pak =) yl er ee ae 
reward of it, that of the other. 
1828. 
Daughter, which, in some form or other, 
must have fallen into every reader’s hands 
—for copies to the amount of four millions, 
it seems, have been printed—he has left 
nothing to keep his memory alive. Yet he 
was no common person—possessed, indeed, 
of talents and energies that would have 
borne him through any labours, and acting 
on all occasions with a zeal and amiableness 
to make him loved and respected. Of a 
highly susceptible temperament, he was of 
course essentially enthusiastic, and when his 
feelings took the bent of religion, he had no 
rest in his soul, but as he brought others to 
his own convictions. 
His sentiments were strictly what go by 
the name of evangelical—usually, we be- 
lieve, characterised by the parties them- 
selves, we scarcely know why, as modi- 
fied Calvinism—for as to any doctrines 
peculiar to Calvin, they apply but to few of 
them. The peculiarities of the evangelical 
party are rather Lutheran than Calvinistic 
—sometimes in malice, but oftener, we doubt 
not, in ignorance, described as all for faith, 
and works must take their chance. None 
are, in fact, more zealous that conduct should 
correspond with profession, and none, pro- 
bably, have actually produced more decided 
and even permanent effects, or so indisput- 
ably shown the-practical influence of a point 
of doctrine. That some of their disciples 
are hypocrites, and others bigots—or stern, 
or arrogant—is no fault of the preachers ; 
the source of these defects is in the frailty 
and perversion of individuals—the preachers 
inculcate them not, or any thing that fairly 
leads to them—humility is the point mainly 
enforced by them, and that on the ground 
of unworthiness. 
The common church doctrine is briefly 
this—if men fulfil their appointed duties to 
the best of their ability, the merits of the 
Saviour will supply all deficiencies. The 
ground and necessity for redemption—the fall 
of man—is not, indeed, suppressed, but it is 
treated more as a matter of theory, to clear 
up obscurities, and aid in the business of 
interpretation, than as a doctrine destined 
or fitted to bear upon practice. The sub- 
ject, indeed, beyond a cold statement of the 
admitted fact, is pretty carefully shunned by 
the true son of the church, sometimes pro- 
fessedly as unintelligible, but generally, as 
fixing the stamp of fanaticism upon the man 
who ventures fo debate upon the corruptions 
it is supposed to have entailed upon us. 
The evangelical churchman, on the other 
hand, not only brings the matter of original 
sin conspicuously forward as the very basis, 
and cause, and occasion of redemption, but 
represents the Redeemer as the sole and 
perfect instrument of salvation. With the 
orthodox, the merits of the Saviour are 
strictly supplementary—with the evangeli- 
cal, all in all. Sin, and salvation from sin, 
is the burden of the latter—virtue, and the 
The evan- 
gelists preach absolute devotion of life, and 
Domestic and Foreign. 
527 
heart,’ and feelings, in grateful prostration 
to the Redeemer—the sole medium of sal+ 
vation—the pattern, also, and exemplar ; 
and though no trust, nor any degree of it, 
is to be placed in good actions, the per- 
formance is by implication, if not by ex- 
press declaration, indispensable, or rather, 
inseparable. The orthodox is equally 
earnest in representing the Saviour as the 
one pattern and exemplar ; but he does not, 
apparently, make the ground and motive of 
imitation and obedience equally personal. 
He considers the sacrifice of Christ, as at 
once, and for ever, counterbalancing the fall 
—the matter as done with; whereas the 
evangelical urges the fact, that we are all 
ways, and always shall be to the end of 
life, under the influence of that fall, and 
shall always equally, to the end of life, re- 
quire the counter workings of redemption. 
The thing, therefore, can never be out of 
his thoughts. The one is evidently more 
calculated to produce pervading effects than 
the other. The tendency of the one is to 
indifference and oblivion—of the other, to 
absorption and fanaticism. The doctrines 
of both, at the bottom, are the same; but 
the different aspects in which they are pre- 
sented, may very well produce different ef= 
fects. Which may be the corrector view 
is another question, but one which a literary 
journal need not busy itself with discussing. 
That question, indeed, is not one of autho- 
rity, for then we might examine its basis— 
nor of speculation, for then we might look 
into the principles; but of interpretation, 
where both may be wrong, for neither will 
agree in a common criterion, nor submit to 
a common moderator. 
Mr. Richmond’s story is soon told. He 
was the son of a physician of some emi- 
nence at Bath. From an accident in his 
childhood, which lamed him for life—a cir- 
cumstance which has often had a perma- 
nent influence upon character—he was edu- 
cated chiefly at home, and sent, at the usual 
period, to Trinity College, “‘ where,” the 
biographer remarks, “‘ Richmond, keeping 
immediately under the present Lord Chan- 
cellor, and being both reading men, he and 
Copley usually drank coffee together after 
midnight.’”” Though destined for the bar, 
his thoughts turned early towards the church, 
and on his wishes being finally complied 
with, with a curacy and a wife, he settled 
himself in the Isle of Wight, where he was 
quickly distinguished for the zeal and per- 
severance with which he discharged his 
ministerial labours. While thus soberly 
engaged—with some inclination still to run 
a peculiar course—he met with Wilber- 
force’s Practical Christianity, the perusal of 
which at once fixed him in evangelical sen- 
timents. ‘The Dairyman’s Daughter, The 
Young Cottager, The Negro Servant, and 
some other tracts, were the first fruits of 
this change, and are records of facts which 
fell under his own observance. Through 
life, he was fond of eliciting the feelings 
