I do not ask whether this reasoning upon the causes of the impression made by the preaching of the Founder of Methodism accords with the principles of revealed religion, but is it philosophy? If one of the main branches of that science is to assign the true reason of things, and to trace out the causes of effects; and if that be a false or a superficial philosophy which assigns to any effect a cause absolutely inadequate, or which will but very partially explain it, then has Mr. Southey's philosophy failed him, and he has afforded another proof that as, on many subjects, religion is indeed the only philosophy, he who refuses to take its principles into his estimate of things, becomes not the wiser but the more mistaken man.'

The question is, whether the moral effects substantially admitted by Mr. Southey to have been wrought under the preaching of the Methodists, are to be attributed to human or to Divine agency.

The Scriptures ascribe the change to the Holy Spirit—" born of the Spirit," the "renewing of the Holy Ghost." Agreeably to this we pray in the Liturgy that "the thoughts of our hearts may be cleansed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ;" and acknowledge that "Almighty God alone can order the unruly wills and affections of men." Mr. Southey, however, gives a very different suffrage. The unruly wills and affections of men in the cases in question were ordered, not by Almighty God, but by Whitefield's tuneful voice, and energetic manner; by Wesley's insinuating address, and pulpit art, and landscape preaching. By such agencies alone vice was controlled; men were made new creatures; the sting of death was extracted; the poor were made content; the sufferer in long and painful sickness was calmed, and soothed, and gladdened; and heaven dawned upon eyes darkened in death, and closing without regret upon the scenes of earthly hope and felicity. O poor and pitiful philosophy! If this were the work of any man, then ought he, in all reason, to become a God to the rest of his species. If these effects are sincerely believed to have been produced by Wesley and Whitefield, without that "Divine presence" under which they "believed" themselves to preach and act, then is Mr. Southey's ridicule of the superstitious veneration felt for them by their followers very ill placed and inconsistent. Instead of being reverenced as instruments, they ought to have been adored as Divinities. If Mr. Southey be right, there are saints in the kalendar of the Romish Church, to whom that Church is highly culpable in offering its adoration, not because it pays them too much honour, but too little; it ought to exchange its inferior adoration of apostles and confessors and early missionaries, into that which is ultimate and absolute.'

Mr. Watson thus concludes his remarks upon Mr. Southey's use of the word enthusiasm.

When Mr. Pawson declined going to America, the reason Mr. Southey assigns is, that the "fire of his enthusiasm was spent," as though to impress it upon his readers, that none but enthusiastic men can be expected to undertake the conversion of foreign countries, and

to insinuate by this inuendo that the noble army of modern Missionaries are no better than visionaries and fanatics. If all this selfdenial; these unwearied and disinterested labours; this readiness to suffer this lofty daring of the reproach of worldly men; and the principles upon which the whole was founded, lively and solemn views of eternal things, and of the perishing state of sinful men; a weeping sympathy for all distress; jealousy for the honour of Christ; and a conscientious carefulness to fill up life usefully, and to employ and improve the talents committed to them as those who must give account, be enthusiasm, I ask where, and what is religion? Let Mr. Southey give us his description of it, and enable us to detect the counterfeit. This I suspect would bring out a singular explana- ́ tion of his views. The penitence of his system, must never weep; nor its joys ever illuminate the countenance, or fill the tongue with praise; its zeal must never produce more than a very measured activity, for a more than common energy would be the certain. indication of the enthusiastic principle. His religious man must carefully observe, established maxims, for to disregard them would be spiritual pride; he must not make himself conspicuous, for that would be ostentation; he must be careful not to go about in quest of doing good, for that would be religious knight errantry; he must abstain from the indulgence of all great purposes of usefulness, for that would be ambition; he must be specially careful not to put himself to hazard, for that would be an indecent " longing for persecution." He must be careful of his words also, as of his conduct. He must never pointedly speak of eternal punishment, though a preacher, for he might possibly alarm the ignorant, and throw them into "convulsions; nor of the doctrine of justification by faith. only, though "wholesome and very full of comfort," for that would indicate an approach to "the delirious stage of fanaticism;" nor must he enjoin a frequent attendance on religious ordinances, for that would be to apply stimulants to the fever of religious excitement." For such a religionist the world is not likely to be much the wiser or better on account of his having lived in it; and he would certainly run no hazard of being taken for an "enthusiast," though he, should not, like Mr. Southey, step forth from his seclusion, contemptuously to write that epithet upon the tombs of men who having "served their generation, according to the will of God, have fallen on sleep,"

The following passage presents the essence of the question at: issue.

All philosophy which opposes itself to the truth, is, sooner or later, found to be spurious; and Mr. Southey's will not long bear that test to which it must be subjected. It is at least not Christian' philosophy, and concludes as forcibly against Christianity as against Methodism. The facts before him were, that not a few persons, but many thousands in different parts of the kingdom, were, by the preaching of Mr. Wesley and others, suddenly brought under a religious concern; that they were affected with sorrow for their sinful, lives; that on being instructed in the Christian doctrine, that Al

mighty God" pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel," they were brought, often suddenly, into a state of comfort and joy; that the course of their tempers and lives became changed; that they lived and died in, perfect contrast with their former habits and character, "adorning the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things." These were the alledged facts which Mr. Southey had to account for; and had he conducted his enquiry in the spirit of a true philosopher, he would first have ascertained the truth of the facts themselves. He would have enquired, whether, though in some instances the impressions might be evanescent, the great majority of persons so influenced underwent a permanent moral change of spirit and conduct. To such an enquiry he might have received a satisfactory answer; as satisfactory as the good report of the nearest observers of the lives of the persons in question, in every place of their residence; evidence as strong as can be obtained when the characters of men are in question, and which, if resisted in this case, may be resisted in that of every man, of every profession of religion, whose reformation, and subsequent good conduct and Christian demeanor, are also matters of observation and testimony. In the instances under consideration, those effects were produced for which religion was given to man, and Christianity itself sent down from heaven. The commission of St. Paul was thus to reform and to convert men, by the preaching of the Gospel; and when the same effects followed the preaching of the same doctrines, by men, endowed, as even Mr. Southey will some. times allow, with much of the Apostle's spirit, what principle does he assume when he refuses to attribute them to the same causes,-the force of Divine truth, and God's blessing upon it? When the effects are the same, as far as human eye can discern, as complete, as permanent; when the process through which they have been evolved has no essential difference, what is the philosophy which assigns a different cause, but a wretched and pitiful prejudice which vanity and affectation have attempted to dignify with that appellation? If religious enthusiasm could produce such results, then is there as much reason to assign this as the cause of conversion, not only in the Apostolic age, but in all churches which have possessed a faithful, warning, and earnest ministry; for wherever such a ministry has existed, it has been instituted for the purpose of effecting such conversions, and, under Divine influence, it has always been more or less successful. If, on the other hand, we are warranted by the Scrip tures to expect the conversion of careless, worldly, and immoral men from the error of their ways, by the faithful exhibition of the warning and inviting truths of the gospel in the ministry of holy men, then the successes of Mr. Wesley accord with the principles, the spirit, and intentions of Christianity, and by every Christian philosopher must be resolved into its influence. If his successes were much greater than those of ordinary ministers, he was in labours more abundant;"if they were more extensive, it was because he filled a wider range of action; if they were produced among a class of people usually most distinguished for irregularity of conduct, and barbarism of manners, it was because he sought them out, and carried

into their streets, and places of resort, an instruction which they had never been disposed to seek for themselves.'

We could wish that the random declaimers against Enthusiasm were pressed to shew, not by volleys of epithets, but by good and close reasoning, precisely why sentiments like the following are to be termed absurd and fanatical.'

• I will inform Mr. Southey, that we believe, as truly as he himself, that there is a real enthusiasm in religion, though we may not agree with him in the application of the term. We do not think so well of enthusiasm as to believe, with him, that it can originate a moral good to individuals, and much less change the moral aspect of a neighbourhood. We do not think the "sighings of a contrite heart" an indication of enthusiasm, nor yet the confidence, and joy, and hope of a believer. We do not think him an enthusiast, who is ardent in his devotions; exact, or even scrupulous in his conduct; and tenderly concerned for the salvation of his neighbour. But we should think him an enthusiast, who professed any other rule of action than the word of God, soberly interpreted; and such a person would find no countenance among us. We should think him an enthusiast who, under notions of self-sufficiency and high spirituality, should think himself independent of the reading of the Scriptures, the instructions of the ministry, and the public and private means of grace, for support and counsel; and such a person could not obtain admission into our Societies, the rules of which would in limine oppose his introduction. We should think him an enthusiast who, under an impression of his own high religious attainments, should think himself authorized to censure and speak evil of others, for we judge that true "charity is not puffed up," and "vaunteth not itself," and that where humility and meekness are not, there are no evidences of real piety. We should think him an enthusiast, most dangerous and unfit for a religious society, who, under pretence of religious impressions on his own mind, should neglect or violate any of the social or domestic duties; because we regard the moral precepts of the Gospel as of equal authority with its promises, and teach that "faith without works is dead," and unsaving. Lastly, we should think that man an enthusiast, who attached greater importance to any religious feeling, or any extraordinary circumstance of his conversion, as indications of his spiritual state, than to the unequivocal rule of conformity in spirit, temper, and conduct to the Gospel. When instances of this kind have occurred, and occur they will in all religious societies, among the uninstructed, and the ardent, they have uniformly been taught very different doctrines; and finding nothing valued among us but what is tangible and practical,-that no inward feeling is allowed to be genuine, but that which arises out of, and expresses itself by, "gentleness, goodness, meekness, faith, temperance;" they have either been cured of their follies, if truly sincere, though mistaken, or have at length grown weary of the discipline of opinions opposite to their own, and so have left us.'

Will not Mr. Southey feel that his vague and flimsy phi

losophy, as well as his unadvised superciliousness, are shamed by this plain good sense? We have already remarked upon the studied levity of Mr. Southey's manner when he has to narrate the sufferings of the Methodists. Upon this subject Mr. Watson remarks:

Before a criticism so flippant and callous, no character, however sacred and revered, could stand. Mr. Southey might apply it with equal success to the persecutions of the apostles, and the first Christians themselves; to the confessors in the reign of Mary; and the whole noble army of martyrs.

The real danger to which these excellent men were exposed, is, however, carefully concealed. Whitefield's fears, or rather hopes, of persecution, he informs us, were suited to the days of Queen Mary, Bishop Gardiner, and Bishop Bonner; they were ridiculous or disgusting in the time of George the Second, Archbishop Potter, and Bishop Gibson." This is said because Mr. Whitefield thought that he might probably be called to "resist unto blood," and our author would have it supposed, that all this was "safe boasting," in the reign of George the Second; and whilst the English Church had its Archbishop Potter, and Bishop Gibson. No, nor in the early part of the reign of George the Third, and with other bishops in the church as excellent as Potter and Gibson, was the anticipation groundless. The real danger was in fact so great from the brutality of the populace, the ignorance and supineness of the magistrates, and the mob-exciting activity of the clergy, one of whom was usually the instigator of every tumult, that every man who went forth on the errand of mercy in that day, took his life in his hand, and needed the spirit of a martyr, though not in danger of suffering a martyr's death by regular civil or ecclesiastical process.'

We have quoted a few of Mr. Watson's more general remarks, but, for the substance of his argument, as well as for his refutation of particular misrepresentations, we refer our readers to the Pamphlet itself. They will, no doubt, do themselves the justice (supposing them to have read the Life of Wesley) to peruse also these Observations. A single remark we may submit to Mr. Watson's candour. He must perceive that the Author of the Life of Wesley, though, blinded as he is by a system of meagre scepticism, he utterly fails to comprehend the true motives of the worthies of early Methodism, yet discovers towards those of them who adopted the Arminian system, a comparatively favourable and benignant sentiment. Even the Arminian Methodists, however, as Mr. Watson proves, have received from this Writer, in many important instances, less than justice, much less than candour. But whenever either the Dissenters or the Calvinistic Methodists are in question, Mr. Southey's calmness and moderation at once disappear, and, as Mr. Watson must well know, Mr. Southey's statements are liable to heavy charges of misrepresentation. We allow him to say, that