Wesley Corpus

I apprehend, then, this is no fallacious objection, but a solid and weighty one; and defy any man living, who asserts the unconditional decree of reprobation or preterition, (just the same in effect,) to reconcile this with the scriptural doctrine of a future judgment. I say again, I defy any man on earth to show, how, on this scheme, God can “judge the world in righteousness.” Humanum est nescire et errare. Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makes Error a fault, and truth discourtesy. Why should I feel another man's mistakes More than his sickness or infirmity? In love I should ; but anger is not love, Nor wisdom neither; therefore gently move. 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 MR. HILL’s REVIEW. 375 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.