Some Remarks on Mr. Hill's Review 1. M.R. HILL has an immense advantage over me: He abounds in time, and I in business. I cannot therefore undertake to write page for page; I have not leisure, if I had inclination. And indeed it is not needful: For a full con futation of whatsoever is cited from the Eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey, I need only refer to Mr. Sellon; who has not only answered every shadow of an argu ment contained in that poor piece of low invective, but even the reproaches; which indeed he could not pass over, without passing over great part of the book. If Mr. H. is afraid to read that answer, I am sorry for it. And for whatever he advances on particular redemption, or any of the points connected therewith, I refer everyone who is not afraid of the light, to those three tracts of Mr. Sellon, "The Arguments against General Redemption answered," "God's Sovereignty vindicated against Elisha Coles," and "The Church of England vindicated from the Charge of Calvinism." I believe, if Mr. Hill had given this last a fair reading, he would know the Seventeenth Article is nothing to his purpose. 2. With regard to his objections to Mr. Fletcher, I refer all candid men to his own writings; his Letters, entitled, "A First, Second, and Third Check to Antinomianism;" the rather, because there are very few of his arguments which Mr. H. even attempts to answer. It is true, he promises "a full and particular answer to Mr. F.'s 'Second Check to Antinomianism.'" But it will puzzle anyone to find where that answer is, except in the title-page. And if anything more is needful to be done, Mr. F. is still able to answer for himself. But if he does, I would recommend to his consideration the advice formerly given by a wise man to his friend: "See that you humble not yourself to that man; it would hurt both him and the cause of God." It is pity but he had considered it sooner, and he might have escaped some keen reflections. But he did not; he imagined, when he spoke or wrote in the simplicity of his heart, that his opponents would have received his words in the same spirit wherein they were spoken.

But he did not; he imagined, when he spoke or wrote in the simplicity of his heart, that his opponents would have received his words in the same spirit wherein they were spoken. No such matter; they turn them all into poison; he not only loses his sweet words, but they are turned into bitterness, are interpreted as mere sneer and sarcasm A good lesson for me ! I had designed to have transcribed Mr. F.'s character of Mr. H., and to have added a little thereto, in hope of softening his spirit: But I see it is in vain; as well might one hope to soften Inexorable Pluto, king of shades ! Since he is capable of putting such a construction, even upon Mr. F.'s gentleness and mildness; since he ascribes even to him "a pen dipped in gall," what will he not ascribe to me? I have done, therefore, with humbling myself to these men, to Mr. H. and his associates. I have humbled myself to them for these thirty years; but will do it no more. I have done with attempting to soften their spirits; it is all lost labour. Upon men of an ingenuous temper I have been able to fix an obligation. Bishop Gibson, Dr. Church, and even Dr. Taylor, were obliged to me for not pushing my advantage. But it is not so with these: Whatever mercy you show, you are to expect no mercy from them. Mercy did I say? Alas! I expect no justice; no more than I have found already. As they have wrested and distorted my words from the beginning, so I expect they will do to the end. Mr. H.'s performance is a specimen. Such mercy, such justice, I am to expect 3. And does Mr. H. complain of the unhappy spirit in which Mr. F. writes? Many writers have done marvellously; but thou excellest them all ! For forty or fifty years I have been a little acquainted with controversial writers; some of the Romish persuasion, some of our own Church, some Dis senters of various denominations: And I have found many among them as angry as him; but one so bitter I have not found: Or one only, the author of those "excellent Letters," as Mr. H.

H. styles them; which he particularly "admires," (that is his word,) and the "whole spirit" of which he has drank in. This is his peculiar character, his distinguishing grace: As a writer, his name is Wormwood. Accordingly, he charges Mr. F. with a "severe, acrimonious spirit," with "sneer, sarcasm, and banter," yea, with "notorious falsehoods, calumny, and gross perversions." Nay, "I accuse you," says he, "of the grossest perversions and misrepresenta tions that ever proceeded from any author's pen." In the same spirit he is represented as "a slanderer of God's people and Ministers, descending to the meanest quibbles, with a bitter, railing, acrimonious spirit;" (page 21;) and, page 27, to go no farther, as "using stratagem and ungenerous artifices:" Although "I have treated you," says Mr. H., "with all the politeness of a gentleman, and the humility of a Christian." Amazing! And has he not treated me so too? At present, take but one or two instances: "Forgeries have long passed for no crime with Mr. Wesley." "He administers falsehoods and damnable heresies, rank poison, hemlock, and ratsbane. We cannot allow him any other title than that of an empiric or quack-doctor." Which shall we admire most here, the gentleman or the Christian? 4. There is something extremely odd in this whole affair. A man falls upon another, and gives him a good beating; who, in order to be revenged, does not grapple with him, (perhaps sensible that he is above his match,) but, giving him two or three kicks, falls upon a third man that was standing by. "O," says he, "but I know that fellow well; he is the second of him that beat me." "If he is, dispatch your business with the former first, and then turn to him." However, if Mr. H. is resolved to fall upon me, I must defend myself as well as I can. 5. From the spirit and manner wherein he writes, let us now proceed to the matter. But that is so various, and scattered up and down for an hundred and fifty pages, without much order or connexion, that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, all tends to one point; the good design of the writer is, to blacken.

However, all tends to one point; the good design of the writer is, to blacken. With this laudable view, he observes the old rule, "Throw dirt enough, and some will stick:" Knowing that the mud may be thrown in a trice; but it will take time and pains to scrape it off. Indeed, he takes true pains to fasten it on; to represent Mr. W. as a knave and a fool; a man of no conscience, and no under standing. It is true, the latter is insisted on most at large: By an hundred instances Mr. H. has made it plain to all the world, that Mr. W. never had three grains of common sense; that he is the veriest weathercock that ever was; that he has not wit enough to be fixed in anything, but is "tossed to and fro continually;" "that he is to this very moment so absolutely unsettled with regard to every fundamental doc trine of the gospel, that no two disputants in the Schools can be more opposite to each other than he is to himself." 6. But some may naturally ask, "What is the matter? What makes Mr. H. so warm? What has Mr. W. done, that this gentleman, this Christian, ita gladiatorio animo ad eum affectat viam P that he falls upon him thus outrageously, dagger out of sheath, without either rhyme or reason?" "O, the matter is plain. Beside that he is Mr. F.'s friend, he is an Arminian; and nothing is bad enough for an Arminian." "An Arminian What is that?" "I cannot tell exactly; but to be sure it is all that is bad. For a Popish friar, a Benedictine monk, bears witness, (and Mr. H. avers This accommodated quotation from Terence is thus rendered by Colman : "Growing desperate, and making towards him With a determined gladiatorial air." EDIT. the same,) that the tenets of the Church of Rome are nearer by half to Calvinism than to Arminianism; nearer by half to Mr. H.'s tenets than to Mr. W.'s." "Truly, I always thought so. But still I ask, What is an Arminian?" "Why, in other words, an election-doubter." And the "good old Preacher," says Mr. H., "places all election-doubters" (that is, those who are not clear in the belief of absolute predestina tion) "among the numerous host of the Diabolonians.

H., "places all election-doubters" (that is, those who are not clear in the belief of absolute predestina tion) "among the numerous host of the Diabolonians. One of these being brought before the Judge, the Judge tells him, "To question election is to overthrow a great doctrine of the gospel: Therefore he, the election-doubter, must die.'" That is, plainly, he must die eternally for this damnable sin. The very same thing Mr. H. affirms else where: "The only cement of Christian union is the love of God; and the foundation of that love must be laid in believing the truths of God;" (that is, you must believe particular redemption, or it is impossible you should love God;) for, to use "the words of Dr. Owen, in his 'Display of Arminianism,'" (see the truths which Mr. H. means,) "'an agreement without truth is no peace, but a covenant with death, and a conspiracy against the kingdom of Christ.'" 7. I am sorry Mr. H. should think so. But so long as he remains in that sentiment, what peace am I or Mr. F., or indeed any Arminian, to expect from him? since any agree ment with us would be "a covenant with death, and a conspiracy against the kingdom of Christ." I therefore give up all hope of peace with him, and with all that are thus minded. For I do not believe what he terms "the truths of God," the doctrine of absolute predestination. I never did believe it, nor the doctrines connected with it, no, not for an hour. In this, at least, I have been consistent with myself. I have never varied an hair's breadth; I cannot while I believe the Bible, while I believe either the Old or New Testament. What I do believe, and always have believed in this matter, I will declare with all simplicity. "(1.) I believe no decree of reprobation. I do not believe the Father of spirits ever Consign'd one unborn soul to hell, Or damn'd him from his mother's womb. "(2.) I believe no decree of preterition, which is only reprobation whitewashed. I do not believe God ever sent one man into the world, to whom he had decreed never to give that grace whereby alone he could escape damnation.

I do not believe God ever sent one man into the world, to whom he had decreed never to give that grace whereby alone he could escape damnation. "(3.) I do not believe (what is only preterition or reproba tion in other words) any such absolute election, as implies that all but the absolutely elect shall inevitably be damned. "(4.) I do not believe the doctrine of irresistible grace, or of infallible perseverance; because both the one and the other implies that election which cannot stand without preterition or reprobation.- "(5.) I do not believe salvation by works. Yet if any man can prove (what I judge none ever did, or ever will) that there is no medium between this and absolute predestination; I will rather subscribe to this than to that, as far less absurd of the two." 8. Hinc ille lachrymae. Here is the source of Mr. H.'s implacable hatred to me. And hence arises his vehement displeasure at those "Minutes," which Mr. Sh and he style "dreadful heresy." The appellation is just, suppose (as Mr. H. asserts) all election-doubters are Diabolonians; suppose no man who is "not clear in the belief of absolute predestination" can love either God or his neighbour. For it is certain, the doctrine of the Minutes and of the decrees cannot stand together. If the doctrine of the decrees stands, then that of the Minutes must fall; for we willingly allow, that the one is incompatible with the other. If the doctrine of the Minutes stands, then that of the decrees must fall. For it is manifest, this, particularly the last article, strikes at the very root of Calvinism. Of what consequence is it, then, to one who is persuaded, the belief of Calvinism is essential to salvation, to expose those Minutes to the uttermost, as well as any that dares to defend them? 9. In order to this good end, Mr. H. publishes "A Review of all the Doctrines taught by Mr. John Wesley." But is it possible for any man to do this without reading all the writings that I have published? It is not possible in the nature of things; he cannot give an account of what he never read. And has Mr. H. read all that I have published? I believe he will not affirm it.

I believe he will not affirm it. So any man of understanding may judge, before he opens his book, what manner of review it is likely to contain However, it must be owned that he and his faithful allies have been at the pains of looking into many of my writings. I say many; for I apprehend there are many more, which they have not so much as looked into; nor does it appear that they have seriously looked through any, so as to observe the scope and tenor of them. However, from those which he or they have, after a fashion, reviewed, abundance of objections are extracted. It is true, none of them (one only excepted) are new, and there is hardly one that has not been answered again and again. Yet since they are proposed in a new form, they may seem to demand a new answer. 10. The grand objection is, that I am inconsistent with myself. This, therefore, I shall particularly consider. The others, which flutter up and down the whole work, I can but just touch upon. Mr. H. opens the charge thus: "Saying and unsaying is nothing new with Mr. W., who has only shown himself consistent, by a regular series of inconsistencies." "How full are you of contradictions to yourself! how full of contrary purposes! How often do you chide with yourself! How oft do you fight with yourself!" (Title-page.) "Mr. W. seems well contented you should settle his creed. If you can, you will do in a few months what he himself has not been able to effect in near forty years." "On this fluctuating ocean he has been tossed for so many years together." "All his Journals and Tracts are replete with proofs of his having been tossed from one system to another, and from one opinion to another, from the time of his ordniation to this present moment." "The most ignorant collier can immediately see his inconsistency with himself." He sums up the whole charge in the lively words of Mr. Cudworth, graced with the name of Mr. Hervey: "Contradic tion, didst thou ever know so trusty a friend, so faithful a devotee? Many people are ready enough to contradict others; but it seems all one to this gentleman whether it be another or himself, so he may but contradict."

Many people are ready enough to contradict others; but it seems all one to this gentleman whether it be another or himself, so he may but contradict." 11. To prove this indictment, (urged home enough, though there is not one tittle of truth in it,) Mr. H. has cited no less than a hundred and one witnesses. Before I enter upon the examination of these, I beg leave to transcribe what I wrote some time since to Dr. Rutherforth: "You frequently charge me with evasion; and others have brought the same charge. The plain case is this: I have wrote on various heads; and The very number of propositions extracted out of Quesnel's writings, and condemned as dreadful heresies in the bull Unigénitus ! Exemplum placet ! See how good wits jump! Mr. H., Father Walsh, and the Pope of Rome! always as clearly as I could. Yet many have misunderstood my words, and raised abundance of objections. I answered them by explaining myself, showing what I did not mean, and what I did. One and another of the objectors stretched his throat, and cried out, "Evasion, evasion l' And what does all this outcry amount to? Why, exactly thus much: They imagined they had tied me so fast, that it was impossible for me to escape. But presently the cobwebs were swept away, and I was quite at liberty. And I bless God I can unravel truth and falsehood, although artfully twisted together. Of such evasion I am not ashamed. Let them be ashamed who constrain me to use it." 12. Mr. H.'s numerous proofs of my contradicting myself may be ranged under twenty-four heads. I shall examine these one by one, in what appears to me to be the most natural order:- I 1. "There was an everlast- "There never was any such ing covenant between God the covenant between God the Father and God the Son con- Father and God the Son." cerning man's redemption." The latter of these I believe, and always did, since I could read my Bible. But Mr. H. brings a passage out of the Christian Library, to contradict this. On which he parades as follows: "If the Christian Library be, as Mr. W. affirms, 'all true, all agree able to the word of God," then what are we to think of his other works?

affirms, 'all true, all agree able to the word of God," then what are we to think of his other works? They must be an adulteration of man's devis ing." "The same may be said of the Minutes: If these be truly orthodox, upwards of forty volumes of the Library must be throughly heterodox. And then there is great reason to lament, that so many poor people's pockets should be fleeced for what can do their souls no good." Peremptory enough ! But let us examine the matter more closely: "Mr. W. affirms, that the Christian Library is "all true, all agreeable to-the word of God.'" I do not; and I am glad I have this public opportunity of explaining myself concerning it. My words are, "I have made, as I was able, an attempt of this kind. I have endeavoured to extract such a collection of English divinity, as, I believe, is all true, all agreeable to the oracles of God." (Preface, p. 4.) I did bclieve, and I do believe, every tract therein to be true, and agreeable to the oracles of God. But I do not roundly affirm this, (as Mr. H. asserts,) of every sentence contained in the fifty volumes. I could not possibly affirm it, for two reasons: (1.) I was obliged to prepare most of those tracts for the press, just as I could snatch time in travelling, not transcribing them; (none expected it of me;) but only marking the lines with my pen, and altering or adding a few words here and there, as I had mentioned in the preface. (2.) As it was not in my power to attend the press, that care necessarily devolved on others; through whose inattention a hundred passages were left in, which I had scratched out; yet not so many as to make up "forty volumes," no, nor forty pages. It is probable too, I myself might overlook some sentences which were not suitable to my own principles. It is certain, the correctors of the press did this, in not a few instances. I shall be much obliged to Mr. H. and his friends, if they will point out all those instances; and I will print them as an index expurgatorius to the work, which will make it doubly valuable.

and his friends, if they will point out all those instances; and I will print them as an index expurgatorius to the work, which will make it doubly valuable. The plain inference is, If there are a hundred passages in the "Christian Library" which contradict any or all of my doctrines, these are no proof that I contradict myself. Be it observed once for all, therefore, citations from the "Christian Library" prove nothing but the carelessness of the correctors. For election and perseverance. Against election and persever ance. 2. Mr. Sellon has clearly showed, that the Seventeenth Article does not assert absolute predestination. Therefore, in denying this, I neither contradict that Article, nor myself. 3. "I believe there is a But I never thought a babe state attainable in this life, in Christ was in that state, from which a man cannot though he is a true believer. finally fall." 4. "Saved beyond the dread of falling." That So says my brother. is nothing to me. The note adds: "Mr. W. drew lots, whether or no he should preach against the Seventeenth Article." That paltry story is untrue; though Mr. H. potently believes it. So all the witticisms built upon it fall to the ground at once. I never preached against the Seventeenth Article, nor had the least thought of doing it. But did Mr. Hill never preach against the Thirty-first Article, which explicitly asserts universal redemption? 5. "I do not deny that those I mean, those that are eminently styled the elect "perfected in love," (1 John shall infallibly persevere." iv. 17,) and those only. So here is no contradiction. 6. "The love divine So my brother speaks. Which made us thine, But his words cannot prove Shall keep us thine for ever." that I contradict myself. 7. "From all eternity with love I believe this is true on the Unchangeable thou hast me view'd." supposition of faith foreseen, not otherwise. 8. "Never again will he take him away. They are my brother's words, not mine. 9. "Jesus, the lover of his own, So are these. Will love me to the end." 10. "Christ is in the elect world of his Church." This is cited from the "Christian Library." So it goes for nothing. The nine witnesses, therefore, examined on this head, prove just nothing at all.

The nine witnesses, therefore, examined on this head, prove just nothing at all. So that hitherto there is not the least proof that I contradict myself. For imputed righteousness. Against imputed righteous 77 ess. 11. "We no more deny the phrase (of imputed righteous ness) than the thing." "Do not dispute for that particular phrase." Here is no contradiction: I do not deny it; yet I dare not dispute for it. 12. "This doctrine I have believed and taught for near eight-and-twenty years." "The use of that term has done immense hurt." It has ; but here is no contradiction. 13. This is a citation from the "Christian Library." So it goes for nothing. 14. "I continually affirm, that the righteousness of Christ (in the sense there explained) is imputed to every believer." "Where is the use of contending so strenuously for those expressions?" I ask it again. But where is the contradiction? 15. This is another citation from the "Christian Library." So it proves nothing. 16. "The wedding-garment The wedding-garment is ho is Christ's righteousness, first liness. This does not exclude, imputed, and then implanted." but presupposes, the other. 17. "This is consistent "John Goodwin contradicts with our being justified this." Perhaps so; but John through the imputation of Goodwin is not John Wesley. Christ's righteousness." Whatever, therefore, he says, (observe it once for all,) does not prove that I contradict myself. I am no way engaged to defend every expression of either John Goodwin, or Richard Baxter's Aphorisms. The sense of both I generally approve, the language many times I do not. But I observe here, and in fifty other instances, Mr. H. mentions no page. Now, in controversy, he that names no page has no right to any answer. 18. "I frequently put this expression into the mouth of a whole congregation; that is, I sing an hymn wherein it occurs." "I dare not require any to use it." True; but here is no contradiction. I do not require any to use it. Every one in the congregation may use or let it alone. Here comes in a thundering note: "Although most of these extracts from Mr. Wesley's sermon on Jeremiah xxiii.

Wesley's sermon on Jeremiah xxiii. 6, have a very evangelical appearance, yet all their excellency vanisheth away, when we are told in the same sermon, that the righteousness he contends for is not the divine righteousness of Christ, but his human righteousness. When we consider the express words of the text, 'The Lord our Righteousness," one might wonder (if anything is to be wondered at that Mr. Wesley affirms) how he could possibly fall into an error, which at once not only destroys the meritorious efficacy of the Redeemer's righteousness, but undermines the virtue of his atoning blood." This is home; Mr. Hill has broke my head sadly. But he will soon give me a plaster: "How ever, if Mr. Wesley will acknowledge, that by Christ's human righteousness, he means that mediatorial righteous ness which was wrought by God in the human nature, I entirely acquiesce with him on the point." This is truly marvellous! Why, what could Mr. Wesley mean beside? So this error proves to be no error at all ! And "all the excellency" which "vanisheth away," appears again in statu quo ! But we are not come to the end of the note yet; it contains another dreadful objection: "Mr. Wesley is unwilling" (truly I am) "to be ranked among the Diabolonians, and therefore, with more prudence than candour, has left the whole passage concerning the election-doubters out of the 'Holy War." And if Mr. Hill had omitted it too, it would have been no more an impeachment of his prudence, than it was of my candour, to omit, in all the tracts I abridged, whatever I dis approved of. This was what I professed at my setting out: "I have endeavoured" (these are my very words) "to preserve a consistency throughout, that no part might contradict any other. But in order to this, I have been obliged to omit the far greatest part of several authors. And in a design of this nature, I apprehend myself to be at full liberty so to do." (Preface, p. 5.) The "abridged Bunyan" is not therefore "the counterfeit Bunyan." This is a flourish of Mr. Hill's pen. 19. This instance sets nothing against nothing, the "Christian Library" against John Goodwin. 20.

20. "This is an emblem of "John Goodwin contradicts the righteousness of the saints, this." So he may; but I am both of their justification and not John Goodwin. So we sanctification." have examined twenty wit nesses; and not one of all these proves that I contradict myself. 21. "I would address my self to you who are so ready to condemn all that use these expressions as Antinomians." "On Mr. Hervey's using one of them, Mr. Wesley says, 'Why are you at such pains to increase the number of Antinomians?'" But I do not condemn him as an Antinomian : Therefore, here is no contradiction. Whether it is or no, it is wide of the mark; for this is none of the expressions in question. Yes; but it is none of the expressions in question: So it is no contradiction. 22. Again: "Is not this, that Christ has satisfied the de mands of the law,the very quin tessence of Antinomianism?" 23. Again: "To say, 'The claims of the law are all an swered," is not this Antino mianism without a mask?" C. c. So I think. Yet I do not condemn all that use them as Antinomians: So here is no contradiction still. 25. "It is by faith we build on this foundation, the im puted righteousness of Christ." 24. Once more: "There are many expressions in this Dialogue which directly lead to Antinomianism." "If faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ is a fundamental principle, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness?" Here is no contradiction. Suppose I build my faith on this foundation, the imputed righteousness of Christ, it does not follow it is so fundamental a principle, that all who think nothing about it will be damned. 26. "But is not a believer Goodwin; that is, nothing. clothed with the righteousness of Christ? Undoubtedly heis." 27. "The mantle of Christ's righteousness." (Christian Li Goodwin again: Nothing against nothing. brary.) 28. "Christian Library." 29. "The sole cause of our acceptance with God is the righteousness and the death of Christ, who fulfilled God's law, and died in our stead." Nothing. "I cannot prove, that it was requisite for Christ to fulfil the moral law in order to his purchasing redemption for us. By his sufferings alone the law was satisfied." Undoubtedly it was.

By his sufferings alone the law was satisfied." Undoubtedly it was. Therefore, although I believe Christ fulfilled God's law, yet I do not affirm he did this to purchase redemption for us. This was done by his dying in our stead. 30. "Verses of Charles Let him answer. Wesley." 31, 32, 33. "Title to Life." John Goodwin: Nothing. "Christian Library." No thing. 34. "The righteousness of Ditto. Christ is imputed to every one that believes." Here follows another thundering note: "When Mr. Wesley preached this sermon, he told the congregation, 'It was the same doctrine which Mr. Romaine, Mr. Madan, and Mr. Whitefield preached." So it was; Mr. Whitefield did, Mr. Romaine and Mr. Madan do, preach the doctrine contained in that sermon; namely, that "we are justified, sanctified, and glorified, merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for us." But did I say, this was all the doctrine which they preached ? No; and no man in his senses could under stand me so. I did not therefore "impose on the credulity of my hearers, by making them believe" any more than was strictly true. But "did they ever hold the tenets pleaded for in the books published by Mr. Wesley?" Whether they did or no is out of the present question; they did, and do, hold the doctrine contained in that sermon, "Mr. Wesley knows, they from their hearts subscribe to Mr. Hervey's Eleven Letters." I hope not; from any that do, I expect no more mercy than from a mad dog. "But if he had constantly preached that doctrine, how came so many to testify their surprise at that discourse?" Because God set it home upon their hearts. Hence it appeared new, though they had heard it over and over. "How came they to press the printing of it, in order to stop the mouths of gainsayers?" Because they judged it would affect others as it affected them; though I never thought it would. "Lastly: If Mr. Wesley had con stantly maintained this doctrine, why must poor John Bunyan be embowelled, to make him look like Mr. Wesley?" No.; his Calvinism is omitted, to make him like the authors going before him; "to preserve a consistency throughout the work;" which still is not done as I could wish.

Wesley?" No.; his Calvinism is omitted, to make him like the authors going before him; "to preserve a consistency throughout the work;" which still is not done as I could wish. However, those that are fond of his bowels may put them in again, and swallow them as they would the trail of a woodcock. 35. "They to whom the "The nice, metaphysical doc. righteousness of Christ is trine of imputed righteousness, imputed (I mean, who truly instead of furthering men in believe) are made righteous holiness, makes them satisfied by the Spirit of Christ." without any holiness at all." I have known a thousand instances of this. And yet "they who truly believe in Christ are made righteous by his Spirit." Where is the contradiction between these propositions? 36. "Christian Library." Nothing. 37. "Christ is now the Baxter's Aphorisms go for righteousness of all that truly nothing. Richard Baxter is believe." not John Wesley. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Nothing. Nothing against 44. "To all believers, the Goodwin : Nothing. righteousness of Christ is imputed." We have now examined four-and-forty witnesses; but still have no proof that I contradict myself, either with regard to the covenant, election, and perseverance, or the imputed righte ousness of Christ. With regard to this, the thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suf fered, I have constantly and earnestly maintained above four and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others "for their good to edification." But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore, I will use it no more, unless it occur in an hymn, or steal upon me unawares; I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural. And I will advise all my brethren, all who are in connexion with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, which issoliable to be misinterpreted, and to speak in all instances, this in particular, "as the oracles of God." "Suffering the penalty is not Suffering the penalty is all the all the law requires." law requires. 45. "So says the 'Christian So says John Goodwin. Library." But this does not prove that I contradict myself. St. Paul speaks of the law as St. Paul does not speak of the a person.

Paul does not speak of the a person. law as a person. (P. 138.) 46. "The law is here spoken "This way of speaking of of as a person, to which, as to the law as a person injured, an husband, life and death are and to be satisfied, seems ascribed." hardly defensible." There is no contradiction here. I do affirm, St. Paul speaks of the law "as a person to which, as an husband, life and death are ascribed." But I deny, that he speaks of it "as a person injured, and to be satisfied." For a twofold justification. Against a twofold justification. 47. "Mr. F. affirms, justi- "The justification spoken fication is twofold." of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is one and no more." Most true. tion. (Matt. xii. 37.) And yet our Lord speaks of another justifica Now, I think one and one make two. For a justified state. 48. "The state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious." Against a justified state. "Does not talking of a justified or sanctified state tend to mislead men?" It frequently does. But where is the contradiction? They who are once justified are justified for ever. 49. "Christian Library." They who are justified may become total apostates. Nothing. Works are a condition of jus tification. 50. "Salvation (that is, glory) is not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition." This proposition does not speak of justification: So it is nothing to the purpose. Works are not a condition of justification. I believe no good works can be previous to justifica tion; nor, consequently, a condition of it. 51. "If a man could be holy before he was justified, it would set his justification aside." "Whoever desires to find favour with God, should "cease from evil, and learn to do well.' Whoever repents, should do "works meet for repentance.' And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?" 52. "Thou canst do no thing but sin till thou art justified." 53. "We allow that God justifies the ungodly, him that to that hour is full of all evil, void of all good; and him that worketh not, that till that mo ment worketh no goodness." All this I believe still. "But Mr. W.

W. says, Whoever desires to find favour with God should "cease from evil and learn to do well,'" c. Does not the Bible say so? Who can deny it? "Nay, but Mr. W. asks, "If this be not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?'" And I ask it again. Let Mr. H., or any one else, give me an answer. So, if there is any contradiction here, it is not I contradict myself, but Isaiah and our Lord that contradict St. Paul. Against justification by the For justification by the act of act of believing. believing. 54. "But do not you put "The faith which is said to faith in the room of Christ be imputed to Abraham for and his righteousness? No; righteousness, is faith pro I take particular care to put perly taken; and not the each of these in its proper righteousness of Christ ap place." prehended by faith." This is putting "each of these in its proper place." The righteousness of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification: That is its proper place. Faith in Him that gave himself for us is the condition of justification: That is its proper place. I am justified through the righteousness of Christ, as the price; through faith, as the condition. I do not say, neither does Goodwin, Faith is that for which we were accepted; but we both say, Faith is that through which we are accepted. We are justified, we are accepted of God, for the sake of Christ, through faith. Now, certainly, there is no contra diction in this, unless a contradiction to Mr. H.'s notions. 55. "Although we have "That which is the condi faith, hope, and love, yet we tion of justification is not the must renounce the merit of righteousness of Christ." all, as far too weak to deserve Most true; otherwise we our justification; for which confound the condition with we must trust only to the the meritorious cause spoken merits of Christ." of in the opposite column. Justification by faith alone is articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. All who do not hold it must perish ever lastingly. Justification by faith alone is not articulus stantis vel ca dentis ecclesiae. Some may doubt of it, yea, deny it, and yet not perish everlastingly. A doctrine without which there can be no Christian Church. 56.

56. "Of this may be affirm ed, (what Luther affirms of justification by faith,) that it is articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, the pillar of that faith of which alone cometh salvation; that faith which unless a man keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he "A pious Churchman who has not clear conceptions of justification by faith may be saved; yea, a Mystic, (Mr. Law, for instance,) who denies justification by faith. If so, the doctrine of justification by faith is not articulus stan tis vel cadentis ecclesiae." shall perish everlastingly." It is certain here is a seeming contradiction; but it is not a real one. For these two opposite propositions do not speak of the same thing. The latter speaks of justification by faith; the former, of trusting in the righteousness or merits of Christ; justification by faith is only mentioned incidentally in a parenthesis. Now, although Mr. Law denied justification by faith, he might trust in the merits of Christ. It is this, and this only, that I affirm, (whatever Luther does,) to be articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. Mr. W. is a Calvinist in the Mr. W. has leaned too much point of justification. toward Calvinism in this Apoint. 57. "I think on justifica tion just as I have done these seven-and-twenty years, and just as Calvin does." "We have leaned too much toward Calvinism." But not in this point; not as to justification by faith. We still agree with him, that the merits of Christ are the cause, faith the condition, of justification. 58. "I have occasionally Goodwin. Nothing. used those expressions, 'im puted righteousness, the 'righteousness of Christ, and the like. But I never used them in any other sense than that wherein Calvin does." 59. "Mr. W. does approve the expression, 'Why me?'" My brother uses it in an hymn. "Mr. W. does not approve the expression, 'Why me?'" "Mr. F.says, Mr. W. doubts concerning it." This proof halts on both feet. "But why did not Mr. W. strike out of Mr. F.'s manuscript the honourable expres sions concerning himself?" Because he thought them a proper counterbalance to the contumelious expressions of Mr. H. Our sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness to us. 60, 61, 62. "Christian Li brary." Our sin is not imputed to Christ, nor Christ's righte ousness to us. Nothing.

Nothing. Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are imputed. Neither Adam's sin nor Christ's righteousness is imputed. 63. Nothing against no thing. In what sense I believe the "Christian Library" to be all true, I have declared above. Mr. W. holds free-will. Mr. W. wonders how any man can hold free-will. "Mr. W. denies it." 64. "Mr. F. holds free Will." This may prove that Mr. W. contradicts Mr. F., but it can never prove that he contradicts himself. But, indeed, both Mr. F. and Mr. W. absolutely deny natural free-will. We both steadily assert that the will of man is by nature free only to evil. Yet we both believe that every man has a measure of free-will restored to him by grace. For the doctrine of merit. 65. "We are rewarded ac cording to our works, yea, be cause of our works. How does this differ from, 'for the sake of our works?' And how differs this from secundum merita Against the doctrine of merit. "And yet I still maintain, there is no merit, taking the word strictly, but in the blood of Christ; that salvation is not by the merit of works; and that there is nothing we are, or operum, or, "as our works de serve?" Can you split this hair? I doubt I cannot." have, or do, which can, strictly speaking, deserve the least thing at God's hand." I say so still. Let Mr. H., if he can. And all this is no more than to say, Take the word merit in a strict sense, and I utterly renounce it; take it in a looser sense, and though I never use it, yet I do not condemn it. Therefore, with regard to the word merit, I do not contradict myself at all. For a single life. 66. "Mr. W. says, his thoughts on a single life are just the same they have been these thirty years." 67. "He advises that we should pray against mar riage." Against a single life. "Why, then, did Mr. W. marry?" For reasons best known to himself. "I advise single persons to pray, that they may prize the advantages they enjoy." Be this right or wrong, still here is no contradiction. For gay apparel. 68.

68. "To make it a point of conscience to differ from others (as the Quakers do) in the shape or colour of their apparel, is mere superstition." Against gay apparel. "Let a single intention to please God prescribe both what clothing you should buy, and the manner wherein it shall be made." (Ibid.) This I stand to. So I advise; but I do not "Wear nothi g of a glaring "make it a point of con colour, or made in the very science." So here is no height of the fashion." contradiction still. Against tea. For tea. 69. "Mr. W. published a I did set them an example tract against drinking tea, and told the tea-drinkers, he for twelve years. Then, at the close of a consumption, would set them an example in by Dr. Fothergill's direction, that piece of self-denial." I used it again. But must not a man be sadly in want of argument who stoops so low as this? For baptism by sprinkling. 70. "As there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very probable proof to the contrary." 71. "Christ nowhere, as far as I can find, requires dipping, but only baptizing; which word signifies to pour on, or sprinkle, as well as to dip." Against baptism by sprink ling. "When Mr. W. baptized Mrs. L. S., he held her so long under water, that her friends screamed out, thinking she had been drowned." When ? Where ? I never heard of it before. "Why then did you at Sa vannah baptize all children by immersion, unless the parents certified they were weak?" Not because I had any scruple, but in obedience to the Rubric. So here is no self-inconsistency. Mr. W. never adopted Mr. Mr. W. highly approved of Law's scheme. Mr. Law. These propositions are not contradictory. I might highly approve of him, and yet not adopt his scheme. How will Mr. H. prove that I did? or that I contradict myself on this head? Why thus: 72. "I had been eight years at Oxford before I read any of Mr. Law's writings. And when I did, I was so far from making them my creed, that I had objections to almost every page." True; but neither does this prove that I adopted his scheme.

And when I did, I was so far from making them my creed, that I had objections to almost every page." True; but neither does this prove that I adopted his scheme. "To instruct a person in the nature of Christianity, I fixed an hour a day, to read with her in Mr. Law's treatise on 'Christian Perfection.'" I did so. And an excellent book it is, though liable to many objections. "Another little company of us met: We sung, read a little of Mr. Law, and then conversed." 73. "I believe the Mystic writers to be one great Anti christ." 74. "Mr. F. affirms, Solo mon is the chief of Mystics; and Mr. W. acquiesces in the affirmation." I retract this. It is far too strong. But observe, I never contradicted it till now ! I do not. I affirm no such thing. Therefore all Mr. H. builds upon this is only a castle in the air. Enoch and Elijah are in Enoch and Elijah are not in heaven. heaven. 75. "Enoch and Elijah en "Enoch and Elijah are not tered at once into the highest in heaven, but only in para degree of glory." dise." "Notes on the New Testament, John iii. 13, first edition." But why is Mr. H. so careful to name the first edition? Because in the second the mistake is corrected. Did he know this? And could he avail himself of a mistake which he knew was removed before he wrote For sinless perfection. Against sinless perfection. Upon this head Mr. H. employs his whole strength. I will therefore the more carefully weigh what he advances; only premising, before I descend to particulars, two general observations: (1.) Out of the twenty-five passages cited for perfection, seventeen are taken from my brother's Hymns. These, therefore, strike wide. Whatever they prove, they cannot prove that I contradict myself. (2.) Out of the twenty-five cited against perfection, four teen are cited from the sermon on "Sin in Believers." Do I mean, in such believers as are "perfected in love?" Mr. H. himself knows I do not. Why then every one of these four teen arguments is an abuse both upon me and his readers. It is the most egregious trifling that can be conceived.

It is the most egregious trifling that can be conceived. I affirm, "Those perfected in love are saved from inward sin." To prove I contradict myself herein, fourteen passages are alleged, wherein I affirm, "We are not saved from inward sin, till we are 'perfected in love.'" (3.) The same fallacy is used in every instance, when some of my words are set in opposition to others. The sum is, - weak believers, babes in Christ, are not, adult believers are, saved from inward sin. And I still aver, there is no contra diction in this, if I know what a contradiction means. Now to the proofs: 76. "The Son hath made them who are thus 'born of "They are sensible of pride remaining in their hearts." God' free from pride." They? Who? Not those who are thus "born of God," who are "perfected in love." 77. "From the iniquity of pride, And self, I shall be free." That is, when I am "perfected in love." 78. "They are freed from wanderings in prayer." "God's children are daily sensible of pride and self will." That is, till they are "perfected in love." Is this spoken of all be lievers? Mr. H. knows it is not. 79. "Christians are saved from all sin, from all unrighte ousness." 80. "They (adult Chris tians) are freed from all evil thoughts and evil tempers." 81. "They (fathers in Christ) are freed from evil thoughts." True, adult Christians. "The (infant) children of God have in them sin of every kind." "The evil nature opposes the Spirit even in believers," till they arefathers in Christ. 82. "Christ was free from sinful thoughts. So are they likewise," adult believers. 83. "I believe some would say, 'We trust we do keep the whole law of love.'" "This doctrine (that all be lievers are thus free) is wholly new." "Believers are conscious of not fulfilling the whole law of love;" not till they are "per fected in love." The reader will please to remember all along, the question is not whether the doctrine be right or wrong, (that has been elsewhere considered,) but whether I contradict myself. Upwards of fourscore witnesses have been already examined on this head; but no contradiction is proved yet. 84. "Some do love God with "They (weak believers) do all their heart and strength." not love God with all their heart and strength."

"Some do love God with "They (weak believers) do all their heart and strength." not love God with all their heart and strength." 85. "From that hour, indwelling sin, Thou hast no place in me."Believers are not delivered from the being of sin till that hour. 86. "A sinless life we live." "Christian Library :" NO thing. 87. "While one evil thought can rise, My brother said so once: I am not born again." I never did. In the note annexed there are many mistakes: (1) "The author of this hymn did not allow any one to be a believer, even in the lowest sense, while he found the least stirring of sin." He did; but he took the word "born again" in too high a sense. (2.) Yet "he supposes the most advanced believers are deeply sensible of their impurity." He does not; neither he nor I suppose any such thing. (3.) "He tells us in his note on Eph. vi. 13, 'The war is perpetual.'" True: The war with "principalities and powers;" but not that "with flesh and blood." (4.) So you cannot reply: "Mr. W. speaks of believers of different stature." Indeed I can; and the forgetting this is the main cause of Mr. H.'s stumbling at every step. (5) "The position, that any believers are totally free from sin, is diametrically opposite to Calvinism." This is no mistake. Therefore most Calvinists hate it with a perfect hatred. (6.) "Many of the grossest of these contradictions were published nearly at the same time; and probably Mr. W. was the same day correcting the press, both for and against sinless perfection." An ingenious thought ! but as to the truth or even probability of it, I cannot say much. (7.) "These Hymns contain the joint sentiments of Mr. John and Mr. Charles Wesley." Not always; so that if some of them contradict others, it does not prove that I contradict myself. 88. "Christ in a pure and sinless "There are still two con heart." trary principles in believers, nature and grace." True, till they are perfect in love. 89. "Quite expel the carnal mind." "That there is no sin in a (weak) believer, no carnal mind, is contrary to the word of God."

"Quite expel the carnal mind." "That there is no sin in a (weak) believer, no carnal mind, is contrary to the word of God." 90. "From every evil motion freed." "How naturally do men think, Sin has no motion; therefore it has no being !" But how does this prove that I contradict myself? 91. "All the struggle then is o'er." These are two of my 92. "I wrestle not now." brother's expressions, which I do not subscribe to. 93. "God is thine: Disdain to fear The enemy within." "Let us watch and pray against the enemy within." Are these lines cited as implying the enemy was not within 2 Most unhappily. They mean, the enemy which is within. For the very next words, which Mr. H. himself cited but the page before, are, God shall in thy flesh appear, And make an end of sin. 94. "We wrestle not with "We wrestle both with flesh and blood when we flesh and blood, and with are grown up in Christ. principalities," while we are babes in Christ. No contradiction yet. 95. "Sin shall not in our flesh remain." "Still he (the babe in Christ) feels the remains of the old man." 96. "I cannot rest if sin in me "Sin remains in them remains." still;" in all weak believers. 97, 98, 99. My brother's. 100. "Do not the best of "We groan, being burdened men say, 'We groan, being with numberless infirmities, burdened with the workings of temptations, and sins." This inbred corruption?'" This is wrong. It is not the mean is not the meaning of the ing of the text. I will put it text: The whole context out, if I live to print another shows the cause of that edition. So just one shot in groaning was, their longing a hundred has hit the mark. to be with Christ. . 101. "Nor does he that is "Many infirmities remain, born of God sin by infirmi whereby we are daily subject ties; for his infirmities have to what are called "sins of no concurrence of his will; infirmity.' And they are in and without this, they are not some sense sins; as being properly sins." That is, they (involuntary) transgressions are not voluntary transgres of the perfect law." sions of a known law. I see no contradiction here; but if there was, it ought not to have been mentioned.

I see no contradiction here; but if there was, it ought not to have been mentioned. It could not by any generous writer; since Mr. Hill himself testifies, it was expunged before he mentioned it! But suppose it stood as at first, I flatly deny that it is any contradiction at all. These infirmities may be in some sense sins; and yet not properly so; that is, sins in an improper, but not in the proper, sense of the word. 13. But "Mr. W. has not yet determined, whether sins of surprise bring the soul under condemnation or not. However, it were to be wished, that sins of surprise and sins of infirmity too were to be declared mortal at the next Conference; since several persons who pretend to reverence Mr. W., not only fall into outrageous passions, but cozen and overreach their neighbours; and call these things little, innocent infirmities. Reader, weigh well those words of Mr. W., "We cannot say, either that men are or are not condemned for sins of surprise." And yet immediately before, he calls them transgressions, as here he calls them sins. Strange divinity this, for one who, for near forty years past, has professed to believe and teach that "sin is the transgression of the law,' and that 'the. wages of sin is death.'" He then brings three instances of sins of surprise, (over and above cozening and overreaching,) drunkenness, fornication, and flying into a passion and knocking a man down; and concludes, "Mr. W. had better sleep quietly, than rise from his own pillow in order to lull his hearers asleep upon the pillow of false security, by speak ing in so slight a manner of sin, and making the breach of God's holy law a mere nothing." 14. This is a charge indeed! And it is perfectly new : I believe it was never advanced before. It will not, therefore, be improper to give it a thorough examination. It is founded on some passages in the sermon on Romans viii. 1 : "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." In order to give a clear view of the doctrine therein delivered, I must extract the sum of the Sermon.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." In order to give a clear view of the doctrine therein delivered, I must extract the sum of the Sermon. I show, (1.) Who are "those that are in Christ Jesus;" "Those who are joined to the Lord in one spirit, who dwell in Christ and Christ in them. And 'whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not, walketh not after the flesh,' that is, corrupt nature. These abstain from every design, and word, and work, to which the corruption of nature leads." (Vol. V., p. 88.) "They "walk after the Spirit' both in their hearts and lives. By him they are led into every holy desire, into every divine and heavenly temper, till every thought of their heart is 'holiness to the Lord." "They are also led by Him into all holiness of conversation. They exercise themselves day and night, to do only the things which please God: In all their outward behaviour, to follow him 'who left us an example that we might tread in his steps; in all their intercourse with their neighbour, to walk in justice, mercy, and truth; and whatsoever they do in every circumstance of life to 'do all to the glory of God.'" (Ibid., p. 89.) Is here any room for "cozening and overreaching; " for "flying into outrageous passions?" Does this give any countenance for "knocking men down?" for "drunkenness or fornication ?" But let us go on to the Second head: "To whom is there no condemnation? To believers in Christ, who thus 'walk after the Spirit, there is no condemnation for their past sins." (Ibid.) "Neither for present, for now transgressing the commandments of God; for they do not transgress them. This is a proof of their love of God, that they keep his com mandments." (Ibid., p. 90.) "They are not condemned, (3.) for inward sin, so long as they do not yield thereto; so long as they maintain a continual war with all sin, with pride, anger, desire, so that the flesh hath no dominion over them, but they still 'walk after the Spirit.'" (Ibid., p. 91.) Is any encouragement given here to cozeners or whoremongers? It follows, "They are not condemned for sins of infirmity, as they are usually called.

It follows, "They are not condemned for sins of infirmity, as they are usually called. Perhaps it were advisable rather to call them infirmities, that we may not seem to give any countenance to sin, or to extenuate it in any degree, by thus coupling it with infirmity. But, if we must use such an ambiguous and dangerous expression, by sins of infirmity I would mean, such involuntary failings as the saying a thing we believe true, though in fact it prove to be false; or the hurting our neighbour without knowing or designing it, perhaps when we designed to do him good." (Ibid., p. 92.) What pretence has Mr. H. from these words to flourish away upon my "strange divinity;" and to represent me as giving men a handle to term gross sins innocent infirmities? But now comes the main point: "It is more difficult to determine concerning those which are usually styled sins of surprise: As when one who commonly in his patience possesses his soul, on a sudden or violent temptation, speaks or acts in a manner not consistent with the royal law of love." (For instance: You have the gout. A careless man treads on your foot. You violently push him away, and, it may be, cry out, "Get away! Get you out of my sight!") "Perhaps it is not easy to fix a general rule concerning transgressions of this nature. We can not say either that men are, or that they are not, condemned for sins of surprise in general." (Pages 152, 153.) "Reader," says Mr. H., "let me beg thee to weigh well the foregoing words." I say so too. I go on : "But it seems, whenever a believer is overtaken in a fault, there is more or less condemnation, as there is more or less concur rence of his will. Therefore, some sins of surprise bring much guilt and condemnation. For in some instances our being surprised may be owing to some culpable neglect, or to a sleepiness of soul, which might have been prevented or shaken off before the temptation came. The falling even by surprise, in such an instance, exposes the sinner to condemnation, both from God and his own conscience.

The falling even by surprise, in such an instance, exposes the sinner to condemnation, both from God and his own conscience. "On the other hand, there may be sudden assaults, which he hardly could foresee, by which he may be borne down, suppose into a degree of anger, or thinking evil of another, with scarce any concurrence of the will. Now, in such a case, the jealous God would undoubtedly show him that he had done foolishly. He would be convinced of having swerved from the perfect law, and consequently grieved with a godly sorrow, and lovingly ashamed before God. Yet need he not come into condemnation. In the midst of that sorrow and shame, he can still say, 'The Lord is my strength and my song; he is also become my salvation.'" Now, what can any impartial person think of Mr. H.'s eloquence on this head? What a representation has he given of my doctrine, with regard to infirmities and sins of surprise? Was ever anything more unjust? Was ever anything more cruel? Do I here "lull my readers asleep on the pillow of false security?" Do I "speak in a light manner of sin?" or "make the breach of God's holy law a mere nothing?" What excuse can be made for pouring out all this flood of calumny? Can anything be termed "bearing false witness against our neighbour," if this is not? Am I indeed a loose casuist? Do any of my writings give countenance to sin? Not so: God knows, Mr. Hill knows, Mr. Romaine, who corrected this tract, knows it well. So does Mr. Madan; yea, so do all who read what I write, unless they wilfully shut their eyes. 15. "Thus have I at length," says Mr. H., "brought this extraordinary farrago to a conclusion. Not because I could not have found many more inconsistencics." Yes, another hundred, such as these. But see a group of them at once: "His extract from Bishop Beveridge is flatly contradicted in his edition of 'John Goodwin. Again: Goodwin is flatly contradicted by his sermon on 'The Lord our Righteousness.' This sermon is contradicted in his 'Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion. This Preservative is itself contradicted by his 'Abstract from Dr. Preston.

Preston. This Abstract is itself contradicted by his edition of 'Baxter's Aphorisms.' And these are again flatly contra dicted by his 'Extract from Bishop Beveridge.' And this is again flatly contradicted by his own 'Thoughts on Imputed Righteousness.' Thus the wheel runs round !" Thus Mr. H.'s head runs round with more haste than good speed. (If this curious paragraph be not rather, as I suspect, supplied by another hand; even as Sternhold's Psalms are now and then eked out by N. N., or William Wisdom.) He forgets that generals prove nothing; and that he has sadly failed in his particular charges; just an hundred, out of an hundred and one, having proved void. So that now I have full right to say, Whence arises this charge of inconsistency and self contradiction? Merely from straining, winding to and fro, and distorting a few innocent words. For wherein have I contradicted myself, taking words in their unforced, natural construction, in any one respect, with regard to justification, since the year 1738? 16. But Mr. H.'s head is so full of my self-inconsistency, that he still blunders on: "Mr. W.'s wavering disposition is not an affair of yesterday. Mr. Delamotte spake to him on this head more than thirty years ago." He never spake to me on this head at all. Ask him. He is still alive. "He has been tossed from one system to another, from the time of his ordination to the present moment." Nothing can be more false; as not only my "Journals," but all my writings, testify. "And he himself cannot but acknowledge that both his friends and foes have accused him of his unsettled principles in religion." Here is artifice Would any man living, who does not know the fact, suppose that a gentleman would face a man down, in so peremptory a manner, unless the thing were absolutely true? And yet it is quite the reverse. "He himself cannot but acknowledge l" I acknowledge no such thing. My friends have oftener accused me of being too stiff in my opinions, than too flexible. My enemies have accused me of both; and of everything besides. The truth is, from the year 1725, I saw more and more of the nature of inward religion, chiefly by reading the writings of Mr. Law, and a few other mystic writers.

Law, and a few other mystic writers. Yet I never was "in the way of Mysticism" at all; this is another mistake. Although I did not clearly see that we "are saved by faith" till the year 1738, I then published the sermon on "Sal vation by Faith," every sentence of which I subscribe to now. 17. But he "was too scrupulous about using the word condition." I was so, till I was convinced by Dr. Church, that it was a very innocent word; and one that none of the Reformers, English or foreign, objected to. All this time I leaned towards Calvinism, though more in expression than sentiment. "And now he fairly gives up the necessity of a clear belief of justification by faith alone!" That is, I say, A man may be saved, who is not clear in his judgment concerning it. I do; I dare not "rank Mr. Law, and all his admirers, among the hosts of Diabolonians." Nay, more: "I have proved that he makes 'man's righteousness the procuring cause of his acceptance with God; and his salvation, from first to last, to depend upon the intrinsic merit of his own unassisted works." I think Mr. H. "is now got to his ne plus ultra," unless he has a mind to prove that Mr. W. is an horse. 18. "I expect you will tell me that I have exposed Mr. W., particularly in the foregoing contrast. That Mr. W. is exposed, I allow; but that I have exposed him, I deny." Who was it then? Why, "out of his own mouth all that I have brought against him proceeds." Not so: All that I have wrote, except one sentence out of an hundred and one, is well consistent with itself, provided the words be taken in their plain, natural sense, and one part of them in connexion with the other. But whoever will use Mr. H.'s art of twisting and torturing words, may make them say anything, and extract Pelagianism, Arianism, or anything he pleases, out of anything that can be spoken. By this art, he that cries out against Mr. F.'s art has found, that is, created, above an hundred contradictions in my works, and "could find abundance more." Ay, five hundred; under his forming hand contradictions spring up as quick as mush rooms.

F.'s art has found, that is, created, above an hundred contradictions in my works, and "could find abundance more." Ay, five hundred; under his forming hand contradictions spring up as quick as mush rooms. And he that reads only (as is the manner of a thou sand readers) the running title at the top of each page, For election, Against election, For sinless perfection, Against sinless perfection, For imputed righteousness, Against imputed righteous ness, - and so on, will readily say, "What a heap of contradictions flat, palpable contradictions is here!" Here! Where? "Why, at the top of every page." True; and there lies the strength of the cause. The propositions themselves are plain enough; but neither Mr. H. nor any man living can prove them. 19. But, if so, if all this laboured contrast be only the work of a creative imagination, what has Mr. H., the cat's paw of a party, been doing all this time? Has he not been abundantly "doing evil, that good might come," that the dear decree of reprobation might stand? Has he not been "saying all manner of evil falsely;" pouring out slander like water, a first, a second, a third time, against one that never willingly offended him? And what recompence can he make (be his opinions right or wrong) for having so deeply injured me, without any regard either to mercy or truth? If he (not I myself) has indeed exposed me in so unjust and inhuman a manner, what amends can he make, as a Christian and a gentleman, to God, to me, or to the world? Can he gather up the foul, poisonous water which he has so abundantly poured out? If he still insists he has done me no wrong, he has only spoken "the truth in love;" if he is resolved at all hazards to fight it out, I will meet him on his own ground. Waving all things else, I fix on this point: "Is that scurrilous hotch-potch, which he calls a 'Farrago, true or false?" Will he defend or retract it? An hundred and one propositions are produced as mine, which are affirmed to contradict other propositions of mine. Do I in these hundred and one instances contradict myself, or do I not? Observe: The question is, whether I contradict myself; not whether I con tradict somebody else; be it Mr.

Observe: The question is, whether I contradict myself; not whether I con tradict somebody else; be it Mr. Baxter, Goodwin, Fletcher, the "Christian Library," or even my own brother: These are not myself. "Nay, but you have published them." If I publish them ten times over, still they are not myself. I insist upon it, that no man's words but my own can ever prove that I contradict myself. Now, if Mr. H. scorns to yield, let him fall to work, and prove by my own words, that I contradict myself (that is the present question) in these hundred instances. If he can prove this, I am a blunderer; I must plead Guilty to the charge. If he cannot, he is one of the most cruel and inhuman slanderers that ever set pen to paper. 20. I bless God, that the words cited from the sermon on "A Catholic Spirit" do quite "come to myself," not indeed as I am painted by Mr. Hill, but as I really am. From the year 1738, I have not been "unsettled as to any fundamental doctrine of the gospel." No, not in one; I am as clear of this charge, as of that wonderful one advanced in the note, page 146: "Though this Sermon be entitled 'Catholic Spirit,' yet it inculcates an attendance upon one only congregation; in other words, Hear me, and those I send out, and no one else." Mr. Hill himself knows better; he knows I advise all of the Church to hear the parish Minister. I do not advise even Dissenters of any kind, not to hear their own Teachers. But I advise all, Do not "heap to yourselves Preachers, having itching ears." Do not run hither and thither to hear every new thing, else you will be established in nothing. "However, it is by stratagems of this sort, that he holds so many souls in his shackles, and prevents them from coming to the knowledge of all the glorious truths of the gospel." Observe, gospel is with Mr. Hill the same as Calvinism. So where he says, "There is no gospel," he means no predes tination. By the same figure of speech, some of his admirers used to say, "There is no honey in the book." Here lies the core; this is the wrong, for which the bigots of this gospel will never forgive me.

By the same figure of speech, some of his admirers used to say, "There is no honey in the book." Here lies the core; this is the wrong, for which the bigots of this gospel will never forgive me. And all those are such, who "rank all election-doubters among Diabolonians." Such is Mr. Hill, a bigot in grain, while he sets his hand to that gentle sentence. Nay, further, says he, "I cannot help informing my readers," (no, if he did, he must burst,) "that in the life of Mr. Philip Henry, published in his 'Christian Library,' he has artfully left out Mr. Henry's Confession of Faith." Artfully / No; honestly; according to the open profession in the preface cited before. 21. Yet Mr. Hill, this Mr. Hill, says to Mr. Fletcher, "Suf fer not bitter words and calumnious expressions to disguise themselves under the appearance of plainness." Bitter words! Can Mr. Hill imagine there is any harm in these? Mr. Hill that cites the judicious Mr. Toplady! that admires the famous "Eleven Letters," which are bitterness double distilled ! which overflow with little else but calum nious expressions from the beginning to the end I Mr. Hill that himself wrote the "Review," and the "Farrago!" And does he complain of Mr. Fletcher's bitterness? Why, he may be a little bitter; but not Mr. Fletcher. Altering the person alters the thing! "If it was your bull that gored mine," says the judge in the fable, "that is another case !" 22. Two objections to my personal conduct, I have now briefly to consider: First, "Mr. Wesley embraced Mr. Shirley as a friend at the Conference, and then directly went out to give the signal for war." This is partly true. It is true, that, although I was not ignorant of his having deeply injured me, yet I freely forgave him at the Conference, and again "embraced him as a friend." But it is not true, that I "directly went out to give the signal for war." "Nay, why else did you consent to the publishing of Mr. Fletcher's Letters?" Because I judged it would be an effectual means of undoing the mischief which Mr.

Fletcher's Letters?" Because I judged it would be an effectual means of undoing the mischief which Mr. Shirley had done: Not that I am now sorry (though I was) for what he has done, for his publication of that bitter Circular Letter: For 1 now clearly discern the hand of God throughout that whole affair. Both my brother and I still indulged the fond hope of living in peace with our warm Calvinist brethren; but we now give it up; our eyes are open; we see what we have to expect. We look for neither mercy nor justice at their hands; if we find any, it will be clear gains. 23. The Second objection is, "Mr. Wesley acknowledged the unguarded manner in which the Minutes were drawn up; and yet immediately after defended them." I answer, How did I "acknowledge the unguarded manner?" The plain case was this: I seek peace, and would do anything for it, which I can with a safe conscience. On this principle it was, that when Mr. Shirley read over his Declaration, (I say his; for it was he drew it up, not I,) and asked, if we agreed thereto, I was heartily desirous to agree with him as far as possible. In order to this, after altering some words, I asked our brethren, if they were willing to sign it. One immediately said, "The Minutes are not unguarded; they are guarded enough." I said, "They are guarded enough for you; but not for those who seek occasion against us." And observe, it is only in this sense, that I subscribed to that expression. But I will not affirm, that my love of peace did not carry me a little too far. I know not but it would have been better, not to have signed the paper at all. 24. So much for the Minutes. Perhaps it may be expected, that I should also take some notice of what Mr. Hill says concerning perfection. All his arguments indeed, and ten times more, I have answered over and over. But if it is required, I will answer once more; only premising, by that perfection, to which St. Paul directs Mr. Hill and me to go on, (Heb. vi. 1) I understand meither more nor less, than what St. John terms "perfect love;" (1 John iv.

John terms "perfect love;" (1 John iv. 18;) and our Lord, "loving the Lord our God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength." If you choose to call this "sinful perfection," (rather than sinless,) you have my free leave. Mr. Hill's main argument against this is, that "it is Popish doctrine." How does this appear? O, "Luther says so." This will not do; it is only second hand evidence. "It crept into the Church first in the fifth century, and has been since almost generally received in the Church of Rome." How is this proved? either that the doctrine of perfect love crept first into the Church in the fifth century? or, that it has been since almost generally received in the Church of Rome? Why, "we may very readily perceive this, by the following extract from Bishop Cowper." I answer, (1.) This is but second-hand evidence still. (2.) It is wide of the mark. For this whole extract says not a word about the Church of Rome. It contains only a few citations from St. Augustine and St. Bernard, foreign to the present question; and one from St. Ambrose, if it be possible, more foreign still. None of these touch either of the points in question: "This doctrine crept into the Church in the fifth century;" or, "It has been (ever) since almost generally received in the Church of Rome." Here I must beg leave to put Mr. Hill in mind of one stated rule in controversy: We are to take no authorities at second-hand, but always recur to the originals. Consequently, words of St. Bernard, or twenty Saints more, copied from Bishop Cowper, prove just nothing. Before we can urge the authority of St. Bernard or Ambrose, we must consult the authors themselves, and tell our readers what edition we use, with the page where the words are found; otherwise they cannot form a judgment either of the fairness of the quota tion, or of the sense and weight of it.

Bernard or Ambrose, we must consult the authors themselves, and tell our readers what edition we use, with the page where the words are found; otherwise they cannot form a judgment either of the fairness of the quota tion, or of the sense and weight of it. Hitherto, then, we have not one tittle of proof, that this is a Popish doctrine; that it ever was, or is now, "almost generally received in the Church of Rome;" (although, if it had, this would be no conclusive argument against it, as neither is it conclusive against the doctrine of the blessed Trinity;) I do not know that it ever was: But this I know; it has been solemnly condemned by the Church of Rome. It has been condemned by the Pope and his whole conclave, even in this present century. In the famous bull Unigenitus, (so called from the first words, Unigenitus Dei filius,') they utterly condemn the uninterrupted act (of faith and love, which some then talked of, of continually rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks) as dreadful heresy Now, in what public act of the Church of Rome is the doctrine of perfection maintained? Till this is produced, I pray let us hear no more, that perfection is a Popish doctrine. 25. However, "the distinction between sins and innocent infirmities is derived from the Romish Church." How does this appear? Thus: "Two of her devoted cham pions, Lindenus and Andradius, distinguish between infirmi ties and sins." Lindenus and Andradius / Who are they? From what country did they come? I do not know the men. One of them, for aught I know, might serve as an interpreter at the Council of Trent? What then? Was he an autho rized interpreter of the doctrines of the Church? Nay, and how do you know that they did speak of "little, trifling faults," or of "minute and trivial sins?" Did you ever read them? Pray, what edition of their works do you use? and in what page do these words occur? Till we know this, that there may be an opportunity of examining the books, (though I fear scarce worth examining,) it is doing too much honour to such quotations, to take any notice of them at all. 26. Well, now for the buskins !

Well, now for the buskins ! Now, spirat tragicum satis '+ "And this is the doctrine which is preached to more than thirty thousand souls, of which Mr. W. has the charge. Then I am sure it is high time, that not only the Calvinist Ministers, but all that wish well to the interest of Protestantism," (so Mr. S. said before,) "should, in a body, protest against such licentious tenets." "Blow ye the trumpet in Sion l'" Gird on your armour ! Make ye your selves ready for battle ! Again the trumpet sounds: A The only-begotten Son of God.-ED 1 T. + This quotation from Horace is thus translated by Francis : "It breathes the spirit of the tragic scene." ED1T. crusadel An holy war! Down with the heretics! But hold ! What spirit are you of ? Are you followers of peace? Then "bring forth your strong reasons; speak the truth in love," and we are ready to meet you. But really all this talk of my licentious doctrine is a mere copy of Mr. H.'s countenance. He knows, and all in England know, (whoever have heard my name,) that it is not too loose, but too strict, doctrine I am constantly accused of. Therefore, all this bluster, about my superseding the law, has not only no truth, but no colour, no plausibility. And when Mr. H. calls so gravely for Dr. Crisp to "sweep away all my Antinomian rubbish," shall we laugh or weep? Cuivis facilis rigidi censura cachinni. Rather let us drop a tear on human infirmity. 27. So much for the First grand argument against perfec tion, that it is "generally received in the Church of Rome." The Second is: "It was generally received among the ranting Anabaptists in Germany." What author of note testifies this? I allow no second-hand authority; but desire to know what German historian of credit has recorded it; and in what page of his works. When this is ascertained, then we may observe, it proves just nothing. A Third argument against perfection is, that "it was main tained by many wild Ranters in London." Wild enough ! although no stress is to be laid on Mr. H.'s informations concerning them; some of which are altogether false, and the rest imperfect enough. But suppose they were all true, what would follow?

But suppose they were all true, what would follow? Many hearers abusing the doctrines I teach, no more prove that those doctrines are false, than the German Ranters proved that Luther's were so. 28. Is it another argument, that "the monstrous doctrine of perfection turns some of its deluded votaries into monsters? This may be proved from the cases of Bell and Harris; the former of whom prophesied that the world would be at an end the last of February; the latter was seized with raving madness, and died blaspheming in a most dreadful manner." It would be strange if George Bell were not brought upon the stage, as he has been an hundred times over. As for This quotation from Juvenal is thus rendered by Mr. Madan : "The censure of a severe laugh is easy to any one."-ED1 r. poor Benjamin Harris, I believe, as a punishment for his pride and uncharitableness, God permitted him to be struck in an instant with diabolical madness. But it did not con tinue to his death; he did not die blaspheming. I saw him myself quiet and composed; and be calmly delivered up his soul to God. See another instance: "A friend of mine lately informed me that an eminent Preacher of perfection told him, that he had not sinned for some years, and that the Holy Ghost had descended and sat on him and many others in a visible manner, as he did upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost." Please to name the man; otherwise an hundred such tales will weigh nothing with men of sense and candour. Behold a Fourth: "Last year I myself conversed with a gentlewoman of such high perfection, that she said, no man could teach her anything, and went to no place of worship for years together: However, she was a scold, and beat her maid." Perhaps so. And what is that to me? If she is a member of our society, tell me her name; and she will be in it no longer. This is our glorying. It must be, that many members of our society will, from time to time, grow weary of well-doing; yea, that some will fall into sin. But as soon as this appears, they have no more place among us. We regard no man's person, high or low, rich or poor.

We regard no man's person, high or low, rich or poor. A disorderly walker cannot continue with us. Again: "One told God in prayer, that she was perfect, as God himself was perfect. Another prayed, 'Grant, O Lord, that all here present may be perfect, as I am perfect.'" Till you name the men, this, too, must go for nothing. But suppose it all true, what will it prove? Only that there are madmen in the world. "I could also tell him of a woman, who was so perfect, that she tried to sin, and could not." Pray name her. "Mr. W. must also well remember a certain perfect married lady, who was got with child by a perfect Preacher." I do not remember any such thing. I never heard of it before. 29. But "I hate," says Mr. H., "the law of retaliation;" truly one would not have thought it; " and would not have mentioned these things, but that you set me the example," that is, but by way of retaliation. "Should you doubt the truth of these instances, I will lead you to the fountain-head of my intelligence." That will not do. In order to be even with Mr. F., you have told seven shocking stories. Several of these I know to be false; I doubt if any, but that of George Bell, be true. And now you offer to lead Mr. F. to the fountain-head of your intelligence 1 Probably to one or two renegade Methodists, who court the world by slandering their brethren "But Mr. W. adopts this way." No, never. In my Letter to Mr. Hervey, I occasionally name two famous men; but I do not slander them. In my Journals, I name several others. This is above board; but Mr. H. stabs in the dark. He gives us no names, no places of abode; but casts arrows and firebrands abroad; and, let them light where they may, on guilty or guiltless, of that he takes no care. 30. It remains only, to consider the queries which Mr. H. addresses directly to me: (1.) "Did not you, in administering the sacrament, a few years ago, to a perfect society in West-Street chapel, leave out the Confession ?" Yes, and many times since.

addresses directly to me: (1.) "Did not you, in administering the sacrament, a few years ago, to a perfect society in West-Street chapel, leave out the Confession ?" Yes, and many times since. When I am straitened for time, (as I generally am there on a Monday,) I begin the Communion-service at, "We do not presume to come to this thy table." One Monday, Mr. Madan desired to stay. Here, I suppose, is "the fountain-head of this intelligence." (2.) "Did not one of the enthusiasts then say, he had heard a voice telling him, he was all holiness to the Lord?" Possibly so; but I remember nothing of it. (3.) "Did not a second declare the same thing?" Not that I remember. (4) "Did not George Bell say, he should never die?" He often did, if not then. (5) "Did not one present confirm it?" Not unlikely ; but I do not remember it. (6.) "Did not another perfect brother say, he believed the millennium was near; for there had been more Constables sworn in that year than heretofore?" Are you sure he was a perfect brother; that is, one that professed so to be As for me, I can say nothing about it; for I neither remember the man nor the words. "This I have put down verbatim from the mouth of a judicious friend then present; but from that time he has been heartily sick of sinless perfection." Say of "perfect love." Is it only from that time that Mr. Madan has been sick of it? Was he not sick of it before? And did he then, or at any time since, say one word to me of any of these things? No; but he treasured them up for ten years; and then tells Mr. Hill, that he might tell them to all the world. (7) "Do not you know a Clergvman, once closely connected with you, who refused a great witness for perfection the sacrament, because he had been detected in bed with a perfect sister?" No; I never heard of it before. Surely Mr. M d is not fallen so low, as to invent such a tale as this ! I need not say anything to your last anecdote, since you (for once 1) put a candid construction upon my words.

I need not say anything to your last anecdote, since you (for once 1) put a candid construction upon my words. If I did speak them, which I can neither affirm nor deny, undoubtedly my meaning was, (as yourself observe,) "Though I have been holding forth the imputed righteousness of Christ to a mixed congregation, yet I think it right to caution you of the society how you abuse that doctrine, which to some, who turn it into licentiousness, is a smooth doctrine, of which you ought to beware." But your friend, it seems, who gave you this account, did not put so candid a construction on my words. You say, "He was so struck, as hardly to refrain from speaking to you in the chapel. And from that hour he gave up all connexions with you." That is, he sought a pretence; and he found one ! And now, what does all this amount to? Several persons, who professed high things, degenerated into pride and enthusiasm, and then talked like lunatics, about the time that they renounced connexion with me for mildly reproving them. And is this any objection against the existence of that love which they professed, nay, and I verily believe, once enjoyed? though they were afterward "moved from their steadfastness." Surely no more than a justified person's running mad, is an objection against justification. Every doctrine must stand or fall by the Bible. If the perfection I teach agree with this, it will stand, in spite of all the enthusiasts in the world; if not, it cannot stand. 31. I now look back on a train of incidents that have occurred for many months last past, and adore a wise and gracious Providence, ordering all things well ! When the Circular Letter was first dispersed throughout Great Britain and Ireland, I did not conceive the immense good which God was about to bring out of that evil. But no sooner did Mr. F.'s first Letters appear, than the scene began to open. And the design of Providence opened more and more, when Mr. S.'s Narrative, and Mr. H.'s Letters, constrained him to write and publish his Second and Third Check to Antino mianism. It was then indisputably clear, that neither my brother nor I had borne a sufficient testimony to the truth.

It was then indisputably clear, that neither my brother nor I had borne a sufficient testimony to the truth. For many years, from a well-meant, but ill-judged, tender ness, we had suffered the reprobation Preachers (vulgarly called Gospel Preachers) to spread their poison, almost without opposition. But at length they have awakened us out of sleep; Mr. H. has answered for all his brethren, roundly declaring, that "any agreement with election-doubters is a covenant with death." It is well: We are now forewarned and fore-armed. We look for neither peace nor truce with any who do not openly and expressly renounce this diabolical sentiment. But since God is on our side, we will not fear what man can do unto us. We never before saw our way clear, to do any more than act on the defensive. But since the Circular Letter has sounded the alarm, has called forth all their hosts to war; and since Mr. H. has answered the call, drawing the sword, and throwing away the scabbard; what remains, but to own the hand of God, and make a virtue of necessity? I will no more desire any Arminian, so called, to remain only on the defensive. Rather chase the fiend, Reprobation, to his own hell, and every doctrine con nected with it. Let none pity or spare one limb of either speculative or practical Antinomianism; or of any doctrine that naturally tends thereto, however veiled under the specious name of free grace; only remembering, that however we are treated by men, who have a dispensation from the vulgar rules of justice and mercy, we are not to fight them at their own weapons, to return railing for railing. Those who plead the cause of the God of love, are to imitate Him they serve; and, however provoked, to use no other weapons than those of truth and love, of Scripture and reason. 32. Having now answered the queries you proposed, suffer me, Sir, to propose one to you; the same which a gentleman of your own opinion proposed to me some years since: "Sir, how is it that as soon as a man comes to the knowledge of the truth, it spoils his temper?" That it does so, I had observed over and over, as well as Mr. J. had. But how can we account for it? Has the truth (so Mr. J.

J. termed what many love to term the doctrine of free grace) a natural tendency to spoil the temper? to inspire pride, haughtiness, supercilious ness? to make a man "wiser in his own eyes, than seven men that can render a reason ?" Does it naturally turn a man into a cynic, a bear, a Toplady? Does it at once set him free from all the restraints of good nature, decency, and good manners? Cannot a man hold distinguishing grace, as it is called, but he must distinguish himself for passion, sourness, bitterness? Must a man, as soon as he looks upon himself to be an absolute favourite of Heaven, look upon all that oppose him as Diabolonians, as predestinated dogs of hell? Truly, the melancholy instance now before us would almost induce us to think so. For who was of a more amiable temper than Mr. Hill, a few years ago? When I first conversed with him in London, I thought I had seldom seen a man of fortune who appeared to be of a more humble, modest, gentle, friendly disposition. And yet this same Mr. H., when he has once been grounded in "the knowledge of the truth," is of a temper as totally different from this, as light is from darkness He is now haughty, supercilious, disdaining his opponents as unworthy to be set with the dogs of his flock He is violent, impetuous, bitter of spirit ! in a word, the author of the Review ! O Sir, what a commendation is this of your doctrine ! Look at Mr. H., the Arminian the loving, amiable, generous, friendly man. Look at Mr. H., the Calvinist! Is it the same person? this spiteful, morose, touchy man? Alas, what has "the knowledge of the truth" done? What a deplorable change has it made Sir, I love you still; though I cannot esteem you as I did once. Let me entreat you, if not for the honour of God, yet for the honour of your cause, avoid, for the time to come, all anger, all spite, all sourness and bitterness; all contemptuous usage of your opponents, not inferior to you, unless in fortune.

Let me entreat you, if not for the honour of God, yet for the honour of your cause, avoid, for the time to come, all anger, all spite, all sourness and bitterness; all contemptuous usage of your opponents, not inferior to you, unless in fortune. "O put on again bowels of mercies, kindness, gentleness, long-suffering; endeavouring to hold," even with them that differ from you in opinion, the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace l" BRIsToL, September 9, 1772.