of the lectures of the late Bishop of London, when Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. The writer of this article remembers, with much pleasure, his own attendance n the course delivered by that eminent to Dr. Holland the study of the incomparable discourse from which we have quoted these words. Were the sentiments which it, contains fully understood and cordially embraced, we should not have found him, in common with many other writers, asserting, that when St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, appears to depreciate good works, ་་ in all such passages he means either the observances of the Mosaic Law, on which the Jews were wont to build their proud pretensions, or those works of which the Gentiles might be disposed to boast as having been the meritorious cause of their being included under the Christian dispensation." p. 21. This is the first time that we ever heard of the meritorious works of the Gentile world! See a striking account of their excellence in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, or in the classical authors passim. After this, it is not wonderful that Dr. Holland should also inform his reverend brethren, that St. Paul had not so much to teach the Gentiles "the rudiments of moral duty, as to establish their morality upon higher principles;" that "he had not so much to teach the wicked the turpitude of moral evil, as to warn them of the punishment due tosin,which required no less an atonement than the death of the Son of God:"—and again, "to lead persons of a proud, selfsufficient virtue, to acknowledge their many unheeded imperfections." Lecturer subsequently to his elevation to the episcopal bench, and could, he believes, furnish a pretty correct draught of the Lectures from the notes which he took of them at the time. Some of the most valuable parts of them were the recommendations to his pupils, interspersed throughout the course of the most valuable books in theology.-Amongst these, the writings of the Reformers, the immortal works of Jewell, Hooker, Pearson, Stillingfleet, and others, obtained a distinguished place; and to the study of them Dr. Holland may be assured that the sentiments contained in this Review of his Sermon may be principally attributed. |
