17. Died, March 22d, at Caistor, in the Grimsby Circuit, in the fifty-sixth year of her age, Jane, the wife of Mr. Thomas Wigelsworth. Her mother was a regular attendant upon the Methodist ministry, and conducted her, while yet young, to the ordinances of worship amongst a people, at that time, "everywhere spoken against." She was also early taught to read and love the holy Scriptures; and would frequently take to her own room her Bible, and a copy of Wesley's Hymns, (which her mother gave her as a reward for reading so well,) and would commit to memory portions of holy writ, or of some hymn, before the family were awake in the morning. Often have these recurred to her memory amid the troubles and afflictions of after-life; and she looked on them as having laid the ground-work of that religion which was subsequently her comfort and support.

When very young, the Spirit strove with her, and she felt a constant willingness to attend the means of grace. To the Wesleyan ministry, however, she became more decidedly attached: but circumstances did not seem to favour her joining the society until some years after her marriage; when a severe sickness, in the year 1817, having brought her near the grave, she saw the danger of procrastination and indecision where her soul was at stake, and resolved to give her heart to God, and to join those whom she believed to be the people of God. Having made this resolution, her desire for a present salvation increased; and as a humble penitent she sued for mercy, was enabled to exercise faith on the great atonement, and experienced a sense of God's pardoning mercy. Having united herself to the Methodist society, from that time to her death, a period of twenty-five years, she continued a consistent member, and adorned the doctrine of God her Saviour. She was sincerely attached to the cause, doctrines, and objects of Methodism, and highly esteemed both its Ministers and people.

She suffered much bodily affliction; but always endeavoured, when her health would permit, to attend the means of grace. The last year of her life her suffering increased: a disease of the heart was inevitably drawing her to the gates of death. But she was calm and resigned in the prospect of approaching dissolution; and has often been heard to say, "Although my body grows weaker, my spiritual strength increases day by day." During the last few weeks of her mortal career she had many a sleepless night; but these were employed by her in prayer and praise; the words of the poet were often on her lips,—

"This all my hope and all my plea,
'For me the Saviour died.'"

Speaking to one of her daughters on the joy of meeting and recognising departed friends in heaven, she said, "Christ is, and will be, all in all: I shall see them, but I shall gaze on Christ above all." On the evening of her death, she was visited by her Class-Leader: their conversation related to eternal things, and was deeply interesting. She expressed her confidence in Christ, as her only foundation; and, in reply to the encouraging admonition to trust in Him, she said, "Yes; I feel that He will not now forsake me." Near midnight, she departed to be for ever with the Lord. THOMAS WIGELSWORTH.

THE meaning of the term must first be fixed. The whole significance of words is seldom exhibited by their literal import. This is especially the case where they are used to denote systems. These may be very complicated, and yet single words may express them. Such words, literally taken, may refer only to some one point,-though usually this will be prominent and characteristic,-but, by general agreement, they may be applied to the whole. It is always, therefore, to their conventional, rather than to their literal, significance, that attention must be directed. No one who is in the habit of reflecting on the use of these important symbols of thought, can be unacquainted with the fact, or with the vast importance of attending to it. Not only theology, but politics, literature, and even science itself, will supply instances in abundance.

Antinomianism is such a word. Literally, it denotes opposition to law. It may be regarded, however, in its ordinary use, as a term exclusively theological. The law which is understood to be opposed is the divine law, the law of God. At first, and merely considering the primary and direct meaning of the phrase, with this application of it, it might be supposed to denote one of the aspects under which sin must be considered. The conduct of the sinner is transgression: he breaks the law, passes beyond the bounds which it prescribes. But the principle which such conduct developes is opposition to the law; and this might be understood as the fit application of the word Antinomianism. But its conventional meaning is both more extensive and more limited than this. It denotes only one kind of opposition to the divine law; but it likewise includes the reasons which produce the opposition. These reasons are supposed to be derived from the Gospel. In the law, God manifests himself as Sovereign and Governor; in the Gospel, as Redeemer. Man needs redemption because he has violated God's law: God has become man's Redeemer, although his own law has been violated. In the provisions of redemption, flowing from the infinite love of God, his wisdom has fully maintained the claims of his holiness and righteousness. Rightly understood, they are admirably calculated to secure obedience. God has not ceased to be Sovereign in becoming Saviour. The law does not prevent the bestowment of the blessings of the Gospel: the Gospel does not interfere with the requirements of the law; it rather strengthens them, and fully provides for their practical admission. And as the highest glory is moral glory, here is seen the highest glory of God. Perfect purity and justice are seen, perfect goodness and mercy. Could we explore all creation, yet still, when lost in astonishment we had arrived at its summit, higher wonders would still rise before us, brighter and richer glories. A system is devised, infinitely

VOL. III.-FOURTH SERIES.

2 H

surpassing created intelligence, and yet to created intelligence clearly revealed, by which the moral administration of God is shown to be one of immaculate holiness, unimpeachable equity and justice, and boundless condescension. In the Gospel we are called to behold, with face unveiled, the glory of the Lord, and to be changed into the same image.

Originally, man was created for the love of good, for felicity. The active power of loving still exists; but, in all its exercises, it has been perverted by sin. He is still capable of perceiving that God can make him happy; his corrupt nature persuades him that creature enjoyment can make him happy too. By too many the first is altogether rejected, and the last is chosen without reserve. But others attempt to reconcile the two; and by an ingenious, but most awful, corruption, in the Gospel they believe they have found the means of reconcilement. In the provisions of the Gospel they fancy they perceive reasons which permit them to overlook the law. Either they suppose that the claims of the law are already satisfied, and therefore that they no longer require attention,-as the payment of the debt by another person leaves the original debtor no longer liable, inasmuch as it would be unjust to demand payment, where payment has already extinguished debt,-or that the provisions of mercy are such that the neglect of law will expose to no danger. In both cases, opposition to law is grounded on reasons professedly derived from the Gospel. Men fancy that such is the Gospel, that they may sin and be safe. In the language of St. Paul, they "make void the law through faith." And this Antinomianism may be regarded under two aspects,—doctrinal, and practical. A few words will suffice for the exposition of the former: our principal attention will have to be directed to the latter.

By doctrinal Antinomianism we understand those erroneous views (for they are most erroneous) of the teaching of the Gospel which place it in opposition to the claims and obligations of the divine law. Salvation is said to be of grace, freely given by God's love, for the sake of Jesus Christ. Justification is by faith in Christ, not of works, lest any man should boast. Redemption has been effected for us by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose work is complete, and requires no human additions. He has satisfied the demands of the law. He was made sin for us. As our substitute, he both suffered the penalty of the law in our stead, and obeyed it for us. His atonement and his obedience are equally imputed to his people, and accounted theirs. Then, (and here the peculiar views of Calvin are introduced,) God's electing love is everlasting, and incapable of change. Those whom he loves once, he loves for ever. Figures, too, are made the basis of exact argument. A child may be disobedient, but the filial relation is not destroyed by the conduct. A child, though rebellious, still is a child. Besides, the robe we wear is the spotless robe of Christ's righteousness, and this covers all the "filthy rags "of our own clothing, over which it is thrown. Now, it is easy to see that all such expressions, taken literally and exclusively, may readily give rise to a theory which shall represent the believer as no longer liable to the claims of law. It is true, he will be grateful, and gratitude will operate in the production of obedience; but this obedience is only necessary to prove that he experiences that work of the Spirit which issues in love. It is not necessary as a direct condition of salvation.

Nearly two centuries ago, such views were formed into a regular system, and published, by Dr. Crisp. A number of his brethren instantly took the alarm; but, in the controversy that ensued, he had the advantage. His

principles were the common-places of the theology of the day; and they who held them in common with himself, found it no easy task to deny the consequences logically deduced. And, since then, occasionally some Preacher has been found who has embraced and published a similar system.

Justice, however, requires the acknowledgment that, in most of these cases, the practice has been far better than the theory. The heart was right, even when the head was wrong; and it was the heart which governed. The new nature, where it exists, is opposed to sin: "His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." All life has its characteristic laws, and of spiritual life it is said, "I will write my law in their hearts." The character of Dr. Crisp, for instance, was unimpeachable.

Still, the doctrine is most dangerous. It is not every professor of religion that has experienced a scriptural regeneration; and in such case doctrine will combine with corrupt nature to produce the most fearful results. He who really has possessed this holy experience may have undergone declension, or may be exposed to strong temptation. It is not safe to hold a scheme of doctrine which, in periods of declension or temptation, may be viewed, through an earthly medium, as lessening the danger of sin, and securing the ultimate salvation of him who allows himself to be conquered, when he is called to resist till he becomes the victor. It is not a right view of Christian doctrine, which will cause one man to say, when acknowledging the wrong-doing which he cannot deny, "I am still a child of God, though at present under a cloud;" or another, when staggering and falling, through the influence of strong drink, "It is well that them whom God once loves, he loves to the end."* God, we once more say, has not ceased to be Sovereign by becoming Saviour; and those doctrines cannot be otherwise than wrong,-even though we find it difficult to point out the exact step in the progress of the argument where the strait line of truth is left, -in which the claims of law, and the provisions of grace, so wisely and admirably adjusted and harmonized in the Gospel, are placed in opposition to each other. Such a result proves that somewhere the calculation has been erroneous.

But we leave this branch of the subject for another, if possible, more dangerous, because, being more general, a greater number are exposed to its influence; and, being far more slightly connected with particular doctrine, it may exist, and operate most mischievously, without being suspected.

The existence of such views, however vague and undefined, (for there may be very powerful principles at work in the innermost man, at the very seat of active life, which yet have no settled form, and are unrecognised,) is proved by facts. There are, indeed, many who talk of religion, who plainly never experienced its power. The reference is not to these cases, melancholy as they are, but to others, in which, though the marks of sincerity are painfully blended with others of an opposite nature, we can go no farther than to say, with the Apostle, "I stand in doubt of you." In other cases, however, we must go farther still, or entirely renounce charity as forming part of the rule of judgment. So far as evidence goes, we cannot doubt of sincerity; we find, too, that even the solemn test of a death-bed is sustained. And yet there have been in the character such features, that either they must be condemned, or the New Testament must

*The two cases are not imagined ones. knowledge.

They fell within the writer's own

be given up as the great rule of Christian practice. Something which that rule requires has been undeniably absent; something which it straitly forbids has been as undeniably present. And we do not refer to particular acts, at particular times, but to what has been abiding and habitual. The conduct has shown that some internal element of Christian character has been wanting, or has existed in such feebleness, that, in the entire development, the fruit of this particular element has been unapparent. Or the evil may have been of a more positive character. There has been a something in the life which proved that there was in the heart, among the active principles of conduct, something allowed which ought not to have been there. The evidence of fact is only too undeniable.

Now, what shall we say of these things? To attribute them to a conscious, a deliberate indulgence of evil, or opposition to good, would be to recognise a malignity utterly inconsistent with the supposed marks of sincerity. It would be to assert an hypocrisy of the most awful and repulsive character. Again, therefore, we ask, What must we say? We want not to condemn those whom we regard as uncondemned by God; but neither must we lower the Christian standard, and make void the law through faith, making the holy Lord Jesus the minister of sin.

It is not for us to enter into the judgments of God. He searches the heart. He is most merciful. Amidst much that he disapproves, he may see, on the whole, a sincerity that he accepts. The cases are mysterious; but the Judge of all the earth will do right. It is our part, however, while we refrain from judging particular cases, to take care that the true standard be properly stated, properly kept in view; and so far to endeavour to ascertain to what cause these evils are to be referred, as, if possible, to prevent their occurrence.

There are two preliminary observations which here require attention. First, all direct falsehood denies truth; but error generally, in some degree, refers to it, and usually contains some portion of it, separated from other portions with which it ought to be connected. When Aristotle said, in his Ethics, that virtue was a medium between two extremes, either of which, taken by itself, was wrong, he probably came as near to the truth as, with the materials at his command, he was able to reach. The path of the Christian runs between what, in theological phraseology, are often termed, Antinomianism and Pharisaism. Good Bishop Beveridge resolved to trust in Christ as if that alone were sufficient; but, at the same time, to be as diligent in holy practice as though works by themselves could save him. The Christian, therefore, needs "the armour of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left." It is easy for him to miss his way by running into either extreme, and by neglecting its opposite.

And, secondly, no one can read the Scriptures without perceiving that they lay down principles and general rules, and do not give-it was impossible that they should give-particular directions as to the immediate actions which individuals, in their daily path, are required to perform. By attention to the rule itself, and to the providential circumstances in which we may be actually placed, we are to discover what really we have to do. And so as to the formation of character. The scriptural description must be understood, and all the particulars which it comprises distinctly known. Holiness is a general term, implying a particular disposition; but it includes a variety of elements, duly combined: we are therefore required, not merely to be "holy, as He that calleth us is holy," but also to be "holy in all manner of conversation." We have to take care that our