METHODIST MAGAZINE,

AND

Quarterly Review.

VOL. XIII, No. 1. JANUARY, 1881. NEW SERIES-VOL. II, No. 1.

LORD JOHN RUSSEL AND THE METHODISTS.

TIME was [says a writer in the Imperial Magazine] when the Founder of Methodism published its tenets at the hazard of existence-when, baring his head before the fiendish multitude, he stood exposed to their murderous missiles, on the market cross, or in the public field, to proclaim his divine commission. Like his "meek and lowly" Master, he was "no respecter of persons ;" and the all but roofless cottage, and the broken chair, were the temple and rostrum from whence the St. Paul of Modern Christianity often made his fervid appeals. And, verily, we need not be amazed at the prevalence and progress of that creed which was confirmed by its establisher surmounting every opposition-the casualties of "flood and field”"-the rigour of the elements, and the hate of mankind. It is a natural reverse of the scene that we now behold in the "solemn temples" of Methodism replete with the adornments of architecture, and recognised by crowded assemblies. So material an enhancement of the weight and value of the opinions of Wesley, has stirred up some polemical enemies of great popularity in rank and letters; and those doctrines, whose peculiarities, half a century ago, were known to, or noticed by, only the vilest of the community, have now found superior antagonists in the coroneted historian, and the courtly poet.'

6

The courtly poet' alluded to in the above passage, we presume to be Dr. Southey; and the 'coroneted historian," Lord John Russel ;-both of England. The recent attack on Methodism by the latter, is contained in his Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe, from the Peace of Utrecht.' At the time of publishing these Memoirs, Lord John Russel was a member of parliament. Since then, in consequence of the demise of the king, another election has been held, in view of which, his lordship, in an address to his constituents, is said to have evinced some apprehension of inconvenience from his attack on the Methodists, and to have publicly disclaimed any intentions of severity toward them. How much credit is to be attached to such a declaration, made at such a time, and in such circumstances, we shall not undertake to udge. It seems on the face of it, inconsistent enough with passages which will hereafter be VOL. II.-January 1831.

1

cited from his animadversions. Yet, being an honorable man, we are of course bound to believe that he did not mean what, otherwise, every body could not but understand to be the import of his plain English. We must say, too, with a British reviewer, that we think his lordship would have served his character more effectually by announcing his kindlier intentions through the medium of the press,' and, we add, after the election. As it is, we fear that he was but another instance of

'A man convinced against his will,'

Yet' of the same opinion still.'

We shall subjoin an article from the pen of Mr. Sandwith, who is, we are informed, a distinguished surgeon, of Bridlington, England. His production, notwithstanding the diverse character of his professional pursuits, evinces a familiarity with theological critisism, and with the true genius, structure, and tendency of the religious system to which he is attached, which does him the highest credit, and entitles him to the warmest thanks of the whole Methodist community, for the triumphant manner in which he has wielded his polemical pen in their defence. His manner is not less marked by the moderation of Christian forbearance, than are his researches by extent of knowledge, and acuteness of investigation. He calmly compares the statements of his author, exposes the monstrosities of his misinterpretations and inconsist encies, and then leaves it to his readers to pronounce the judgment:-an example which we earnestly wish might be more generally followed by Christian polemics. Mr. Sandwith introduces his subject thus:

Modern politicians may despise theological researches; but Bacon, Grotius, and the worthies of a less degenerate age, gave such inquiries their deepest attention. The distempers of the State are moral as well as political; and they who neglect the study of the former forfeit a nation's confidence. But a shallow acquaintance with the subject is even worse than utter ignorance. How far either of them may have influenced the business of legislation, it is not our province to inquire. With a few splendid exceptions, however, such as Mr. Wilberforce's inestimable work on religion, the liberalism of the age has lamentably vitiated the literary productions of our statesmen. In this censure, Lord John Russel's "Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe, from the Peace of Utrecht," are deeply implicated. His lordship has attempted in his history of the eighteenth century, to blend some notice of the state of religion and literature with the narrative of civil and military transactions. "The Ecclesiastic," a periodical devoted to the defence of the Church, has shown but little sensitiveness to the interests of truth in "expressing" its "pleasure at the talented manner in which the noble author has performed this important part of his task." For the views which the book unfolds, are a wide departure from sound divinity; and the principle on which his lordship has undertaken to

degrade Methodism, no pious Churchman can consistently justify. His illiberality, too, greatly lowers his character as an historian. This rebuke is merited by the harsh and uncandid manner in which he has treated a subject to which he has manifestly paid but little attention. In bestowing his favors or scattering his censures on this or that form of religion, his lordship must not however expect, in imitation of Louis le Grand,* that mere nobility will confer the least additional weight on opinions unsupported by argument.

Great laxity of principle pervades the work, and at once assigns the author a place in the modern school of liberalism. In the exhibition of this spirit, Lord John Russel shows the greatest selfcomplacency. But those very opinions on which he seems to repose, as the basis of his strength, are precisely those the most easy of demolition. Nor must their author expect to escape being stoned with the ruins of his own demolished creed. That his lordship can have ever pondered the lessons of providential interposition in human affairs, inculcated by the Scriptures, could never be inferred from the tone of his historical reflections. Throughout his long and eventful narrative, he has never, in a solitary instance, taken advantage of the fairest occasions for noticing such displays of the Divine protection in behalf of a righteous cause. For any thing that appears to the contrary, the world is deprived of the moral government of its Author, and abandoned to be the sport of capricious fortune. His chilling and heartless creed, therefore, stands equally aloof from the bold but hallowed investigations of a Croly, who has traced the Divine hand guiding the destinies of our country, like a second Israel; and the profound historical lucubration of Miller, whose grand conclusion is, that human history is a drama of the Divine providence. 'Deos esse, et eorum providentiâ mundum administrari; eosdemque consulere rebus humanis, nec solum universis, verum etiam singulis.' But this principle, though emanating from an enlightened Heathen, is too lofty for the com❤ prehenion of a modern liberal, notwithstanding his professed belief of Christianity. Hence it is, that a history abounding with examples of providential interposition is disgraced by the introduction of an unintelligible agency, arrayed in all the attributes of Omnipotence. And thus every astounding event, which required the supposition of some unseen power to regulate the movements of the dramatis persona of the history, is ascribed to the 'caprice,' or 'the decree, of fortune.'

[We omit several of Mr. Sandwith's subsequent pages, both for the sake of abbreviation, and from their irrelevancy to our present object, and to the state of things in this country. Having disposed

*This proud monarch once said, "It is one of the most visible effects of our power, to give, when we please, an infinite value to that which in itself is nothing." † Cicero, 1 Divin. n. 117. [That there are Gods, by whose providence the world is governed; and that they care for human affairs,-not generally merely, but also particularly.-AMERICAN EDITORS.]

of his preliminary matter, he then proceeds in the following masterly style.]

We now invite attention to that part of the history which treats on Methodism, and which is chargeable with the most serious defects and errors. Lord John Russel's history itself bears ample testimony to the failure of an adulterated Gospel, in the hands of the elergy of the last century. Its adaptation to the wants of 'a polite age' is what indeed he has assumed; but all the evidence is on the other side of the question. Mr. Wesley's testimony is decisive as to the uncorrected profligacy of those very classes of society whose case required, we are told, and obtained, a new kind of spiritual food.' As he has minutely traced the progress of demoralization through all the principal functionaries of our Christian and civic economy, we may well doubt the wholesome operation of the remedy. And perhaps no greater proof can be given, that society was no better for an adulterated Gospel, than the fact, which both Bishop Butler, in the preface to his Analogy,' and Nelson, in that to his 'Fesfivals and Fasts,' attest, that Christianity and the clergy had fallen into general contempt. But if all the evidence be against the assumption of the benefit resulting to the higher classes from the new order of things in the Church, its want of adaptation to the mass of society is fully conceded in the following quotation from his lordship's book:-The general body of the people, however, were not sufficiently advanced in knowledge, nor sufficiently refined in taste, to be worthy the delicate banquet that was set before them. All the histories of this age teem with complaints of the gross profligacy, the drunkenness, disorder, and forgetfulness of religion, exhibited by the common people, especially in large towns, amidst the hurry and excitement of increasing trade and flourishing industry. It has been already said, that the superior education and decent fortune of the English clergy have the attendant defect of unfitting them for a daily and familiar intercourse with their flocks. They are confined too by law, by habit, and by inclination, to the spot where their parochial or governing duties are to be performed; and are therefore quite incapable of being directed actively to eonvert, to guide, and to instruct new masses of population. This polite age, like the first days of civilization, wanted missionaries; and what is wanted by the spirit of the time seldom fails to appear. Missionaries sprang up. ** That missionaries were wanted is his lordship's inference from his own description of the moral state of the lower orders; and it is a virtual admission, that the Gospel in its new and modified form, so far as it was applied to their case, was an entire failure. His lordship admits also, that it was so fettered by the habits and regulations of the clergy, as to be incapable of being applied to the increasing wants of the nation. Now, no weightier reasons can be given in favor of Methodism than those couched in these

* Memoirs, &c, vol. ii, 4to, p. 551.

6

two most important admissions: and his lordship merits the thanks of every advocate of the system. But the quotation invites additional comment. The conclusion of the passage is conceived in the spirit of the pitiful philosophy which excludes a providential agency. Dr. Southey and other opponents of Methodism, who represent its founders as chosen instruments of providence,' and yet calumniate the work they were delegated to accomplish, have incurred a dilemma from which his lordship might be presumed to have thus escaped. But he tells us, that the spirit of the time' usually generates what is wanted; and that it produced Methodism, How then is he to be acquitted of a contradiction of his own philosophy, when he represents Methodism to be a failure? The analogy of a blind fortune might suggest the spirit of the time' to be another mysterious personification, 'cui lumen ademptum.' But if his philosophy is to be trusted, wants so imperative as even his lordship's representation of the state of society makes them, could not be appeased by any mere empirical imitation of what was so essential to its welfare. Yet this is the way in which his lordship would avoid the conclusion to which his own argument leads. Hence he broadly asserts the empiricism of Methodism. But, on that hypothesis, in the following quotation he sufficiently answers himself. Wesley,' he observes, had hitherto succeeded, because in a dead and motionless state of society, he who, with internal persuasion of their truth, rouses the attention of men to new doctrines, which he declares to be necessary to eternal salvation, has always a temporary success.* This is sound philosophy; and is bottomed on a principle which lies deeper than any thing to be found in Lord John Russel's creed. The principle was asserted by Gamaliel in its application to the origin of Christianity. Any sort of quackery in religion, unsupported by prescription or violence, can only have a temporary success. Now it must be remembered, that his lordship writes when Methodism is nearly a century old; and when, with no other weapons than reason and Divine providence in its favor, it has gone on increasing, until, as his lordship tells us, it now numbers upwards of a million of persons.' If, however, contrary to fact and experience, the success of the system, in its pretension to meet the wants of society, had been but 'temporary;' if it had been what his lordship designates it, 'a quack medicine, soon famous, and soon forgotten; if it can hardly be said that the introduction of Wesleyan Methodism permanently improved the morals of England,' what becomes of his lordship's philosophy? And how have the wants of society, which must have waxed louder and louder in their demand for assistance, and which the mockery and insult of an empirical attempt to relieve them would only render more clamorous,-how, we ask, have the yearly accumulating wants of society been met and redressed? The plain matter of fact is, that if Methodism be not what it pretends to be, no other Memoirs, &c, vol. ii, 4to, p. 569,