Page images
PDF
EPUB

116

REMARKS ON MR. STAMP'S HISTORICAL MEMORANDA RELATING TO THE "PILGRIM'S PROGRESS."

(To the Editor of the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine.)

I THINK Bunyan has fully vindicated his claim to the "Pilgrim's Progress" as an original work; yet, from his own words, it was not generally admitted:

"Some say the Pilgrim's Progress' is not mine."

I was of the same opinion once, and transcribe the memoranda I then made.

Probably Bunyan took his first idea of the Pilgrim's Progress" from the production of a contemporary author, the Rev. John Dunton, Rector of Aston-Clinton, in the county of Bucks, who died Nov. 24th, 1676. The work to which I allude was entitled, "The Pilgrim's Guide from his Cradle to his Death-Bed, with his glorious Passage from thence to the New Jerusalem, represented to the Life in a delightful new Allegory, wherein the Christian Traveller is more fully and plainly directed, than yet ever he hath been by any, in the right and nearest Way to the celestial Paradise. Written by John Dunton, late Rector of AstonClinton." This work must have appeared about the same period as Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress." It went through several impressions in a few months," and was again advertised to be sold by his son, "John Dunton, at the Black Raven, at the corner of Prince's-street, near the Royal Exchange. 1685."

99

The rage for allegorical works was exceedingly rife prior to the Revolution. Of Keach's "Travels of true Godliness," first published in 1681, or 1682, Dunton says he printed "ten thousand;" (see his Life and Errors, 2d edit., p. 177;) "and which will sell to the end of time." In 1689, Dunton advertised a seventh edition. In 1685, Dunton published "The Progress of Sin, or the Travels of Ungodliness," by the same author; which came to a third edition in 1689. But none of these works were so popular as

the "Pilgrim's Progress," which came to the fifth edition in 1680. A copy of the edition was in Mr. Heber's collection. (Part vi., p. 32, lot 479.) There was also in Mr. Heber's Catalogue, (part iv., p. 181, lot 1397,) "The heavenly Passenger, or the Pilgrim's Progress from this World to that which is to come, newly done in Verse. 1687." Malthus's spurious production of a second part of the "Pilgrim's Progress," which you notice in your Magazine, page 59, (one of which was in Mr. Heber's collection,-part v., p. 19, lot 413,) met with little encouragement. Dunton thus speaks of him in the latter end of the same year it was published (1683): “At Gravesend I met my old neighbour, Mr. Thomas Malthus, who lived at the Sun, in the Poultry; but his circumstances being somewhat perplexed, he was making his way for Holland." (Life and Errors, p. 76.) "He midwifed several books into the world: ay, and that of his own conceiving, as sure as ever young Perkin was his who owned him! He made a show of a great trade, by continually sending out large parcels; but all I can say of his industry is, he took a great deal of pains to ruin himself." (Ibid., p. 220.) John Bunyan having published the Second Part, and appointed "Mr. Nathaniel Ponder, but no other person, to print this book," (see p. 59 of your Magazine,) we find him thus characterized by Dunton: "Nathaniel (alias Bunyan) Ponder: he has sweetness and enterprise in his air, which plead and anticipate in his favour." (Life and Errors, p. 356.)

In 1685 the tenth edition made its appearance. It stands No. 14 in Dunton's Catalogue, price ls.; and as Wesley's "Maggots" were also published this year, they court popularity by the following sentence in the Epistle to the Reader :-"I am sure my verses' dribble down daintily,' as brother Bunyan has't, (has

it,) as well as the best sing-song in ere a Pilgrim's Progress' of 'em all." I have the fifteenth edition, "printed for W. P. 1702." The fifty-fourth edition was printed in 1767.

Your correspondent, (page 56,) quoting the words of Mr. Ivimey, says, The Presbyterian Ministers could not bear with the preaching of an illiterate tinker and an unordained Minister." But Samuel Wesley, in his controversy with Palmer, asks, “But do the Presbyterians and Independents hear none but such as have been ordained? I am well assured of the contrary; for I remember several of us, if not all our pupils, went to hear friend Bunyan when he preached at Newington-green." This was in 1681, or 1682. He adds, his tutor, Mr. Morton, commended him; for it is notorious that nothing is more common among Presbyterians and Independents, than to hear persons, and that daily, who have no form of ordination. (Defence of a Letter, p. 48. 1704.) Palmer observes, that hearing was no proof of admiration or commendation; but adds, "Mr. Wesley ought not to have spoken so contemptibly of so holy a man, though he was neither of his or my opinion, nor ordained. The Church of England has done him honour by licensing his Pilgrim's Progress,' with commendation of it, for the use

of the Welsh; into which language it was thought, by the greatest men, worth translating." (Palmer's Vindication, p. 111. 1705.)

The Founder of Methodism held Bunyan's work in due estimation; but conceiving it would be most useful abridged, he accordingly published several editions of it in this form. The third, now before me, bears date 1770.

Dr. Clarke has expressed a wish that the "Pilgrim's Progress" was "turned into decent verse" by a poet experimentally acquainted with the work of God on his own soul; believing it would be more generally read, and more abundantly useful. (See his Works, vol. xi., p. 434.) Permit me to mention a wish of the late Poet Laureate. Dr. Southey, in one of his letters to me, speaking of a bookseller in Bristol, says: "Isaac James procured for me a set of Mr. Wesley's Journals, in 1802. I used to have great pleasure in talking with him upon subjects connected with his pursuits or works. He married Robert Hall's sister. He was then making his book about Alexander Selkirk; and was planning what he never executed, a nautical Pilgrim's Progress. I wish he had; for he was a man of Bunyan's stamp." (MS. letter, Dec. 22d, 1835.)

THOMAS MARRIOTT.
City-Road, Jan. 8th, 1844.

THE "RECORD" AND THE WESLEYAN METHODISTS. (To the Editor of the Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine.)

IN the "Record" newspaper, published on Monday evening, January 1st, there is a "leader" devoted (as has lately, in particular, been frequently the case) to some animadversions on the Scottish Free Church, Dr. Candlish being, as usual, especially singled out for censure and sarcasm. The editor, however, is not contented with attacking the Scotch seceders. Warming with his subject, and his anger increasing in vehemence as it rolls along, he at length forgets how im

portant a part of valour is discretion; and endeavours to "kill two birds with one stone," by sneering at Dr. Candlish, and striking at Methodism. Dr. Candlish had spoken, substantially, of the possibility of a co-operating Christian union, without any sacrifice, or even compromise, of principle. He would recognise, and affectionately regard, as Christian brethren, those who held the essential doctrines - in effect, the saving truths-of our holy religion. Dr. Candlish evidently

takes the ground, that it is not for him to refuse to receive those whom Christ refuses not to receive; that where there is saving faith, and adoption into the divine family, there is incorporation into the Christian brotherhood; and that all who profess to belong to that brotherhood are bound, by all the laws of sacred consistency, to love one another, and to love, not in mere word, but in deed and in truth. At the same time, the Doctor states his persuasion, that it is his duty, as a Minister of one particular branch of the visible church, and as conscientiously holding certain par. ticular opinions,-believing them to be part and parcel of the entire system of revealed truth, with due regard to time, and place, and circumstances, to declare "every jot and tittle of God's will, as it is found revealed in his word."

And is not this as it should be? Is not this the ground which each specific branch of the visible church ought to take? In reference to others, holding the common truth relating to "the common salvation," should there not be this affectionate, manifested recognition? In reference to the particular convictions of the individual Minister, and the position he occupies, should there not be this open, honest declaration of what, by Ministers and congregations, is held to be truth? Let the feelings of true charity be cherished; let individual convictions as to truth be maintained: the first without latitudinarian indifference, the second without asperity. The two are not inconsistent. Would that there were a more general endeavour to unite them! In wishing that that body of Christians to which the "Record" gives its support, were more willing to recognise as Christian brethren those who hold the same grand truths which their own Church receives, there is no wish that the Clergy should cease to teach what, as Ministers of the English Episcopal Church, they believe it to be their duty to teach. Unhappily they choose to take other ground. They seem to believe that truth can only be maintained by an

entire severance from all others, one class only excepted: yes, one class only excepted. No matter how carefully admission to the ministry has been granted; no matter how solemnly the ecclesiastical call to "teach in the congregation" has been conferred; all is absolutely null and void,-the pretended Minister only an unauthorized intruder into the sacred office,-if the stamp of the external, successional episcopacy has been wanting. But let that have been accorded, even by those who have along with it the mark of the beast, and all is valid. The former, should they wish to enter the Church, must be reordained, thus confessing their former intrusion: the latter, renouncing, of course, their Popish doctrines, are recognised as being, and as having been, regular Christian Ministers, the Church so recognising them thus fraternizing with Rome. No wonder that it is from Popery and Papists that the Church experiences so much trouble.

Dr. Candlish, a Minister of high principle, and of Christian feeling, declares,-at a Meeting when such a declaration was called for,—that he shall endeavour not only to cherish Christian affection, or to maintain Christian truth, but to do both; to act as a Minister of one particular Church, and, at the same time, not to forget that he belongs to the church universal.

This seems to have excited the especial displeasure of the "Record." Why, it is not for me to say. I care not even to conjecture. But, under the influence of the feeling, as Dr. Candlish had spoken of his determination to testify to the entire truth of God, as revealed in his word, it is said,

"He will act, of course, under the weight of the obligation he now feels laid upon him, without partiality and without hypocrisy;' and will, therefore, probably commence with the Wesleyans, whose Arminian heresy, and dogma of the perfectibility of human nature, he believes to be alike unscriptural and dangerous. He may also instruct that body in relation to the vast evils of

the endless divisions' reprobated by the Apostle; for we can tell Dr. Candlish of one provincial town in England, in which there are seven distinct bodies of Wesleyan Methodists, each congregation apart from, and opposed to, the other."

of the Church wish her to be otherwise than she now is? "Arminian heresy!" Yes, indeed! Dr. Candlish and his brethren know the difference between the Arminianism of John Wesley, and that of Archbishop Laud. At all events, no Church-writer, whose temper had not been allowed for the time to take the place of his judgment, would have spoken either about the Arminian or any other heresy. Most erringly unsocial,-I use the mildest term that truth will allow,

so, as are the lovers of sound Protestant doctrine in the Church; willing as they seem to be to hazard its very existence in her pale, sooner than give the right hand of ministerial fellowship to any whose ordination, however solemn, is nonepiscopal; let them take care. Their circumstances are becoming exceedingly difficult, painfully critical.

Are there no political approximations towards the Popery, whose ministerial functions Statesmen have been taught by "good Churchmen" to recognise as perfectly valid? May they not even yet be glad to receive aid from the

[ocr errors]

When, nearly three years ago, Dr. Candlish advocated, from Wesleyan pulpits, in London, the claims of the Wesleyan-Methodist Missionary Society; and when, about the same time, the Wesleyan Magazine brought the great principles of the Scotch Church question prominently be--and to themselves most unhappily fore the public, then scarcely alive to its importance,—it might almost be said, scarcely cognizant of its existence; when thus there was, on either side, friendly recognition and mutual co-operation; were the parties respectively ignorant of each other's doctrinal position? The "Record" calls the attention of Dr. Candlish to the Arminian heresy of the Wesleyans. Is it that he believes Arminianism to be heresy, and is vexed at any display of friendship towards it on the part of a Calvinist? Or is it that, being himself an Arminian, he thus sneers at both parties, as though peace between them were unmanly, and their only consistent conduct that of a continued quinquarticular pugilism? One really cannot tell; for though the "Record" writer is a Churchman, and though the documentary teaching of the Church is tolerably plain, yet, from the mere fact of Churchmanship, it would be utterly impossible, even in these days of schismatic separation from other Churches for the preservation of uniformity, to infer the doctrinal sentiments of a particular individual. He may be a Churchman; and yet -taking no other testimony than the columns of the "Record," asking no enemy to bear witness on the subject-he may be alas! what may he not be? Let him but be an episcopal successionist, and refuse to recognise as valid the acts and ministrations of any but episcopal successionists, he has a wide field to range in, and examples of almost every pattern. I grieve to write this; but could the bitterest enemy

self-called," "intruding" Methodist and Dissenting Ministers, against the Government-recognised, Government-supported vassals of the ecclesiastical feudality of Rome? Government-recognised! There has long been Tractarian recognition. And that recognising party is neither small nor weak. A quarter of a century ago there appeared to be a band, a spreading band, of zealous, Protestant, evangelical men,—men like Legh Richmond. From their activity, they seemed as the representatives of the Church of their day; and that Church was visibly strengthened by their influence. But they did not faithfully protest against what I again call the principle of schismatic withdrawment from other branches of Christ's church perhaps, knowing that many suspected their Churchmanship because they were evangelical, they went beyond the negation of a testimony against Dissent, and threw their weight into the opposite scale.

:

And they who thus "offend against the generation of God's children," sin against the law of Gospel love, and the principle of true unity. And now where are their successors? I rejoice to believe that they have many; but they occupy not the same position, they exert not the same influence: amidst the bold assertions of the Tractarian-with the leave of the "Record," far worse than the Arminian-heresy, their voice is scarcely heard, or chiefly heard in its lamentations over the progress of error, and the advancement of Popery. "And what will ye do in the end thereof?" In such times, with such prospects, it is as unwise as it is unchristian, for those whom the "Record" is supposed to represent, to seem as though even wishful to convert separation into a hostility rendered necessary by self-defence. The days may be coming when both Arminian heretics and Calvinist heretics may have to struggle with those in whose lips " heresy" is a word of fearful significance; and who would except the Episcopalian neither from its application nor punishment, if he refused submission to that "mother and mistress of churches," the perfect validity of whose orders he acknowledges while renouncing her authority. Are these the days for the exasperation of differences?

There are some subjects on which it really is very difficult to write. With one of the observations of the "Record" I scarcely know how to deal. Was the writer serious when he made the reference which I find to what he is pleased to term, the endless divisions of the Methodists; and which, (in their general principles, of course,) he says, the Apostle reprobates? He calls on Dr. Candlish to notice these; and, to excite him to diligence in the task of rebuke, he informs him that, "in one provincial town, there are seven congregations of Wesleyan Methodists," all separate and opposed. Allow me to request the attention of your readers to a few separate remarks on this. 1. In condemning the real spirit of division and sepa

ration, I will not yield to the "Record." I love Christian liberty, and I love Christian unity. Properly understood, they are consistent with each other, and may both be maintained. 2. But what is the fact which is alleged, in crimination of the Wesleyan Methodists? If the fact, as alleged, mean any thing, it must mean that Methodist teaching goes to make men regardless of unity. It proves exactly the contrary. I pass by what yet is the very censurable negligence of expression,-"seven congregations of Wesleyan Methodists." No such thing. The societies in question call themselves by different names. But what is the fact? The Wesleyans have a certain system of doctrine. But the seceding bodies have not left them on that ground. But they have also a system of discipline; and at different times, within the last fifty years, various attempts have been made to alter it. The attempts have not succeeded; and the parties making the attempt, not being permitted to disturb the peace of the body by continual agitation, have chosen to leave rather than desist. Such is the discipline of Wesleyanism, and such the attachment of Wesleyans to their discipline, that what may be termed the Executive,-though so only of a voluntary society, possessing no secular means of enforcing their decisions, and carrying into effect their sentences,

this Executive has been enabled to repress agitation, to maintain order, and to remove the unquiet, who have, on some occasions, been followed by numbers who were either like-minded with them, or attached to them. Such persons, so removed and removing, have chosen to form themselves into societies, for the purpose of carrying out their own views. Generally speaking, being dissatisfied with Methodism, they left it. But what then? In a country where national law interposes no check on such movements, they do not prove that the body so left is a body of divisive principles, of divisive tendencies. In reference to a body situated as is that of the Wesleyan Methodists,

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »