and controlling influence of different sects or denominations in our American Christianity."

נין

May we not, then, with all the earnestness becoming such a subject, urge upon preachers and teachers, parents and sponsors, faith in a Covenant-keeping God. Let the baptized child never be viewed as an alien and an outcast, until he proves himself such by his own irreclaimable waywardness. Let repentance for sin, and faith in Christ; holy duties and employments; self-discipline, prayer, and the regular study of God's Holy Word; let the early assumption of the Baptismal vow in Confirmation, and the early reception of the full privileges of the Church; let these be kept prayerfully and constantly in view by Parents and Sponsors, in the work of Christian Nurture, and the Sacrament of Baptism in the case of infants would soon be found to need neither argument or explanation. The Christian life might be expected to commence with the very dawn of moral agency.†

But, alas! so long as now, unbelief, indifference, skepticism, and worldliness shape the views and govern the hearts of the great mass of nominal Churchmen, so long must Christ's Ministering Servants charge upon multitudes, even of their baptized congregations, the awful guilt, not merely of that sin, which proceeds from a fallen and unsanctified nature, but of that sin, which counts the "Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing," and which does despite unto the Spirit even of Covenant-Grace.

*Princeton Review, Apr. 1861.

The famous Richard Baxter relates, "that he was once at a meeting of many Christians as eminent for holiness as most in the land, of whom divers were minis. ters of great fame; and it was desired that every one should give an account of the time and manner of his conversion; and there was but one of them all that could do it. And (says he) I aver from my heart, that I neither know the day nor the year, when I began to be sincere." (Baxter's Infant Baptism, pp. 129-33.)

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

A TEXT BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. BY DR. K. R. HAGENBACH, Professor of Theology, in the University of Basle. The Edinburgh translation of C. W. Buch, revised with large additions from the fourth German edition and other sources, by Henry B. Smith, D. D., Professor in the Union Theological Seminary. Vol. II. New York: Sheldon & Co. 1862. 8vo. pp. 558.

In this second and concluding volume, the Third Period, devoted to the Age of Systematic Theology, is completed. The Fourth Period, from A. D. 1517 to about 1720, or from the Reformation to the rise of the Philosophy of Leibnitz, &c., in Germany, is called the Age of Polemico-ecclesiastical Symbolism, the conflict of Confessions of Faith. The Fifth Period reaches from 1720 to the present day, and is called the Age of Criticism or Speculation, and of the Antagonism between Faith and Knowledge, Philosophy and Christianity, Reason and Revelation. No one who is not familiar with the movements of modern Scholarship on the continent of Europe, can appreciate the thoroughness with which the Germans especially have pursued investigations of this sort. Professor Hagenbach has gone over the whole range of Christian Doctrine, with a method that is clear, simple, and exhaustive, and with an industry and research that is amazing. Professor Smith, in the American edition, has translated from the fourth German edition, which was fuller than its predecessors; and his references to English and American literature are very copious. In addition to this, he has added several new sections on German Reformed Theology; on the French School of Saumur; on Scotch and English Theology; on English Deism; and on the History of Theology and Philosophy in England, Scotland, and our own country, making in all a hundred or two pages of new matter in the American edition. As a work of reference, so complete is it, that there is scarcely an Ecclesiastical author, whose works are not cited and enumerated; and not a controversy, ancient or modern, on which the reader cannot at once have before him the points at issue, and the authorities which he will need to consult. They who are in the habit of reading by subjects, and this is the true method of reading, will find this work of the greatest possible assistance. We are glad to find a full and complete Index to the whole work in the present volume. Our own scholars and divines are the last persons in the world, who can afford to ignore and stand aloof from investigations, which are thus brought within the reach and pressed upon the attention of the age in which we live. We notice that there is scarcely an important Article in the Am. Qu. Church Review from the beginning, bearing on Christian Doctrine or Polemic Divinity, which is not cited in these volumes.

In speaking so warmly of this work, we ought to add, that its value, and its whole value, is in the aid which it gives in the way of reference. So far as its positive teaching is concerned, it is altogether of the German type. Thus, for example, it says of the Reformation, it had as its basis "the newly awakened evangelical faith, as it manifested itself in its practical and moral aspects." "The heart, and the actions of the heart preceded; scientific form of statement followed in slow progression." And of the Anglican Reformation, he says, "Doctrinal controversies were subordinated to Ecclesiastical questions. The earlier Reformers, Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Ridley, opposed chiefly the practical abuses of the Papacy." "The polity and faith of England, as shaped under Elizabeth, contained conflicting elements, represented respectively by the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles, which latter were Calvinistic." These loose statements, wanting both in historical and doctrinal accuracy, are specimens of the author as a teacher of Christian Doctrine. Our readers however, will be in no danger of being misguided by the volumes.

HISTORY OF THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CALLED METHODISM; Considered in its different denominational Forms and its relations to British and American Protestantism. By ABEL STEVENS, LL. D. Vol. III, 8vo. pp. 513. New York: Carlton and Porter. 1862.

The present and concluding volume commences with the death of Wesley, and follows the progress of the Methodistic movement to the Centenary Commemoration in 1839. It is largely taken up with sketches of the leaders of the denomination, and the whole volume is written cleverly and in the author's peculiar style; a style exceedingly popular with nearly all our modern historians. It is the style of D'. Aubignè and Macaulay, but not of Prescott and Motley. The volume is sketchy to a degree that at times becomes more of a historical rhapsody than a carefully written narrative; and it is noticeable for what it does not contain, as well as for what it does. It alludes slightly to inconvenient facts in the history of Methodism and of its founders; it glances casually at evils and changes and developments which are rapidly revolutionizing the whole structure of the system, externally and internally, but the writer carefully dodges them in the filling up of his gorgeous picture. It exaggerates vastly the influence of Methodism in saving England from the direful influence of French Infidelity at the period of the French Revolution; and does gross injustice to the noble old Church of England, in whose bosom there sprang up those mighty champions of the Faith. As a specimen of Dr. Stevens' inflated, careless and pretentious style, speaking of the present "period of Methodism," which he calls its period "of missionary or universal evangelization" he says, it has "become the most effective missionary Church of our age." Why, does not Dr. Stevens know, that the Missionaries of the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel alone greatly outnumber the missionaries of all the different Methodist Conferences? So also, he says, Methodism emerged from the second period and entered upon the present "with a settled polity." Will Dr. Stevens tell us what that "settled polity" is? He confesses that it is Episcopal in America, and Presbyterian in England, and that it does not claim Scriptural authority for either! that it maintains Ordination by imposition of hands, and denies any other importance to this form than that of ceremonial expediency! that it has Articles and a Ritual in America, but that they are "more indicative than obligative;" while in England it has no Articles at all. Taking Dr. Stevens' three volumes as a whole, we are constrained to say that he has placed the defense of Methodism on the weakest possible ground; and, that the very same principles, or want of principle, by which he would sustain the institution, will inevitably rend it into a thousand fragments. Indeed, this work of disintegration is already going on as fast as it can. Methodism, as it was a half century ago, has already almost ceased to exist, and will soon be among the things that were. What it will be, and what it will do, in the great problem of American Christianity, is now the question.

METHODIST QUARTERLY REVIEW.—

In the January No. of this Quarterly, which, we are happy to say, is in the main conducted with a spirit and an ability highly creditable to that denomination, we find a long Article on "John Wesley and 'the Church'," attributed to the pen of the Rev. Abel Stevens, LL.D., author of the late work on the History of Methodism-the first chapter of which, as it contains the key to the philosophy on which the whole work is written, was examined in a former No. of this Review. We need hardly say, that Dr. Stevens' History is quite as much a defense as a History of Methodism, and, in the Article in the Methodist Review, just alluded to, he attempts to explain the position of John Wesley, as the founder of the New Sect, on the principles which he has enunciated more elaborately in his History. In this Article, Dr. Stevens replies, at considerable length, to a paper which appeared in the April No. of this Review; in which we endeavored to show, that John Wesley not only did not contemplate, but, that he distinctly and emphatically opposed "separation from the Church of England;" and this, "not as a point of prudence, but as a point of conscience." Will Dr. Stevens allow us to say, that we share his surprise, though on different grounds; and that, in all sincerity, but with the kindest feelings, we must refer him to his own pages for an illustration of that too common fault, which Coleridge so severely stigmatized. Dr. Stevens maintains, that

John Wesley claimed to be a Scriptural Bishop, as much as any man in England or in Europe; and that he did designedly "ordain" Coke as a Bishop, and Whatcoat and Vasey as Presbyters for America, where English government and jurisdiction were at an end; that he contemplated the permanent establishment of the Methodist Episcopacy, and its Ordinations in this country; and that, furthermore, he really looked forward to a separation from the English Church at home, on the part of the Methodists; that he encouraged such separation by his own conduct, and did not act more openly only from mere policy, and because "it is not expedient to make haste." We must again express our great surprise, that Dr. Stevens does not even allude to the abundant proofs occurring again and again, even down to the close of John Wesley's life, utterly inconsistent with any such interpretation.

In the Article in this Review, we gave a few specimens of these proofs. Thus, in 1789, about two years only before his death, his language is, in "Thoughts on Separation," "I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. I do not believe the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. I do and will do all that is in my power to prevent such an event. Nevertheless, in spite of all I can do, many of them will separate from it: although I am apt to think not one half, perhaps not a third of them. These will be so bold and injudicious as to form a separate party, which consequently will dwindle away into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England: AND THAT NONE WHO REGARD MY JUDGMENT OR ADVICE WILL EVER SEPARATE FROM IT."

So, also, in Wesley's letter to Rev. Francis Asbury, who, with Dr. Coke, then pretended to be a Bishop, dated London, Sept. 20th, 1788, only a little over two years before Wesley's death, he thus writes: "But, in one point, my dear Brother, I am a little afraid both the Dr. (Coke) and you differ from me. I study to be little; you study to be great. I creep; you strut along. I found a school; you a College! nay, and call it after your own names. Oh, beware! Do not seek to be something! Let me be nothing, and Christ be all in all!'"'

"One instance of this your greatness has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called Bishop? I shudder, I start at the very thought! Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call me Bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better."

As to a separation of the Methodists from the Church in the United States, Dr. Coke, in his letter to Bishop White, April 24, 1791, thus states the intention of Mr. Wesley:- Dr. Coke says, "I am not sure but I went further in the separation of our Church in America than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commission, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with Episcopal authority, but did not intend, I think, that our entire separation should take place. * * He went further, I am sure, than he would have gone if he had foreseen some events which followed. And this, I am certain of, that he is now sorry for the separation."

After the most careful examination of Mr. Wesley's conduct in this whole matter, we came to the conclusion, that the only plea which can be set up for Mr. Wesley was, that in his old age, and under the pressure of strong personal influences, he acted from a supposed "necessity;" and yet, we admitted the supposition that, in many things, "Mr. Wesley was inconsistent with himself," nor did we attempt, in those things, to explain that inconsistency.

Leaving, for the present, Dr. Stevens' very remarkable defence of John Wesley, we can only allude to a few points which crop out here and there, in the course of the Doctor's Article, indicative of the writer's Ecclesiastical status, conceptions, and method of argument; though we must refer to the "Review of his First Chapter," above alluded to, for a fuller exposition of his views. (1st.) He confounds Polity with Orders, a common mistake, and a fatal one. (2.) He denies "any claim of Scriptural authority for [Methodist] Episcopacy." (3.) He admits that Wesley held that, "the Scriptures exemplify, but do not enjoin, any one form." And yet, does not Dr. Stevens see, that considering the time when, and the circumstances under which the New Testament was written, this admission covers the whole ground? That the Lord's Day, Infant Baptism, the New Testament VOL. XIV.

61

Canon, &c., all stand or fall on the same method of proof? (4.) He very charitably (?) says, that "the statistics of American Methodism probably occasion the chief tenderness of American Churchmen for the young and intractable denomination:" and explain their patronizing endeavors to rectify the scandal of Methodist illegitimacy." If the Doctor has not forgotten his early lessons, he perhaps remembers that progeny is not always to be reckoned by numbers; and, really, the present phase of American Methodism might, we think, at least have suggested a little aodesty on such a point. (5.) The Doctor places before his readers in prominence the fact, that John Wesley claimed to have been convinced of the essential parity of Bishops and Presbyters, in Orders,” by reading Stillingfleet's "Irenicum." Now, we beg to submit to the Doctor, whether he might not with propriety, not as a polemie, but as an honest searcher after truth, have told his readers precisely how much that argument of Stillingfleet is worth; that the "Irenicum" was written when Stillingfleet was a young man; that he afterwards, publicly and solemnly, and as the result of careful examination, retracted the opinions there expressed. His own confession is; “Will you not allow one single person, who happened to write about these matters when he was very young, in twenty years time of the most busy and thoughtful part of his life, to see reason to alter his judgment?" Twenty-five years after the "Irenicum," in 1684, he publicly taught, that there is as great reason to believe the Apostolic Succession to be of Divine Institution, as the Canon of Scripture, or the observation of the Lord's Day, &c., &c." And yet, on that same "Irenicum," John Wesley rested his belief on so important a matter, and Dr. Stevens quotes the authority for the edification of his readers.

In conclusion, we desire suitably to acknowledge the Doctor's kind feelings towards what we believe to be a true branch of the Holy Catholic Church, and towards ourselves, as reviewers. We cannot bear ill-will towards him. But the stand-point from which he looks out upon the Institutions of Christ's Gospel, needs to be changed before he can understand the varying phases, and silent, but inevitable developments of the denomination in whose defense he has labored so earnestly. We ought to add, that the Church theory, according to which Dr. Stevens has written his History, renders it a matter of little moment what John Wesley did, or did not believe in these matters. He is, apparently, a latitudinarian of the broadest type.

THE NEW AMERICAN CYCLOPEDIA. A popular Dictionary of General Knowledge. Edited by GEORGE RIPLEY and CHARLES A. DANA. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1862. 8vo. pp. 850.

The more thoroughly this New Cyclopedia is examined, the stronger is our conviction of its general value, and yet, of its utter worthlessness, if not of its mischievous tendency, in regard to a large class of the most important subjects; as Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Political Economy. Take, for example, the word Socialism, in the present Volume. The whole Article is a covert defense of that heathenish abomination; and the writer, Parke Godwin, concludes by saying, "Socialism still remains an unsolved, but by no means abandoned problem." And such stuff as this, such quasi apology of a system which makes war on Religion, Marriage, the Family, Property, as the source of all evil, must be admitted into our families through the pages of the American Cyclopedia! We hardly need add, that the war which this school of men are now making on our National Constitution, is conceived and waged in the same spirit. The Article on Robespierre is scarcely less objectionable. A great deal of matter is admitted into the volume which is of no value, and many of the Articles are too superficial to be satisfactory. The volume includes the words, Reed to Spire. Among the subjects treated, are Reformation, Reformed Church, Reptiles, Richard, Rifle, Robespierre, Rome, Wm. Howard Russell, Saint, Salt, Saxon, Schools, Sewer, Serf, Sewing Machine, Shakespeare, Shakers, Silver, Silk, Slavery, Smith, Soda, Socialism, Spenser, &c. The Cyclopedia draws to a close; probably two more volumes will finish it.

TEXT-BOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY. By Dr. John Henry Kurtz, Professor of Theology in the University of Dorpat. Author of "A Manual of Sacred History," etc., etc. Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blackiston. 1862. Vol. II. 12mo. pp. 454. This second and concluding volume reaches from the Reformation to the present