I most willingly assume, not having the slightest reason to call it in question, would likewise call them,-penitent persons awakened to a sight and sense of their sin and danger, turning to God, and seeking forgiveness of sin through the alone merits of Christ our Saviour. The Methodists would say that the work of conversion had begun in these persons; but because it was not yet completed, speaking generally, and with sufficient accuracy to be understood among themselves, they would speak of them as being, as yet, unconverted. This is the sense in which, I doubt not, Mr. Caughey used the phrase. It is the sense in which the Methodists repeatedly use it. Now that another sense is put on it, it would be well to consider whether, in future, to guard against all misapprehension, even brevity should not be sacrificed to perspicuity. The Wesleyans are not the first who, labouring to be brief, have become, sometimes, obscure. It was all very well while they spoke, as it were, only for each other; but now that others either misunderstand them, or choose to put on their language a sense which it was never intended to bear, they had better amend their terminology, and speak of these persons in words that will put their meaning beyond doubt. They are not, in that absolute sense in which the "Christian Witness" employs the expression, unconverted, really careless of spiritual concerns. They are awakened, they are penitent,-they have that belief in God's mercy through Christ which preserves them from despair, and leads them to seek, that they may find; to ask, that they may receive; to knock, that the door may be opened to them. The Methodists,— Mr. Caughey among them,-when they say that a man is converted, mean that, in their sense, he has found peace with God. Be the distinction, in itself, right or wrong, it is one which they are constantly in the habit of making; and whoever founds an argument on their language, will, if he be honest in conducting it, employ the words used in the sense in which the persons using them intended them to be understood. The whole argument of the "Christian Witness," in this part of the paper, is based on the substitution of the Calvinistic for the Methodistic signification of the phrases employed by Mr. Caughey and others. I am perfectly satisfied that no person would sooner protest against this most unfair transmutation, than Mr. Caughey himself. In the Methodist notion of what, in common speech, they term conversion, far more than spiritual awakening, and a practical penitence, is included. They mean to be understood as saying that he who is converted, has been enabled "with the heart to believe unto righteousness," so that he has received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit to his justification and adoption. The word unconverted is thus capable of a double sense. It may be referred to those who have hitherto so resisted the strivings of grace that they are as yet unawakened and impenitent. These are absolutely the unconverted. But it may be applied to those who, though they have yielded to these gracious strivings, so that the work of conversion, of turning to God, is commenced in them, have not become justified believers, enabled to rejoice in the sense of the pardoning love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost given to them. Henceforward, I hope, all this ambiguity will be avoided. Among the Wesleyans it misleads none. The conventional significance of the term is too well understood by them. But since they whose doctrinal system is so very different, choose to misunderstand—at all events, to misrepresent—them, let them be willing to use a word or two more, that their meaning may be open to all. The Wesleyan reader will find a fuller explanation of my statements on this subject in the "Large Hymn Book," under the section, " For mourners convinced of sin;" beginning at page 106. He may particularly refer to hymns 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127: indeed, all the hymns in the section. The one on "Wrestling Jacob," said to have been highly eulogized by Dr. Watts, he will read with benefit. (P. 137.) From the 148th hymn, I may be allowed to quote two verses, as illustrating his views of the "new creation:" not those, I am fully persuaded, which are expressed in the same term as used in the "Christian Witness," when mentioned as the only scriptural condition of church-membership. "If, drawn by thine alluring grace, My want of living faith I feel, And speak my darkness into day. "The gift unspeakable impart; Command the light of faith to shine; O God, let there be faith in me !" I am reminded, by the use of the word faith, in these verses, that in the paper on which I am remarking, church-members in the New Testament are said to have been believers. Mr. Wesley refers the term, when he thus employs it, to that "gift of God," which is instantly followed by the sense of pardon through the direct witness of the Spirit; a doctrine which, as held by the Wesleyans, is utterly repudiated and strongly opposed by the Editor of the "Christian Witness." His use of the word, therefore, as referring to the first actings of this spiritual principle, is far below theirs. I only refer to the fact. I am stating, not defending, the Wesleyan doctrine on the subject. He would include persons in his application, whom they, in theirs, would call unbelievers. Thus, hymn 118: "Be it according to thy word! Now let me find my pardoning Lord; Let what I ask be given; The bar of UNBELIEF remove, So, in hymn 122 : "Vouchsafe us eyes of faith to see "The veil of unbelief remove, The believer, as Wesleyans understand the expression, thus sings: (Hymn 190):: "Lord, I believe thy precious blood, For ME, even for MY SOUL, was shed." I shall be pardoned, I hope, for wholly giving up the brevity in which I intended to construct this letter, when the importance of the subject is considered. I write not for the "Christian Witness." The Editor cannot have forgotten the views which Wesleyans entertain. He had a right to attack them, if, as is plainly the case, he now thinks them wrong; but none to employ their own language against themselves, by giving to it his own sense. But he has so represented church fellowship among us, and withal with such words of affection,—which I fear I only understand too well, and estimate for just as much as they are worth, that, for the sake of others, full explanation of the principles of Methodism, as illustrating the terms they use, is indispensable. Allow me to illustrate the other side of the question. The reader, as he peruses what I am going to say, will recollect Dr. Campbell's sturdy opposition to the doctrine (as held by the Wesleyans) of the "direct witness of the Spirit." A quarter of a century ago, or thereabouts, I attended the services connected with the ordination of a young Congregational Minister, in one of the most respectable towns in England. Besides several Ministers from the neighbourhood, two, of high standing, from a distance, were present. In Wesleyan language, the young Minister "spoke his experience," and stated the reasons inducing him to enter the ministry. With great modesty, and very serious impressiveness, he adverted to his former carelessness, and to the means by which he was brought to a true concern for his immortal interests. He described, very affectingly, his feelings of penitential sorrow, leading him to "seek the Lord while he was to be found ;" and concluded this part of his statement by saying, that thus he was brought to offer the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Wesleyan as I was, I expected then to hear about faith in Christ bringing pardon and peace. But not a word of the sort was uttered. He immediately proceeded to say that, having thus been brought to care for his own soul, he went on to care for the souls of others, all this issuing in the ministry. I do not say that he could not have said more, but he did not. Taking the address as it was actually delivered, there is not a Local Preachers' Meeting in Methodism, not a Leaders' Meeting, that would have received him. I was myself in the company of some of the neighbouring Ministers the next day, and good-humouredly told them that we Wesleyan workmongers were very much disappointed that we heard nothing said about faith, justification, and peace with God. At first, they did not understand me; and I had to point out what I thought was an important omission, particularly. It had not struck them; nor did it occur to them, more than twenty-four hours subsequently, till I had fully pointed it out. Now, supposing the statement to have been the adequate, though brief, account of his religious experience, I, and Mr. Caughey, and those who think with us, would say that he had stopped short of what we mean by conversion. But could I, as an honest man, knowing the Calvinistic system and its terminology, take the word unconverted in its Methodist sense, and say that the Congregationalists allowed of an unconverted ministry? Whether the two senior Ministers, men of deserved renown, in other churches as well as in their own, noticed the omission, I cannot tell. No public notice was taken. And the others -not young men, they were older than myself at that time-assuredly had not noticed it. In fact,―right or wrong, I say not; I am not discussing the case, but, in fact, the Wesleyans take a higher standard of the completed work of turning to God, to which, in ordinary speech, they apply the word conversion, than do, usually, the Calvinists. Justice requires that, in any reference to the conditions of church-membership, this be distinctly and prominently set forth. But there is another evidence adduced of the mixed church membership of Methodism. The writer professes to quote from our Rules; and says, that if the Independents and Baptists adopted such a rule, they might soon multiply their church members two and even three fold. Is this a fact? A writer ignorant of Wesleyanism is not prepared to discuss the subject at all. If he be so acquainted, if he intend to discuss it fairly, he will know that it is mainly a question of denominational phraseology. I believe that those who furnish the evidences required by the Methodist “Rules of Society," would be said, in most Congregational churches, to be converted persons. For what really are these Rules? The writer quotes a few lines only of what may be termed the "text," which is subsequently fully developed in the chief particulars that it comprises. The quotation, besides, contains only a part of the text, leaving off at a colon, and omitting a most important member of the entire sentence. To make the Methodists guilty, he garbles the document from which he quotes; just as Mr. Charles Butler garbled the Tridentine Creed of Pope Pius. As the quotation stands, one who knows nothing more of the subject than he finds in the "Witness," might suppose that a mere profession of a desire to be saved was sufficient to procure admission into the Wesleyan society; and such a person might say, "O, it is very easy to profess such a desire. Almost every one who thinks on such subjects, must, more or less, at one time or another, thus feel." How then stands the case? As the writer quotes from the "Rules," he must have had them before him, and read till he came to the passage,for it does not occur at the beginning,-even if he had never seen them at any former period. I, too, have the "Rules" before me, and in my turn will quote from them. Mr. Wesley first speaks of the origin of the societies. Some persons applied to him in 1739, “who appeared to be deeply convinced of sin, and earnestly groaning for redemption." They wished him to pray with them, and advise them "how to flee from the wrath to come, which they saw continually hanging over their heads.” “This,” he proceeds to say, was the rise of the United Society;" and he describes it as 66 a company of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness, united in order to pray together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one another in love, that they may help each other to work out their salvation." The constitution of classes and Leaders is next mentioned; and then follows the sentence on the condition of membership, part of which the writer has quoted; and on this partial quotation, standing alone, (in reference to other portions of the Rules,) his vehementlycondemnatory remarks on the whole system are founded. I will give the whole, putting the omitted parts in italics, that the reader, even without going to the Rules themselves, (which yet I hope every reader will do,) may judge of the fairness of the quotation. "There is one only condition previously required in those who desire admission into these societies,—a ‘desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins:' but, wherever this is really fixed in the soul, it will be shown by its fruits. It is therefore expected of all who continue therein, that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation; First, by doing no harm, by avoiding evil in every 66 66 kind; especially that which is most generally practised: such is,”—then follow a number of instances. It is then added, "Secondly, by doing good, by being, in every kind, merciful after their power ;"- -cases are then enumerated. Thirdly, by attending on all the ordinances of God,”— these are also specified. In the concluding paragraph Mr. Wesley says, "These are the General Rules of our societies; all which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written word, the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these, we know, his Spirit writes in every truly awakened heart." I may thus describe the Rules. After an introduction, opening their origin and objects, Mr. Wesley gives, I. The general principle, half which the writer quotes, and half he omits. II. The development of the principle, in three classes of particular instances. III. The summing up, in conclusion, referring these instances to the word and Spirit of God. But who, from the imperfect quotation in the "Witness," especially as connected with the repeated assertions about mixed communion, could infer their true character? Of one thing I am sure,—whatever the terms of membership are in Congregational churches, -I once witnessed the solemn admission to the full work of the ministry of one whose public statement of his religious experience went not a single hair's breadth beyond these Wesleyan Rules of church membership. At all events, I think there are not many candid Calvinists who, on looking over the whole document, will contend that it furnishes any ground for the charge of mixed communion, the reception of the unconverted (in their sense) to church fellowship. The Methodists themselves, I fully believe, are satisfied on the subject. They are of opinion, that Mr. Wesley has found the happy medium between too low and too high. The absolutely-unconverted ought not to be admitted the earnest seeker of conversion ought not to be rejected. Practically, Methodism only requires the true enforcement of these Rules. They ought not be wider; they ought not to be narrower. I cannot believe that any person, possessing the character described in them, would be (provided, of course, he held the denominational opinions) rejected by Congregational churches from their communion. But I am not writing to show their excellence. It is enough that I say what is sufficient to show their true character. This, I hope, I have done. Other things press on my mind; but my examination of leading topics has obliged me to say so much, that I will now go no farther. I have endeavoured, not, I trust, in a wrong spirit, (of sorrow, deep sorrow, I confess I am conscious; not at all of anger,) to point out the mistakes of the paper; and thus my work is done. In taking leave of the subject, however, I may be permitted to say, that I hope the Wesleyans will now fully understand the real character of the "Christian Witness." Whatever its value to Calvinists and Congregationalists,—and I say nothing against this, yet it is most thoroughly and entirely a Calvinistic and Congregational work. It is not, in any sense, an Evangelical-Alliance publication,—one for all denominations. For all Calvinistic, Congregational denominations, it may be well fitted; but for Wesleyans, who, on other grounds, have made up their minds, and love their own discipline and doctrine, who have little time for reading, and who want to occupy that little, not in controversy, but in what leads directly to their spiritual edification; for these, as reading for such purposes, it is not the work they want. The writer talks about friendliness, and so on; but he is decidedly and avowedly an enemy to the very principles of Wesleyanism, |