3. That "none agree with him [Mr. K.] more perfectly, than wise, pious, experimental methodists."―p. 72.

4. That "it, [methodism,] in its original design and scope, was a particular result of over-ruling wisdom and goodness;" that "even the adjuncts of the system are unusually well adapted to the best interests of those who embrace it;"...that, "never, elsewhere, except in the apostles themselves, and in the sacred books they have left, were the true foundation and the sublime superstructure of Christianity so effectually united."-p. 74.

5. That "of all collective [ecclesiastical] systems, John Wesley's has been the very best."-p. 77. "The best that the world had seen.”—p. 83.

6. That, "except at Pentecost itself,...that contagious piety,...which penetrates numbers at once," never was seen "more pure or more powerfully, than when J. and C. Wesley first began their truly wonderful career."—p. 87.

7. That "John Wesley's view of first principles,” and his "central Lesson,...never was, never can be excelled."-pp. 163, 4.

Enough, (says the supposed inquirer,) it is obvious from these passages that, in Mr. Knox's opinion, Wesleyan methodism and pure religion are synonymous; I will take his advice thankfully, and join myself to the Wesleyans, as one "escaping for his life.”

Stay, (says Mr. K.,) though I have said as above, yet I wish you to bear in mind that it is also my declared opinion, recorded within the compass of the same pages

That though "in theory they [the methodists] maintain Christian perfection.... yet their common methods of piety have not a tendency to multiply living instances of it."-p. 65. See 4, 6.

That methodists "have been much better witnesses for the truth of the thing, [Christian perfection,] than guides to the possession of it."-p. 66. See 6, 7.

That "the plan of methodism had in it always too much of a kind of bellowsblowing method;" and "that the activities of the modern English methodists are not so directly spiritual as those of their predecessors."-p. 68. See 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. That never (but in one "single instance") "could he note any express benefit to himself by means of the methodists;" but "rather otherwise."-p. 70. See 3, 5, 7. That "to methodism itself, as a body of persons, and a scheme of rules, he rejoices he is not bound."-p. 75. Because he would be obliged to "adopt practices which would unnecessarily abridge his Christian liberty."-p. 76. See 4, 5.

That" John Wesley...was not able to open out consistently (though he has here and there exprest happily) a point" of essential importance in the "Divine plan."p. 162. See 1, 2, 4, 6, 7.

That "the catching this [the vital spirit of John Wesley's true mission] does not depend on embracing his outward system of societies, and classes, and bands.”— p. 164. See 4.

Now, Sir, without offering any opinion on the Wesleyan system, its merits or demerits, I may venture to assert that a person of plain understanding, comparing the above two sets of passages together, would be quite at a loss to know what Mr. Knox's real sentiments were. The substance of his advice is

"I firmly believe that John Wesley had a special mission to communicate to the world a purer system of religion than has appeared since the days of the apostles, yet I never will submit to his rules myself; yet again, I would, on no account, dissuade others from so doing."

Bishop Butler says, that

"Persons of superior capacity and improvement have often fallen into errors which no one of mere common understanding could."

This, I suppose, is the only account to be given of Mr. Knox's

singularity, not of reasoning only, but [as it seems to me] of moral feeling, shewing itself in this and in some other cases.

And I again would caution all admirers of his writings, especially young persons, not to trust implicitly to his [apparent] opinion on any important point which relates to PRACTICE.

I am, Sir, yours respectfully, A. W.

A. KNOX-DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.-AND ANSWER TO

MR. SCOTT.

SIR,*-It is admitted that, in the reformed churches, there were at an early period, (and generally it may be affirmed that there are still,) two statements of the nature of Justifying Faith. The one, that of Calvin, Beza, and their followers, resolving it substantially into personal assurance;† the other, that which the Anglican divines retained, that such assurance might be looked for as the effect, but could not be the cause of, justification; the faith by which the just shall live being a constant assent and adherence to the mercies of God in Christ Jesus, wrought in the soul by his Spirit.‡

It appears to me that this essay throughout runs on a comparison of these two statements and their consequences; and the language on which your query is founded may easily be accounted for by a reference to certain extreme positions which may frequently be met with in other quarters. My object being merely to illustrate Mr. Knox, and not to occupy your pages with controversy, I will merely refer to David Russell's "Practical and Consolatory Letters;" particularly vol. ii., p. 75, 199. E. C.

P. S.-I have to thank Mr. John Scott for informing me that the error I had pointed out in Scott's "Force of Truth" has, in two different editions, been corrected. Living at a distance from booksellers, it is not easy for me to examine all the different editions of modern books; but, finding the error still standing in an edition published SO LATE AS LAST YEAR, by the Religious Tract Society, (see pp. 55-6,) it was not unnatural for me to conclude that it had still escaped detection, as it appears to have done through seven editions during the author's life-time. To a reader who has traced the argument of Hooker's Treatise, the error must appear a little remarkable; and, as the impressions containing it are widely circulated, I do not regret having called attention to it. Perhaps it may now appear

to

"E. C." will see, by a reference to the Notices to Correspondents, that his first sentence was founded on a misprint, or slip of the pen, and is therefore omitted.-ED. + Calvin. Instit., iii., c. 2, s. 7. The popular language of the Homily may seem to countenance this statement, but can scarcely be deemed an accurate definition.

"If any particular persons abroad have thought that a special and full persuasion of the pardon of their sins was of the essence of faith, let them answer for it; our divines at home are of another judgment."-Morning Exerc., vol. vi., Serm. xviii., p. 619, (an authority not to be suspected of bias to the other statement.) See also Arrowsmith's Tacita Sacra., lib. 11, c. vii. s. 4-6, where are many valuable remarks on the two statements, by a writer who had no Arminian sympathies. 4 T

VOL. VIII.-Dec. 1835.

Mr. J. Scott, that the sentence, which I still leave in the modest obscurity of its native Greek, belongs rather to the respectable society just mentioned, than to one whose only fault has been that he relied too much on their authority.

Whether a sentence from the sixth section of Hooker's Treatise can be quoted as part of his answer to an objection first stated in the nineteenth; or, whether a sentence aimed at the Trintine Doctors exactly suits Mr. Knox's case, are points which, I must venture to think, require a little further consideration.

LEIGHTON'S LATIN WORKS.

SIR, At the thirty-third page of Professor Scholefield's edition of Leighton's Latin Works, we read: "animamque corpori solutam non tantum non mori, sed et tum primum vivere, et tanquam exutis secundis in lucem nasci." Read secundis, "secundæ, membrana qua fetus in utero involvitur."-Facciol. The word occurs in Leighton's favourite, Seneca. (Ep. 92, page 324, of the second volume of the Elgevir ed.) "Ita ille divinus animus egressurus hominem, quo receptaculum suum conferatur, ignis illud exurat, an feræ distrahant, an terra contegat, non magis ad se judicat pertinere, quam secundas ad editum infantem." Should we not also read, corpore solutam ?-Page 98. Spiraculum illud divinum, &c...terræ cœtum miscet; non quidem prout phrasis illa vulgo sonat, res tam dissitas promiscue confundens, sed &c." Read, terræ cælum miscet; where terra and cœlum are the res tam dissita.

At page 15, God is spoken of as, ȧvocíaorov, Tòv orra. Professor Scholefield suggests ἀνεξέταστον ; I am tempted to propose αυθέκαστον, which is obtained from the word in possession of the text by merely rounding the bottom of into v, and changing into K. I must own, however, that I am not able to quote a passage where this word is applied to the Deity. Passow, after giving the meaning of it according to its composition, says, "consequently, anλous, simple, (i. e., uncompounded,) &c." As it is, I must leave it to others to verify or disprove my conjecture.

At page 107, for Illi, [Scil. Homini,] which makes the passage awkward, as hominem is expressed in another clause, I would suggest Ille, emphaticè. At page 114, males would agree better with amplecteris. The sentence at the top of page 133, seems to require ut: quam ut....possit. At page 301, the nominative ȧuvnoría, cannot stand. Quære, àμvnoríq plenissima obliviscendi? At page 312, the words, omnia sint pontus, desint quoque littora ponto, should be distinguished in some way as a quotation, or an adaptation rather, of a well-known line from Ovid. At page 316, we have, “quod fidei radices quasi viritus incursans, altius figat." Quære, ventus? I have omitted to remark that at page 128 the following distich is printed as prose:

"Atque ita sat dignus, si quem dignatur amare,
Qui, quos non dignos invenit, ipse facit."

I have also observed three obvious errata :-objiciter, p. 111; conjesta, p. 279; and fine for sine, p. 281.

Lyndon Rectory.

I remain, Mr. Editor, yours &c., T. K. A.

P.S. Since I wrote the above, I have had an opportunity of consulting Stephens's Thesaurus (old edition). Besides the passage in the Ethics, where I remembered to have met with the word, he quotes several passages from Plutarch, who describes Cato as, arapairnro ἐν τῷ δικαίῳ, ὄρθιος καὶ αὐθέκαστος. The explanation he gives is from Budæus,- "Severus naturâ, rigidus, exacte rectum verumque persequens."

LIBERALITY OF A CLERGYMAN.

SIR,-In these unhappy times, when the infidel and the dissenter are found in monstrous league with the members of the church of Rome to deny even the semblance of merit to the establishment, it is gratifying to contemplate the unobtrusive efforts which her members are making to improve her efficiency, and put to shame the misrepresentations of her unscrupulous assailants.

In the parish of which I am rector, a school for the children of the poor of both sexes has been built and endowed almost at the sole expense of a clergyman of the name of Bagshaw. The education is to be conducted on the national system, and every arrangement has been made to give full effect to the benevolent intentions of the founder.

Feeling desirous that this act of private munificence should be generally known, that others may be provoked unto the same charitable work, I venture to hope that you will oblige me by inserting this communication in your next number. I am, Sir, faithfully yours, HENRY CLEVELAND.

Barkstone, Lincolnshire, Nov. 14th, 1835.

NOTICES AND REVIEWS.

A Letter to the Rev. John King, of Hull, occasioned by his Pamphlet, entitled, "Maitland not authorized to censure Milner." By S. R. Maitland. London: Rivingtons.

MR. KING, in the pamphlet alluded to, pursued a course which did not, to the reviewer, seem to be the dictate of "absolute wisdom." It was this. Mr. Maitland, in two pamphlets, had brought certain specific charges against Milner as an historian, not resting on his own authority, but supported by copious and minute references. Mr. King, instead of noticing these references, and refuting any errors which they might contain, chose to look, or endeavoured to make others look, on the attack as resting solely on Mr. Maitland's authority; and, consequently, he thought it convenient and advisable to endeavour to destroy Mr. Maitland's credit, by shewing that a former work of his was inaccurate. Strange to say, he did not even notice the existence of Mr. Maitland's second pamphlet (the whole object of which was to examine one long portion of Milner, and to shew, by detailed examination of page after page, that where Milner would seem to be referring to original authorities, he is only giving, often incorrect, abridgments of secondary ones—that he is inaccurate, and often quite wrong as to facts, dates, places, and men, as well as really

unacquainted with many of the books to which he refers), and on Mr. M.'s inquiry of him (Mr. King) by letter, whether he had seen it before his own pamphlet appeared, declined to answer. Now, this plan does not appear wise, because he could not reasonably hope that all this could be allowed to pass in silence; and it was clear that, the very moment it was stated that he does not reply to charges made with reference to chapter and verse, but makes a personal attack on his opponent, he must lose all the pains he took in preparing his pamphlet, and the warmest friend of Milner must see that Mr. King neither has done, nor can do, any good to his cause. Suppose Mr. Maitland to be as wrong in a former work as Mr. King says, how does that get rid of detailed charges against Milner?

This, however, has mere reference to the expediency of Mr. King's line of defence. Mr. Maitland has sufficiently shown that it is perfectly unjustifiable on much higher grounds, and has shown too that it is conducted in a spirit and on principles which are anything but such as one would wish to see. Altogether, Mr. King will find Mr. Maitland's pamphlet a very disagreeable one for him. It will be disagreeable as affecting him personally, and disagreeable, as he is doubtless a sincere partizan of Milner's work, because it produces yet heavier charges (and yet more forcibly urged) against Milner's own work. This, indeed, is the main question, and it is a matter of sincere regret that Mr. King should have introduced so much personal feeling into a queston of a literary nature, and not have discussed it, if he could, or left it to others to discuss, on fair and proper grounds.

After all that has passed, the writer of these lines knows but too well what dreadful offence is given by venturing to insinuate any disrespect for Milner. Abstaining, therefore, from any remark in the way of opinion, he wishes to point attention to the very serious nature of the charges now brought, with full authorities, against Milner, as an historian. With every respect for his intentions and his piety, he is alleged not to have known even a fair proportion of the original sources of history, not to have known the names of many writers, not to have understood the references to many others, and to have so written as to lead the reader to suppose that he is reading extracts from original works, instead of mutilated abridgments of secondary sources. If these charges are not correct, the only way to refute them is by a detailed examination of a competent number of them. This will be readily seen by every impartial person, and indeed all candid admirers of Milner must be aware that by this test he must stand or fall. The original author of this controversy had not the slightest idea of provoking it, or drawing down such wrath on himself, when, in the discharge of his duty, as he conceived, he was obliged to say what he really thought of Milner. But he cannot now affect to regret it, as he is persuaded that this discussion will tend to fix the real character of Milner's work. Another good, too, has already arisen from this controversy,that it has shown the world that they possess in Mr. Maitland one who, in extent of learning and diligence of research, recalls the memory of past times. It may be right to mention that, while Mr. M. wisely defers all defence of his former work as beside the present question, he assures Mr. King that he shall shortly hear from him on that subject also.

The Roman-catholic Church in Scotland, its Establishment, Subversion, and Present State. By J. P. Lawson, M.A., &c. &c. Edinburgh and London: Smith, Rider, and Co. 1835. 12mo. pp. 320.

THIS is an useful and interesting volume, not controversial, but simply historical and statistical. It describes the sees, their extents and revenues, the colleges, monasteries, &c., of the church of Scotland before the Reformation; the circumstances of its fall, of the destruction of the buildings, &c., and the present state of Roman-catholic congregations and church government. It