possible. We are not sure that these remarks do not especially apply to biographical productions. At any rate, to deal no longer in general observation, we wish the author of the volume before us had, in the course of its composition, fallen into a train of thought like that which its perusal has sug. gested to ourselves. In this case we are persuaded we should have had a book far less questionable in character and tendency, and likely to be far more useful, than the one he has given us. Whether Mr. Jacob Drew really thinks that biography ought to be all eulogy, or that, in the character and opinions of his father, no marks of weakness, imperfection, or error are to be found, we pretend not to determine; but certainly on one or both of these principles the work appears to be written. And this is one of the inconveniences (to use the mildest term the case will allow) which arise from the injudicious selection of a biographer. Ordinarily, brief sketches, particularly of spiritual excellence, are, perhaps, best furnished by some near relation of the deceased; but the case is different as to public men. Justice requires that the biographical portraiture of these be most faithfully drawn and coloured. The infirmities, if such there be, of their more private life, their trivial and harmless mistakes, it may not be necessary to emblazon; but, so far as their public character is concerned, its defects as well as its excellencies should be pointed out; so far as their opinions are noticed, their incorrectness as well as correctness should be stated. And, therefore, the biography of deceased parents is, except in rare cases, very improperly entrusted to their children. In this case, the whole character is seen with the eye, and sketched by the hand, of filial affection. A task requiring impartial fidelity ought not to be committed to those from whom such impartiality neither can nor ought to be expected. We envy not the feelings of the son who could conduct a post mortem examination, remains of a beloved parent; and yet, in the case of public men, (and as a public man is Mr. Drew now brought before us,) the morbid as well as the healthy appearances ought to be distinctly pointed out. Mr. Jacob Drew, if we understand him rightly, seems, indeed, to think otherwise. He says,— "The great end of biography is to excite emulation,-to call forth the latent or dormant energies of the mind,-to show that what man has done, man may do, that the field of honourable labour is open, and the reward offered, to all who will exert themselves ;-in short, to lead to the practical application of that pithy exhortation, Go, and do thou likewise."" (Page 5.) That this is one end of life-writing, we allow; but surely it is not the only, or even the chief, end. If it were, then, only the lives of the very excellent ought to be written, and, in these, nothing ought to be inserted that is not exemplary and exciting. We shall not pause, however, to discuss the general principle. Mr. Jacob Drew, by its adoption, has given a very explicit character to the account of his father's life and opinions. We refer not to minute and subordinate particulars. We thoroughly condemn the practice of making a man an offender for a word. But both candour and justice require us to regard this volume as an unreserved recommendation of the example and opinions of the late Mr. Drew, in all the points which his biographer has enumerated. On some of these points, for this reason, we shall feel it our duty to animadvert, perhaps to animadvert strongly. We regret this; but no alternative is allowed us. Mr. Drew is placed in connexion with Dr. Clarke and Mr. Watson, and, in a passage quoted from one of the public papers, "the Methodist Connexion" is represented to have lost, in the decease of these men, "three of its brightest luminaries." (Page 452.) That he was a man of eminent talent, we have no wish to deny; but he has no claim to the honourable position here assigned him. A master in the art of but he was not a clear-headed, sound Divine. With him, metaphysics had the highest place allotted them; and their shadow deeply obscured some portions of his theology. There is, we gladly admit, much in his recorded history both exemplary and exciting. It is impossible to read the account of the unswerving integrity, the resolved and laborious diligence,-never indeed departed from through life, of his earlier days, without high admiration. Struggling with poverty, he maintained the path of uprightness and industry, till, by that divine Providence which he acknowledged, he was enabled to surmount all his difficulties. With no advantages from early education, he persevered in his plans for mental improvement, till he became qualified to instruct others, and obtained, eventually, a respectable place among the literary men of his day. God had given him a talent, and he buried it not. Whether he always traded with it wisely, we may be allowed to doubt; that he did trade with it diligently, and often successfully, we unhesitatingly admit. But, as such high Methodistical rank is claimed for him; and as, without caution or limitation, his biographer presents his character as entirely exemplary, his opinions as entirely correct; we are compelled, however reluctantly, to animadvert on a volume which we should have been glad to recommend, could we have done so consistently with higher duties. Mr. Jacob Drew seems to have anticipated something of this kind; for he says in his preface, "That the contents of this volume will be universally approved, he does not anticipate. Though irritating expressions have been avoided, no fact or opinion has been suppressed from a fear of giving offence; and if, in endeavouring to exhibit a faithful portrait, he has unwitting provoked hostility, he must expect retaliation." (Page v.) A biographer, certainly, ought not to be afraid" the truth to tell, and no truth to conceal," so far as may be necessary for the exhibition of a faithful portrait. But in doing this, there 66 are two other considerations which he should not overlook. It is not necessary that he be the unsparing eulogist of his hero; nor that he adopt all his opinions (perhaps prejudiced ones) respecting others. If justice be due to the character of the dead, some regard, surely, should be paid to the feelings of the living. The author has said very truly, that no fact or opinion has been suppressed from a fear of giving offence." He might have said that many facts and opinions had been stated, not so much for the purpose of illustrating his father's character, as of perpetuating his hostile feelings and prejudices in regard to others. He says, indeed, that "irritating expressions have been avoided;" but he must have forgotten much of what he had written when he said so. He speaks, too, about "retaliation." We have no disposition for that. The task of animadverting on recorded opinions and facts is sufficiently painful, without entering into any thing like personal controversy. It is well known that Mr. Drew was led, in the commencement of his literary pursuits, to confine himself to metaphysical inquiries. We are not sure but that, like many others, he mistook his own intellectual character. Strictly speaking, his was rather a mathematical than a metaphysical mind. We incline, however, to believe, that his determination was more influenced than he was aware, by what his biographer, speaking of his youthful days, has rightly called, "his usual recklessness and hardihood." Professing to dislike dogmatism in others, he not unfrequently became dogmatical himself. There was much more about him than he seems to have understood of the "ex cathedra, infallible." And this is a temper exceedingly favourable to that species of writing to which Mr. Drew was attached. By writers of this class metaphysical demonstrations seem often confounded with mathematical ones. It is at once amusing and painful to witness the undoubting positiveness with which they will maintain their conclusions, and the contempt with which they look down on all who venture to doubt the soundness of their argumentation. Mr. Drew, his son informs us, was a man of very independent mind, and therefore, as a matter of course, he greatly disliked "arbitrary power." But mental independence, to be a virtue, must result from something more pure and exalted than a natural "recklessness and hardihood." The independence which is the effect of just principle, rather than of natural temperament, will always be modest, and unwill. ing to give offence. Whether Mr. Drew's "decision of character," and "settled dislike to the exhibition of arbitrary power," were altogether the result of principle, is rendered, we think, somewhat doubtful, by a couple of anecdotes with which his son furnishes us. Soon after he became a Local Preacher, he was accused of holding erroneous opinions on the subject of imputed righteousness; and, from the language of his biographer, it is evident that the charge was far from being without foundation. Both father and son appear to have been exceedingly confused on the question. "His views, then and always, were, that the perfect obedience or righteousness of the Saviour gave an infinite value to that sacrifice, which, appropriated by a living faith, forms the ground of a sinner's acceptance with God." (Page 96.) We might ask whether Mr. Jacob Drew understands what he has thus written; but, passing that by, and even supposing his father to have been both substantially and formally orthodox, we proceed with the narrative. He was sent for, we are told, by the Superintendent, to Mr. F.'s, an influential member of the society; and there, after some conversation, but, as the case is represented, without any thing like trial, required to give up his plan and class-paper. "Thenceforth," we are told, (p. 98,)" he felt a settled dislike to the exercise of arbitrary power." How far this dislike went, our readers shall judge. "On a subsequent occasion, his inhe him into an unpleasant dilemma." (Page 380.) Antipathy? This, surely, must be a slip of the pen. The anecdote, as it appears to us, discovers something very unlike antipathy. "A wealthy member of the Wesleyan society at St. Austell had been charged with oppressive conduct in some temporal transactions; and, at a meeting of inquiry, it was resolved, perhaps too precipitately, that he should no longer be (Page 381.) considered as a member." That is, that he should be expelled the society; and this, too, without hearing what, as afterwards appeared, could have been given, an explanation of the affair complained of; in fact, the decision was formed in the absence of the accused party. But let Mr. Jacob Drew finish the story. "Instead of the usual oral communication in such cases, the resolutions of the meeting were committed to writing, signed by the individuals present, and sent to the accused. By this mode of procedure, the signing parties subjected themselves to an action at law, and a legal process was commenced against each. Prompted by his feelings, Mr. Drew had taken a prominent part in the affair, and thus rendered himself particularly obnoxious to the gentleman whose character was impeached. As the only condition of suspending legal proceedings, it was required that the parties should pay the expenses already incurred, sign a paper acknowledging their error, and that this paper should be read by Mr. D. in the public congregation. With these conditions it was judged expedient to comply. The gentleman's resentment was temporary. An explanation of his conduct was given, and the right hand of fellowship extended on either side." Mr. Drew was not the first man who, professing a most vehement dislike of arbitrary power when exercised on himself, proved himself not unwilling, when occasion offered, to exercise it on others. Of true independence of mind, one unfailing characteristic is, that it uniformly respects the independence of another. We have already adverted to the confused opinions which Mr. Drew held on some important theological subjects. If his sentiments are cor The which "the perfect obedience or righteousness of the Saviour" bore to his atoning sacrifice, we wonder not that his Methodistical orthodoxy was questioned. Nor were his views of the sacraments more distinct. From what his biographer tells us, (p. 492,) he seems to have been, on these points, very nearly a disciple of Robert Barclay. On the catholic faith, respecting the divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, he was equally unsound. He denied the divine and eternal Sonship of Christ, not because he deemed it unscriptural, but because it did not accord with his philosophy. root of his theological mistakes is, we apprehend, to be found here. Practically, he did not hold the entire supremacy of Revelation, but united reason with it, as an equal and co-ordinate judge. In 1831, we find him returning a pamphlet which had been lent to him, having this title: "A Sermon, proving that Reason is to be our Guide in the Choice of our Religion; and that nothing ought to be admitted as an Article of Faith, which is repugnant to the common Principles of Reason, or unintelligible to human Understanding." Of the pamphlet itself we know nothing; but we are sure that if an intelligent Socinian were permitted to occupy the position conceded to him in the title-page, his triumph would be secure. In the letter accompanying this pamphlet, he says, "Where reason is forbidden to enter we are wholly without a guide: both the authority and interpretation of revelation must SUBMIT to this test, and be received or rejected according to its decision. On these, and other similar subjects, the reasonings of the author of the pamphlet are strong and conclusive. I regret that his name is not known. I should much like to see it in print, but its appearance would raise the cry of heresy." (Page 386.) The last expression evidently alludes to the persuasion, felt by many, that principles like these would, if pursued to their legitimate results, establish doctrines always considered by the Christian church to be dangerously heretical. Among those who felt and expressed that persuasion, were the late Mr. Watson, and the still living, and truly venerable, friend and biographer of Mr. Wesley: men, surely, not less intellectual than Mr. Drew, or any of his correspondents. Yet of such men he could allow himself to write thus : "I have sometimes thought that some persons, whom I need not name, indirectly insinuate that reason is an enemy to revelation, and that either the former or latter must be discarded: this may do for the meridian of Italy, but I hope I shall never see the day when such a monstrous proposition will unfurl its standard in England. We cannot, however, deny that reason is an incumbrance to those who can do best without it; and of these, perhaps, no contemptible number might be mustered. It is pleasing to observe, in the perusal of this sermon, how easily a few well-directed strokes can demolish a fabric which ignorance, prejudice, authority, and blind submission have combined to raise." (Page 387.) It is really astonishing, (if the subject were less momentous, we should say, amusing,) that Mr. Drew never thought of defining this same Reason. Is the simple faculty meant, or the faculty in operation? But neither of these can be a test. Are the results of the reasoning faculty meant? But then comes another question. Are these to be the results of human reasoning, as universally agreed upon? But where shall we find them? And, even could they be found, are the doctrines of a revelation from God to fallen man,-man, with an intellect and judgment weakened, beclouded, and perverted by sin,-to be tried by the standard of human opinion? Are the results of individual reasoning meant? But these are only the opinions of individuals. And, as these vary among themselves, is the judgment of any one person to be elevated above that of all others? If so, we again ask, in what conclave is this infallible Pope to be elected? On Christian principles, what is divine revelation but an authenticated communication to our fallen race, of that truth by which they may be saved? No advocate for the supremacy of revelation denies that, in the first instance, the authenticating evidences should be examined, and their sufficiency made out. But, this having been done, what follows next? that we are to try the authenticated doctrines by reason, that is, by our previously formed opinions? Surely not. What revelation says, is said by a Judge from whose decisions there is no appeal. But then should this revelation assert what is "unintelligible to human understanding?” Why, a divine revelation must assert many things that are thus unintelligible. Who understands the unity of the divine nature? or the trinity in that unity? We can understand the fact that the Scriptures teach this mystery: we cannot understand the mystery itself. And if we refuse credence to a proposition referring to the divine nature, till all its terms are, on human principles, reconciled to each other, it is not even at Socinianism that we shall stop. But, that we may not even seem to be doing Mr. Drew injustice, we give a specimen of his own method of applying the principle which he advocates. "On the subject of eternal nameship, or sonship, as it is called, my objection to adopt the phrase lies within a very narrow compass." (Page 264.) What, then, is the objection? That the Scriptures do not use the term Son, in reference to the divine nature of Christ? Nay;-but that they cannot so use it. "In my view, the term Son necessarily includes commencement of existence; but the adjective eternal necessarily precludes all commencement of existence. Here, then, we have two ideas mutually subversive of each other." (Ib.) A skilful logician, not so much wishing to defend himself, as to discover the truth, would not have changed "term," in the first part of the argument, for "idea" in the other. But, passing that by, the real principle of the argument is, that scriptural terms, when applied to the divine nature, have precisely the same signification as when applied to human nature. It might as well be asserted that the converse of the that, for instance, Cain and Abel would be the sons of Adam in exactly the same sense as Adam himself was the son of God. What advocate of the catholic faith ever asserted that the term Son, as applied to the divine nature of the Saviour, bore the exact meaning which it possesses when applied to a human being? To the Socinian objection, that one cannot be three, nor three, one, the proper reply is, that the terms are used of the divine nature in different respects. So here: the second Person in the adorable Trinity is called Son, in regard to the mode of his existence in the divine nature; eternal, because that nature is properly divine. The catholic faith has been, from the very beginning, not only that the Scripture reveals the fact of a divine Trinity; but that this revelation, asserting the existence of three related, not unrelated, Persons in the unity of the Godhead, describes the relation itself by terms borrowed from the relations and circumstances of our own being, as, in our present state, all terms referring to the divine nature must be. It has pleased God to employ a term descriptive of a human relation, as presenting the closest analogy to one actually subsisting in the divine nature. No one ever supposed that the terms Father and Son, as applied to the first and second Persons in the Trinity, included all that belongs to them when applied to human beings. As good metaphysicians as Mr. Drew have perceived the difference between similitudes, or exact resemblances, and analogies, or similarities of proportion. Besides, Mr. Drew's objection fails, because its principle, when applied to another part of the subject, will either prove what he adduces it to disprove, or disprove what we are sure he would not have renounced. Is derivation of existence the only notion presented by the term Son? Is not identity of nature likewise included? Take, then, the proposition,-Christ is the Son of God. "That is," says Mr. Drew, "he is a man, formed, in a wonderful manner, by the power |